Pay for Quality
Pay for Quality
Pay for Quality
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
14 <strong>Pay</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Quality</strong> KCE Reports 118<br />
For French-speaking stakeholders:<br />
• Geneviève Bruwier (ULg)<br />
• Michel Roland (ULB)<br />
• Pierre Gillet (ULg)<br />
• Marc Vanmeerbeek (ULg)<br />
For the Dutch-speaking stakeholders<br />
• Jan Heyrman (KUL)<br />
• Lieven Annemans (VUB, UGent)<br />
• Walter Sermeus (KUL)<br />
• Roy Remmen (UAntwerpen)<br />
Based on the aggregated scores given by the scorers a ranking was made <strong>for</strong> every<br />
respective category of stakeholders. A total and maximum number of about 40<br />
stakeholders were finally selected, representing a balance between Dutch and French<br />
speaking persons. The selection was made in close cooperation with the KCE.<br />
2.1.6.2 Design of the questionnaire<br />
A questionnaire was developed in parallel with the selection of the stakeholders. This<br />
questionnaire:<br />
• Was based on state of the art literature with regard to pay <strong>for</strong> quality.<br />
• Included open-ended questions<br />
• Was reviewed by experts from the USA, the UK, The Netherlands and<br />
France.<br />
The questionnaire (appendix 14) was developed following the usual approach of<br />
qualitative methodology. It started with an explanation <strong>for</strong> agreement on basic<br />
terminology about pay <strong>for</strong> quality concepts. It comprised introductory questions to<br />
facilitate the communication and allow the free expression of personal opinions; more<br />
narrow questions to cover the whole topic; closing questions so that the interviewee<br />
can develop some previous answers or some new ideas about the topic. Questions<br />
were open-ended to allow the stakeholder’s free expression. A list of detailed questions<br />
was provided one week on be<strong>for</strong>ehand.<br />
We proposed each interviewee to imagine a P4Q programme being developed in<br />
Belgium. Without further details, we asked him/her to state his/her opinion on<br />
advantages, disadvantages, pitfalls and expected resistances to such a programme.<br />
Then, we discussed the above more in detail following all elements of the theoretical<br />
framework (see Chapter 3).<br />
Final questions were related to the budget and open to more economic view of the<br />
impact of such a programme. The last question asked about the stakeholder’s<br />
knowledge of other experts in the field or persons having developed such a programme.<br />
This allowed the team to be sure to cover the whole expertise in the domain in Belgium<br />
and eventually abroad. It goes without saying that the interviewee was allowed to<br />
complete or put the emphasis on one point of interest by the usual prompt: “Do you<br />
want to add something, do you think we have <strong>for</strong>gotten one important point?”