Chapter Four · Findings
The thematic framework
Six themes, thirty codes, and participants’ own words — as reported in Chapter Four.
AI-generated conceptual illustration · Not research evidence or a real study site
Structured Data Communication Creates Shared Understanding
The formal channels, systems, and rituals — ticketing systems, scheduled meetings, permissions, and reporting cadences — through which organizations move operational information between roles. All twelve participants provided evidence relevant to each of this theme’s five codes.
Research question
RQ1 (supporting)
Strength of evidence
Strong
Codes
Key findings
- Information flow was consistently described as asymmetric: strategic context concentrated at higher levels, tactical information reaching the frontline. P2: “that’s top level management controlling the information that’s filtered down.”
- Unexplained filtering was connected directly to disengagement — when information is filtered without explanation, employees “would feel left out” (P2).
- Participants preferred synchronous, narrated communication (calls, meetings, walkthroughs) over static document transmission.
- P12 described a closed reporting loop on the shop floor: “the information is coming directly from the person who is experiencing the problem. I don’t have to remember the issue later or wait until a meeting to tell somebody.”
- P11 showed coordination depends entirely on upstream data accuracy: “if that information is incorrect, then the demand signals or the information you’re getting out of the ERP is also incorrect.”
Divergence, preserved — not smoothed
P4 characterized his organization’s communication as structurally one-directional — “it’s not like a two-way communication” — contrasting with the bidirectional coordination described by P6 and P7. P8 reported no direct access to any data system at all: “We don’t get data… I get my information from my boss,” while P9, also frontline, described routine direct ERP access. Access and frontline status are related but not identical dimensions.
Added scholarly interpretation
Why this theme matters
Access is a condition of shared meaning, not merely a technical permission. An accurate report can still exclude people when context is filtered out or employees cannot question it.
Proposed design implication · not tested
Pair each operational update with its purpose, intended audience, source, and a route for frontline questions. Close the reporting loop by showing what changed after an issue was raised.
Boundary of the claim
P8’s lack of direct system access and P4’s one-way communication challenge any assumption that a common platform creates common understanding.
In their words
“That's top level management controlling the information that's filtered down.”— P2
“It varies greatly depending on the level of the management, right?... the only data they see is really tactical information.”— P3
“Once I submit the missing-part information, it becomes visible to the people who are responsible for material support… the information is coming directly from the person who is experiencing the problem.”— P12
“If that information is incorrect, then the demand signals or the information you're getting out of the ERP is also incorrect.”— P11
“We don't get data. We don't get data like no computer. So when I get my information, I get my information from my boss.”— P8
Answers to the research questions
How do frontline employees and managers perceive the role of data storytelling in enhancing employee engagement within supply chain and operational environments?
Participants perceived data storytelling — the addition of context, cause, and consequence to raw operational figures — as associated with increased engagement, while raw or unexplained data was associated with confusion and, in one severe case, costly organizational error. The perception was strongly but not universally shared: P4 described an organizational culture in which storytelling was largely absent.
Drawn from themes 02, 05, 01, 03
How does narrative visualization influence employees’ trust, understanding, and interpretation of operational data?
Narrative visualization’s influence depended on the fit between visual form and data structure, the presence of accompanying explanation, and audience-specific tailoring. Transparency about data limitations was the most consistent trust-building practice; its absence — particularly deliberate omission — was the most serious threat to trust. P8’s categorical rejection of visual formats, set against P9’s affirmatively positive account, showed that fit, not frontline status, is what the evidence differentiates.
Drawn from themes 04, 02, 03, 05
Strength of evidence reflects the consistency, richness, and specificity of participant evidence across the twelve interviews, not participant count alone. Findings are participant perceptions, not statistically generalizable or causal claims.