Search results

The purpose of the study is to test if it, by the use of a survey methodology, is possible to measure managers' awareness on, and specifically if there exist preconceived beliefs on, overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) results. The paper presents the design of the survey methodology as well as a test of the survey in one case company.

Actual OEE logs from a case company are collected and a survey on the data is designed and managers at the same case company are asked to answer the survey. The survey results are followed-up by an interview study in order to get deeper insights to both the results of the survey as well as the OEE strategy at the case company.

The findings show that the managers at this particular case company, on a general level, does not suffer too much from preconceived beliefs. However, it is clear that the managers have a preconceived belief that lack of material is logged as a loss much more often than what it actually is.

The test has only been performed with data from one case company within the automotive manufacturing industry and only the managers at that case company has been active in the test.

The survey methodology can be replicated and used by other companies to find out how aware their employees are on their OEE results and if possible preconceived beliefs exists.

To the authors' knowledge, this is the first attempt at measuring if preconceived beliefs on OEE results exist.

Research on employee non-/compliance to information security policies suffers from inconsistent results and there is an ongoing discussion about the dominating survey research methodology and its potential effect on these results. This study aims to add to this discussion by investigating discrepancies between what the authors claim to measure (theoretical properties of variables) and what they actually measure (respondents’ interpretations of the operationalized variables). This study asks: How well do respondents’ interpretations of variables correspond to their theoretical definitions? What are the characteristics of any discrepancies between variable definitions and respondent interpretations?

This study is based on in-depth interviews with 17 respondents from the Swedish public sector to understand how they interpret questionnaire measurement items operationalizing the variables Perceived Severity from Protection Motivation Theory and Attitude from Theory of Planned Behavior.

The authors found that respondents’ interpretations in many cases differ substantially from the theoretical definitions. Overall, the authors found four principal ways in which respondents interpreted measurement items – referred to as property contextualization, extension, alteration and oscillation – each implying more or less (dis)alignment with the intended theoretical properties of the two variables examined.

The qualitative method used proved vital to better understand respondents’ interpretations which, in turn, is key for improving self-reporting measurement instruments. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is a first step toward understanding how precise and uniform definitions of variables’ theoretical properties can be operationalized into effective measurement items.