JUMP TO MAIN CONTENT / HIGH CONTRAST VIEW
In Print

Evaluation of Investments in the Strengthening Management and Governance Programme

Key informant interviews

Interviews were held with six organisations, three assessors, and Te Puni Kōkiri regional and national office staff.

The six organisations were:

  • Te Rūnanga o Whaingaroa, Kaeo;
  • Solomon Group, Auckland;
  • Turanga Health, Gisborne;
  • Wainuiomata Christian Fellowship, Lower Hutt;
  • Te Rōpū Tautoko ki te Tonga, Dunedin; and
  • Awarua Social Services, Bluff.

Interviews were held with a range of stakeholders including organisation managers, directors, operational staff, board members and/or trustees.

The three assessors interviewed were:

  • KPMG, Wellington;
  • KCSM, Opotiki; and
  • Manukau Business Solutions, Auckland.

Te Puni Kōkiri regional directors and regional staff (responsible for the SMG programme in their region) in the regions of the six SMG organisations were also interviewed. In addition, national office staff responsible for administering the SMG programme were also interviewed.

The interviews gathered data from organisations, assessors and Te Puni Kōkiri staff. Interviews were generally held at workplaces and at times, in places most suitable for the interviewees.

A semi-structured interview guide was used during the interviews and interviews were tape-recorded with the consent of the interviewees.

Table 5 provides a description of the actions undertaken by the evaluators for the key informant interviews.

Table 5: Procedure for the conduct of the key informant interviews

Table 5: Procedure for the conduct of the key informant interviews
StepActivity
1. Planning process
  • Developing the interview guide and sending it to the former and current SMG project managers for feedback on the sufficiency of coverage and areas that the evaluation may need to focus on.
  • Selecting key informants - a purposive random sample of the 110 Māori organisations was undertaken that resulted in a sample of six organisations being selected based on the following criteria:
    • Investment reach – a mix of investments at a regional and national level.
    • Assessors – a mix of assessors assigned to respective organisations.
    • Investment status – organisations that have participated at different stages of the programme (i.e. different financial years).
    • Nature of assessment – assessment and/or remedial work.
  • Selecting a random sample of three of out six assessors. The three assessors had all undertaken 10 or more assessments and/or remedial work.
2. Data collection Using a two-team approach (two members of the evaluation team), face-to-face interviews with interviewees were undertaken. The interviewees were informed of their rights prior to the interview and were requested to sign a consent form before the interview commenced.
3. Data analysis Content analysis using a thematic approach was utilised to analyse the fieldwork notes.
4. Report writing A draft report was submitted for peer review internally and externally before release.

A mixed method data analysis was used to analyse the data gathered from the quantitative and qualitative results.

Initially, the raw data from the online survey was analysed using Crystal Reports analytical software and then exported to Microsoft Excel for further analysis using frequency distribution and percentages in tables, pie and bar graphs.

The qualitative information (field notes and audio-tape material) was analysed through a thematic approach noting the ‘significant’ findings from the interviews.

The McKinsey 7S16 framework was also used to help organise and present the findings of the evaluation against the seven key elements of the 7S framework, namely: Strategy; Structure; Systems; Style; Skills; Staff; and Shared values. Further refinement of the findings and key themes was carried out to synthesise the findings and to simplify the presentation of the results.

The findings from the online survey were integrated, where possible, with the qualitative findings to support the results or to present opposing arguments.

Information collected is presented as aggregated results and quotes are attributed anonymously to maintain the confidentiality of participants.

 

16 Peters & Waterman (1982).