in. .- “.';"{;‘,;§', any « ‘ . firm; - ‘ ”3W3: 'fifi‘Yyr’ :20 I w 5;. ‘ . J 7. ,‘fiyhfisyfi A K‘p‘f‘ Mfi~ I, r‘ aw.” 1" , ‘ 4 r v 4;: 1, a; l 11 fig, ‘ 751$ .. $5?“ 4. ‘i‘ 5 . v A . ‘ ~ I E, 5 Hi 2" \ f3“ ’ _ 55:93" I‘ ‘31\ ‘ n ' n‘th’a't “53H . ‘4 . v. :1! f“ . ~.' I. . '34; v4 r. _ m ,9: ‘ In; '33.?“ I . . - J. r ,II‘I‘Kfi 9% ‘ “ ' V~vl lllllllllllllllllllllllllllilll (was This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE PROCESS IN NONPROFIT HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: A FRAMEWORK FOR THE INTEGRATION OF PRODUCT-ORIENTED AND PROCESS-ORIENTED TECHNOLOGY presented by TIMOTHY ALAN AKERS has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY degreein RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN STUDIES Dr. GEORGE T. ROWAN, Ph.D. Major professor MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY l Michigan State UnIversIIy PLACE II RETURN BOXto mavothb Mom from your record. TO AVOID FINES mum on or baton duo duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU IsAnAI'flrdevo Mend Opportunity Institution Wars-9.1 THE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE PROCESS IN NONPROFIT HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: A FRAMEWORK FOR THE INTEGRATION OF PRODUCT-ORIENTED AND PROCESS-ORIENTED TECHNOLOGY By Timothy Alan Akers A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Resource Development and Urban Studies College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Department of Resource Development and Urban Affairs Programs 1994 muse: :hc ;‘ chang: pub tariffs m Eh: Thus. and WW‘CKN-t‘.’ bl“ WWW! i r Chan~ Understand hr, Hfinpr Gill sc; Grimm i Charau'crucd Icrimhfliiilirn / ‘ T31“ m; ABSTRACT THE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE PROCESS IN NONPROFIT HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: A FRAMEWORK FOR THE INTEGRATION OF PRODUCT-ORIENTED AND PROCESS-ORIENTED TECHNOLOGY By Timothy Alan Akers Currently the nonprofit sector is experiencing three major problems: 1) decreased funding, 2) little knowledge of the availability in, need for, and use of appropriate technology, and 3) to date, virtually no empirical research addressing the relationship between the product—oriented (i.e., hard) and process-oriented (i.e., soft) technological change process and its relationship to decision-making, and contextual and structural variables in the nonprofit sector. Thus, the purpose of this study was fourfold: 1) to identify the product-oriented and process-oriented types of technology which are currently available, needed, or used by nonprofit organizations; 2) to examine how decision-making effects the technological change process with respect to product-oriented and process-oriented technology; 3) to understand how the technological change and decision-making processes are related to the nonprofit sector’s contextual and structural organizational characteristics; and 4) to determine whether nonprofit human services organizations can be Classified and characterized as either a product—oriented or process-oriented organization. or a combination Of the two based on their various types of technologies. The method used to collect data for this study was the administering of a primary data collection survey. The survey study was cross—sectional in nature and was writer-h:- and hard drz'l axafiibzlx} tram} III» Organizatnnrt; ,1,“ 4‘ .I_.)W1_ rm . mulw‘yldc": ‘ L ‘ IA‘YHITl -o, 1“ “8““ ‘4‘ ID. dimmsmaiir Ci ‘Vitltilttns it; i .3”..‘!‘I-’Y AIL A E} It\ Timothy Alan Akers administered to 590 nonprofits throughout Michigan that filed Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 990 forms in 1990, declaring themselves to be human service organizations. The major findings indicate that, from the 22% (N = 110) that were valid returns. computer-based hardware such as desktop computers (85 % ), laser/ ink jet printers (75.2 %). and hard drives (88.6%) are currently available. Software, on the other hand, has high availability in organizations: spreadsheets (86.3%), word processing (90.2%), financial/accounting (84.5%), and database management (66.7%) software. Organizational development strategies, such as accounting and bookkeeping, financial management, and grant proposal writing are practiced by 94.9%, 83.7% and 72.4% of the organizations, respectively. Finally, the highest statistically significant correlations exist between product-oriented technology and product-oriented technological change and decision-making. Whereas, on the other hand, the highest statistically significant correlations exist between process-oriented (Organizational Development) technology/techniques and process-based technological change and decision-making. I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my parents Patton and Willa Mae Akers and to my brothers and sisters Bruce Edward Terry Lee Anita Darlene Debra Sue Donna Kay Nancy Carol Thomas Patton and to my wife Mary Anne Akers and to the Appalachian Diaspora .. _ ' , ,) :R .. II :1} mm .l g .. ' 2 ' LL .. .1: 321.111. But .0 , ‘ M I W :Iprcss mt DCUT I). I 00. must I DI Roma, 1 . 'z ..‘j ”1:“ and (111371112 ' .Lh. YOU ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The last and most difficult piece to write for the completion of this dissertation is the acknowledgment section. 80 many intelligent and generous people gave of themselves to assist me in my effort to complete this dissertation. First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. George T. Rowan. Although, a simple thank you cannot capture the essence of my appreciation. Even words cannot convey how I feel toward this most intelligent and gentle man. But to convey my thanks in the third person will not capture how I feel. So I must express my heartfelt gratitude to this man in the first person. just as I must breathe to stay alive, so, too, must I clearly express my appreciation for everything he has done--and continue to do! Dr. Rowan, I owe you a debt of gratitude and thanks which I will never be able to repay. The time and attention you had Shared with me when I had almost given up is more than I can begin to describe. You showed me how to express to individuals and groups the significance of this research. You accompanied me to, and encouraged me in, meetings throughout Michigan. the United States and Canada while disseminating findings from this research. And you counseled me in my trials and tribulations during times of hardship when tragedy loomed deep in my family and my priorities became blurred, like a faded dream, lost in the grand abyss of time. For this, Dr. Rowan, I humbly thank you. And, based on all you have directed me in, I cannot truly credit this work as mine, but ours. The quality and significance of this research are a direct reflection V r; isstamem It» " - 'L 1 13.5. (‘5 I ham; 3.13, v ..-._t jou. Sir, l we spec: warmer. \uu (L. A-.»ct<. la r. I. I 4II] ai‘k‘ ‘V. Vin-"LI ~Lt. “€519 r. ".krv. -Lh. Rf ”33¢;ch Es“; ' d In m6 and \f‘, 5.15:: ' . IL LHI‘ICTSK\ " (‘ _ .. \ fit? I .. HE JIC Siffinwh 13'ij , .humhl}'sat I». ' ' “.1 find . I d _ Dd Draw (Ii .g' _., . .Itij {a n“ 4""mtnt {I at" ' er hd‘b c i‘ tn. 1.. .[A .- {If I L'"I unlifluc If 5-1 1“ 1.6. ’ .' A] I {I dumm- and testament to your knowledge, experience, and unyielding devotion to students and others alike. As I bathe in tears of gratitude for everything you have shared with me. Dr. Rowan, I thank you, sir! I owe special thanks to Dr. John H. Schweitzer, a mentor, an advisor, and a friend. Dr. Schweitzer, you’ve taught me how to think; how to turn vague and illusive ideas into measurable constructs. You have been a master at measuring the immeasurable and testing the untestable-- with this dissertation pushing the outer limits Of organizational and technological change theory. For this Dr. Schweitzer, I thank you for your enduring patience, meticulous attention to detail, and professional guidance and assistance. You are a man of immeasurable quality! I am also greatly indebted to Dr. Eckhart Dersch, a man to whom I owe special acknowledgment too because Of his superior insight into organizational structure and change. Dr. Dersch, we traveled together to the Opposite side of this planet, Taiwan. You continuously believed in me and showed it by holding me out an embassador, an envoy, on behalf of Michigan State University’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Department of Resource Development. Whether you realize it or not Dr. Dersch, it has been your belief in me that has given me the strength, the fortitude, to believe in myself and my abilities. For this, Dr. Dersch, I most humbly say, thank you, and may nature embrace your gentle soul with happiness and peace of mind and peace of spirit. A Special thank you is clearly reserved to Dr. Mark 1. Wilson. Had it not been for his initial encouragement and financial support which enabled me to research the nonprofit sector. I may never have ventured into this unchartered area. I view you, Dr. Wilson, as a role model; someone I continue to call upon for advice and direction about the nonprofit sector. Dr. Wilson. thank you for directing me down a path to nonprofit sector research. vI Apart from 3 .v'fi I Still 0W 3 I43, and Victor N .Zr.i13§ m} 31TH“ g'.::f=.'i to Druid- Iii hidint of the Ag.» Eran Scones; am 13373.71 Each and e 224: «as administered And. on 3 Ir. E::J.DI Mar} An: '1:sz for your SLY; it}: 53:11 he \I‘Iitrkir. 5“ liar-“r that burn-e. 5555"") iGI life; for 5555;531:315- In hol} I? [wish to expr; 5:!" +93“ 5555 idtltrkc .sr Willa Mi: Apart from all the support, encouragement, and time provided me by my dissertation advisors, I still owe a debt of thanks to some Special friends, Tim Collardey, Tom Coleman, John Wise, and Victor Nichol. Thank you Victor for spending days assisting me in thoroughly checking my application of certain statistical techniques to the data. Furthermore. I am also grateful to David Egner, Executive Director of the Michigan Nonprofit Forum; Jeanne Vogt, President of the Accounting Aid Society; Ann Marston, President of the Michigan League for Human Services; and Dr. Rex LaMore, Director, Community and Economic Development Program. Each and every one of these individuals painstakingly critiqued the survey instrument that was administered for this study. Their knowledge of the nonprofit sector is unparalleled. And, on a more personal side, I cannot even convey how thankful I am to my wife and friend, Dr. Mary Anne Akers. My beloved wife, words cannot begin to describe how deeply I love you for your support and encouragement. Had you not put the fire under me to finish, I would still be working on this dissertation. Mary Anne, your love and unflinching support was the flame that burned Strong in my heart. Sweetheart, 1994 will be etched in my heart and memory for life; for this was the year that I received my Doctor of Philosophy degree and we were united in holy matrimony. I wish to express my deepest thanks to the people who made all this possible: my family. As working class, central Appalachian peOple, we survived as a family when times were most difficult. Cultural and economic exploitation were commonplace. Where I grew up it was never expected for anyone to go to college, must less earn a Ph.D. Though times and circumstances were difficult, had it not been for my family, none Of this would have been achievable. For teaching me patience, perseverance, and persistence, I hold myself out to my father. Patton Akers, and mother, Willa Mae Akers, as a proud son and product of the Appalachia people, my people. vii E22: than times It 3:335 Patton. and Its; tier: Elisa} 8 ii“; 2.7.1: Stat l tttll slit. .\l»» r “ . I’f 15" \OIIS A - , '7’. ’ ~ ' .- ...T :I‘t:"t.-..3S3IT‘ICT1. d. S a”, ,. L - .*.5 “Jim I nC'CJ'CJ ‘ 1: Term. \ DU are ~w r mt. LA“. ‘1;Cu:_6‘r ._\H “M6 and MIDI. t' u ,‘L -~... ”‘13! “ere n.. @7an not he 'r'-l N ‘1‘. regd’ Even when times were tough, my parents, along with my brothers and sisters, Terry Lee and Thomas Patton, and Debra Sue, Donna Kay, and Nancy Carol, supported and encouraged me. They were always there when I needed a shoulder to cry on or a friend to laugh with. I can only hope that I will always make them proud of me. More specifically, I need to express to my brother, Thomas Patton, how much I appreciate his encouragement and am proud to have him as my little brother. Tom, you have always been there when I needed you and have always been my most staunch proponent in whatever I set out to perform. You are not only my brother, but you are also my best friend. We have laughed and cried together. And, in case I have not said it enough, I want you to know how much I love and respect you my dear brother. Although they are not hear physically, I feel a need to communicate a sincere and warm thank you tO my late brother and sister, Bruce Edward and Anita Darlene. Though you were not with me in body, you were clearly with me in spirit. I have always felt your presence of love. Thank you Brucy and Darlene. Love, your brother, Tim. Last but not least, I sense a need to thank the United States Air Force. Had positive reinforcement not been a regular routine of the Air Force, I may never have overcome my lack of confidence in my capabilities. I salute the United States Military for always believing in people, regardless of culture, economic status, race, gender, or religion. viii USIIW I USIIU} IlSl it} .t CHAPIIH TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number LIST OF TABLES ........................................... xii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................... xv LIST OF APPENDICES ..................................... xvi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ............. 1 Problem Statement ................................ 4 Introduction ................................ 6 Section One ................................ 7 Section Two ................................ l 1 Section Three ................................ l4 Purpose Statement ................................ 16 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW .............................. 20 Brief Comparison Between Domestic and International Technological Transference ......... 20 Nonprofit Human Service Organizations .................. 23 Hard and Soft Technology Relationship to the Technological Change Process and Organizational Phases .......................... 25 Technology Defined ................................. 25 Technological Change ................................ 29 Innovation .................................. 30 Adoption ................................... 32 Implementation ............................... 33 Transference ................................. 34 Organizational Decision-Making Phases .................. 36 Conceptualization ............................. 38 Design ................................ . . 40 Implementation ............................. 4 1 Monitoring ................................. 42 Evaluate . . . . . . ..................... . . . . 43 CHAPTER II (Cont’d) Technological and Organizational Structural Relationship ..... Contextual Factors ............................ Structural Factors ............................. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ................................. Introduction ...................................... Unit of Analysis ................................... Types and Operationalization of Variables ............... Hypotheses ....................................... Research Cluster 1 (Availability) ...................... Correlational Hypotheses (1—5) .................. One-way ANOVA Hypotheses (6-7) .............. Research Cluster 2 (Technological Change Process ........ Correlational Hypotheses (8-9) .................. One-way ANOVA Hypotheses (lO-l 3) ............ Research Cluster 3 (Decision-Making Process) .......... Correlational Hypothesis (14) .................... One-way ANOVA Hypothesis (15) ................ Research Cluster 4 (Attitude) ......................... Correlational Hypothesis (l6) .................... One-way ANOVA (l 7) ......................... Regression Hypothesis ......................... Research Design .................................... Instrumentation ..................................... Reliability of the Questionnaire Test ..................... Confidentiality and Anonymity .......................... Survey Design ...................................... Population ......................................... Sampling Frame ..................................... Rationale for Population Selecction and Sampling ............ Statistical Analyses ................................... Limitations ......................................... CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ....... Introduction ....................................... Characteristics of Nonprofits Sampled ................... Respondent's Characteristics ........................... Organization’s Characteristics ......................... Research Cluster 1 ................................ Hypothesis 1 .................................. Hypothesis 2 . .............................. X 44 46 48 UI'JIUIUI beJlUbJ 0000500 DJNI\J—-—-O 0 2,.) 64 77 77 78 78 81 89 89 90 I‘ll-\PII‘R 5'. .3319; \- 5‘\‘r)if‘[ q I.” I. v )‘fji-I CHAPTER lV (Cont’d) Hypothesis 3 ................................. Hypothesis 4 ................................. Hypothesis 5 ................................. Hypothesis 6 ................................. Hypothesis 7 .................................. Research Cluster 2 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Hypothesis 8 ................................. Hypothesis 9 ................................. Hypothesis 10 ................................. Hypothesis 11 ................................. Hypothesis 12 ................................. Hypothesis 13 ................................. Research Cluster 3 ................................. Hypothesis 14 ................................. Hypothesis 15 ................................. Research Cluster 4 ................................. Hypothesis 16 ................................. Hypothesis 17 ................................. Hypothesis 18 ................................. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION ...... Introduction oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Hypothesis 1 .................................. Hypothesis 2 . ............................... Hypothesis 3 ................................. Hypothesis 4 ................................. Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis 6 ................................. Hypothesis 7 .................................. Hypothesis 8 ................................. Hypothesis 9 ................................. Hypothesis 14 ................................. Attitude Toward Computer-based Technology and Organizational Development ................ CHAPTER V1 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......... Introduction Recommendations APPENDICES ......... ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ---------------------- BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................... Appendix ......... oooooooooooooooooooooooo 92 94 96 98 104 109 109 110 113 115 118 120 124 124 127 133 133 138 139 142 142 143 144 144 145 146 148 149 149 151 153 154 156 156 157 i In .h.\ .k a iht ...\ d P» (I 1.. .rIIH. II N- ‘. flu as. N‘. ‘3. \\_ 5‘ \‘J ‘ \. C1“. 1" -N. C.“ “ it“ ‘t‘ 4 4 9‘ ‘i‘ x. xx . A k k -m it. .c. if ...it um at t... e .n. A. in; is. L. .ut tut .x. .P int. L... R- 4.1 . u . . E .6. .4. la 1.. .d . C. .d .4 .d .d .. A. it T. T1 T t T: T- It T T T1 Ti. It Table Table 3.0 Table 4.0 Table 4.1 Table 4.2a Table 4.2b Table 4.2c Table 4.3a Table 4.3b Table 4.3e Table 4.3d Table 4.3e Table 4.3f LIST OF TABLES Scale ltems Respondents‘ Characteristics Organization's Characteristics Availability of Hardware Technology Within the Organization* Availability of Software Technology Within the Organization* Availability of Organizational Development Strategies within the Organization* Correlations Between the Availability of Computer~based Technology and Organizational Development Strategies Correlations Between the Availability of C omputer-based and Organizational Development Strategies and Overall Technological Change and Decision-making Processes Correlations Between the Availability of Computer-based Technology and Organizational Development Strategies and Specific Technological Change Processes Correlations Between the Availability of Computer-based Technology and Organizational Development Strategies and Specific Decision—making Processes Correlation Between the Availability and Use of Computer-based Technology and Organizational Development and Total Percent Minority Recipients, Minority and Female Employees, and Age of Organization One-way Analysis of Variance of C omputer-‘oased Technology (Product-Oriented) Available Versus Not Available by Product-Oriented Technological Change Process xii Page 70 80 85 87 88 90 91 93 95 97 99 l " . c \" k”. 1 Tel". \\ 4w 1. Til 4d ”I.” k ‘ . '- L1 Table Table 4.3g Table 4.3b Table 4.31 Table 4.3j Table 4.3k Table 4.31 Table 4.3m Table 4.4a Table 4.4b Table 4.4e Table 4.4d Table 4.4e One-way Analysis of Variance of Computer—based Technology (Product-Oriented) Available Versus Not Available by Process-Oriented Technological Change Process One-way Analysis of Variance of Computer-based Technology (Product-oriented) Available Versus Not Available by Product-Oriented Decision-Making Process One-way Analysis of Variance of Computer-based Technology (Product-oriented) Available Versus Not Available by Process-Oriented Decision-Making Process One-way Analysis of Variance of Organizational Development Strategies (Process-oriented) Available Versus Not Available by Product—Oriented Technological Change Process One-way Analysis of Variance of Organizational Development Strategies (Process-oriented) Available Versus Not Available by Process-Oriented Technological Change Process One-way Analysis of Variance of Organizational Development Strategies (Processooriented) Available Versus Not Available by Product—Oriented Decision—Making Process One-way Analysis of Variance of Organizational Development Strategies (Process-oriented) Available Versus Not Available by Process-Oriented Decision-Making Process Correlation between Product-Oriented and Process-Oriented Technological Change and Decision-Making Correlations Between Types of Support of Computer-based Technological and Organizational Development Strategy Change and the Technological Change Process T—test for Paired Differences Between Support for Computer-based and Organizational Development Technological Change One-way Analysis of Variance of Overall Product-Oriented and Process-Oriented Technological Change and Decision-making Processes (TC/DMP) by Level and Type of Support One-way Analysis of Variance of Support for TC/OD by Product-Oriented and Process-Oriented TC/[)M xiii Page 100 103 106 107 108 109a 113 115 117 .II It s. 1h H 11 It. 3 ID A.\ u «4 In 1‘ ta. :4 .x. .\. .\. .\. t4 - 4 . 4 .4 J «4 .4 44 4. C «L PA .9... . as. ...L. - m\ e C. 0;. At. .7 A. h h .r h h N h Rd 1... .6 «on .1... .1. .d I. )u )u T1 T1 Tl T; l 71 TI T: T1 T1 Table Table 4.4f Table 4.4g Table 4.4b Table 4.4i Table 4.4j Table 4.5a Table 4.5b Table 4.5c Table 4.5d One-way Analysis of Variance of Level of Computer-based Technology Support for Product-oriented and Process-oriented Technological Change One-way Analysis of Variance of Level of Organizational Development Support for Product-oriented and Process-oriented Technological Change Correlations Between Types of Support ofComputer-based Technological and Organizational Development Strategy Change and the Decision-making Process One—way Analysis of Variance of Level of Computer-based Technological Support for Product-oriented and Process-oriented Decision-Making (DM) One-way Analysis of Variance of Level of Organizational Development Support for Product-oriented and Process—oriented Decision-Making (DM) Correlations Between the Attitude Toward Computer-based Technology and Organizational Development Strategies with Gender, Race, the Availability of Technology, Technological Change and Decision-making Process, and Training One-way Analysis of Variance of Male Versus Female’s Attitude Toward the Use of Computer-based Technology and Organizational Development Strategies Regression Model Predicting Attitude Toward Computer-based Technology Regression Model Predicting Attitude Toward Organizational Development Strategies xiv Page 119 122 126 129 131 136 139 141 141 Figure Figure 1 Figure 2 A- A «.m— LlST OF FIGURES Page Conceptual Framework of the Technological Change and Decision-Making Process 5 Conceptual Relationships Between Type of Technology and the Nature of the Organization and its Technology Change and Decision-Making Process 16 XV LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Survey letter to executive directors 160 B. Letters of support 162 C. Survey instrument 166 D. Reminder postcard 189 XVI "rw ~71... 555L ‘ iu-A. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Since the late 18th century when nonprofit organizations were in their infancy. their innovative character began to take many forms. The services provided by early nonprofits ranged from quasi-public institutions providing medical services to the establishment of colleges and external social control organizations oriented toward social services. These diverse social/human service organizations, for example, encompassed such activities as educating the youth, sanctioning deviant and aberrant behavior, and providing medical services to the aged, sick, and mentally and physically disabled (Hall, 1987). Each of these nonprofit organizations performed unique and needed services not Otherwise provided by public and for-profit organizations. In essence, these social service nonprofits filled the gaps between the public's interest in maintaining a healthy and ordered society and private enterprise's interest in having available services that were not driven or serviced by traditional markets. In short, the existence of nonprofits has been and continues to be a testament to their social innovativeness generally and their organizational innovativeness specifically. Contemporarily and philosophically, during the late 19605 as the nonprofit sector continued to evolve, its basic tenet of philanthropy had to readapt to social, political. Cttlntilllli 31‘; Cl . . ' ‘1 . hit-.1111} ntinp attrtttr innit .i ticxsstti lends :t‘inTr-‘itzt .‘t‘TI‘i ‘: sgttrltr.’ tR. 15“ lfilm’tlla‘fl g “4'31'1‘ ‘kulLtUr as [O 1] Inc lutur» Span-:1 an llllt” 1 'u‘imllJ. L. won 5 lead , liffp . ‘ J 7 VII“, ‘ ‘ I “1'1. SCH" v .142 ~ I... P115111 Sec, Ta'wr 55" tl'l .. I" 11! Se‘t‘.)r .13, . .- it. iUttCSS--311Ll .tnprciitt literati: 't _. in»... . ...Ldt.‘0fi§ RU " \ I kl economic and organizational change (Hansmann, 1987). That is, nonprofit organizations, especially nonprofits more intricately involved in micro-social services, have become adaptive innovators in their service delivery. "Indeed, one of the most spectacularly successful kinds of institutions in our 'capitalist' economy in recent years has been the nonprofit corporation, which has been a major source of both new knowledge and new technology" (Rosenberg, 1976). Thus, knowing the ways in which new knowledge and new technology are developed and utilized will provide better insight and become a better predictor as to how the nonprofit sector will change-organizationally and technologically. The future organizational and technological changes of the nonprofit sector have sparked an interest in a broad segment of society. Take, for example, Johnson and Lucarelli's lead article in Community Jobs: The National Employment Newspaper for the Non-Profit Sector. Their article, entitled, "Computers and Information Technology in the Non-Profit Sector," echoes the concern by leading scholars and practitioners of the nonprofit sector, that "keeping up with the information revolution is becoming essential for success--and survival" (p. 1). These Observations are consistent throughout the nonprofit literature and profession. Moreover, during the entire year of 1993, other mass publications such as the Chronicle of Philanthropy and the Nonprofit Times also echoed (and continue to resound) the charge that the nonprofit sector must advance both technologically and organizationally if it is tO move into the 215i Century—~and survive! Case in point, there are currently more than 10 million users of the Internet's computer-based "Information Superhighways," with the Internet population growing at a rate of 15 percent per/month, and with each increase advancing almost exponentiaily an tier $53117 the pace in menthilfi‘t‘tl .2 hkmmnr t‘»rgarttzt'.tt‘n~—-' unless taunt: ltf:trn.tt1s»n 1. Roman E. tttgtntzatit‘nil resting» he 1:: ltd efficient). Thetnl £1513 liftiihlcrt‘ Oill‘fiflld}, Sr ifina_ lliUndlf iit‘rtof. and 3, I. 5D 15 pilli‘u‘tl 211- 1' 11115111Ugh ‘J. ,, r In) 111,51". *“1111ifitifif (Rheingold, 1993). Given this trend, the nonprofit sector must begin to move both organizationally and technologically into the let Century if it is to keep up the pace of an ever changing Information Technology world; otherwise, should nonprofits fail to keep the pace in organizational and technological change, it will run the risk of becoming overwhelmed and ineffective with the continual increase on technological advances and on the demand for its services, as well as having to play catch-up to other, more sophisticated organizations-including those within its own community of service providers. Moreover, unless foundations and other donor sources also begin to recognize that supplying Information Technology is not simply the answer, but rather, that human resource investments must also be made in the areas of information-based training and overall organizational development, the nonprofit sector will continue to fall victim to Simply receiving the Information Technology and not knowing how to use it to its maximum effect and efficiency for both their own organizations and communities. The following sections in chapter one provide a brief overview of the technological change problems confronting the nonprofit sector and the overall purpose and significance of the study. Specifically, this chapter will draw upon three major issues in the nonprofit arena: 1) funding decreases, 2) the nonprofit sector's knowledge of technology, or lack thereof, and 3) the relationship between contextual issues such as technology, with respect to its product and process attributes, and the decision-making process nonprofit executives go through with respect to their organizational structure. Finally, the purpose and significance of the Study will be briefly discussed. 111D ~CL issues in the : . I, , . th... th. as." 511111.“. .772:le »‘f .1 . 1 j ..:.:.'t\ exp-31f: I; a 41. ;I .11 ‘ 1 1.....51...:..lcdt s Md wrist: aim: the r.- tcnstt‘n-maltzr ' the picthct-ora $11111, 111C 0131.: I‘ ~ ’ 11"?" ' ’ 5 I{falltlrtllt111;, horn: litmuhel‘tcs, \11 tiringhlt eta" Isn‘t int and mi: 4 PROBLEM STATEMENT This section provides a brief introduction and an extended overview of three salient issues in the nonprofit sector. The first section addresses the fiscal environment confronting the nonprofit human services sector. This section discusses funding trends which the nonprofit human services sector experiences while continuing to operate in an environment of scarce resources. Section two, on the other hand, endeavors to more clearly explain how understanding technology can become the impetus to help drive the technological change process of nonprofit organizations. And lastly, once the first and second sections are more clearly delineated and explained, the final issue will be to examine the relationship between the technological change process to organizational decision—making and its relationship to contextual and structural factors that may influence the product-oriented and process-oriented side of the technological change process. In short, the overall complexities of this study lies in trying to better understand change, be it organizational, technological, or the technological change and decision-making processes themselves. Whatever the case, it is this triad of relationships that need to be more thoroughly examined. Figure 1, for instance, provides a multidimensional picture of the depth and complexity of the various types of relationships needing to be examined. Figure l. I l 5 Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the technological change and decision- making process CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Organizational structure We): of c Product-Oriented Process-Oriented (Computer-Based (Organizational Hardware/Software) Development) Tech. Change Proc. Tech. Change Proc. Dec-Making Process Dec-Making Process Technological Change Process *Product *Product *Product *Product *Process *Process *Process *Process Decision-Making Process Conceptual DESIRE huntement Monitor Evaluate *Product *Product *Product ~ *Product *Product *Process *Process *Process *Process *Process lntroduction Nation'- Kril. 1053: .‘ i.‘.'§3f.lZ.'iilt‘ii.tl t tel: h} 313 sect. and prosper. sparking. h} d. uh} suniial‘t: organization it? tempt organtz 5mm: timcx Homer. “he Ctillflltult‘tS at. greatest return : Currentf; landing in an in. ’11 “€511 for, an. i!" q 1»ltt».'- - .. 4? ' '\ thtd 1n1() I 99 1,): 5' and 31 1: It; '1 t-‘Tta . , 18“ “1d its » Introduction Nationwide there exists more than 850,000 nonprofit organizations (Crimmins & Keil, 1983). Michigan, specifically, has more than 40,000 nonprofits, each diverse in organizational type and complexity (Wilson, 1991). Given the current economic recession felt by all sectors of society, nonprofits are even more hard—pressed to continue to survive and prosper. This may be attributable to the fact that nonprofits survive, generally speaking, by donative resources provided to them. In other words, to better understand why survivability is at issue, we should provide a perfunctory definition of the nonprofit organization itself. Simply put, nonprofit organizations are privately controlled, tax- exempt organizations to which donor contributions are tax deductible. Hence, when economic times are strong, donative and philanthropic giving become more generous. However, when a national, regional, or local economy is experiencing hard-times, contributors are fewer and more selective. In effect, philanthropists want to see the greatest return for their dollar. Currently the nonprofit sector is experiencing three major problems: 1) decreased funding in an increasingly competitive environment, 2) little knowledge of the availability in, need for, and use of appropriate technology (in whatever way it is defined) that can be integrated into a nonprofit's social and technological organizational structure (Reshef, 1993), and 3) to date, virtually no empirical research addressing the relationship between the product-oriented (i.e., hard) and process-oriented (i.e., soft) technological change process and its relationship to contextual and structural variables in the nonprofit sector (Glisson, 1992; Misa, 1992). These three issues are pervasive throughout the nonprofit SR‘ jpgtnmcll: intended 10 I nrnprotit sec" Section One The 11 ctrgantzatzons l :0 tears. the .5 compelled i Incihods. and s int-profit corpo Tl}; ~ “‘ ”0111110111 5; lPLrlU‘iatne and .. karts, market . 4.. “Hands. This pr. . Lt;- - . Lethnlllfiralk 55“.. ‘P 111?, k '1 _ $1 ’6 '_ ‘1 mm. 1&4 sl:11lpmcnld1 . 7 environment. The sections which follow are extended problem statements. They are intended to touch upon some of the more salient issues and problems confronting the nonprofit sector in general and the human services sector in specific. Section One The Urban Institute reports that since the 1980's, nonprofit social/human service organizations have suffered a 23.1% reduction in federal support. And, spanning the past 30 years, the private sectors' contributions to human service organizations have also steadily declined from 15% of total giving in 1962 to 9.3% in 1992 (Suhrke, 1993). Thus, the nonprofit human services sectors' economic dependency on external financial resources has compelled it, at times, to adapt too, or borrow from, existing technological resources, methods, and strategies from its donative sources, such as government, foundations, or for-profit corporations. Given the economic trends in donative giving, it is obvious that the nonprofit sector, specifically the human services sector, must advance into a more innovative and entrepreneurial state of operation. That is, as fiscal resources become more scarce, market changes will demand that nonprofits also advance to keep up with societal demands. This process however will be no easy task. That is, it is generally recognized that the technologically innovative nonprofits that would otherwise adopt and implement appropriate technological innovations are, in effect, hindered because of 1) budget cuts, 2) few technologically sophisticated nonprofit organizational role models and developmental technological assistance providers, 3) limited research, and 4) an overall fear of £11339 Glisson. 109: 931} one of at: for "Jess mazlr in deczsion-n‘... 1521f. 2.: the 1; prism it 11:. a vacuum-en; is finding itsci‘ ‘?l§3nllatlt‘tngll Theref- Sfligr lS hm . afferentiatcd “ Itchnnom] t Lighten (19's- .1) 1d?” * at} technol- {Fling-56 3mm "‘12 This ldc' 11:”- . -dULl‘Ollcmck. What ' C(l' T; '1: tar-10+). b 1:. qt "I'lL" . ... VIOuS In“. . fear of change in the nonprofit sector (Doctors, 1981; Drucker, 1990; Akers, 1992; Glisson, 1992; and Misa, 1992; Rowan & Akers, 1993). In addition, the problem is not only one of adoption or implementation of some technology, such as a computer system for mass mailings or a human resource strategy to help encourage employee participation in decision—making, but rather, one of defining 1) the nonprofit organizational structure itself, 2) the technology it utilizes, and 3) its technological change and decision-making processes it undertakes. Since the nonprofit human services sector does not exist within a vacuum-enjoying the luxuries of autonomy, self-sufficiency, and zero competition--it is finding itself competing in an enviromnent with little experience in technological and organizational changes. Therefore, the first major problem experienced by the nonprofit human services sector is how to define and differentiate technology. How technology is defined and differentiated within the human services sector will enable it to better understand how the technological change process occurs within its diversity of organizational structures. Joglekar (1989, p. 159) states that "HSOs [(human service organizationsfl must actively identify technology that may help them become more effective and efficient, and carefully choose among the alternative technologies." This identification of technology needs to start with the differentiation between product-oriented and process-oriented technology (Davenport, 1993); or, more generically, what may be correspondingly referred to as "hard" and "soft" technology, respectively. The tangible qualities (i.e., attributes) of hard, product-oriented technology are very obvious. These are the product components that one can taste, feel, touch, or smell They are the mac Rogers. 19‘ consist of of central prt yo Techntslog 1c .; ln cor. :4. - luclilli)". Tilh are the machines, tools, materials, and products—-that is, hardware (Doctors, 1969; Rogers, 1982; Steinhauer, 1988). More specifically, such hardware technology can consist of computers, facsimiles, printers, software programs, hard drives, modems, central processing units (CPUs), telephones, video machines, and other Information—based Technological components. In contrast, soft, process—oriented technology is more nebulous and difficult to identify. This is where a major problem lies in defining technology. Because people in general and organizations in specific are quite intimidated about hard technology, they become even more apprehensive when considering process-oriented technology and change. In effect, nonprofits need to increase their lexicon of terminology when thinking of technology. For example, process-oriented technology covers a vast mélange of terms, not the least of which are conceived of as ideas, knowledge, skills, procedures, principles, strategies, systems concepts, management control techniques, creative management changes, positive communication modifications and decision-making techniques, changes in job design and organizational structure, testing, innovation, adoption, implementation, and transference, as well as conceptualizing, designing, monitoring, and evaluating of products, processes, systems, and people, among others (Doctors, 1969; US. National Academy of Science and National Academy of Engineers, 1969; Rogers, 1982; Mansell. 1986; Steinhauer, 1988; Glisson. 1992; Akers, 1992; Rowan & Akers, 1993). With this diversity of product—oriented and process-oriented technology, or, what we also refer to as hard and soft technology, the nonprofit sector will not only have to know how to appreciate the differences between the two technologies but must also learn L4 hot 31685 N” genie: dcln c? m: 18. the st. .. . J we mu 13‘“ is some ex ides 805nm. 8; Bu grin: applicant In an er be come more 5 l iLJ‘N flush-"11} «in In Ifiz‘rr‘l . “-ufiDfnd-en 10 how these two technologies interact to increase an organizations efficiency, effectiveness, service delivery generally, productivity, or to increase a nonprofit’s overall performance. That is, the sector is going to have to become more acquainted with, and sophisticated in using and integrating, all types of technologies while at the same time advancing their entrepreneurial initiatives if the sector is going to continue to provide needed services (Drucker, 1985; Drucker, 1990). Although competition has been perceived as foreign to the nonprofit sector's philosophy, its philanthropy, its structure. and its very nature, there is some evidence of implicit competition in the voluntary sector (Boyle, Macleod. Slevin, Sobecka, & Burton, 1993), occurring primarily in nonprofit environs of competition in the grant application and selection process for limited fiscal resources. In an environment of limited resources and fierce competition, nonprofits need to become more sophisticated in their understanding and application of technology and its integration in an organizational structure. This will entail delving deeper into this interdependency between product-oriented and process-oriented technology. However, even with all good intentions aside, this dependent relationship is unclear from both a contextual and structural framework. Section two provides an extended overview of the problem of not fully knowing what types of technology, albeit hard or soft, are available, needed, and used by the nonprofit sector. The confusion as to how to define and differentiate between technology is pervasive in both the nonprofit and for-profit world. However, the need to better understand this duality between product-oriented and process-oriented technology and their relationship to one another is critical if technological change is to become a process uadfimkcn team)“ 1“ ideally be t sxszcm. 51” Strtion TVH As I}: :0 teams ' v-g.‘ ‘ ..y.,»urce tect. m: N or.) (1! Bi. 1; ‘“ ai'lfiVailtYlS c céearly idea” Item“ “an 861"» let I]? d‘CVEIUPm: h“, ‘\ V mentioned rr" lit" with - _ that It gtrnn‘ I .3 I" - C mal- 5.21“” using " ‘ c ddll‘t 11 undertaken to enhance the performance of nonprofits. In short, by trying to identify a common link between product-oriented and process-oriented technology, nonprofits will, ideally, be better able to "fit" the appropriate technology to the appropriate organizational system, structure, and/or process. Section Two As the demand for human services continues to increase, the nonprofit sector needs to become aware of, and knowledgeable in, diverse information—based and human resource technology that can be fused into its organizational structure (see Glisson, 1992, p. 185; Boyle, Macleod, Slevin, Sobecka, & Burton, 1993). The technological innovations currently being utilized and applied by nonprofit organizations are difficult to clearly identify however. For instance, internal organizational development for nonprofit human service organizations may simply consist of such processes as strategic planning. the development of a business plan, or the inclusion of financial management techniques into the organization. Whatever the case, such process-oriented technologies as those mentioned may be new to the organization and thereby be perceived as an innovation. Ideally these types of innovations need to be more thoroughly understood in terms of their relationship to product-oriented technology such as computers and fax machines, or electronic mail for that matter. In other words, with organizations and communities changing daily, their continued economic uncertainty and organizational instability compel them to become either more innovative, both organizationally and technologically, or step aside so as to allow other, more competitive and innovative nonprofits to develop. Taps. understand if. be h} $.15st it. order for e products the} priducts and means to gr: 311612110.“ [0 F: 12 Tapscott & Caston (1993, p. 13) recommend that "[o]rganizations that cannot understand the new era and navigate a path through the transition are vulnerable and will be by-passed." Therefore, both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors must recognize that in order for either to develop a competitive advantage in the services they provide or the products they develop, they, too, must not only be willing to invest in new technological products and processes (Keyes, 1993, p. 41), but must also adopt a process perspective means to create a balance between product and process investments--with particular attention to process-oriented work activities and training (Davenport, 1993, p. 6). With few exceptions, the investment or identification of new products or new processes is generally of little concern to nonprofits. That is, nonprofits are blinded by the immediate needs of their organization and their recipient population. They tend to not see the importance of developing appropriate types of technological resources for their organizations. Their belief that one blanket strategy serves all problems is pervasive throughout most of the sector. Yet this belief is quite misguided. Moreover, their lack of knowing or differentiating between the types of technology available--or in the types of organizational structures where such technology would be best used and integrated into- -is limited at best and nonexistent at worst. In effect, nonprofit organizations, especially smaller human service organizations, are failing to recognize that they are competing in an environment where technology is already integrated into a multitude of organizational stmctures--e.g., government, homes, schools, businesses, foundations to a lesser extent. and other nonprofits. Drucker (1990), for example, stresses that nonprofit organizations need product differentiation just as much as it’s needed in for-profit business (p. 79) F0 use tlzrcz - Indesm 33d ICIC‘" Ink. 0r 358d b\ 13 For example, today it continues to be commonplace for nonprofit organizations to use three—by-five cards as a means of identifying the addresses of donors and members. Its does not stop there. Their need for understanding such processes as strategic planning. program planning, feasibility studies, or developing a business plan is, at times, perceived as being of little value. Our concern, however, is whether nonprofits even understand that a relationship between producted-oriented, Information Technology and process-oriented, organizational development strategies exist. However, the concern for addressing these relationships cannot even exist until the groundwork has been laid to define, differentiate. and identify the type of technology classified by nonprofits as being available, needed, or used by the sector itself. Although with limited resources currently available in the community of nonprofits, the likelihood that the nonprofit would spend time, money, and other resources in finding appropriate technology to "fit" their organization's structure and culture is not likely. Rather, nonprofits are typically availing themselves of donative technology (e. g., computers and printers) from private sources such as foundations, banks and other businesses to simply be perceived as being technologically sophisticated, while, in actuality, this product-oriented technology simply remains unutilized or underutilized (Johnson & Lucarelli, 1994). Consequently, the comments reverberating out of the nonprofit sector as to the types of technology most appropriate to develop a nonprofit organization's services, such as computers, are too difficult to learn, too time consuming, and are not practical for small nonprofits with simple needs. These sentiments may have some merit. That is, to simply phre technt accommodate human resuur It 15 fr €\SLUIl\c5 pt- nfiuencethe;r arszcon¥q€\ eizst bets een daision-makzt lithology. a' influenced b} Stttion Three This Sc. Edi. ance an or... In: 8116]) (lift-ct Technology 'I neg..- “‘fland [ht 1.239 - ”HJKIdnd [ht That is. 13 a . METPI'Jai 14 place technology into an organizational structure which may not be designed to accommodate such innovations may ultimately prove to be a mismanagement of fiscal and human resources, and possibly more damaging to the organization overall. It is from this perspective that one must understand how nonprofit organizational executives perceive technology. The perception one holds of technology are likely to influence their behavior and their decisions (Reshef, 1993, p. 125). Section three is the most complex of the other two problems. It focuses on identifying whether relationships exist between product-oriented and process—oriented technologies, with respect to the decision-making process to either innovate, adopt, implement, and/or transfer the technology, and whether such technological change and decision processes are further influenced by the structure of the organization. Section Three This section builds on what has already been discussed thus far. The decision to advance an organization’s technological state is a complex process of integrating two uniquely different systems. One, the product itself, such as that of Information-based Technology. The other is less tangible and more nebulous, namely, that of process. To understand these differences and their interdependent relationship to one another is to understand the very nature of the problem itself. That is, the perceptions that product-oriented and process-oriented technologies are mutually exclusive and are independent and autonomous between and within one another is a perceptual problem plaguing the nonprofit sector's integration of such systems 01 techm‘li‘i—‘f the mt‘fillii: termini K v [3382 men? Glissnn. I“ winning a: are also. few 5 FETK'CCIIVC‘ IS 'Liifi Putin ‘ .grllfit It is lit i‘éttu Wig HUI ~L... sadnes- \\ pr‘rk 4' . . L\ m: c ,. Urtitrated i 15 technology and their influence on the overall organizational structure. This may be attributable to a lack of properly and consistently defining the technologies, followed by a neglect to analyze the process undertaken to bring about technological change through the merging of both the "hard" and "soft" technology, and finally, a confusion about the technological relationship to its organizational structure. Kramer (1987, p. 254) maintains that more research needs to focus on the influence that technology may have on the structure and function of voluntary agencies (Kramer, 1987, p. 254). Furthermore, what complicates this facet of research on the technological change process and the nonprofit sector is that virtually no research exists that addresses the relationship between the technological change process and the nonprofit sector (see Glisson, 1992). In addition, there is a lack of an established relational linkage between technology and an organization's reaction to technological change (Reshef, 1993). There are also few studies conceptualizing the process of technological change from an empirical perspective (see Misa, 1992). And finally, there exists little quantitative information about the nonprofit sector in general (Rudney, 1987). It is from past works and concerns from other researchers where one sees that venturing out on this journey is fraught with uncertainty and peril. The technological change process nonprofits go through is a direct reflection as to the extent technology is incorporated into their organizations. That is, the need to understand the technological change process and the decision-making phases guiding such change normally focuses on only two or three phases, such as introduction, design, and implementation (Glisson, 1992; Reshef, 1993). For purposes of this research, we have opted to examine four main dimesswns SCCL.".'IJ. [ii-L airtzvn. 1: pluses in :I' ‘IA‘-~ . h \ Lab}.““' 117‘? ~ I 0 . rganlzaiitil I . Dem-MW l ' d 16 dimensions: First, the type of technology, such as product-oriented or process-oriented. Second, the technological change process itself, encompassing such factors as innovation. adoption, implementation, and transference. Third, the organizational decision—making phases in the technological change process, comprising the phases of conceptualization, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. And fourth, technology and decision— making in the technological change process as related to contextual and structural characteristics of the organization. PURPOSE STATEMENT The primary purpose of this study is to examine the relationship among organization structures, technological change processes and decision-making processes as they relate to product—oriented and process-oriented technology. Figure 2 provides a conceptual representation of the theoretical relationships. Figure 2: Conceptual Relationships Between Type of Technology and the Nature of the Organization and its Technology Change and Decision-Making Process Product-Oriented Process-Oriented Technology Technology Organizational Structures X 1 Y 1 Technological Change Process X 2 Y 2 Decision-Making Process X 3 Y 3 RL Houfiicr' Ln '7 fl; 15.11310“ 5 rcsiirth r tiff-1m: I martn‘“ iR pr" ‘ A- tauéh5 mat Silii h» trina\‘“i U. heme SUF Iii an 6mm” To m: ’i‘e 3' :‘p RIF-KC ,. 15‘3“" ,iofithur ‘- It ttritild: l I ti sigh ‘ dlt CM" L flail ‘I ' decision 1 17 Reshef (1993) states that a relationship of this nature has yet to be established. However, since our organizational units under analysis are in the nonprofit arena they will differ somewhat from Reshef’s for-profit model. Theoretical research into the technological change process and the nonprofit sector is almost nonexistent. This gap in research needs to be filled. The most realistic way in accomplishing this task is to capitulate to the fact that no theory is without its flaws and no theory will answer all of our questions. By conceding this fact, we will have more latitude to describe relationships that may run counter to current theory. Thus, we exercise this freedom since this area of study is virtually unchartered, and new ground needs to be broken. On the practical side of our study, nonprofit organizations are confronted with a formidable adversary--specifically, the reduction in fiscal resources by both the public and private sectors, as mentioned. In practical terms, nonprofits without financial resources may still be able to provide services to the needy, but certainly not to the extent which they may otherwise if fiscal resources are readily available and sustainable, be it through donative support or paid services. Whatever the case, nonprofits are clearly competing in an environment of scarce resources. To merge this rather overstated dichotomy, it is postulated that one way to bridge the gap between theory and practice is by examining the technological change process of nonprofit human service organizations. More specifically, the purpose of this study is fourfold: 1) to identify the product-oriented and process-oriented types of technology which are currently available, needed, or used by nonprofit organizations; 2) to examine how decision-making affects the technological change process with respect to product-- oriented technolog centextua nonprofit prduez-nr Tn: shim: in Ii 7 [5 process. T m7". am in. dependent L atechnnlmg Fur rljifi ‘:if IC3LLE] ' rij c : ‘fi ll «Ml/Jim “‘tl‘l ; Irlnzl ‘ Wig... s y;.’eL tell?“ i r" ’l-:. 18 oriented and process—oriented technology; 3) to more thoroughly understand how the technological change and decision—making processes are related to the nonprofit sectors contextual and structural organizational characteristics; and 4) to determine whether nonprofit human services organizations can be classified and characterized as either a product—oriented or process—oriented organization. or a combination of the two based on their various types of technologies. The extent to which these four issues are examined will depend upon the model shown in Figure 1 supra which guides this research. It describes the relationship between organizational structure, technology, technological change, and technological decision- making. Specifically, in the model, technology is differentiated between product and process. The technological change process component consists of four salient variables: innovation, adoption, implementation, and transference. These change variables are dependent upon the decision-making process organizations experience when considering a technology issue. For instance, the decision-making process consists of conceptualizing the type and role of technology in the organization. The design phase focuses on how such technology will function. Implementation will address the actual operation of the technology. Monitoring will center around the continuous assessment of the way technology is being utilized. And evaluation will determine its effectiveness to the organizations' overall goals and objectives. In sum, this model is attempting to provide a more balanced perspective on how technology, both hard and soft, can be integrated into a nonprofit organization‘s overall echnoiig: J'+.’E5Y>)fi" f u.ll».st.t..1, Hyuntegnr 19 technological and social structure. The literature review section of this study will more effectively explain the complexities of technology, especially as it relates to the differentiation between product-oriented and process-oriented technology and their effect upon technological change in decision—making. BRIEF TECHNC .\1. and is?» lahnnifgz} her-ration technolug} are and At ' church gm and expcn i mt. AicQ he K V jiiifi‘i‘i‘cd II"! [p TitliWL' “xnhlttt .~ e l... i\ CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW BRIEF COMPARISON BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGICAL TRANSFERENCE Most of the nonprofit literature distinguishes between organizational type, purpose, and tasks. The purpose of this review section is to provide an overview of how technology has influenced the very nature of the nonprofit sector, both domestically and internationally. Extending out from developed countries to less developed nations, technology transfer has circumnavigated the entire planet. The concern for technological change and the transference of technology is at both the international and domestic levels. At the national level, community residents--operating as agents of change for church groups, foundations, and other nonprofits-have shared in transferring knowledge and expertise to communities generally and disadvantaged groups specifically. These knowledge sharing activities ranged from Goodwill Industries' thrift shops training the disabled to the Girl and Boy Scouts teaching youth to handle money and work with their neighbors (see Crimmins & Keil, 1983). Each of these activities was indigenous to the community and was based on the transferring and sharing of knowledge. 20 Ex . 01 ' ‘ 53.116” ill =‘ri"i.2"i UGIDI». A Ur N US“. ml ‘r: ‘ SOCISILO Law a "‘ ‘ “£3 .r i:.\.< 'cgf UfiiiNN.» .ul.“ 1‘5 p {C'xhnulgh- r5311“ i135 b Int: In Win 13' II: “’51 01 [hi mea‘flrahi... PI! "Gilgphk "h. t1.lid[:\’,4i Sim, . .. ”HP (1‘ ' l Tr} .l dk‘s 2 1 Even earlier throughout United States history, Native Americans taught European settlers how to live and prosper in the wilderness of America (Sufrin, 1966). Such transferring of technology was already inherent and indigenous to this native land, yet, when development began to expand its artifacts of technology followed. As the society grew more complex it began to transfer its technologies to other structures and other societies. Consequently, what was left in its wake was an internal source of indigenous knowledge~-Native Americans-creative and full of life, left behind to be a resource viewed as less technologically sophisticated and of little developmental value. Thus, as developed countries prospered and became more advanced socially, educationally, economically, and technologically, less developed countries became the recipients of this advancement. The result has been a seeding of technology to try and speed up development of other nations. Internationally, the United States has surpassed all nations throughout the world in providing technology and technical assistance to less developed nations. However, the cost of this benevolence on the social fabric of developing nations is not so easily measurable and identifiable. For example, Axinn (1988) discusses how the placement of product-based (i.e., hard) technology into less developed nations has proven to dramatically stifle the human development process of those recipient communities. The donation of tractors to cultivate land, pumps to extract water from wells, the building of roads, the increased production of agriculture, and other such technologically "developmental" advances have all had an effect on the social structure of these societies ~- both positively and negatively. “##4- until it hat The proce IWI‘Jg'ifi‘v". uAJbillhlk. pic'riem. {SChnOIl It: 1‘ 22 Specifically, once the technology was put into place, it would operate appropriately until it had either no more fuels, oils, or whatever, or until it experienced a malfunction. The process-oriented initiatives in training were not normally a part of the development package. In effect, because they were not indigenous to the recipient communities, once the product-oriented technology ceased to operate, they would tend to lay dormant indefinitely, or until an external, technology transfer agent could arrive to correct the problem. Moreover, the Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) providing the technology also fell victim to their own ignorance of such technology. From a domestic perspective, nonprofit organizations throughout the United States have also been recipients of such technological advances, although more information-based in nature. The experience gained from the years of providing technologies and technological assistance to less developed nations has shown that physical resources are not the only answers to development, nor is external technological assistance; but rather, that both the product and the process must occur and be bound together, and must occur within the structure in which they are being integrated (Davenport, 1993). Finally, when providing technological assistance it has been, and still is, generally assumed that assistance must be an inherently external resource used for internal organizational and community development (Sufrin, 1966; Domergue, 1968; Uphoff, 1986). This assumption appears to be consistent throughout the literature. Although, this assumption is strongly questioned by most scholars of technology transfer. In short, this section provides a unique comparison between domestic and international development, and product-oriented and process-oriented technology. That is. since it: and agree and comm: as signii‘ic , yw . '9 L’. L3:.]A.:t\ » ask of sin-t; ett. to be; “3035‘. Kim IJ‘LVP » ' ' Lb; ".1 i‘ ‘ till. IKE}; NONPROt Natl. 23 is, since the late 1940's, international developers and development have come to recognize and appreciate the fact that by simply placing product-oriented technology in organizations and communities is not necessarily the answer. Rather, process-oriented technology is just as significant, if not more so. For instance, when local community-based nonprofit organizations are experiencing technological, product-oriented change, they, too, run the risk of simply allowing such technologies as computers, facsimiles, modems, spreadsheets, etc. to become an unutilized or underutilized resource. The ideal situation espoused throughout the literature is to integrate more of a training, process-oriented approach to technological change. NONPROFIT HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS Nationally, the nonprofit sector contributes to 6% of the national economy and 9% of the total national employment through the manufacturing of goods and services (Van Til, 1988). More specifically, in terms of actual dollar amounts and employment numbers, smaller nonprofits more active in social and human services, community development, and the arts, account for more than $21 billion of the expenditures and employing well over 10 million people (Fink, 1989, p. 118). Although the nonprofits have been primarily service oriented (Crimmins & Keil, 1983), with its historical and theoretical origins rooted in benevolent, community service work, it has continued to be a strong economic force while at the same time being a safety net for individuals and communities lost in an economic abyss between government and for-profit downsizing and relocation. _.__ __..a—‘ The retdtpl I“ ' gnuf‘ilt’INTI‘ chzldten in . tie-titan R Chs~ presiice an: collapsed in. listinguishee atganmims mm. the: aisles in; less Organizatinns Danna-.31 . Significantly d Sheen spec; ii” 58 Chane ‘1.- Hill 1 rs » wlhildll' S 24 The nonprofit human service organizations specifically have had to adapt and readapt to an ever changing environment, just like their governmental and for-profit counterparts. The services they provide encompass a plethora of activities, such as children and youth services, family and residential care service, and a broad range of multipurpose services such as those of the Urban League, Salvation Army, and the American Red Cross, just to name a few. Classifying human service organizations into various typologies is a common practice among nonprofit researchers. Human service organizations have consistently been collapsed into less complex categories. Hasenfeld & English (1974), for example. distinguished between people-changing and people-processing human service organizations. People-changing organizations consists of such diverse entities as hospitals, prisons, churches, and universities. People—processing organizations, on the other hand, includes diagnostic clinics and employment centers, for instance. Less specific and more encompassing in the classification of human service organizations is the distinction made by Tucker, Baum, & Singh (1992, p. 51). They maintain that although human service organizations are from the same population they may significantly differ in important ways. Specifically, Tucker and his colleagues differentiate between specialists and generalists organizations. For example, a specialist organization can be characterized as being oriented to specific environmental features, such as that of a voluntary social service organization that has a single domain (e. g., providing health services for youth, or interpretation services for new immigrants). The generalists organizations, on the other hand, are more adaptable to a broad range of environmental \rY 7‘ ‘1‘; iii LJHJL u 5 , .. -._ . .. i‘A \‘,-‘ . slu\.l..‘su .1 ( 5H1» ‘ K. i‘ l- dkn. i o.,_ ’15er “L s 25 conditions, such as a day-care center that provides a number of services to children across a range of different age groups (Tucker, Baum, & Singh, 1992, p. 51). These generalists’ organizations are more multipurpose in scope. Thus, both of these organizational classifications attempt to identify certain criteria in developing such a dichotomy. Apart from what has been said thus far, human service organizations continue to be classified in other ways. These classification schemes do not only differentiate organizations by purpose, size, structure, tasks, and clients, but also by implying that human service organizations differ in terms of their ambiguous and indeterminate technology (Tucker, Baum, & Singh, 1992; Kramer, 1987). This leads us to the next section which explains why technology means many different things to many different people. HARD AND SOFT TECHNOLOGY RELATIONSHIP TO THE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE PROCESS AND ORGANIZATIONAL PHASES Technology Defined Technology, in its conventional sense, is typically perceived in the context of human artifacts, such as products, tools, machines, and materials (Doctors, 1969; Steinhauer, 1988). More specifically, traditional types of technology that are normally referred to as hardware, consist of, but are not limited to, ambulances. computerized caseloads, fax machines, bulletin boards, electronic mail systems, various computer technology, video machines, telecommunication systems, information processmg hardware and software, data retrieval systems, modems, and other technologically innovative and " 1 ' 'H d\ : ¢‘ — MIL 'L.- vi , JAIL In} Sim-re 26 adaptive sources, just to name a few. The defining of technology itself is inconsistent throughout the literature and community of scholars. Galbraith (1972), for example, defines technology as "the systematic application of scientific or other organized knowledge to practical tasks" (p. 31). In expanding the meaning, Pacey (1984) defines technology (or the practice thereof) as "the application of scientific and other knowledge to practical tasks by ordered systems that involve people and organizations, living things and machines" (p. 6). Both definitions capture the quintessential elements of technology: product and process. Therefore, if perceived more broadly, the lexicon for defining technology will embody what Rogers (1982) considers as "software aspect[s], consisting of knowledge, skills, procedures. and/or principles...[that] are an information base for the tool. Almost every technology embodies software aspects, although they are often less easily visible than the hardware aspects" (p. 138). Moreover, Rogers espouses that "[a] technology usually has hardware and software components. Our definition implies some need or problem. The tool has (1) a material [hardware] aspect (the equipment, products, etc.), and (2) a software aspect, consisting of knowledge, skills, procedures, and/or principles that are an information base for the tool. Almost every technology embodies software aspects, although they are often less easily visible than the hardware aspects" (Rogers, 1982, p. 138). (Emphasis added) 27 Thus, technology is more than just "gadgets. " Rather, technology is a combination of both hard and soft attributes, or, more specifically, products and processes. Rogers expanded his explanation of technology by stating that software technology is more nebulous and difficult to clearly identify as a technology. For example, "sometimes the hardware side of a technology is dominant. But in other cases, a technology may be almost entirely comprised of information; examples are...a news event...and management by objective (MBO) [principles]. But even though the software component of a technology is often not so apparent to observation, we should not forget that technology almost always represents a mixture of hardware and software aspects" (Rogers, 1982, pp. 12-13). (Emphasis added) This technological dichotomy between hard and soft, or product and process, is not a new and novel distinction. Quite to the contrary, for almost thirty years, since 1969, the US. National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineers indicated that "we tend to view technology primarily in terms of machines and physical instrumentation, that is, hardware. However, today technology consists increasingly of 'software,’ that is. the organization and systematization of ways of doing things, and not merely the ways of making things or the tech, (at --L M .n I b‘_t‘n I" 28 specifications for things themselves. Unless we take this wider view of technology, our policies and goals are likely to be based on an obsolete concept of the [technology] transfer process. In this view, we should include managerial technology or management systems." (p. 39) (Emphasis added) The concern espoused by the National Academy of Science and Engineers almost thirty years ago has guided others in their quest to find technology that can more readily be integrated into various organizational structures. With conventional views of technology being brought to light, new and more innovative ways of identifying technology are already upon us--namely, that of Information Technology. The Information Technology era has not lessened the complexity of understanding technology. Tapscott & Caston (1993) maintain that the Information Technology era is shifting the traditional paradigm of products and processes. They state that we are entering an era whereby technology, organizations, and leadership are all experiencing a drastic technological change in which organizations must navigate a path through this transition or become vulnerable to the more technologically and organizationally sophisticated (p. 13). In other words, in order to compete in such a turbulent and fast paced environment, Eveland (1981) recommends carefully assessing the interactions between the technology itself, be it product- or product-oriented and the settings into which it will be implemented (p. 121—122). Technolog The define and understand: as the 51.3.. technolog} ; or central to parduct chat ‘31 IRE-0mm“ l BCI’EdSC In [ .snimon for? .n A IIJUSI reCC‘g n . N3 1 “ll-lites Stir; LccrxnII-IIC‘2‘, I" The l 2 9 Technological Change The term 'technological change' is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to define and operationalize. Reshef (1993) maintains that an acceptable definition or understanding should emphasize different aspects of the technological change process, such as "the stages comprising the process--the introduction, design, and implementation of new technology; the degree to which the change is (in reality) or is perceived to be peripheral or central to the tasks workers perform and routine or radical; whether it is a process or product change" (pp. 111-113). The distinction between product-oriented and process—oriented technology, for example, becomes the central focus when considering technological change, such as that of Information Technology. The issue of technological change takes many forms. The increase in the adoption and implementation of Information Technology is the most common form of technological change occurring throughout nonprofit organizations. One must recognize that computerization specifically or Information Technology generally requires some change in social relationships (Kling, 1991). One cannot simply place technology into an organization and not expect change to occur. The technological change normally consists of some or all of the process of innovation, adoption, implementation, and transference (Lambright, 1979; Tornatzky & Klein, 1982; Rowan & Akers, 1993). Each of these technological changes is endemic to the operational nature of product and process changes. That is, a process-oriented change can consist of strategic management of human resources, management training, leadership development, creative management changes, positive communication modifications and decision-making techniques, changes in job design and organizational SiI'Ui.IlII'€ and’or communtc: Alers. 199. or. psycho interacts ins tegl‘nical sic' £15356 soft. 1'“ L31 0i. lard elements of t lnnot There change prone is 31111115” to especialI} s: lSteinhaUer. :Lttcisms or ~ items of the :t --L, ‘." . budllgtg. c i. u 'f 3h. “”chi L‘ III Cl: ,, 8‘. 'i’“ .1; . .ct LTEI In sit-Ernun I li‘, 3 0 communication (Odiorne, 1984; Daft, 1986; Mansell, 1986; Akers, 1992; Rowan & Akers, 1993). In other words, process-oriented technological changes look at the gestalt. or, psychosocial structure, of the organization, along with its overall processes and interactions for carrying out tasks, and analyzes its relationship to the product—oriented, technical side of the technological change--i.e., hardware. In shbrt, Mansell maintains that these soft, process-oriented technological changes have an impact equal to or greater than that of hard, product-oriented changes. The components to be identified take into account elements of both product-oriented and process-oriented technology. Innovation Therefore, in order to develop a more thorough understanding of the technological change process, each of the individual stages must be developed separately. Innovation is similar to its technology counterpart. It, too, is difficult to define and conceptualize. especially since an innovation can possess both physical and processual properties (Steinhauer, 1988). Innovation is a ubiquitous concept and often receives countless criticisms of the notion that it is a linear process (Callon, 1987, p. 83). It can encompass items of the most diverse kind. Specifically, innovation can consist of product and process changes, economics changes, social restructuring, organizational transformation, or, as alluded to earlier, technological changes (Diederen, Kemp, Muysken & de Wit, 1990). . By their very nature, nonprofit organizations are quite innovative——especially with respect to social innovations, such as micro—loan programs, housing development. community policing, and others. Drucker (1993) points out that social innovations are equally lm for most or quite dzl‘rics at ideas. a Kan pltIt‘SS‘OIlC tit nttnpro: that are eitt tnstznce. B. metres 21 st: change. and Imitation ,' el‘t‘fll‘thete. ml‘.“»tttt;in is In Stir tit'li‘l'allt'e p. ,' l“ . fill}: if) ECHCr ltd PIQCegsca 3 1 equally important and often more important than scientific innovation (p. 5). However, for most organizational types, including nonprofits, soft, process-oriented innovations are quite difficult to sell to management because of the nature of the innovation--namely, that of ideas, concepts, and abstractions (Steinhauer, 1988). Kanter & Summers (1987) support the notion that innovation, regardless of its process-oriented nature, can be assessed in terms of its level and type for both for-profit and nonprofit. In so doing, measures can be developed to analyze the structural factors that are either inhibiting or encouraging the process of innovation (pp. 161-162). For instance, Barembaum & Coleman (1989) argue that for an innovation to succeed, it requires a strong commitment by management, a clear communication of objectives of the change, and must be supported by staff during the change process (p. 181). Since innovation is, by its very nature, a ubiquitous concept, it is perceived as being everywhere, thus leading one to recognize that the real problem when bringing about an innovation is trying to learn from it (Brown, 1993, p. 83). In sum, the effectiveness of an organization is directly related to an organization's innovative potential to meet future demands (Kanter & Summers, 1987). That is, being able to generate new products and services through the use of other innovative products and processes. This merging between both physical and processual characteristics of a technology is only as effective as the organizations which are willing to adopt such technological innovations. Adopht The "ll reialed tn the nerds. unless organizattnns. corresponding 1 attrition tit .tn i understand and adopted and mi. It. addztt k ;’! postal and no 1 “Ch Pittperttes idftgti lit - tl' ' S‘niflls s-- it, . 32 Adoption The "fit" between product-oriented and process-oriented innovation is directly related to the "fit" between product-oriented and process-oriented adoption. In other words, unless this balanced, symmetrical relationship is better understood by organizations, a product-oriented technology may be adopted but possibly not its corresponding processual properties or vice versa. Steinhauer (1988) maintains that the adoption of an innovation depends on whether such innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use. In effect, the more complex the innovation, the less likely it will be adopted and implemented (p. 455). In addition, the complexity of the innovation is compounded not only by both its physical and nonphysical properties, but rather, by the interaction and interrelationship of such properties (i.e., "fit"). To understand these interdependent technologies is to appreciate the relationship between the individual and the machine. In other words, the complexity of the adoption process is usually complicated by behavioral, psychological, or organizational factors (Floyd, 1988, p. 126). Regardless of the type of technology being adopted, the nonprofit organization, for example, is structured in such a way that the technological changes must be supported and sanctioned by the institutional environment (Hasenfeld, 1992). Stated more succinctly, "[th is in this sense that human service technologies reflect practice ideologies, namely they reify certain belief systems about what is 'good' for the client, and their efficacy is measured in light of these beliefs. These beliefs provide human service workers with the rationale and justification for their practice" (p. 13). Therefore, once the executive director or at organization fiddl‘lldll has Once i an or pincer urdettalten. e. of feasibility technology at:- are intended It lmplt‘m The 1m; trganizannn's ' 1986). llntt’ if it the ltthnl all it 'lith translating (timings, 19,9. lfittgencnts «I: “I" IHtcttment '3' .i . . r:di‘uLlill [2,3] It. 3 3 director or another major decision-making body has approved an innovation, to where the organization has begun the process of setting agenda for such technological innovation, adoption has occurred (Lambright, 1979). Once the decision has been made to adopt a new technologically innovative product and/or process, Preece (1991) recommends that a series of decision-making steps be undertaken, consisting of such tasks as the idea to adopt a new technology. the conducting of feasibility studies, performing capital investment analysis, operationalizing the new technology, and evaluating the technology at various stages. These decision-making steps are intended to more clearly spell-out the details needed to implement the innovative products and/or processes. Implementation The implementation stage in the technological change process occurs when the organization's staff actually uses the new idea, product, technique, or behavior (Daft, 1986). More specifically, the implementation process consists of the day-to-day operation of the technological product and/or process. The implementation process is concerned with translating and transforming action plans into organizational actions (Huse & Cummings, 1985). This requires a reshaping of organizational structures and working arrangements (Eveland, 1981). Diederen, Kemp, Muysken & de Wit (1990) contend that any investment in technology, specifically , requires changes in social relations and organizational modifications. like. apnduct \t idnttton, Ill estrzptti‘n‘ I it the topics research. det h'dIliilllg tinar adopted and it thecltlrst. Limb-fl could he help: alerted by the: muttne S€lttgc trait) sense“ if It‘ll Slfip “l-‘Uit W. either at Tr anslo Techn. .11. it: . .ntcr of re. hi i ‘Lr tui’HjL ’HI ((2 lit l Elle l f’ . ”1“qu It] i ' l .3 4 Take, for example, the implementation of a new product. The implementation of a product will require some measure of change in the organizational structure and function. That is, the product may consist of simply developing new workplans and job descriptions for staff who operate or work around the new technology. On the other hand, if the implemented technology is more process-oriented, such as conducting marketing research, developing fundraising strategies, performing a project feasibility study. initiating financial management practices, or whatever, some product will also need to be adopted and implemented, even if it appears to be as simple as designing a new form or checklist. Lambright (1979) cautions that "[m]any hardware and managerial innovations that could be helpful in mitigating urban problems are lying fallow. Either they are not adopted by their intended users, or, if adopted, they are not implemented and placed into routine service. They are often abandoned or so diluted that they cease to be innovative in any sense" (p. 2). In short, if the technological innovation has been implemented, the next step would be to determine at what point should the transference of the technology occur, either within or outside of the organization. Transference Technology transfer is traditionally thought of in a geographical sense, where the transfer of technology is geographically separate, that is, from those who provide the technology to those who receive the technology. The transferring of technology can mean the transfer of products or skills from one area to another. For example, from a more traditions organist: organza: ssisting 3 rentes‘Im; teteloprtte t‘tgatnzattr ttrgtnizatm W11. ether a pr. attending h; 'Jlttsterring diiinment intimation U 35 traditional and geographical perspective, the transfer of a technology can originate in an organization (nonprofit, for example) and be transferred to a community or another organization, for such things as leadership training for community resident empowerment, assisting a community in need of homggflgggghjpfiguflsfiingnhelping identify community reinvestment initiatives for a neighborhood, or some other form of community development. In effect, technology transfer, by convention, is most obvious when an organization or community receive a product or process not otherwise existing within such organizational or community setting. With respect to intraorganizational technology transference, it, too, can consist of either a product or process being transferred. The transferring of a computer and its attending hardware from one department or workstation to another is, by convention, a transferring of technology. That is, the transferring of a new method or strategy from one department to another is technology transfer. The simple communication of a new innovation usually goes by the name of technology transfer (Brown, 1993). Whatever the case, some restructuring, either environmental or organizational, will need to take place. Therefore, unless implementation has already occurred, it will not be possible for an effective technology transfer program, project, strategy, or process to ignore implementation issues (Eveland, 1991). Nonprofit organizations in general and their staff in specific are, by their very nature, change agents. or, more specifically. technology transfer agents. They are consistently innovating, adopting (and adapting), implementing, and transferring organizational and community development strategies. In effect, nonprofit organizations already hit technology organization. result Ill nee agents. Kc} ll KC) Volunteers IS I ”m SeCllttn ( gig.“ . slthiiVe Org .1' The to UK q dgfih an ( k. Mhni-‘iltthl , t "e di Li 36 already have staff trained in various types of product-oriented and process—oriented technology. And, unless this indigenous knowledge is kept within its existing organizational domain, nonprofits will run the risk of losing vital expertise whereby it may result in needing to retain the services of exogenous (i.e., outside) technology transfer agents. Keyes (1993) states that "organizations who do invest in the educations of their technology staff often see this investment jump ship and move over to the competition. As a result, organizations are finding themselves saddled with technology staff with obsolete skills and no way to quickly move into the newer technologies that show some competitive promise" (p. 41). If Keyes' observations are correct, it is at this point where training of staff and volunteers is most needed in the nonprofit human services sector. This brings us to our next section which focuses on the organizational decision-making phases. It is in this section where staff and volunteer knowledge and participation becomes paramount to effective organizational and technological change and development. ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION-MAKING PHASES The technological change process previously discussed takes a ubiquitous look at the stages an organization will experience when product-oriented or process-oriented technological changes occur. Those stages focus on the salient changes in the overall organtzsttd change prr refitting; The tapientent. tn} pinto; tat} (our; pisses assist tntard te.h: B) at illit‘ a ‘M‘rkt: “flit mtthl 55:72:th , tannin tones the d 3 7 organization. However, the organizational decision-making phases of the technological change process are more concerned with staff participation and perception in making technological change decisions. The organizational decision-making phases are identified as conceptualize, design, implement, monitoring, and evaluate. Each of these phases help determine the level staff may participate in technological change. Reshef ( 1993) states that employee participation may occur at all or any of the decision-making stages. In addition, the decision-making phases assist in enabling a more complete understanding of the perception staff may hold toward technological change. By analogy, we can think of the adoption and implementation of a micro-computer into a workstation. The computer is thought of as a tool (i.e., conceptualized) to help staff work more effectively and efficiently, and to increase and enhance productivity. Eventually, a blueprint (i.e., design) or proposal has to be drafted to show how the system will interact with other human and technological systems in the organization. Next comes the decision to place the computer on a desk and "turn it on" (i.e., implement). While the computer has been in operation for a week, for example, staff would watch (i.e., monitor) the system being used, its effectiveness and efficiency, and its overall contribution to aiding staff in becoming more productive. Finally, staff would make a judgment (i.e., evaluate) to determine the computer’s usefulness to the organization, and decide whether it met their original goal of becoming more effective and efficient, for example. This analogy characterizes the most basic decision-making process a nonprofit organization may experience when considering the adopting, implementing or transferring genie UPC 0 or Strut-:6 C cm The tthether .tn 11 departments. tempqtnent is tt"- the tttgantz the "fit hem "What ii In Tat Pttlnzsie of It {hams fund- theteht requi Rimming)" firmlwlons \ ”MR [0 hi: E Whirl l5 {he 3W Take, {. hthdtitc {M 8 1T1?! db'lngs 1716 ‘ 3 8 some type of Information Technology or organizational development innovative component or strategy, respectively. Conceptualization The conceptualization decision-making phase begins the process of deciding whether an innovation will be adopted, implemented, or transferred to other workstations, departments, organizations, or communities. Specifically, the conceptualization component is concerned with determining the nature of the technology and its relationship to the organization or community. In other words, it is conceptualizing the feasibility of the "fit" between product and process or system in which it is to be introduced. It asks, "What if. . . " In Tapscott & Caston's (1993) recent publication "Paradigm Shift: The New Promise of Information Technology," they maintain that as each generation's reality changes, fundamental shifts occur in their organizational and competitive environment, thereby requiring shifts in conceptualization of technology, specifically, Information Technology. For example, Information Technology is being implemented in many organizations with little formal analysis, planning, or design (Floyd, 1988). That is, there appears to be a lack of clear understanding of what issues need to be addressed, such as what is the appropriate type of technology or training for an organization. Take, for example, a workstation that only intends on using a computer with a hard—drive for such tasks as backing-up files, electronic mail, word processing or mass mailings. The decision to place a top of the line micro-computer (such as 48oSX) with state-ol-the-z organization. utzhmg RN) :5 the t} pe u: the is In 1.1; the nth use .‘t'gifilliilhtngf 'he teehhtthtg HIWKC‘ ,‘hfi Or [ft hn‘] CG"? .tttpilla} pk.» ~125th This ”cm” in the t. la,‘ '4" .h'r’ hultthim '- eflLdJ pr. l ‘utlUIfl Elishc 3 9 state-of-the-art software and hardware may simply be inappropriate in such an organizational/workplace environment. In effect, it may be an ineffective means of utilizing resources which may otherwise be directed in a more appropriate manner. This is the type of issue which needs to be addressed by the technological change committee who is trying to conceptualize present and future needs of those employees or volunteers who will use the technology. That is, this may require designing an innovation or organizational structure that can "fit" the needs of the organization or community receiving the technological change innovation. However, problems tend to arise when an agreement cannot be made as to what type of technological innovation should be incorporated into the organization. Steinhauer (1988, p. 446), for example, states that "there has not been 'conceptual' agreement on the term 'innovation."' Given this fact, it becomes obvious that conceptualizing an innovation for a nonprofit will not be any easier for decision-makers, especially if they are all separate from the lower levels of the organization’s rank-and-file. As stated, the conceptualization phase is the initial phase of the decision-making process in deciding whether to adopt, implement, and/or transfer an innovation. The conceptual phase begins the process of deciding who will participate in a technological change. This phase of decision-making is critical because the more participation that occurs in the earlier phases in deciding whether to adopt, implement, or transfer a new technological product or process will have a strong effect on the understanding of why the technology is being introduced (Preece, 1991). organization. te.hr.-niogie;ti guide the eh; dependent p thdepehdent dependent rel Phase. maria techs-hing} de The dc expressmns o lltttetttet. t1 Interelaitonsh L“ when of ti: technoh'uzieal illSIlllCIlt.‘IlS he» “tgahtzatmaj iii“; A. did] db": “It KICK. 4 0 Design The design phase in the organizational decision-making process examines the organizational structure and function and determines the appropriate "fit" in which the technological change can come about. That is, the design phase is a "road map" to help guide the change along. The design phase places the technological change process in a dependent position while still keeping the overall organizational structure in an independent position. Glisson (1992), however, placed technology and structure in dependent roles by differentiating between design and implementation. In Glisson's design phase, management designs an organization's structure to complement management's technology design. The decision to classify technology or organizational structure as either a dependent or independent variable is an arbitrary decision. Even organizational designs are expressions of theories in which leaders hold about human behavior (Pasmore, 1988). Moreover, the design phase is an expression of ideas, systems, blueprints, interrelationships between products and processes, resource availability, and the type and location of training. The design phase should take into account each component in the technological change process (Reshef, 1993). However, this matrix of complex distinctions between systems, products and processes, people, technological changes, and organizational decision-making phases can. at times, become blurred when considering how each design needs to relate to other designs. The decision to design an innovation doesn't necessarily mean it will be adopted by the organization, nor does it mean it Will be implemented or transferred. It must be ”mm” lmflcmf tat: as ‘1 kflhh khan“ bfgjl'fillim“ tamed hhhnm Tm hed WEI pitfd'u‘il. W hmhrm mhhmh it“); {ethnt tit: and name 4 I recognized that each of the technology change components (i.e., innovate. adOpt, implement, and transfer) is separate yet related to the decision-making design phase, as well as the other phases. Barenbaum & Coleman (1989) recommend that staff need to be clearly told the purposes of the technological and system changes in order to reduce potential resistance by staff who are ill informed. In addition, Pasmore (1988) states that broad participation from staff will continue to be a primary feature of the sociotechnical system design. Pasmore further goes on to say that "employees must understand both the equipment they use in the conversion process and the process, itself " (p. 103). In sum, to achieve effective and comprehensive process designs, this phase in the decision-making process is best accomplished through a series of workshops and brainstorming sessions (Davenport, 1993, p. 154). The specific steps of the design phase itself are a difficult process to identify since every system is unique and every technology is different. Implementation The distinction between design and implementation is a matter of degree. Where the design is a "blueprint", the implementation is a means of actually using the new idea, product, process, technique, or behavior in the organizational structure or community. In other words, implementation is "a complex set of interactive behavior. involving gradual shaping of both the technology and the ways in which it is used. Incorporating new technology into an existing organization requires modifying organizational structures and working arrangement" (Eveland, 1981, p. 125). As (if Shl‘Uld stageas t‘l‘ teetpisthe mittattort. implement; The aezinn. fills hatagement antideugn pl .15 Kanter (I participation. patetpatthn ( and decision- mwhement f Dh‘ugram Se rt. I Stt'thgh' metttt 42 As we begin to discuss the implementation phase of the decision-making process, we should keep in mind that employees tend to be more motivated to participate in this stage as opposed to either the conceptualization or design phase (Reshef, 1993). This may be explained, in part, by the fact that implementation is more hands-on. To implement an innovation, for example, is to "try it out," or "turn it on. " Thus, the decision to implement a product or process is more tangible and less abstract. The implementation phase of the decision-making process translates the design into action. This decision requires a high degree of understanding and commitment from top management, which can be achieved by including key people in the early conceptualization and design phases, or what Huse & Cummings (1985) refer to as action planning stages. As Kanter (1983, p. 243) points out, "a great deal of innovation seems to demand participation, especially...at the implementation stage." However, the level and type of participation depends on whose participating and at what point in the technological change and decision-making process. Moreover, York (1982) stresses that participation and involvement from all rank-and-file must be included, especially those who deliver the program services. Their involvement in all phases of the decision-making process will strongly motivate them to be committed to the decision to initiate technological change. Monitoring The monitoring of technological change is to determine, from observation or some other means, whether a change is occurring. Monitoring can span the entire technological change process. The decision to monitor a change in the technological restructuring process is [I ehsenatton the propose. The : makers ll he ICC. .L‘tktgkdl Tl“ TUTOR hm; 3371 had t {he m0n11tTTm. all as the It“: [Value The ft etaiuatihn pha proposed or ac This phase also teettmmendatit hetalttatinn lit Although his \ .. I... ' Ctatudllfln nhase i" ‘ ,Ld‘ .’ n ' h mt; {tether {Om}? 4 3 process is to identify and observe the steps taken by decision-makers. Moreover, it is the observation of not only people and technology, but rather, systems that are interacting with the proposed or adopted technology. The monitoring phase of the decision-making process is a way to assist decision- makers who are deciding whether to innovate or whether to continue with an existing technological change. Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector (1993) state that "[t]he organization has to know how to continuously monitor its behavior-~in effect, to learn how to learn" (p. 227). And, to echo the sentiments of other researchers, Beer et a1 recognizes the need for the monitoring process to be based on broad participation from all in the organization, as well as the recipients external to the organizational structure--i.e., the community (p. 228) Evaluate The final phase of the decision-making process is that of evaluation. The evaluation phase is a means to help determine whether stated goals and objectives of the proposed or actual technological change are being achieved (Huse & Cummings, 1985). This phase also encompasses all components of the technological change process. Preece’s recommendation for evaluation is somewhat limited. Specifically, Preece indicates that an evaluation needs to occur at the post-operationalization phase of the adoption process. Although his view is correct, its scope of evaluation is quite narrow. Ideally, the evaluation phase should include decisions to assess the entire technological change process, starting with innovation and ending with transference. In other words, the evaluation can be either formative or summative. Formative evaluations provide continuous feedback thtOUE all t\ ear 5.5th (I ll ("L ti the ekn mam pfimm 0f Willi: 4 ., ‘ teem: nhm HUH( L . WC“ DTrlne’ '1‘" I *1!- b.\Hl gh' a 44 throughout the life type of the project or technology. Whereas a summative evaluation will occur toward the end of a project that has an ending date, or a technology that is to be evaluated for a given time period. In addition, the decision to evaluate a potential or actual technological change can encompass an assortment of evaluation techniques, such as, interviews, questionnaires, observations, or some other means that will assist in determining whether stated goals are, or would be, achieved. Again, this phase should also include a diverse group of members of the organization or community who are familiar with the proposed or actual technological change. The more difficult aspect of the evaluation begins when an organization is first considering whether or not to adopt an innovation. Even the preliminary decision to consider an innovation for adoption and subsequent implementation or transference carries with it the need for a cursory evaluation. These may consist of determining whether existing technologies, or techniques, are inappropriate or outdated for the current state of affairs--organizational1y, communally, economically, or socially. Therefore, this final phase of the decision-making process is quite significant. Especially, when considering whether current technologies are serving their purpose and are effective and efficient in the delivery of services. TECHNOLOGICAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURAL RELATIONSHIPS The relationship between organizational structure and technology classification has been proposed by researchers interested in exploring this unique dichotomy Woodward's research, beginning in the late 1950's and moving on into the early 1980‘s, postulated that an OT; 0? IllSl t‘l Th 0 qr‘fir 1“: “ll '-‘~ l item ll research “'“i‘sed ‘it ~ . Wihfi‘id ‘Ji 5 LT-fitl‘fnm, he» belt 4 5 an organization's structure must complement its technology. This relationship is more commonly referred to as the "technological imperative." Woodward (1965), for example, found a relationship between the span of control of first-line supervisors and the type of technology used in the production system. Some of Woodward's findings suggest that different organizational structures were more appropriate with different technologies. However, other noted researchers, such as those from the University of Aston in Birmingham, England reported findings somewhat different from Woodward's (Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & Turner, 1969). The Aston's research findings appear to suggest that an organization's contextual variable, size, as opposed to technology, is a main factor in the structure of an organization. And, unlike Woodward who simply focused on one contextual factor--namely, technology-40 determine structure, the Aston research team examined several other contextual factors that they believed could influence organizational structure, such as technology, size, location, and others. Thus, organizational theory, with respect to technology and structure, is still an unsettled abstraction fought over by students of organizational technological change theory. The question as to whether organizational structure is dependent on technology and other contextual factors is still unanswered, both in the broader organizational literature and in the human service's sector specifically (Glisson, 1992). Glisson (1992) has studied the structure-technology relationship with respect to nonprofit human service organizations, as previously mentioned. For example, Glisson, placed technology in a dependent position by distinguishing between two organizational phases-- lllflllt‘d «If ‘.-.’i , sldhillm ' ' ‘ v V dei.HL I \ Ct Tilalltlmh; We 0t al ThiTuenCc (.g adepellde Clean} dis W56 (Gal Casnn‘ 19, As . lfifarthm nq’a a misfit [TIC Nag 46 phases--namely, that of design and implementation. This approach is consistent with the method in which our organizational decision-making phases are structured, that is, the differentiation between technology (i.e., product or process) and the technological change process with respect to the organizational decision-making phases. However, technology classification in our study is further placed in an independent variable position when studying whether technology (both product and process) influences the structure of the nonprofit human services organization. In accomplishing this analysis, multiple contextual and structural variables are examined. Contextual Factors A number of studies. too numerous to identify in this study. have examined the relationship between contextual variables and their influence on organizational structure. Some or all of the following contextual variables have been investigated to determine their influence on organizational structure. For example, technology itself, viewed from both a dependent and independent perspective, has consistently been a difficult concept to clearly distinguish in terms of its role in either a product-oriented or process-oriented sense (Galbraith, I972; Eveland, 1981; Pacey, 1984; Reshef, 1993; and Tapscott & Caston, 1993; among others). As contextual studies continued to evolve, some, or all. of these and other researchers continued with their quest in identifying other contextual variables that may influence the organizational structure-technology relationship. For example, Steinhauer's (1988) research indicates that size 18 highly correlated with an organization's ability to {HITCH influer I -" '3“? d .5“: I“ l L Lillill l Filling int limp“— S n3." V2 .anltjd‘. . “Titers 0, i at ‘Vinnl ”If (H C 1 Arm. liqit‘ [,er 4 7 innovate. Moreover, even the Aston group considered size to be a factor that may influence structure, as they defined size in terms of number of employees and amount of net assets of the firm. In addition, Daft (1986) used size as an independent variable which also has been defined in a number of different ways, such as, number of employees, total budget (or sales), and total assets. Controlling for environment is another contextual variable used by scholars to affix a relationship between structure and technology. For instance, Holloway & Brager (1989) claim that an organization's relationship to its environment affects the ability of participants to shape or direct an organization's future direction. Specifically, they examined environment in terms of their hypotheses that the degree to which an organization is independent or dependent on its environment will dictate whether coalition building activities within it will occur. Separate from the way Holloway & Brager viewed environment, other noted researchers have continued to include environment in their lexicon of variables (see, for example, Daft, 1986; Pasmore, 1988; Steinhauer, 1988; Hasenfeld, 1992, among others). As contextual variables continue to be expanded, they include level of participation, financial commitment, organizational experience, and communication & training, among others. Participation by staff is considered critical as a factor that influences the technological implementation process (Daft, 1986). And, as participation increases, their drive for assisting in mobilizing change increases (Kanter, I983). lht? IE’LTTT organllai (tintrttua: thiaente 1939;. Str A5 sah.pr«et tagaatahe ephihsan dawn til [it Faiearguet ta“ »' .ethlltiltigt lfllllillllfis 4 8 Although participation appears to be a major contextual variable that affects both the technology and structure, other researchers have included age (or founding) of the organization as well (Blau & Meyer, 1971; Dessler, 1980; among others). Communication and training of staff are perceived as being a significant factor that has an influence on the structure-technology relationship (Daft, 1986; Steinhauer, 1988; Meisel, 1989). Structural Factors As we delve deeper into this dimensional rift between hard, product-oriented, and soft, process-oriented technology, we are reminded that the technology in a nonprofit organization does not exist independent from its organizational structure (although, from a philosophical point of view, this can certainly be argued to the contrary). Since the dawn of the first technological breakthrough, historians and philosophers of technology have argued and debated the epistemological and ontological origins of the very nature of technology (Dessauer, 1983; Mitcham & Mackey. 1983; Vig, 1988). And the debate continues . . . Focusing more on the present Zeitgeist of the time, the debate centers more specifically on testable and measurable variables that are more readily identifiable. Specifically, the literature examined consisted of, but was not limited to, the following structural variables: complexity, formalization, specialization, hierarchy of authority. centralization, professionalism, and span of control. rl“Thalia it lil'c Tint, tyinlz“: “ill in 49 Organizational complexity, for example, has been viewed by many scholars as having attributes of both a structural and contextual nature. Specifically, however, complexity is typically thought of in terms of vertical differentiation, horizontal differentiation, and spatial dispersion (Page, 1988; Glisson, 1992). It refers to the number of activities or subsystems within the organization. That is, the dimensions of complexity- -vertical, horizontal, and spatial--consist of vertical complexity being the number of levels in the hierarchy, horizontal complexity consisting of the number of job titles or departments existing horizontally across the organization, and spatial complexity being the number of geographical locations (Daft, 1986). Formalization, on the other hand, is more concerned with the identification of rules and regulations (Holloway & Brager, 1989). For example, the formalization of an organizational structure can determine how the organization will be structured given the routine or nonroutine activities of the organization. In other words, "organizations engaged in routine activities are said to be most appropriately structured with high levels of centralization and formalization, whereas those engaged in nonroutine activities are advised to adopt low centralization and formalization" (Weiss, 1989, p. 37; see also Joglekar, 1989). The examination of the structure-technology relationship must not only include formalization as a dependent variable, but must also incorporate level of specialization into the overall framework. Specialization has been defined as "the degree to which organizational tasks are subdivided into separate jobs” (Daft, 1986. p. 16). Daft further went on to say that "if specialization is extensive, each employee performs only a narrow ante 01 tabs" tp hierareh‘ [ht 1'11th tan mg l iflllt: ae deselihes Tl centraliu Centahz: l‘, Tilt it)? tend (Q bee-tine For fir] 50 range of tasks. If specialization is low, employees perform a wide range of tasks in their jobs" (p. 16). The variables of formalization and specialization are further complemented by hierarchy of authority factor. Holloway & Brager maintain that hierarchy of authority is the most important of all structural dimensions. Hierarchy of authority is defined as varying levels in an organization that defines the extent of a person's responsibility and affixes accountability to the person's task. In other words, hierarchy of authority basically describes who reports to whom and the span of control of each manager (Daft, 1986). The last three variables central to an organizational structural analysis are centralization, professionalism, and span of control. Take, centralization, for example. Centralization is generally viewed in terms of all or most of the authority being maintained at the top (Dessler, 1980). In other words, a centralized structure is where top managers tend to control the decision-making process. However this centralization structure becomes difficult for nonprofit organizations, especially those more grassroots oriented. For example, Drucker (1993) maintains that "the need to organize for change also requires a high degree of decentralization. That is because the organization must be structured to make decisions quickly. And those decisions must be based on closeness--to-performance, to the market, to technology, and to all the many changes in society. the environment, demographics, and knowledge that provide opportunities for innovation if they are seen and utilized " (p. 7). I ‘n‘ "a Nimitz Th5 Oi V07" .ILUU 5 WT.“ [TWI'TILT‘C l A is keeper]: ' "’ . l~ LTYFA b ‘15 5 "9. him l .. ‘I a. . 51 In effect, Drucker believes that an organization, especially a nonprofit, cannot submerge itself in the community nor subordinate itself to the community's ends. Rather, the organization's own 'culture' has to transcend community (p. 7). That is, nonprofit organizations--specifically-—must assume full responsibility for their impact on staff members, their environment, their recipient population, and whomever and whatever it touches. That is its social responsibility (Drucker, 1993) The issue of centralization. along with the other structural variables, is largely dependent upon controlling for professionalism. Basically, professionalism is the level or degree of formal education and training of staff members (Daft, 1986). Lambright (1979) argues that professionalism is a central ingredient that makes for high intraorganizational capacity to innovate. However, a caveat to this is the last issue. namely, that of the organizations span of control. Weiss' (1989) research shows that the greater the amount of training a professional has the narrower their span of control. In descriptive terms, span of control is the number of peOple who report to a supervisor/manager (Woodward, 1965; Daft, 1986; Reshef, 1993). Thus far, each of these structural factors mentioned play a part in the structure- technology relationship. It should become obvious that to analyze this type of dynamic is complicated by the number of variables, both contextually and structurally. The next chapter which follows helps in better understanding how these variables are to be operationalized and measured. lntmc Ssgtfir PJ~ luhrd \ ’i >fi- t i . a"; ., CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction This section is concerned with conveying a clear and detailed accounting of the methods undertaken to accomplish this study. The inherent nature and complexity of the issues under investigation in this dissertation leave one to continually question ones own methodological approach or approaches. That is, this study ventures into an unchartered area--namely, that of the technological change process in the nonprofit human services sector. Therefore, the decision to choose this particular approach is based on this researcher’s conceptualization. Due to the inherent intricacies of this particular study, it was decided that the collection of primary data would be the most appropriate. The quantitative data obtained for this study came from administering a survey questionnaire to 590 nonprofit human service organizations throughout the State of Michigan. During the month of August 1994, the survey instrument was mailed to executive directors of each human service organization. Because the executive directors are theoretically the most knowledgeable of their organizations and all of its detailed workings, they were considered to be the most appropriate. 52 t: the . ., g, diliuc' at three TOT This \ Tl‘pes an Tl {it}; Fume“ 53 Moreover, in order to obtain the widest possible variations of technological change in the nonprofit human services sector and as rich and diverse a source as possible, it was decided to utilize the entire population of Michigan nonprofit human service organizations, with respect to nonprofits who complete a 1990, IRS 990 form (to be discussed in more detail later). An early assumption was that anything less than the entire population would not only have methodological problems in sample selection and stratification, but, also, that different organizations in different communities may perceive technology quite dissimilarly, thereby skewing overall state representation. Unit of Analysis The relationship between technology and organizational behavior can be examined at three different levels of analysis: the individual, the unit or department, and/or the organization (Pasmore, 1988). For our purposes, the organization is the unit of analysis for this study. Types and Operationalization of Variables The variables identified in this section are organizational in nature. The contextual factors will operate as the primary independent and control variables; whereas the organizational structural variables will be held as dependent variables. I Technology. a) Product-oriented (Hard). Produce-oriented technology will be measured by providing a list of tangible information-based technological 54 products used in the physical processing of information. This will include computer-based hardware and software. b) Process-oriented (Soft). Process—oriented technology was measured by providing a list of intangible organizational and human resource activities for the respondent to identify. This type of technology is based on the organizational and systematic means of accomplishing tasks. This will also be synonymous with organizational deveIOpment. 2. Perception of Technology. Perception of technology was measured by asking respondents what type of product-oriented or process-oriented technology is (1) available or (2) used by the organization. 3. Technological Change Process. Technological change is multidimensional and difficult to define and operationalize. Reshef (1993) and others maintain that thorough definitions should emphasize different aspects of technological change (Reshef, 1993), such as the process listed below. However, our analysis builds on these processes by asking a series of questions concerning employees/staffs participation in the technological change decision-making process. This was measured by the use of a five (5) point scale consisting of : 1) No decision making, 2) Blank/not defined, 3) Moderate decision making, 4) Blank/not defined, and 5) Great decision making. The level of technological change was measured within the following four (4) levels: a) Innovation. Innovation is defined, for purposes of this study, as any product or process which is newly integrated into the organizational structure or processes. Innovation was measured by the use of a Liker't L~ .. k? T Tip} Uw \ TIT )1“ .h .4,“ 4. 5 5 scale answered by the respondents. b) Adoption. Adoption is defined, for purposes of this study, as the decision to allocate time, financial, and/or human resources to a particular new product-oriented or process-oriented technology (see Lambright's, 1979, modified variation on definition). Adoption was measured by the use of a Likert scale answered by the respondents. c) Implementation. Implementation is defined, for purposes of this study, as the trial usage of the product-oriented or process-oriented technology (see Lambrights, 1979, modified variation on definition). Implementation was measured by the use of a Likert scale answered by the respondents. d) Transference. Transference was defined, for purposes of this study, as the spatial location of a product-oriented or process-oriented technology either intraorganizationally or interorganizationally. Transference was measured through the use of a Likert scale and categorical listing. Organizational Decision-Making Phases/Processes. The organizational decision-making phase is defined, for purposes of this study, as the process (i.e., phases) employees/staff of the organization go through when their considering product- oriented or process-oriented technological change. A series of questions was asked as to what level do employees/staff participate in the decision-making process. This was measured by the use of a five (5) point scale consisting of : 1) No decision making, 2) Blank/not defined. 3) MOderate decision making, 4) Blank/not defined, and 5) Great decision making The 56 level of decision-making was measured by the following five (5) phases: a) Conceptualize. Conceptualization was defined, for purposes of this study, as the abstract process of defining the type of technological change to be integrated in the organizational structure. Conceptualization was measured by developing categorical activities and through the use of a Likert scale. b) Design. Design was defined, for purposes of this study, as the specific activities written to identify the attributes of the type of technology to be integrated in the organizational structure for technological change. Design was measured by developing categorical activities and through the use of lLikert scales. c) Implementation. Implementation was defined, for purposes of this study, as the usage of specific decision-making activities identified for technological change. Implementation was measured by developing categorical activities and through the use of Likert scales. d) Monitoring. Monitoring was defined, for purposes of this study, as the specific phases and activities identified and observed in the technological change process. Monitoring was measured by developing categorical activities and through the use of Likert scales. e) Evaluate. Evaluate was defined, for purposes of this study, as the specific techniques used to determine level of integration of technological change into the organizational structure. Evaluation was measured by 57 developing categorical activities and through the use of Likert scales. 5. Contextual Factors. Contextual factors are defined, for purposes of this study, as dimensions which characterize and describe the whole organization because of their influence on the structural dimensions of the organization (Daft, 1986). The contextual factors was measured by focusing on the whole organization by identifying the following variables: a) Technology. Already operationalized supra. b) Size. Size was measured by asking respondents to provide information on: (1) overall number of full-time, (2) part-time, (3) volunteers, (4) board members, (5) total budget, and (6) net assets. c) Environment. Environment was measured by asking respondents to indicate, through the use of a Likert scale, the relationship the organization has to (l) the recipients they serve and (2) the community in which the organization is located. d) Geographical Area Served. Geographical area served was measured by providing respondents a list of spatial ranges and asked to indicate the approximate geographical area of the population served. e) Location. Location was measured by asking respondents to indicate the number of sites the organization controls. 0 Participation. Participation was measured by asking respondents to indicate the approximate number of recipients who participate in the services provided, and, in addition, was asked to indicate the number of 58 organizational members who participate in the technological change and organizational decision-making phase process. g) Financial commitment. Financial commitment was measured by asking respondents to indicate the approximate (1) amount of capital committed to product purchases and (2) process related training. Moreover, Likert type scales were developed to measure the perception of the respondents to financial commitment by the board of directors and foundations. h) Organizational experience (age). Organizational experience (age) was measured by asking the respondents to indicate when the organization was established/founded. i) Communication and training. Communication and training was measured together by asking respondents to indicated, through the use of a Likert scale and by providing a list of activities, level and form organizational communication and training. j) Race and ethnicity. Race and ethnicity were measured by asking the respondents to indicate from a list of racial and ethnic classifications the overall racial and ethnic composition of the (1) board of directors, (2) employees, (3) management, (4) nonmanagement, including (5) full-time, (6) part-time, (7) the recipients the organization serves. (8) the community in which they are located, and (9) the respondent's self- reported racial origin. 6. 59 k) Gender. Gender was measured by asking the respondents to indicate the overall gender composition of the (1) board of directors, (2) employees, (3) management, (4) nonmanagement. including (5) full—time, (6) part—time, (7) the recipients the organization serves, and (8) the respondents self-reported gender. Structural Factors. Structural factors are defined, for purposes of this study, as the way the organization divides labor or differentiates its organizational components. The structural variables can be more separately and specifically identified as follows: a) Formalization. Formalization was measured by providing respondents with a list of various types of procedures and rules and were asked to indicate their perception as to the level of formalization, as measured through the use of a Likert type of scale. b) Specialization. Specialization was measured through the use of a Likert type of scale by asking respondents to identify whether staff perform a wide or narrow range of tasks. c) Hierarchy of authority. Hierarchy of authority was measured by asking respondents to indicate (1) how many levels of authority are in the organization and (2) how many individuals they report to. d) Centralization. Centralization was measured by asking respondents to indicate (1) the number of organizations under the same organizational structure and (2) whether they perceive power and control to be 6O hierarchical or distributed throughout the organization, which was measured through the use of a Likert scale. e) Professionalism. Professionalism was measured by asking respondents to indicate through the use of a Likert scale the different levels of education for the (1) board of directors, (2) management, (3) employees, (4) volunteers, and (5) themselves. t) Span of control. Span of control was measured by asking respondents to indicate (1) the number of individuals reporting to the executive director. g) Complexity. Complexity was first measured by providing respondents with lists of product—oriented and process-oriented technology, then asked to indicate through the use of a Likert scale their perception of the technological level of complexity. Second, organizational complexity was measured by other, aforementioned measures already discussed. Hypotheses The hypotheses articulated in this study follow a logical process in testing the dimensions of this technological change model as shown in figure 1 supra. Four research clusters will examine the multidimensionality of the model under study. 61 Research Cluster 1: Availability of Technology: Product-Oriented and Process— Oriented Hypotheses ] thru 7 are socio-technologically based. That is, researchers such as Pasmore (1988) and Davenport (1993) strongly urge the integration of both product- oriented and process-oriented technology. These hypotheses attempt to strike a balance between the divergent nature of technologies. The ideal type of technological structure is one that mergers the two technologies at various stages of decision-making in specific and the technological change process in general. Correlational Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: The availability of computer-based technology will be a statistically significant correlation with the availability of organizational development strategies. Hypothesis 2: The availability of computer-based technology will be a statistically significant correlation with product-oriented technological change processes. Hypothesis 3: Statistically significant differences will exist between computer-based technology and organizational development strategies as they are correlated with specific technological change processes. Hypothesis 4: Computer-based hardware will correlate significantly with product-oriented decision-making while organizational development will correlate significantly with process-oriented decision-making. 62 Hypothesis 5: Racial and gender differences will show statistically significant correlations with both computer-based technology and organizational development strategies. One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Hypotheses Hypothesis 6: Organizations who have available desktop computers will report significant differences in staff participation in overall product-oriented technological changes and decision-making processes than organizations who do not have desktop computers. Hypothesis 7: Organizations who have available strategic planning will report significant differences in staff participation in overall product-oriented technological changes and decision-making processes than organizations who do not have strategic planning. Research Cluster 2: The Technological Change Process: Innovation, Adoption, Implementation, Transference. Hypotheses 8 thru 15 address the issue of organizational structure and the technological change process. This is a particularly difficult issue to address, since most organizational and technological change theorists are undecided as to the nature of organizational structure, or the nature of technology, on the technological change process (Blau & Meyer, 1971; Eveland, 1981; Daft, 1986; Mandel], 1986; Kanter & Summer, 1987; Kramer, 1987; Steinhauer, 1988; Glisson, 1992; Hasenfeld, 1992; Drucker, 1993). Hypotheses 16 thru 21 are specifically designed to test whether supporting the technological change by organizational personnel depend on their levels of participation in the decision-making process, as perceived by the executive director. A substantial body 63 of research maintains that the earlier employees participate in the decision to bring about technological change, the more they will support the change (Kanter, 1983; Daft, I986; Pasmore, 1988; Barenbaum & Coleman, 1989; Glisson, 1992; Reshef, 1993). These two hypotheses are intended to assist in expanding the body of knowledge in terms of managements perceptions of personnel involvement. Correlational Hypotheses Hypothesis 8: The overall relationships between the technological change and decision-making processes will be statistically significant. Hypothesis 9: Support for computer-based technological change will be correlated more significantly with the overall technological change process than support for organizational development change. One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Hypotheses Hypothesis 10: There are differences within and between the overall technological change and decision-making processes combined on the level of support for computer-based technological and organizational development change. Hypothesis 11: There are differences within and between the overall product-oriented and process-oriented technological change and decision-making processes on the level of support for computer-based technological and organizational development change. 64 Hypothesis 12: There are statistically significant differences within and between specific product-oriented and process-oriented technological change processes on level of support for computer-based technological change. Hypothesis 13: There are differences within and between specific product-oriented and process-oriented technological change processes on level of support for organizational development change. Research Question 3: The Decision-Making Process: Conceptualization, Design, Implementation, Monitor, Evaluation. These hypotheses are specifically designed to test whether supporting the technological change by organizational personnel depend on their levels of participation in the decision-making process, as perceived by the executive director. A substantial body of research maintains that the earlier employees participate in the decision to bring about technological change, the more they will support the change (Kanter, 1983; Daft, 1986; Pasmore, 1988; Barenbaum & Coleman, 1989; Glisson, I992; Reshef, 1993). These two hypotheses are intended to assist in expanding the body of knowledge in terms of managements perceptions of personnel involvement. Correlational Hypotheses Hypothesis 14: Support for computer-based technological change will be correlated more significantly with specific product- oriented decision-making processes than support for organizational development change. 65 One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Hypothesis Hypothesis 15: There are differences within and between product- oriented decision-making processes on the level of support for computer-based technological change. Research Cluster 4: Attitude Toward Computer-based Technology and Organizational Development Strategies. The hypotheses developed thus far are intended to test whether organizations are more product—oriented or process-oriented in nature. In other words, an attempt is to try and determine whether nonprofit human service organizations are structured in a technologically predictable way. The latter hypotheses move outward from the model and incorporate more exogenous and descriptive factors in determining their technological nature. For example, hypotheses 7 and 8 are directly concerned with two specific variables: financial resources and race/ethnicity. Correlational Hypothesis Hypothesis l6: Attitude toward computer-based technology and organization development strategies will correlate significantly with race, gender, hardware and organizational development strategies available, technological change and decision-making, and the amount of budget spent on computer-based and organizational development training. 66 One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Hypothesis Hypothesis 17: There are differences between genders and their attitude toward computer-based technology and organizational development strategies. Regression Hypothesis Hypothesis 18: The attitude toward computer-based technology and organizational development strategies correlate significantly with organizational characteristics for such variables as hardware, software, and organizational development strategies available, gross revenue, and percent of budget spent on computer-based and organizational development training. In sum, these overall hypotheses represent only a small fraction of other, more exogenous variables needing to be examined. The testing of additional relationships was conducted during the data analysis phase. Research Design The purpose of this study is to examine the overall technological change process in the Michigan nonprofit human services sector. More intrinsic to the nature and purpose of this study is to explain 1) the technological change process (i.e., innovation, adoption, implementation, and transference) occurring in either product-oriented and process- oriented technology; 2) the relationship between the technological change process and the organizational decision-making phase process (i.e., conceptualization. design. implementation, monitoring, and evaluate); 3) the effect of the nonprofit organization's 67 contextual and structural factors have on the technological change and organizational decision-making phase process; and 4) whether nonprofit organizations can effectively be classified as either product-oriented, process—oriented, or a combination of both, and, if so, what effect this will have on technological change overall. Thus, because of the inherent complexity and multidimensional nature of this study, the purpose of this particular survey research design is twofold: descriptive, and explanatory. Descriptive because little is known about the problems under investigation and exploratory because it tests relationships between variables (Singleton, Straits, & Straits, 1993, p. 93). Instrumentation The entire population of Michigan nonprofit human service organizations was chosen. The survey instrument was sent to the nonprofit executive directors. Since individual names were not included in our sampling frame (to be explained more fully infra), the introductory letter and the letter of support will simply refer to the executive director of the nonprofit human service organization in general. Moreover, the overall mailing will include: 1) Letter of introduction concerning the research and survey (which both will include instruments on how to complete the survey and process the responses); 2) The survey instrument itself; 3) Letters of support by Mr. Dave Egner, Executive Director of the Michigan Nonprofit Forum; Ms. Ann Marston, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Michigan League for Human Services; and Ms. Jeanne Vogt. President of the Accounting Aid Society; and 4) a pre-stamped envelope for returning the survey instrument. Suggestions on the questionnaire were reviewed by key nonprofit 68 scholars and noted statewide nonprofit practitioners, and, as deemed appropriate and conducive for the study at hand, some changes were made. In the survey instrument, respondents were asked to complete questions in five major areas. First, what their observation and perception of the types of technology available, needed, and used or would be used by their organization. The respondents were asked to differentiate between product-oriented and process-oriented technology. Second, respondents were asked how they perceive or observe decisions being made to bring about technological change. Third, respondents were also asked questions about the structure of their organization. Fourth, contextual questions were asked to the respondents concerning their external environment/demography--that is, their community and the population they serve. And finally, respondents were asked contextual questions about themselves. The variables identified as important for examining technology and the technological change process were used to construct the questionnaire. The survey questionnaire will include product-oriented and process-oriented technology variables; variables that specifically address a perceptual understanding of the technological change process—-specifically, innovation, adoption, implementation, and transference; organizational phase variables in the decision-making process, such as, conceptualization, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation; organization contextual and structural variables; and demographic variables. Rather than randomly pretesting the survey instrument with only a small number of selected organizations, it was decided that scholars and practitioners versed in the 6 9 nonprofit arena be used to critically review the questionnaire. This is an appropriate method in validating the reliability of the instrument, especially since there were preliminary interviews (Singleton, Straits, & Straits, 1993. p. 121). The depth in examination was far greater and more detailed. A limitation of pretesting an instrument is the cursory review provided by the few respondents who return the instrument. The survey instrument is expected to be sent to respondents around the first or second week of August 1994. After ten days respondents were contacted via a postcard to remind them that the survey was sent and to request their response. Reliability of the Questionnaire The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient (Mehrens & Lehmann, 1994) was used to estimate the internal consistency measure of the reliability of the questionnaire regarding the availability of product-oriented and process—oriented technology, the process of technological change and decision-making, and attitude toward computer—based technology and organizational development strategies. Specifically, the following alpha reliability coefficients were obtained: 70 Table 3.0 Scale Items Items Constructs Alpha N items Availability of Technology Computer-based hardware 0.83 (12 items) Computer-based software 0.80 (16 items) Organizational development strategies 0.87 (10 items) Overall Technological and Decision-Making Process 0.98 (40 items) Technological Change Process Innovation 0.95 (10 items) Adoption 0.96 (10 items) Implementation 0.95 (10 items) Transference 0.96 (10 items) Decision-Making Process Conceptualization 0.95 (8 items) Design 0.96 (8 items) Implementation 0.96 (8 items) Monitor 0.96 (8 items) Evaluation 0.97 (8 items) Attitude Toward the Use of: Computer-based technology 0.90 (18 items) Organizational development strategies 0.90 (18 items) N =110 Cases overall Thus, in examining the various constructs, the multiple items used to develop each index reflect high reliability. That is, Cronbach’s alpha ranges from 0 to 1.0, thereby indicating how much the items in an index are measuring with respect to their consistency. Overall the items appear to be measuring what they were designed to measure. However, the availability constructs, although high, are still somewhat lower overall. This may be due, in part, to how the scales were developed and the items selected. 71 Confidentiality and Anonymity The cover letter, letters of support, and the survey instrument itself will each indicate that respondents will not be identified by individual or organization. Specifically, all the responses were treated as confidential and each organization will maintain its anonymity. Each respondent was asked to mail the instrument in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided. Respondents were informed that the code to be identified on the survey will only be used for identifying which surveys were returned, so as to enable the researcher to send postcards as reminders of the survey. Survey Design The survey design can be conceptualized as a three-tiered perceptual study of technological change in nonprofit human service organizations. The first tier being that of technological definition and classification between product-oriented (i.e., hard) and process—oriented (i.e., soft) technology. Secondly, this tier focuses on more detail toward the technological change process in the organizational decision-making phases. And the third tier examines more contextual and structural organizational variables as they are related to various types of technology. The survey study was cross-sectional in nature because it was administered at one point in time. The descriptive and explanatory nature of this study lends itself to incorporating both descriptive questions and explanatory perceptual questions. More Specifically, this two dimensional survey design will enable the researcher to first describe. and identify variables relevant to understanding technology in the nonprofit human services 72 sector. Based on the second dimensional quality of the survey design, this will allow the researcher to make inferences about the nonprofit human services statewide. Relational tests and inferences was limited to perceptions about: 1) the nature of technology in the human services sector, 2) the linkage between the technological change process and organizational decision-making, and 3) effects of contextual and structural organizational variables on the technological change and organizational decision-making process. Finally, the survey instrument is designed to be completed by the executive director of the organization. Questions in the survey will come from the perceptions and description of this one person. Population The population for this study consisted of all nonprofit organizations in Michigan that filed Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 990 forms in 1990 declaring themselves to be human service organizations, as reflected in their indicating a 'P' classification code, per the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE). The 'P' classification code is identified as "Human Service, Other/Multi-Purpose" nonprofit organizations. More specifically, a subsequent smaller population grouping was chosen because of the inherent difficult of analyzing this complex human services sector (For more detail as to why the smaller population was chosen, please refer to the section entitled "Rationale for Population Selection and Sampling "). That is, for Michigan, 1265 nonprofit organizations classified themselves as H "Human Service, Other/Multi-Purpose. From this 1265, sixty-two 'P‘ subclassificauons 73 were identified, clustering within seven major groups: P20 (Human Service Organizations- -Multipurpose), P30 (Children's and Youth Services), P40 (Family Services), P50 (Personal Social Services), P60 (Emergency Assistance (Food, Clothing, Cash), P70 (Residential/Custodial Care (Group Home), and P80 (Services to Promote the Independence of Specific Population Groups). It was subsequently recommended that three major groups be selected as part of the smaller population: P20 (Human Service Organizations--Multipurpose), P30 (Children's and Youth Services), P40 (Family Services). Therefore, 590 nonprofit human service organizations were studied from this population grouping. Sampling Frame A sampling frame of the 1990 population of nonprofit human service organizations in Michigan was obtained from the Michigan Nonprofit Project, Michigan State University. The Michigan Nonprofit Project data of Michigan human service organizations were provided by the Michigan Employment and Securities Commission (MESC). Specifically, 1265 nonprofit human service organizations represent the population of nonprofit organizations which filed Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 990 forms and declared themselves to be human service organizations (i.e., reported a 'P' National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) code). The sampling frame consists of the following fields: NTEE code, organization name, reported mailing address. city. zipcode, county, assets (5), income (S), expenditure code and public support code. 74 Rationale for Population Selection and Sampling The purpose for narrowing our population of 1265 nonprofit human service organizations to a population of 590 was primarily due to the diversity in purposes and activities in the human services sector, as reflected in the NTEE coding classification. Gronbjerg (1993) stresses the difficulty in analyzing or interpreting trends in different categories of the NTEE taxonomy--especially in the nonprofit human services sector. Keeping this in mind, it was subsequently determined that by narrowing the pool of human service organizations to those which focus more on the health and safety needs of families, in general, and children and youth, in specific, would reflect more of the basic tenets of the human services sector. Conversely, the decision not to include human service organizations that were involved more in advocacy, individual personal services, or residential custodial care will enable our analysis to be more focused on the basic needs of family and youth. Otherwise, if all human service organizations had been included, regardless of purpose or activities, it would have required that all recipients of human services be collapsed together in our analysis. This may have confused our analysis. Because, it is generally agreed by most scholars that human service organizations normally have multiple goals, problematic in integrated analysis, and that analyzing trends across the human services sector without finding common purposes may result in misrepresenting the sector (Kramer. 1987; Hasenfeld, 1992.; Gronbjerg, 1993). It should be noted, however, that our reduced population group of children and youth services (P30), fbr example, consists of 329 human service organizations. Within 75 this population there are 187 child day care organizations (i.e., P33). Because child day care services are considered more generalists in nature, with respect to other, more specific human service organizations (Tucker, Baum, & Singh, 1992, p. 51). it was decided to conduct a systematically random sample on this population. A random ordering of the 187 organizations was conducted via a Lotus spreadsheet program whereby every tenth day care organization was selected, totaling eighteen overall. As mentioned earlier, this brings our overall population size to 590 nonprofit human service organizations. Statistical Analyses When data are collected and/or coded various statistical analyses were used in order to test the hypotheses. Given the nature of this study, most of the variables are likely to be nominal and ordinal, with few variables being either interval or ratio (for example, amount of income, assets, number of employees, volunteers, among others). Therefore, the statistics utilized were both nonparametric and parametric. Our computational algorithm was the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 6.0 for Windows (SPSS for Windows). Finally, due to the difficulty of precision in a study of this type, an alpha level is set at .05 (p < .05), so as to try to avoid a type two error. Limitations The first major limitation is the fact that only the executive director was surveyed. Ideally, in any organizational analysis, respondents at multiple level in the organization Should be contacted. However, all else being equal, with the organization being the unit 76 of analysis, and, theoretically, with the executive director being the most informed about the overall operation of the organization, the decision to use the executive director as the respondent was most appropriate, academically as well as practically. In addition, only human service organizations were studies, thereby reducing the likihood for broad—based nonprofit comparisons. The generalizability stems to nonprofit human service organizations specifically. Other nonprofits, different in purpose and function, will not be able to be compared as easily. Though these comparison limitations are debatable in the community of scholars, we opt to follow conventional interpretation of subgroup comparisons. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction Thus far, we have described, in detail, the methods used to obtain, organize and analyze the data. Now, we will turn our attention to the overall thesis of this research, namely, that of distinguishing between the various dimensions of product-oriented and process-oriented technology. The results from this study are divided into five major components with hypothesis testing being reflected in the second thru the fifth component. The components to be discussed are as follows: 1) demographic characteristics of the sample of nonprofit human service organizations under study; 2) the availability of either product-oriented or process-oriented technology; 3) perceived support for the technological change process (i.e., innovation, adoption, implementation, and transference); 4) perceived support for the decision-making process (i.e., conceptualization, design, implementation, monitor, and evaluation); and 5) attitude toward computer—based technology and organizational development strategies. Each of these components within this study follows a logical progression in terms of how this product-oriented and process-oriented technological change and decision—making models should be examined. Moreover, as implicitly indicated, this model has three major dimensrons (i.e., technology type (product 78 or process), technological change, and decision-making). Across each major dimension has been our attempt at distinguishing between product-oriented and process—oriented organizational structures, products, processes, and attitude. In short, this model was tested using various inferential statistical techniques. The computational algorithms used to analyze the data was SPSS 6.0 for Windows (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). The statistics used for this particular study were crosstabulations, correlations, t-test (both independent and pairwise) and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and regression. Characteristics of Nonprofits Sampled The findings from this study are the result of 590 questionnaires that were mailed to executive directors of nonprofit human service organizations throughout the State of Michigan. From this sample surveyed, approximately 87 questionnaires (or 17%) were returned with no forwarding address. Thus, from the 503 organizations that received the questionnaire, approximately 22% (N: 110) responded and returned the completed questionnaire. Respondents’ Characteristics Table 4.0 provides a detailed breakdown of the respondents’ characteristics. They range from 21 to 75 years of age. Not surprising however is that 53 (50%) of the I'CSpondents fell between the ages of 42 and 53, while over 68% indicated they have been affiliated with the organization for over six years. In effect, this represents a very stable 7 9 population of nonprofit executives who had chosen to respond to this study. With respect to the gender and racial breakdown of this study, 88 (83.8%) of respondents were European American, with males comprising over 43 % and females 40%. while African American and other racial groups accounted for a little over 16%. The education of respondents reflects a rather educated nonprofit workforce. That is, 41.1% have a master’s degree while 33.7% hold baccalaureate degrees while over 78 (72%) are employed with the organization on a paid full—time basis. Moreover, over 55% of the salaries paid to executive directors fall between $35,000 and $75,000. Table 4.0* 80 Respondents’ Characteristics N Percent 21 - 41 27 25.5 42 - 53 53 50.0 54 - 75 26 24.5 Years Affiliated with the Organization 1 or less 15 14.0 2 to 5 19 17.8 6 to 10 30 28.0 1 l to 20 32 29.9 21 or greater 1 1 10.3 Percent Percent Male (N) Female (N) Race/Ethnicity European American 43.8 (46) 40.0 (42 African American 3.8 ( 4) 5.7 ( 6) Asian American 1.9 ( 2) 1.0 ( l) Latino American 1.0 ( I) 1.0 ( 1) Native American —- 1.0 ( 1) Other -- 1.0 ( 1) Education High School .9 ( 1) 1.9 ( 2) Trade/vocational .9 ( 1) -- Some college .9 ( 1) 5.6 ( 6) 2-year associate 2.8 ( 3) 3.7 ( 4) Bachelor’s degree 18.7 (20) 15.0 (16) Master’s degree 19.6 (21) 21.5 (23) Ph.D. or equivalent 6.5 ( 7) .9 ( 1) Other .9 ( 1) -- Salary of Executive Directors $20,000 or less 8.4 ( 8) 7.4 ( 7) $20,001 to $35,000 9.5 ( 9) 13.7 (13) $35,001 to $50,000 13.7 (13) 13.7 (13) $50,001 to $75,000 15.8 (15) 12.6 (1.2) $75,001 to $150,000 4.2 ( 4) 1.1 ( I) 81 Table 4.0 (cont’d) Percent Percent Male (N) Female (N) Main Position in Organizations Full-time paid 38.0 (41) 34.3 (37) Part-time paid 1.9 ( 2) 3.7 ( 4) Regular volunteer 6.5 ( 7) 5.6 ( 6) Board member 3.7 ( 4) 4.6 ( 5) Other .9 ( 1) .9 ( 1) * Some N’s will not equal 1 10 because of missing responses. Note: Valid percentages (i.e., excluding missing values) are used to better reflect the actual percentage of those respondents who answered the questions. Organization’s Characteristics The year the organizations were established ranged from 1879 to 1990; whereas, over 56% where established within the past 20 years, as indicated in Table 4.1. The year the nonprofit was established may partly explain the fact that the average number of full— time paid employees is 51. This, by far, exceeds the overall nonprofit sector in general and human services sector in specific. That is, Wilson (1991) indicates that in Michigan, fewer than 3,000 nonprofits employed one or more persons. Given that is the case, it appears that the sample population comes from a disproportionate (or skewed) segment of the nonprofit sector. Some of the other data indicates that over 50% of the employees are part-time while a little less than 50% have fewer than 20 regular volunteers. Rt (hf-I 70M | 82 Table 4.1* Organization’s Characteristics N Percent Year Established 1879tol938 19 21.6 1940tol969 19 21.6 1971tol980 19 21.6 1981 to 1990 31 35.2 Number of Staff/Volunteers Full-time paid 3 or less 23 25.3 4 to 12 22 24.2 13 to 31 22 24 2 35 or greater 24 Mean Total Total overall 51 4.700 Part-time paid 2 or less 21 24.4 3 to 6 21 24.4 7 to 25 20 23.3 30 or greater 24 27.9 Mean Total Total overall 37 3.250 Regular volunteers 4 or less 15 18.5 5 to 20 25 30.9 25 to 50 20 24.7 58 or greater 21 25.9 Mean Total Total overall 125 10,312 Overall volunteers 15 or less 16 25.0 20 to 40 12 18.8 50 to 130 20 31.3 150 or greater 16 25.0 Mean Total Total overall 228 14,575 Total recipients of services 300 or less 23 24.7 350 to 1,500 21 22.6 2,000 to 9,000 24 25.8 10,000 or greater 25 26.9 Mean Total Total overall 26,679 2507,86] Table 4.1 (cont’d) 83 N Percent Geographical area served County or larger region 73 68.2 Area smaller than a county but larger than a municipality 14 13.1 Whole city, township, or village 1 1 10.3 City sub-area >25,000 people 5 4.7 City sub-area <25.000 people but >5,000 3 2.8 City sub-area <5,000 1 .9 Financial resources and liabilities Gross annual expenses $112,000 or less 23 25.3 $120,000 to $387,000 23 25.3 $432,800 to $1,620,000 22 24.2 $2,060,000 or greater 3 25.3 Mean Total Total overall $2,230,467 $205,202.954 Gross annual revenues $112,000 or less 23 25.6 $1 15,000 to $418,900 23 25.6 $450,000 to $1,550,000 21 23.3 $1,650,000 or greater 23 25.6 Mean Total Total overall $2,045,883 $186,175,390 Total assets $19,000 or less 20 24.4 $20,000 to $150,000 21 25.6 $168,000 to $1,045,853 20 24.4 $1,250,000 or greater 21 25.6 Mean Total Total overall $1,716,468 $142,466,873 Total liabilities $6,090 or less 35 48.6 $9,200 to $142,384 19 26.4 $192,482 or greater 18 25.0 Mean Total Total overall $417,585 $30,483.763 * Some N’s will not equal 1 10 because of missing responses. 84 Unlike most nonprofits which are very grass-roots and apply their philanthropy and altruism to neighborhoods, the respondents in this study, approximately 68%, indicated that the geographical area they serve is a “county or larger region.” Whereas over 50% have gross receipts, expenditures, and assets less than $387,000, $418,900, and $150,000, respectively. In sharp contrast to these figures, total liabilities for approximately 48% of the organizations are less than $6,090 or less. The descriptions provided about the respondents and the organizations are, by conventional standards, somewhat routine for most studies. However, Table 4.2a, 4.2b, and 4.2c provide descriptive information more oriented to the very nature of this study. such as the amount of hardware, software, and organizational development strategies available within the organizations under study. Table 4.2a, for instance, shows that most of the more routine computer—based hardware, such as desktop computers (85 %), laser/ ink jet printers (75.2%), and hard drives (88.6%) are currently available. Whereas, in contrast, some of the more sophisticated hardware used to complement and upgrade computer-based technology is available but to a much lesser extent, such as color printers (16.5%), scanners (21%), and CD-ROMs (23.8%). 85 Table 4.2a Availability of Hardware Technology Within the Organization* Percent Available N Desktop computer 85.0 91 Portable computer 27.2 28 Laser or ink jet printer 75.2 79 Color printer 16.5 17 Dot matrix printer 74.0 77 Color monitor 70.5 74 Modem 54.3 57 Hard drive 88.6 93 Tape backup drive 52.9 55 Scanner 21.2 22 CD-ROM 23.8 24 Mouse 79.6 82 * N = 1 10 overall valid percent used. Table 4.2b also indicates that some of the more routine computer-based software is available, such as Spreadsheets (86.3%), word processing (90.2%), fmancial/accounting (84.5%), and database management (66.7%) software. Note, however, that although software programs such as that of desktop publishing (52.9%), statistical packages (33.7%), and presentation graphics (43.6%), for instance, are somewhat less in terms of their availability, it may be a reflection that the more unconventional software packages are just now beginning to enter into mainstream nonprofit organizational structures. Not surprising however is the fact that some of the most important technology to help advance 86 the nonprofit sector into the 21$t century technologically is available in only a few of the organizations being examined. For example, tax planning (6%), multimedia packages (7.1%), electronic mail (19.1%), and Internet services (10%) are but a few examples of the type of software packages that currently exist within this sample, but which are slow in being incorporated into nonprofit organizations in general and human service organizations in specific. Table 4.2c summarizes the type of organizational development strategies available and practiced. Accounting and bookkeeping, comprising 94.9% of the organizations under study, appears to dominate in availability. The next two highest in their availability is in the areas of financial management and grant proposal writing strategies, accounting for approximately 83.7% and 72.4%, respectively. 1n closer examination, it becomes quite obvious that organizational strategies oriented toward capital acquisition and maintenance dominate. This is not that surprising since the gross revenues, expenses, and assets previously discussed are rather substantial, relative to other nonprofits within the sector. Finally, strategic planning ranked fourth (71.7%) in its availability in the organizations. Intuitively, this, too, is not that unusual since few organizations even practice strategic planning or have available materials on the subject (Odiorne, 1984). The next four sections which follow begin focusing on the hypotheses under study. First is the availability of technology relative to the organizations and their technological change and decision-making processes. Second, we will more closely examine our hypotheses with respect to the unique qualities of the technological change process and the supportive nature of the organizations in technological and organizational development 87 change. The third section will address, in specific terms, the decision-making process and how supportive organizations are in technological and organizational change. Finally, our hypothesis testing will conclude with how attitudes in the use of computer-based technology and organizational development are related in terms of the organization’s overall structure. Table 4.2b Availability of Software Technology Within the Organization* Percent Available N Spreadsheet 86.3 88 Painting/drawing 36.6 37 Presentation graphics 43.6 44 Word processor 90.2 92 Financial/accounting 84.5 87 Entertainment/education 28.6 28 Desktop publishing 52.9 54 Database management 66.7 68 Tax planning/presentation 6.0 6 Computer-aided design 10.9 1 1 Personal information manager 23.8 24 Statistical programs 33.7 33 Multimedia package 7.1 7 Electronic mail 19.0 19 Internet service 10.0 10 *N = l 10 overali valid percentage used. 88 Table 4.2c Availability of Organizational Development Strategies within the Organization* Percent Available N Strategic planning methods/techniques 71.7 71 Financial management 83.7 82 Accounting and bookkeeping 94.9 94 Grant proposal writing 72.4 71 Project/program feasibility study 43.9 43 Human resource planning 48.0 47 Fundraising development planning 65.3 64 Project planning 63.3 62 Operations planning 63.3 62 Project/program evaluation 70.1 68 * N = l 10 overall valid percent used. 8 9 Research Cluster 1: Availability of Technology: Product-Oriented and Process- Oriented. The overall research question to be examined is whether the availability of either computer—based technology or organizational development strategies measurably influences the technological change and decision—making process. This section utilizes two statistical techniques, correlations and one-way ANOVA , to assist in answering this broad research question. Our first correlational hypothesis section will focus more specifically on the availability of three clusters of technology (i.e., hardware, software, and organizational development) and correlate them with the technological change and decision-making processes, as well as with gender, race, and age of the organization. Correlational Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: The availability of computer-based technology will be a statistically significant correlation with the availability of organizational development strategies. Table 4.3a shows the Pearson product moment correlations among the measured variables. The three technologies are all positively correlated and are statistically significant at an alpha .05 level. In short, it appears that when an organization’s availability in computer-based technology increases, so to does the availability of its organizational development strategies. The first hypothesis is supported for the availability of product-oriented technology and its relationship to process-oriented, organizational development strategies 90 Table 4.3a Correlations Between the Availability of Computer-based Technology and Organizational Development Strategies Organizational Hardware Software Development Available Available Available Hardware 1.00 Software .53 * * 1.00 Organizational Development .55" .42M 1.00 ** P < .05 N = 110 overall Hypothesis 2: The availability of computer-based technology will be a statistically significant correlation with product-oriented technological change processes. Table 4.3b begins to delve deeper into the product-oriented and process-oriented technological change and decision-making processes. Since our hypothesis was concerned with whether computer-based technology correlated with product-oriented technological change (i.e., whether staff participates in the decision-making for computer-based technology), it was necessary to dichotomize technology into products (i.e., computer— based hardware and software) and processes (i.e., organizational development strategies) in order to differentiate between types of technology. Thus, it appears that there is a statistically significant relationship between computer-based hardware and product-oriented technological change and decision-making processes, thereby supporting hypothesis 2. In effect, there is a slight correlation, a .25, that is statistically significant at an alpha .05 91 level. However, if squared, Pearson’s R2 only explains 6% of the variance between these two variables, indicating that as computer-based technology increases so to does staff decision-making in product-oriented technological change. In further examination of the correlational table, note that organizational development is also correlated positively. The correlations for organizational deve10pment strategies available, reflecting an r = .39, p < .05, are correlated significantly more positively with both the combined product-oriented and process-oriented technological and decision-making processes as well as with product-oriented changes itself. Table 4.3b Correlations Between the Availability of Computer-based and Organizational Development Strategies and Overall Technological Change and Decision- making Processes Overall Technological Organizational Change and Decision- Hardware Software Development Making Process (Staff Available Available Available Participation in DM) Product-oriented and Process- 20* .3 5 * * .39* * oriented TC/DM Processes Product-oriented TC/DM .25“ .33“ .32“ Process-oriented TC/DM .13 .34** .44” * P < .10 ** P < .05 TCP = Technological Change Process (also used synonymously with Product—oriented) DM = Decision-making Process (also used synonymously with Process-oriented) N = 110 overall 92 Hypothesis 3: Statistically significant differences will exist between computer-based technology and organizational development strategies as they are correlated with specific technological change processes. Table 4.3e provides a more detailed differentiation between the technological change process. The process is dichotomized between product—oriented and process- oriented technological change. That is, it appears that as the availability of computer- based hardware increases in the organizations, the amount of staff participation in technological change decision-making also increases. Specifically, hardware is positively and significantly correlated with product-oriented innovation, adoption, implementation, and transference. With respect to organizational development strategies available, all levels of the technological change process are statistically significant. Thus, it appears that as organizational development strategies also become more available in the organization so to does the amount of decision—making by staff in the organization‘s technological change process. Overall, these findings would confirm hypothesis 3 that there are differences between the availability of either computer-based hardware and organizational development strategies and their relationship to specific technological change processes. 93 Table 4.3e Correlations Between the Availability of Computer-based Technology and Organizational Development Strategies and Specific Technological Change Processes Technological Change Process Computer Organizational Staff Participation in Decision-Making Hardware Development (Both CT and on) Innovation (CT/OD) .18 .36“ Product-oriented (CT) .24** .29* * Process-oriented (OD) .1 1 .4 1 * * Adoption (CT/OD) .16 .41 * * Product-oriented (CT) .20* .35“ Process-oriented (OD) .10 .44* * Implementation (CT/OD) .21 ** .40** Product-oriented (CT) .25“ .30" Process-oriented (OD) .14 .46* * Transference (CT/OD) .21" .38“ Product-oriented (CT) .25* * .33 * * Process-oriented (OD) . 14 .41 * * * P < .10 ** P < .05 CT = Computer-based Technology (Level of decision-making by staff) OD = Organizational Development (Level of decision-making by staff) N = 110 overall Note: Software was eliminated from this comparison. However, although no statistically significant coefficients are shown under organizational development, there still appears to exist a relationship whereby all process-oriented coefficients under OD are greater than their product-oriented counterparts. 94 Hypothesis 4: Computer-based hardware will correlate significantly with product-oriented decision-making while organizational development will correlate significantly with process-oriented decision-making. Thus far, our discussions on the availability of technology and its relationship to the overall technological change process has been more general. Now, as we narrow our perspective to more closely examine the decision-making process phases, we see in Table 4.3d that hardware available is significantly correlated with each of the main decision- making process phases. The highest hardware correlations are within each of the product- oriented phases. For example, the monitoring phase of product-oriented decision-making has the highest correlation of .33 while product-oriented conceptualization has an r = .28, both significant at a .05 alpha level. In addition, organizational development strategies available are also significantly correlated with each of the decision-making phases. As shown in Table 4.3d, all of the decision-making processes, both product-oriented and process-oriented, are significantly correlated with the availability of organizational development strategies. Thus, there appears to be support for hypothesis 4. In sum, the last correlational hypothesis in this section is under hypothesis 5. The availability and use of either computer-based hardware and organizational development strategies are examined in terms of their relationship to race, gender, and age of the organization. 95 Table 4.3d Correlations Between the Availability of Computer-based Technology and Organizational Development Strategies and Specific Decision-making Processes Decision-Making Process Computer Organizational Phases Staff Participation (Both CT and OD) Hardware Development Conceptualization (CT/OD) .24 .40” Product-oriented (CT) 28* .36” Process-oriented (OD) .17 .40** Design (CT/OD) .19* .36“ Product-oriented (CT) .25** .30” Process-oriented (OD) .10 .40* * Implementation (CT/OD) .18* .41 ** Product-oriented (CT) .20** .34** Process-oriented (OD) .13 .45 * * Monitor (CT/OD) .3 l ** .40“ Product-oriented (CT) .33 * * 34* * Process-oriented (OD) .2 7 * * .44 * * Evaluation (CT/OD) .20” .36“ Product-oriented (CT) .25** .30“ Process-oriented (OD) . l 3 .40* * * P < .10 ** P < .05 N = 110 overall 96 Hypothesis 5: Racial and gender differences will show statistically significant correlations with both computer-based technology and organizational development strategies. Table 4.3e indicates that the availability and use of hardware and organization development strategies correlate significantly with minority recipients. Specifically, Table 4.3e shows that as the number of hardware components and organizational development strategies increases, as well as their use, so too does the number of minority recipients. Regrettably, however, we cannot provide a cause and effect answer for this correlation. It does leave one to ask whether this increase in technology and organizational development strategies makes the organizations more efficient thereby enabling them to increase their services to their recipients. Or, conversely, as the number of recipients needing services increases, does this then require the organizations to increase their amount of technology and organizational development just in order to keep up with the demand for services. What is also shown in the findings is the fact that there is an inverse relationship between number of minority and female employees and the availability and uses of technology and organizational development strategies. Note, however, that for minority employees, the only significant finding is their amount of hardware technology available. which is a small negative correlation significant at alpha .10 level. Whereas for females employees, the findings are all significant and, as mentioned, are negatively correlated. Therefore, based on these findings, it appears that hypothesis 5 13 also supported. 97 Table 4.3e Correlation Between the Availability and Use of Computer-based Technology and Organizational Development and Total Percent Minority Recipients, Minority and Female Employees, and Age of Organization Computer-based Organizational Hardware Development Race/Gender/Age of Organization Available Used Available Used Minority recipients .21” .29” .27** .22** Female recipients .07 .15* .13 .19” Minority employees -.18* -.11 -.02 -.01 Female employees -.l4* -.18** -.18* -.16* Age of organization .07 .24“ .13 .09 *P<.lO **P<.05 98 One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Hypotheses Hypothesis 6: Organizations who have available desktop computers will report significant differences in staff participation in overall product-oriented technological changes and decision-making processes than organizations who do not have desktop computers. Hypothesis 6 indicates that organizations who have available desktop computers will report significant differences in staff participation in overall process-oriented technological change than organizations that do not have available desktop computers. Thus, one-way analysis of variance was used to determine if significant differences existed with respect to the product—oriented technological change processes for those two groups (i.e., desktop computers available and not available). The results are presented in Table 4.3f. As reflected in Table 4.3f, there exist statistically significant differences between organizations who have available desktop computers versus those who do not have these computers available. With respect to each of the product-oriented technological change processes, all turned out statistically significant. The greatest difference appears to exist at the implementation stage (F = 6.23. p < .05). Thus, it appears that participation in technological change is more prevalent in organizations that have available desktop computers. Hypothesis 6 is thereby supported given the nature of these findings. Table 4.3g, on the other hand, examines the relationship between organizations who have available computer-based technology versus those who do not and compare these different groups to process-oriented technological change. The findings from Table 9 9 4.3g, though not part of hypothesis 6, show no significant difference between groups and their relationship to process-oriented technological change. Table 4.3f One—way Analysis of Variance of Computer-based Technology (Product- Oriented) Available Versus Not Available by Product-Oriented Technological Change Process Product-oriented (Computer-based) Technological Change Process N Mean SD. F-Ratio (Staff participation in Decision-Making) Innovation (CT) Available 77 3.54 1.07 356* Not available 7 2.71 1.45 Adoption (CT) Available 76 3.38 1.02 296* Not available 7 2.65 1.46 Implementation (CT) Available 77 3 .62 1.02 6.23” Not available 7 2.57 1.55 Transference (CT) 75 3.32 1.1 1 Available 3 00* 7 2.54 1.49 Not available *P < .10 "P < .05 N = 110 overall 100 Table 4.3g One-way Analysis of Variance of Computer-based Technology (Product- Oriented) Available Versus Not Available by Process-Oriented Technological Change Process Process-Oriented (Org. Devel.) Technological Change Process N Mean S.D. F —Ratio (Staff Participation in Decision-Making) Innovation (OD) Available 77 3.49 .91 1.49 Not available 8 3.05 1.48 Adoption (OD) Available 77 3.38 .94 1.1 1 Not available 7 2.97 1.53 Implementation (OD) Available 77 3.39 .94 1.00 Not available 7 3.00 1.53 Transference (OD) 77 3.33 .96 Available .82 7 2.97 1.56 Not available N = 110 overall 101 Tables 4.3f and 4.3g provide answers to the product-oriented and process—oriented technological change process and are not intended to address the decision-making processes. Whereas, Tables 4.3b and 4.3i, on the other hand, indicate that computer- based technology available in organizations versus those where it is not available, are statistically more likely to participate in staff decision-making about product-oriented technological change. However, with respect to the design phase, that is not the case. It appears that even with so few cases, that organizations which do not have available a desktop computer are more likely to participate in the design phases of product-oriented technological change decision-making. Table 4.3i is centered around process—oriented decision-making and indicates that there are statistically significant differences between these two groups within two processes. However, the level of staff participation in process-oriented technological change in decision-making is far greater in the conceptualization phases as opposed to the others. Again, collectively each of these tables appears to support hypothesis 6. 102 Table 4.3h One-way Analysis of Variance of Computer-based Technology (Product- oriented) Available Versus Not Available by Product-Oriented Decision- Making Process Product-oriented (Computer-based) Decision-making Process N Mean S.D. F—Ratio (Staff Participation in Decision-Making) Conceptualization (CT) Available 82 3.49 1.06 8.34** Not available 10 2.42 1.41 Design (CT) Available 78 3.47 1.49 8.25** Not available 9 2.27 1.14 Implementation (CT) Available 79 3.56 1.07 6.18** Not available 8 2.53 1.52 Monitor (CT) Available 80 3.35 1.10 7.61 ** Not available 8 2.18 1.46 Evaluate (CT) Available 77 3.50 1.05 4.50M Not available 7 2.57 1.61 **P < .05 N = 110 overall 103 Table 4.3i One-way Analysis of Variance of Computer-based Technology (Product— oriented) Available Versus Not Available by Process-Oriented Decision- Making Process Process-oriented (Org. Devel.) Decision-making Process N Mean S.D. F -Ratio (Staff Participation in Decision-Making) Conceptualization (OD) Available 83 3.50 .96 5.37M Not available 10 2.70 1.55 Design (OD) Available 80 3.39 1.47 296* Not available 9 2.75 1.01 Implementation (OD) Available 78 3.43 1.69 2.09 Not available 8 2.87 .95 Monitor (OD) 79 3.26 1.35 Available 2.45 9 2.66 1.04 Not available Evaluate (OD) Available 76 3.36 1.05 .84 Not available 7 2.96 1.50 *P < .10 **P < .05 N = 110 overall 104 Hypothesis 7: Organizations who have available strategic planning will report significant differences in staff participation in overall product-oriented technological changes and decision-making processes than organizations who do not have strategic planning. The last four tables examine one aspect of organizational development, specifically, strategic planning. Hypothesis 7 indicates that significant differences will be found between organizations which have available and practice strategic planning versus organizations which do not. Tables 4.3j, 4.3k, 4.31, and 4.4m all examine different aspects of the technological change and decision-making process. For example, Table 4.3j focuses on staff participation in product-oriented (CT) decision-making for technological change while Table 4.3k addresses process-oriented (OD) decision—making for technological change. The findings from both tables indicate that there are statistically significant differences in staff participation in decision-making between organizations which have available strategic planning versus those which do not. Table 4.3j, for example, indicates that there exist statistically significant differences between the groups and the greatest difference lies in the area of transference, with respect to their means and F-ratio. Whereas for Table 4.3k the greatest difference lies in the areas of implementation where the mean difference is .72 and the F-ratio is 9.02, p < .05. With respect to Tables 4.31 and 4.3m, both tables also reveal statistically significant differences between the group at each decision-making phase. Tables 4.31 and 4.3m indicate that the design phase is where the greatest difference exists between groups 1 O 5 Therefore, our overall observation of these findings leads us to conclude that hypothesis 7 should be accepted. Table 4.3j One-way Analysis of Variance of Organizational Development Strategies (Process-oriented) Available Versus Not Available by Product-Oriented Technological Change Process Product-oriented (CT) Technological Change Process N Mean S.D. F-Ratio (Staff Participation in Decision-Making) Innovation (CT) Available 61 3.58 1.01 4.08“ Not available 20 3.01 1.34 Adoption (CT) Available 60 3.47 .96 8.45” Not available 20 2.71 1.17 Implementation (CT) Available 61 3.67 .95 6.32** Not available 20 2.99 1.35 Transference (CT) 59 3.43 1.04 Available 8.87” 20 2.59 1.23 Not available **P< .05 N = 110 overall 106 Table 4.3k One-way Analysis of Variance of Organizational Development Strategies (Process-oriented) Available Versus Not Available by Process-Oriented Technological Change Process Process-oriented (OD) Technological Change Process N Mean S.D. F-Ratio (Staff Participation in Decision-Making) Innovation (OD) Available 61 3.55 .84 4.83** Not available 21 3.02 1.20 Adoption (OD) Available 61 3.46 .86 5.82“ Not available 20 2.87 1.20 Implementation (OD) Available 61 3.50 .86 9.02** Not available 20 2.78 1.12 Transference (OD) 61 3.42 .90 Available 644* 20 2.79 1 .16 Not available **P < .05 N = 110 overall 107 Table 4.31 One-way Analysis of Variance of Organizational Development Strategies (Process-oriented) Available Versus Not Available by Product-Oriented Decision-Making Process Product—oriented (CT) Decision-making Process N Mean S.D. F-Ratio (Staff Participation in Decision-Making) Conceptualization (CT) Available 66 3.57 .98 8.85“ Not available 22 2.78 1.31 Design (CT) Available 62 3.56 1.08 10.89” Not available 22 2.61 1.33 Implementation (CT) Available 63 3.61 1.02 6.40** Not available 21 2.90 1.33 Monitor (CT) 64 3.42 1.06 Available 1023’” 21 2.53 1.24 Not available Evaluate (CT) Available 61 3.56 1.00 6.53** Not available 20 2.85 1.31 “P < .05 N = 110 overall 108 Table 4.3m One-way Analysis of Variance of Organizational Development Strategies (Process-oriented) Available Versus Not Available by Process-Oriented Decision-Making Process Process-oriented (OD) Decision-making Process N Mean S.D. F-Ratio (Staff Participation in Decision-Making) Conceptualization (OD) Available 67 3.55 .89 5.60** Not available 22 2.97 1.28 Design (OD) Available 63 3.49 .94 8.98M Not available 23 2.75 1.18 Implementation (OD) Available 62 3.52 .93 8.28” Not available 21 2.80 1.15 Monitor (OD) 63 3.35 .97 Available 8.82” 22 2.60 1.16 Not available Evaluate (OD) Available 60 3.40 1.00 5.53** Not available 20 2.81 1.18 **P < .05 N = 110 overall 109 Research Cluster 2: The Technological Change Process: Innovation, Adoption, Implementation, Transference. We begin by asking ourselves whether a relationship exists between the technological change process and its corresponding decision-making process. More specifically, research question two examines the overall technological change process more closely. For example, the correlational analysis section focuses on two aspects of the technological change process. First is the relationship between the technological change process and the decision-making process. Second is how support for computer-based technological change and organizational development change affects the technological change process. Correlational Hypotheses Hypothesis 8: The overall relationships between the technological change and decision-making processes will be statistically significant. Table 4.4a provides a detailed breakdown of both the technological change and decision-making process. As mentioned previously, the technological change process consists of innovation, adoption, implementation, and transference, each with both a product-oriented (i.e., hard) and process-oriented (i.e., soft) attribute endemic to their structure. Conversely, the decision-making process consists of conceptualizing, designing, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating a product-oriented or process-oriented 109a 3.5--- 5.27. E. a--- :.£... 5.3 Eomeazc mu.» GE». .3 15 .mo. .3. .0w .mo .vo. “mm. .vo. gno. goo. .No. Back ....0m -1 Lo .mo .hw amo. .NO. «Mm. .mo. umo awn. amO. .Mo .cw. Com .CO on... L6. amo . 3w Imo. :CO .Cw uVO. 9N0. an .05. v5: . 8.385 a; .cx .xm . a. .cw. .22 .9... .E .8. . 3 1.x. .8 Es _. _ l-.CO -1 cwx .mm. «mm «fix. «5%. ex... abm Pam. «mm. 90w. «0%. «Mm CCV. .rw. .9». .ww, .co. .. _w . 3 LE um“. .No. sow. Lm .oo. Ba: .2632 .8, .8. .0w. .v0. .3. 2pm. swo. .mo. .9... .mo. .3. «hw. :zoh ..-nmm l- amm a _0 non. 9m.” umo LVN. oww nmo .wh. 9mm. {00 9N5. Com 6 _0 umx amo. a»? .Nx. and aNAJ «Mm 6M0. QNO. .Mx 0M0 DEN: 26:67.5 .m0 .mc .20 .mo . _o .30 .cc . :5 3.0 3.0 Low .m0 236,—. ulscx it cmx .mo. {cw Ixx .MO «mm. oNO. uwo nNO. «mm omo axh CCU. . _0. .mx .00 «no now two, .60. «mm. nmo. goo. .wn, evo. Em: cwauo afio .NO. 60% 9&0. » _©. cow. «VG. 6N0. .00 69.0. .NO. .60. .50.? -1. _w.... «cm s _O on” em” .NO. 5N5. nwx. 9M0. 9mm «Ow. 6N0. 9mm. Ccm . 3 Li .mo. .50. . SW . 3 ice Lx .m0. .No. .mx #0. En: 3:353:00 £8 a 92.: .25, :5. Ea: .3 _. cow. Us: 35 :8 Us: .28 com es: 829 asea $2.2 REF 5.7.:ch E68295 233.. 256:5 wEwaécaauC EUC xmmUCNE :GZ257 Fax PO Box 43l36l ACCOUNTING 7!";Gnswold / Sutlc l435 3|} 961 1840 Pontiac. Ml 4834} A11) SOCIETY Detroit. MI 48226—3340 September 8, 1994 Dear Colleague: We are providing this letter of support for the research study being conducted by the David Walker Research Institute at Michigan State University. As advocates and technical assistance providers for the nonprofit sector, we truly see the benefits to be gained by your participating in filling out this survey. The purpose of this research is to better understand how nonprofit human service organizations use and perceive technology. We strongly support this study by the Institute. Because technology is changing the face of the nonprofit sector, more research is needed in this area in order to help funders, policy makers, educators, and technical assistance providers become better informed. Therefore, if this research is to be beneficial, we encourage your organization to complete this survey and return it in the pre-stamped and self-addressed envelope. Again, your participation in filling out this survey is needed badly. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (313) 961-1840. President IV/emw Enclosures it! can" hr APPENDIX C SURVEY INSTRUMENT 167 NONPROFIT TECHNOLOGY IN MICHIGAN A SURVEY OF NONPROFIT HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS David Walker Research Institute College of Human Medicine Michigan State University SEPTEMBER 1994 sponsored by Nonprofit Michigan Project David Walker Research Institute 168 IMPORTANT DIRE('I'IONS [his questionnaire is bring drum/ruled In .59!) human .li'n'u (’ (II'j‘HINL‘HIIUIU m llir Iiigun Your am wen is ill be used in a rim/i In di'li'rmmi' Ihi‘ ft/n' U/ I('( hnn/uxi and m use in non r0 1! human t(‘r‘\'l((’ or mm:ulrmu Ihruu ihuul llichr an A .L . Your answers will be kept completely confidential All questionnaires will be returned to Michigan State Universuy in sealed envelopes and “ll“ be kept strictly confidential - If possible, the questionnaire should be filled out by one person in your organization Ideally this should be the Executive Director, or another person who is knowledgeable of the budgets, clients, and types of technology used in your organization . Please try to answer all questions Filling out the questionnaire is entirely voluntary, but complete responses are necessary for a valid study and we hope that you will answer as many of the questions as you can If you have any questions or problems in completing the survey, please call Timothy Akers at (517) 353-30l4, the Davrd Walker Research Institute, College of Human Medicme, Michigan State Universny . When you are finished. please seal the questionnaire in the self-addressed, postpaid envelope that came with it and return it by mail as soon as possible. Questionnaires should be returned to Davrd Walker Research Institute College of Human Medicme Michigan State Unrversrty West Fee Hall. 42! East Lansmg, MI 48824-1317 This questionnaire has 7 sections I ()rganrzauonal Con/ex! II Finances and Funding III Technology and Organizational I)£'\'€I0pm€nl I V Technological Change Dccuron Making 1”. C haracleruncs of (he Populalion Served VI Organizational Structure l’lI Background Information I! should take aboul 25 mmules for you (O comp/ere Thank you [or your lime and t ()(ipcranon 169 51; CT! Qt‘, .L: ()8 (4;-‘hé\llf\.11_()_N_AL EON! EX 1 (Please note Mm! (lllt'SIlOIU in ”HS run-(v slum/ll be thought “I «is It‘ll'lllll‘g’ In lmrh pail! sin/I (full- mid parrmne) and regular volunteers m the iirgli/immim unless OI/le’nt'lSt’ Sltllt’rl in 0 questions ) Q-l. Local organization: (Optional) Name __ _____7‘fi_ ”Hg" _H M-.- ”“1” _ __ will Street _ # H_ _ ____¢9 City. State ___ m _ £3) Zip __ _-__._________ -_ Em Q-2. What year was your organization incorporated? __g fl) Q}. Which of these BEST describe your organization? (circle one number) E3) American Red Cross Urban League Salvation Army Volunteers of America Young Men's or Women's Assocration (YMCA. YWCA. l'W/lA, YMHA) Neighborhood Center/Settlement House (MISSIOILS ct Neighbor Communiry Centers) 7 Thrift Shops (Secondhand and used clothing shops) O‘UiAwN_ 8 Group Homes/Orphanages 9 Missing Persons Service 10. Child Abuse. Prevention of l 1, Adoption 12. Child Day Care 13 Children‘s Service Agency, Multipurpose 14 Prevention of Adolescent Pregnancy 15 Youth SerVIces. Multipurpose 16 Child Development Support Servrces 17 Family Life/Parent Education 18 Single Parent Agencies/Services l9 Farinly Violence Shelters & Services (lnrluding Barre/(d Women 4, Children) 20 Homemaker/Home Health Aid 21 lainily Scrvrces, Adolescent Parents 22 Other, please spec.rfyfi___ Page I 0-4. Q-6. 170 Please note briefly an) additional categories or other description that “ould help in understanding the general nature of your business. -. What best describes the geographical area SERVED by your organization? (please circle only one) 1 County or larger region Area smaller than a county but larger than a mtrnrcrpality or other local Government Whole criy. township or Village City sub-area with more than 25.000 people City sub-area wrth fewer than 25,000 people but more than 5000 City sub-area with fewer than 5.000 people ‘- O‘thbw What is the TOTAL NUMBER of staff who are: (estimates are sufficient) ____ Full-time Paid Staff ___ Part-time Paid Staff ____ Regular Volunteers Overall Volunteers SECIIQNLEIEAIS’QEEW Please give amounts to the nearest $1000. Q-7. For the calendar or fiscal year of 1993, what were the total amounts of your organization’s: (Estimates are sufficient) l993 Calendar or fiscal year Gross annual expenses Gross annual revenues Total assets (property, equipment, etc ) been Total liabilities (loans, debts. etc ) Pagr 2 171 0.3. In l’.-\R’| I. please indicate. from Highest to Lowest, your organization's \l.-\l\ SOURCES OF FUNDING AND in PART 2 the approximate PERCENTAGE they contribute to your budget? (Instructions; Example: Foundations = l. 30 %, United Way (UW) : 2. 2f) ‘7‘, etc...) EARL] BARB Highest to Lowest PERCENTAGE RANK CONTRIBUTED TO LtbLyJ 01mm 1 Government Grants WED $-95, £3) 2 Foundauonts) ___Elt __*% fl 3 Corporate Donations “in ~_% £1) 4. Public Donations ____£D ________M__ g % £3) 5. Federated Campaigns (eg . UW) “b % £3) 6 Fees for Schices __fl “9;, £1) 7. Fundraising Activities ____b _________ % ED 8. Investments & Endowments _____£D % ED 9. Other. _ _ b % E1) 1 TOTAL = 100 ‘70 Q-9. What standard office equipment does your organization have for use by you or other staff? (circle Yes or No, and, if yes, please circle the amount of use.) W About About About I I to S l to 3 Technology time time time Available per per per Wlmmmmm I. Video Machine (VCR. CAMCORDER) Yes No I 2 3 4 5 2. Fax Machine Yes No l 2 3 4 5 3. Telephone System With Conference Calling Yes No l 2 3 4 5 4 Multiple Telephone Lines Yes No l 2 3 4 5 5. Com Machine Yes No I 2 3 4 5 6. Typewriter Yes No I 2 3 4 5 7 Vorce mail Yes No l 2 3 4 5 8 (at phone Yes No l 2 3 4 5 9 Othcri .,. ___ fl Yes No I 2 3 4 5 172 Slt.CI|(),\ .3; 'II‘LCIIEQLLXII and 0R(JANIZ.I"!']'J(.I,\,-\L IIE\. I'.I_,()I’MELJ\."I 0- l0. Please circle either YES or No IF the following COMPUTER HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE EQUIPMENT is or is not available in your organization. and. if you circled yes. please circle HOW OFTEN staff USE the computer equipment. LL YES. thetggmiology is available. ”my ”E ”1‘5 I5 ll 1 SH) by stall: About About About Computer I I to 5 I to 3 Technology time time time Available per per per imammat; 2 any Lear Month tugs Darts- I Desktop Computer, Yes No I 2 3 4 5 2 Portable Computer. Yes No I 2 3 5 3 Laser or Ink Jet Printer ...... Yes No I 2 3 4 5 4 Color Printer ..... Yes No I 2 3 4 S 5 Dot Matrix Printer. Yes No I 2 3 4 5 6 Color Monitor. Yes No I 2 3 4 5 7 Modem (Data/Fax). Yes No I 2 3 4 5 8 Hard Drive Yes No I 2 3 4 S 9 Tape Backup Drive. Yes No I 2 3 4 5 I0 Scanner . ..... Yes No I 2 3 4 5 II CD-ROM ...... Yes No I 2 3 4 5 12 Mouse ... .. Yes No I 2 3 4 5 W (Included in your organization '5 computer system or setup?) I3 Spreadsheet ......... Yes No I 2 3 4 5 I4 Painting/Drawing. Yes No I 2 3 4 5 I5 Presentation Graphics. . ..... Yes No I 2 3 4 5 I6 Word Processor. . Yes No l 2 3 4 5 l7 FinanCiaI/ Accounting .. Yes No I 2 3 4 5 I8 Entertainment/ Education Yes No I 2 3 4 5 l9 Desktop Publishing Yes No I 2 3 4 5 20 Database Management Yes No l 2 3 4 5 Page ‘1 SQEDYILILE Tax Planning/ Presentation 22 Computer-Aided Design 23 Personal Info Manager 24 PIOJCCI Manager 25 Statistical Programs 26 Multimedia 27 Electronic Mail (e-mail).. 28 Internet Service. Q-II. 173 IDES. the tesILneIoiu' is ”available. now until: .5 n user) by mu: About About About (.‘ornputer I l to 5 l to 3 Technology time time time Available per per per 2 ism; m: Mouth was Daily Yes No I 2 3 4 8 Yes No I 2 3 4 5 Yes No l 2 3 4 Yes No I 2 3 4 5 Yes No I 2 3 4 5 Yes No I 2 3 4 5 Yes No I 2 3 4 5 Yes No I 2 3 4 5 Based on YOUR PERSONAL PERCEPTION, please complete the following sentence by circling one number/response to the right of each statement which you think is the most relevant. THE USE of COMPUTER-BASED (equipment) TECHNOLOGY...: Strongly Strongly [21522119 Images: Emma] Ages: Agree Improves the quality of decrsion-making .. . C omplicates the work environment ........... Allows staff to communicate more effectively wrrhin the organization . Increases the overall productivity of the organization Is useless for our organization's purposes Increases the organization s appearance of protesSionalism I 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 I 2 I 4 S Page 5 I III' L51? of ('().\Il’l 'l‘I-‘R-II'ISI'II) (equipment) ’I‘I-t 'Il,\()l.()(il’ . : 174 Strongly [)isagmg Disgigmg 7 Prepares the organization for continuous changes in technology I 8 Provides information to clients at a lower cost I 9 Cost more than the organization Have you personally heard about the INTERNET? is able to afford I I0 ls more cost effective I I I Reduces the number of staff needed to operate the organization . I l2 Reduces overall time of routine work . I I3 Does not help the organization's overall performance . . I I4 Improves the overall quality of service to the clients . I I5 ls of little value overall .. I I6 Allows staff to particrpate more in decrsron'maktng I I7 Allows separate organizations to commumcare more with each other . ,. I I8 Requrres too much iraimng. l Q-IZ. (please circle yes or no) 0- I3 014 II-' YES. please SPCCIfy _ about how to use the Internet? (please circle yes or no) Page 6 I J ls) VJ ls.) IQ I‘J [\J h) Ix) l’l IF YES, have you or your organization thought Strongly Austral Ame Am “.I‘ 'J‘ I75 O-IS. If you or your organization's staff USE the IN'I l-.R\l-§I. please indicate hots beneficial the service is to your organization‘s needs. (Please circle the number Ithlt Ii hes! ilest ribes lhr' Inn-met s ltt’nr'jil in tour organization) Not Not at all Extremely Applicable lisnsfisial Beneficial Beneficial I Networking with other organizations . . .. I 2 3 4 S 6 2 Locating Funding! Grant Information I 2 3 l 5 6 3 Identifying potential employees. .. .. .. I 2 3 4 5 6 4. Community organizing. I 2 3 4 5 6 5 Other__”_ _._ I 2 3 4 5 g, Q-l6. Please circle either YES or NO if the following ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES/TECHNIQUES are or are not USED (PRACTICED in your organization, and. if you circled yes, please circle HOW OFTEN staff USE the technique or strategy. If YES. the technology is available. About A bout A bout Organizational I I to 5 I to 3 Techniques time time time ORGANIZATIONAL Available per per per W 2 New mt Menu) mat Dam I Strategic Planning Methods/Techniques. Yes No l 2 3 4 5 2, Financral Management ........... Yes No I 2 3 4 5 3. Accountingdt Bookkeeping .......... Yes No I 2 3 4 5 4 Grant Proposal Writing. Yes No I 2 3 4 5 5 PrOJect/Program Feasibility Study. .. Yes No l 2 3 4 5 6 Human Resource Planning ......... Yes No l 2 3 4 5 7 Fundraising Development Planmng . .. Yes No I 2 3 4 s 8 Proteul’lannrng . Yes No I 2 3 4 5 9 Operations Planning Yes No I 2 3 4 8 I0 Project/Program Evaluation Yes No I 2 3 4 5 Page I 176 Q-I7. Based on YOUR PERSON/ll- I’lils’f 'l l'I/(IV, please complete the Iolloyying sentence by circling one ntinibt-r(response to the right of each statement \yhich you think is the most releyaiit. IN GENERAL. the USE of ()RGA\I'/..-\'I‘I():\’AI, DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES or STRATEGIES”; Strongly Strongly Disagree LILSAIRLCI.‘ Mattel Agree Am I Improves the quality of decrsion-making I 2 3 4 5 2 Complicates the work CDVII'OIUTICIII ..... I 2 3 4 5 3 Allows staff to commumcate more effecuvely within the organization ....... I 2 3 4 5 4 Increases the overall producuvrry of the organization . ........ . ., I 2 3 4 5 5 Are useless for our organization's purposes . I 2 3 4 5 6 Increases the orgamzation's appearance of professionalism . . . I 2 3 4 5 7 Prepares the organization for continuous changes in technology ......... . I 2 3 4 5 8 Provrdes information to clients at a lower cost . I 2 3 4 5 9 Cost more than the organization isabletoafford..... I 2 3 4 5 IO Are more cost effective , I 2 3 4 5 I I. Reduces the number of staff needed to operate the organization ............. I 2 3 4 5 I2. Reduces overall time ofroutine work.. I 2 3 4 5 I3 Does not help the organization's overall performance .. . I 2 3 4 5 I4. Improves the overall quality of sauce to the clients I 2 3 4 5 I5 Arc of little value overall I 2 3 4 5 I6 Allows staff to participate more in deCIsion-making I 2 3 4 5 I7 Allows separate organization's to communicate more With each other .. . I 2 3 4 I8 Requires too much training I 2 I 4 5 Page 8 I77 Q-l8. In I993. tippi'oumately “hat percentage of your budget “35 spent 0” I. Purchasing (‘oinputer equipment ............. _ _ -W. - ‘7‘ F1: '3 2. Training Staff how to use computers A .. ..... __g‘ A- ”g __ (7t [:33 '3 Training Staff to do Organizational Development (e.g.. Strategic Planning. etc). .24... -_.- t7. £1; 1» Q-I9. Part I: Please circle HOW OFTEN your organization’s paid staff and regular volunteers are proyided the following types of communication and training. Part 2; Please EVALUATE each method as a meam of effectively training your organization's paid staff and regular volunteers in either the use of computer-bued equipment or organizational development strategies. PART I About About About I “05 Ito} PART 2 time times times HALL/1M per per per 591:! has Mann] flesh Darla P291 Eau Creed Liceilem (circle one number a] each) (circle one number a] each) ta ta in it: in 11) Zn in b I On the yob training. I 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 2 Memorandums I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 3 Training manuals I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 4. Written procedures I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 One-on-one consultation l 2 3 4 5 | 2 3 4 6. Focus groups I 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 7 WorkshOps l 2 3 4 S I 2 3 4 8 Seminars I 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 9 Conferences! symposia I 2 3 4 S I 2 ~ 4 I0 Other U _ I 2 3 4 S I 2 ~ 4 Page ‘I 178 U-Ztl, Please answer (his question i/ i'mir organization has n mmpmer lluu often are computers in sour organization used for the following tasks? 15555 \p';( I Writing letters or memos l 2 Writing reports. grant applicatiom or similar papers I 3 Preparing newsletters. publicrty. or other materials for distrihunon l 4 Preparing graphics for display. presentation or other purposes 5 Mailing labels or similar purposes b Managing client lists. inventory or other databases ....... 7 Budgeting or other accounting work I 8 Statistical or other analytical uses 9 Local Area Networks (LAN) IO Email (Electronic mail) . l I lntemet Service (Commercial) 12 Internet Service (Public University or College System) I I (‘ornrnerCial Dial-Up Schice t( ornpuserve, AOL. Prodigy l4 i-reeNet or BBS . , l5 (‘nmmert tat Database SCfVICC H: g . llandsNet, Lexus. etc ) l l Page i0 A bout I time per ha: I‘d [J Ix) I“) IQ k) About I to 5 time per A190”) la.) 9” About I to 3 time per 4 5 4 5 4 D 4 5 4 S 4 5 4 S 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 S 4 5 4 5 4 S 4 S 179 SECI‘IDB 4,; ll;lt.'_l..l_;\s.ll-0§il CAL ELL/159.5 01:19]S.IL).\-_.\IA.I\'L§Q Interim then- it ”es 0] questions are based sole/i on II)! ’R l’lle‘l PT/ONS) Initrttrtirmi «trier e‘lltll question. please circle the number r'orrespontltng to the amount of neutron trio/ting participation employees are II‘II‘OII‘C’II tn For these questioru "stall members " ivtll refer to paid PROGRAiM 57/1 FF. SUPPORT STA FF. AND REGUL4R VOLUNTEERS (Note: OrganizattOnal Development wrll refer I0 all the type of activities previously mentioned that are designed to help strengthen the overall performance 0/ the organize/ton. ) No Moderate Great PARTICIPATION IN Decision Decision Decision WW ‘ N' Making Making Making 1 2 3 :1 5 on. How MUCH DECISION-MAKING INPUT [)0 STAFF HAVE WHEN PARTICIPATING IN "W" ACTIVITIES (E.G.. TIIINKING/CONCEPTUALIZING) ABOUT; I new computer equipment for the organization" , .. . ., l 2 3 4 5 2. new organizational development techmqucs. such as strategic planning, etc_.. I to k;- Q kit 3 how to allocate time. finances, and human resources in purchasing/ Adopting new computer equipment... ., l 'J c,» A U) 4 how to commit time. finances, and human resources in adopting organizational development techniques. . .. I 2 3 4 EA 5 how the new computer equipment is to be used by the organization ................. I 2 3 4 5 6 how the new organizational development techniques are used by the organization... I 2 3 4 5 7. whether to move the new computer equipment or Other technology to another location Wllhln or outside the organization ......... t 2 3 4 5 8 whether to train other staff members within or outside the organization in various organizational development techniques I - 3 4 5 Page I l I80 \o \IfNIl‘IJlt‘ (treat PARTICIPATION IN IIet‘tSIon Decisnin I)t‘tl\l0ll DECISQD’QLLKJNIJ “Mimi: Makm}: Making I 3 3 4. 5 Q—ZZ. HOW’ .\IU(‘II DECISION-AIAKINC INI’l'T IIO STAFF IIAVF. \\'III{.\ PARTICIPA TING IN DESI;ZNIAQJ’_I,,-L\IS (I-I.(;.. DRAFTING PLANS. RULES. FORMS. METHODS. I-ITCI | for new computer eqmpmene | 2 3 .1 5 2 Int New organizational development techniques I 2 3 4 S 3 tor allocating time. finances and human resources in adopting new computer equrptnent l 2 3 4 5 4 for allocating time. finances. and human resources in adopting organizational development techniques . . . . l 2 3 4 5 5 how the computer equrpment Will be used! Implemented I 3 3 4 5 n how organizational development techniques will be used/implemented in work design I 2 3 4 S \J for movmg new computer eqmpment to another location within or outside the organization I 2 3 4 s 8 for designing orgaruzational development techniques for training staff either within or outside the organization .. l 2 3 4 S Q 23 HOW MUCH DECISION-MAKING INPUT DO STAFF HAVE WHEN PARTICIPATING IN DECIDING SEECIEIQAIJJ HQW luff IMBLEMEEIAIIQEOP I new computer equrpment would be used it available to the organization I 2 3 4 s 2 new orgaruranoml development techniques would be used ll available It) the organization I 2 3 I ‘ Page I) 18] .\o :\Ititlet.itt (ilt‘ili I’-\R I It ”i \ I ll )\ |\ Decision l)et I\Itlll Ilet’isttin lll‘k ISIU,\-\Is\ RINLA ngiltiitg .\I'.Il\IIIL‘ \Itilttng I 3 3 -l 3 o 23. lltm \II’( n tit-:(‘tstrr-v-.irtiKrtvr; IM’LIT no S'I‘AI‘I' ll»\\ it \\'III-'_.\ 't'in‘itt PART/(IPA TING IN ngLmrfigjjfj-AfjIjIQA LL) now; 3 time, finances. and human resources are to be used tor newl) adopted computer equipment I 2 ‘~ .1 5 4 time. finances. and human resources are to be used I'or newa adopted organizational development techniques te g . Strategic planning, etc ) l 2 it a 5 5 computer eqtiipment is to be implemented in the workplace (e g . type of work. etc ) I 3 I 4 5 o organizational development techniques such as budgeting. long range planning. etc are to he med throughout the workplace .. I 2 3 4 S 7 computer equipment and other technology are to be located within the organization and applied In other organizations outside . . I 2 3 4 5 8 the dIIICICIIl types of strategic planning. budgeting, financial management. and other techmques are to he used by others within and outside the organization . . . l 3 3 4 5 Q-24. HOW MUCH DECISION-MAKING INPUT [)0 S'IAII HAVE IN D1943! ”28“ng (e.g., watching Qvgfl: I new computer equipment that is available on the market . , , . . . . I 2 3 4 5 2 new techniques used by Other organizations. such as teasihtlity studies. planning. etc I 2 3 4 5 3 the time, linances. and human resources needed alter adopting new computer equrpment . I 2 3 4 5 4 how the organizational development techniques will .itlctt the workplace envuoiirnent Imseil on tune finances. It human resources I .‘ 1 4 5 Page I3 182 \ti \lotlt'rnlt' (Ltt‘al I‘-\R I H'H’A'I'IUN l\ I)“ isitiri Defisiori Decision t)t~1c'Ls'lg);\_'--L\J;\.b’_l_.\'t; Making Algtktttg \Iakitig l 2 3 4 5 ()‘24 ”()\V MlK'II /)I~'('I.Sl();\'-.U/IKI,A\'(; l\/’l"l' [)0 STAFF ”301‘ |\‘ MQISLIQBJDLQ tut... _~s"at_c_lti_ngsz\;e_rlt S how the computer equipment is being usedi'iinplemented in SpCCIflC ways or the way it was intended I 2 I 4 5 o whether the inipletneritanori ol budgeting. planning bookkeeping. and others have an effect on the overall organization I 2 3 4 5 '7 whether the use ol computer equrpment is being taught to other stall Wllhln the organization or outside the organization I a I 4 s 8 whether organizational development techniques are being taught to others Wllhln or outsrde the organizations I 2 3 4 5 Q-ZS. HO‘V MUCH DECISION-MAKING [NWT [)0 STAFF HAVE I.\' I‘IIIHIIIIE'I‘ I . I >: I whether new computer eqmpment is appropriate for the organization‘s goals and ObJCCIIVCS l 2 3 4 S Ix) whether the various types of new organizational development techmques are appropriate to the organization's stated goals and ObjCClIVCS. l 2 3 4 S 3 whether time. finances. and human resources spent on the computer eqmpment are used as intended I 2 3 4 S 4 whether the organizational development techniques are available to the organization if needed I 2 3 4 S S whether staff use the computer equrpmerit as it was originally intended to be used I 2 I 4 .5 o whether stall are practicing the organizational development techniques taught to them I 2 3 4 S Page l4 t)- 2» (i 0—30 184 Hand on the :tpprovrnate IIIIIIIIH'! ol people \tIllf UlL’Ulll/IIIIUII I'Ix’t )\ IIII'S SI‘RVIVI’S tit. “lint I’I5R('I7\‘l Nil \ .I!(‘ l iiiitpt-aii »\ritcric.tits iniiit-i i} ‘IINHIHW (Hr sir/ii. ll’lli'I :\I.iIt' 7 It‘ll? and l-ernale ,7 PD? Alritan Americans (Black) (kt/inirires are suffirit'm) Male V “b? and I-eiitale _, -, 7 .53).) .'\lllt’lit.ln Indians (Nattve't (htrrrriun‘s are su/Jh mm; 1 _ . a Male _,-__- fl.) and I‘erttale _______ t3 .) Ianno Americans (Hispanic) (Estimates are .tuflir rent) Male -.M £5? and Female 513? Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (Estimates mr iii/fluent) Male __.________._b? and Female _ 913? ()ther please sp€C|f)'_, (Estimates are sit/fit It'll!) Male __ £13? and Female ED? Please rate the quality of sour organization's relationship with: {t'lli :7 (”If IIHITI’V‘I fr)! c'rlt h} I’ooi I .a it laws! L see [lent £3) fit 12’» I?» The COMMUNITY its located in ., . I The CLIENTS it serves l Volunteers Paid Sta". _ ()tht‘t Nonprofit Org's I oundarions I out Government wdwflwdww bbbbbbbb 'u lg F.) P4 'u VJ Pg ha ltusiriesses in the area I’Jt‘t' I" 185 stir on i, outlast/a t It)\ \I. stitt ( rt RI. U H I'lt‘dse iriditate ultelltt't \Ulll organilatioii has -\\.\lls.-\IIII. tht lormal dot tinierits listed ANII uhetht-r your organization's personnel consider them I.\II’(IR'I A \‘1': .-\t atlaltle £52 m: In {13) £3 143) Not Somewhat \er} .13.} >42 IIIIPS‘IIJIII “11”)er IIIII‘I‘IIJDI IIIIPSIIIIIII I A \N'rttten Vision Statement \ N I 3 s d 3 A Written Mission Statement \ N I 2 3 4 .l Iimployee s Manual 3 N l 2 3 4 4 Strategic Plan Y N l 2 ‘t 4 5 Job Descriptions \ N I 2 ‘s 4 6 Program Policies and Procedures Manual \ N l 2 3 t1 7 Accounting Procedures Manual i X N I 2 3 a 8 InvestmentPolicws Manual Y N l I 3 4 9 Technical Manuals for Computers \ N I 2 3 4 Q32. In each category, please indicate the number of people in sour organization WHO PROVIDE technical support/expertise for computer hardware and/or softuare'.’ -2 _,- Full-time paid stall _. Part-time paid stall ___ Regular volunteers _ We pay outside consultants Q-33. Approximately, how many people IN YOUR ORGANIZATION are... (Mommies are sufficrem) European Americans (White) ___ _ {in _ _‘ Em Alrican Americans (Black) [3) - {It Iatino Americans (Hispanic) , £1) E]: American Indians (Native) ‘3) £73 Asian Arnericans/I’acilic Islanders £1) £3; ()thei Minority _ ('31) in .7 Page I i 186 U .N Ilasetl on the setsitt-s \tlltl organization pros IIII'\. .irt pili responsibilities and tasks .‘sIIARI I) In (IIIH'I stall triettihers and regular solttrtteers 0R are IIH‘\ more specialilt‘tl .HItI perlorittetl In onls one or a less IsI'.\ PEOPLE? K2) in ('3) £3) Neter Sonic-titties (Ilten Ver} often ll.i ‘ mm >[IIIICII EDQII'II I Iltidi'ctttii: tlc‘t istotts I 3 3 .1 3 Program trianageinent I 2 I 4 I I'undiaisirig I 2 ‘t 4 4 (iraiitwrittng l 2 l 4 5 Strategic [)IJIIIIIIll.‘ I 2 t 4 6 ”their“- I 2 3 4 Q-JS. Please CHECK each level of authority it the position ex'ut in your organization on either a paid lull-time or part-time bases. (please check each posmon that (m! in tour organizanon) Check/ Protect ManagertsflSupers mu r, \- Ix) Program Manager(s)-’Supeis m-risi Program I)trector(s) Deputy Directorlsl I:‘l’(tlll\‘C Directorls) \‘ice Presidentts) PresidentICltl) begets/teens ()ther(s), please spec Il‘. 0-36. How many other, separate Human Serum Agencies does your organization operate in different locations? In 0-37. On average. how much education would mu consider the following groups within the organization to have? Lessthan Lite!) Some £91m: Advanced highschool bchgvl (.otlcee purses Dram; Regular Volunteers l 3 4 5 Support Stall l L‘ - 4 3' Program Stall I .‘ 4‘ 5 Managerrteiit stall l 3 4 3 I tiet tIIl\‘t' Stall l I ~' ‘3 Iltiattl ttl I)lI{'t hits I .7 1 S Page i8 187 L) IS lltm riiarn pattl stall and regular \tiltititeers report directl} to the l‘,\ttllll\l' lIItet lllllv' rem SEC-I IQ) 7. _BACKGBQL-TE'DJIV ‘ R\ I )5; In order to find our firm drj/ererit Lurdt 0] people at nonprofu organizations feel about dr/ferenr technology issuet. he would appreciate your answers to some background questions. As will) all information in this tune), AltHJI answers to the following questions will be 5.1:;PI,,;5]RILJ_LZ' LQA‘H [ILA] [:1 L (139. What is _sour age" -,, seats [in 040. Are you: I Male 2 Female ()4! “Ital is your title'.’ Q—JZ Please circle _sour main position in the organization: ((rrr le on!» one) I l’ull time Paul 2 Part time I’ard 3 Regular Volunteer 4 Board member 5 Other, please specrly" ___ _ --__.__._ 0-43 Overall, how long have you been with this organization" __ _ Years b 044. “Ital Ls your race or ethnic background? (please (rrcle on!) one) Iurtipeari American (White) Alritan American tlllaelt) ,4 r, -. Asian Arnertt art/'l’ac rlit Islander 4 latrntt Mnetrt Jti t‘llispartrt I 5 American Indian tNtittse‘ (t ()Uier Mttitirits P.‘ I't‘ I (J 188 ()4? Please cite It the highest lesel til etlitt .it-uti \(tI rrtrrrpliterl'.’ I. IN I: t’lll\ .me’) less than high school Iltglt Scllttttl Ilatlc’rViltJIttinJI It‘cll School ’; IJ .. J Some college " Iryear Associates degree It Bachelor [s degree I ass degree 5 Masters degree Q Medical degree l0 Hi I) or equrvalerit I l ()l/le’r. please sper‘r/x _ 046 Please circle the annual salary range of your organization's executiie director in I993? l 820.000 or less 2 $20,00l to 535.000 3 835.001 to $50000 L- $50.00I to 375.000 - 375.001 to $150,000 h Greater than SISODOO 047. It. for example. an annual one day conference on technology and the nonprofit sector was held in Michigan, would your organizational leaders. including yourself. attend? (Please circle your response) I \es . .> tl yes. approximately how much would you consider to he a reasonable registration lee" s» _ _.-,---.d_-_ I No 048 If you would like to have a summary copy of th5 study. please indicate by circling yes and providing your name and mailing address. PLEASE REMEMBER, as Wh all information in Mrs survey. your answers will be W W I Yes > Name “w, ., -, _ _ ‘ WW- , £33 3 No Address .. ‘ - , 7 [’3] ( ity. State. lipcode . , . £3) THANK YOU VERY MI] I: FUR \Ol .< 'I l\lli7!' I, ii": .‘lI APPENDIX D REMINDER POSTCARD 190 05252.. 7.0.05... 582 >50E... .9085 .530 g Q\ >03. 50 c. “58.0.50 .0. 3:93 5 :0 .355 a. 50:. 50> 6.0.3 0.3 _ 2 .>_8m.00EE_ 50> 0. 50 0:0 0:3 ...3 03 0% ¢ .0m.mmm-> . m :3 33.0 >55. 0.... 02008 .0: 0.0 50> 00:20 050. >0 ._ 5 an? 0.3 5.5.8.: ...: .0. £30.00". 050:.» 50 530,. 83.0 .>0>5a 00.0325 50> BESS >38? 02... 50> .. .3 506803 5.0.03 >o>5n 50> ”0.3000. 05.0053 0.503 03 .59.. 50> «>2 0. >05: 50 0. .335 n. a. .0505 .00.». 50> .0 2063 a 35 35352 new 50:5: :25 a >20 0. 53 :02. 3.. a. 0535 5053.530 335m :35: 505002 .0 >925 < 53.5.2 c. 52050,...» ....05:02 :0 00.500 50> 3.0.03 5.5.590 50> .0 .9085 02508... 05 0. 00:2: 23 >35. a 2533. 2...: .2 ages :3. __mI 00. .83 .N¢ 00.0.00: :25... .0 mum=0u 5.302;: 83m $96.2 3.3...52. IUmpm_er_1t_an_d ch ___iang e (3rd ed). St. Paul: West Publishing Company. Jog Joh; Kan Kan Lam h Manst Aliehre A’Ieistjl 196 Joglekar, P. (1989). Operations planning and control. In L.E. Miller (Ed), WWWP- 153-166). New York: Quorum Books. Johnson, I. & Lucarelli, M. (1994, February). Computers and Information Technology in the Non-Profit Sector. Community Jobs: lfhe National l w t c r. 5(1), pp. 1-5. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The ehange masters; Innovation £4 entrepreneurship W. New York: Simon & Schuster. Kanter R. M. & Summers, D. V. (1987). Doing Well While Doing Good: Dilemmas of Performance Measurement in Nonprofit Organizations and the Need for a Multi-Constituency Approach." In W. W. Powell (Ed), IheNonpmflLSectsMResearclLflandbook. New Haven: Yale University Press. Keyes,J. (1993). W New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Kling, R. (1991). Computerization and social transformation. Science, W, 16(3), 342-367- Kramer, R. M. (1987). Voluntary agencies and the personal social services. In W. W. Powell (Ed), r: A R ar H nd k (pp. 240-257). New Haven: Yale university Press. Lambright, w. H. (1979). WWW aLtheJoeaLleMel. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Mansell, J. (1986). The other side of new technology. Au Courant, 1(1), 10-11. (From MsinessAbstraets, 28V1197, Abstract No. 04355566) Mehren, M.A., and Lehmann, I.V. (1984). Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology (3rd ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Meisel, 8.1. (1989). Effective communication. In LE. Millet (Ed), WW (PP- 1975218.)- NeW York: Quorum Books. hfisl Mini 1 Nan ()dki Pace Page Pasn Pres: 197 Misa, T. J. 1992. Theories of Technological Change: Parameters and Purposes. WW. 17(1), 3-12. Mitcham, C. & Mackey, R. (1983). Philosophy and teehnology; Readings in _thophrlosoplneaLproblemsbLteolmology. New York: The Free Press. National Academy of Scienc and National Academy of Engineers. (1969). The 1111-. 1 '11' ..11' 1,11? 11 ‘311 1 ‘CO 1 ° O‘V‘ 111en (Publication 1731). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Odiorne, G. S. (1984). W. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pacey, A. (1984). MW. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Page, W. J. (1988). Organizational structure and service delivery arrangements in human services. In J. Rabin & M. B. Steinhauer (Eds), Human W. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. Pasmore, W. A. (1988). - t r 'v . New York: John Wiley & Sons. Preece, D. A. (1991). The whys and wherefores of new technology adoption. Management Deeision, 29(1), 53-58. Pugh, D. S, Hickson, D. J. ,Hinings, C. R. ,,&Turner C. (1969). The context of organizations, AdministratLLSoienoLQLrterly, 1_4, 91- 114. Reshef, Y. Spring 1993. Employees, Unions, and Technological Changes: A Research Agenda. Journal of Labor Researeh, 14(2), 111-129. Rheingold, H. (1993). MW Eleetronie Frontier. New York: Addison-Wesley. Rogers, E. (1982) Diffiasionofjnnovation (3rd ed). New York: The Free Press. Ros Rot RO‘ Sin Ste Sui Sul Th. 198 Rosenberg, N. (1976). Perspeetives on teehnology. London: Cambridge University Press. Rothstein, P. (1993, August). Use of the Internet 1n non- profit enterprise. Internet Use 1n Foundations. r rv r i c s Sxmnosium. 1-4. Rowan, G. T. & Akers, T. A. (1993). The technological change process and the nonprofit sector. Proceedings of the International gzon ferenee of the 1.. 111 '--, 1 1111 Or--1' 11, ndV11,-.- Aetion (pp. 344-350). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. I Singleton, R. A., Strait, B. C., & Straits, M. M. (1993). AW research (2nd ed). New York: Oxford University Press. Steinhauer, M. B. (1988). Innovation and change in organizations: The absorbing and sustaining of new attributes. In J. Rabin & M. B. Steinhauer (Eds), HumanfiemeesAommrstranon. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. Sufrin. S. C. (1966). Ieshniealsssistaneegneonrandguinelines Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. Suhrke, H.C. (1993). A crossroad for private entities that serve public PUFPOSCS- IhLEhilanLhLQnLMthlx. 26(4). 5-16. Tapscott lD &Caston A (1993) WWW informationjeehnology New York: McGraw- Hill, Inc. The Newsletter for the C .S. Mott Foundation's "Community Foundation & Neighborhoods Small Grants Program." (1991, Spring). "Using technical assistance to strengthen neighborhood grants programs and neighborhood organizations." Bartner. Minneapolis, MN: Rainbow Research, Inc. Tornatsky, L. G & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adOption: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE :1 ransactionsion EngmesringManeseinem February. 29. 28-45 Tucl Upl‘ Vat w 1 \v - \V \I ( 199 Tucker, D. J., Baum, J. A. C. &Singh, J. V. (1992). The institutional ecology of human service organizations. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.,) flu unma Seryic ces as Complex Qrganiaati ton (pp. 47- 72). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Uphoff, N. (1986). Loeal institutionalgiev vtzelopmen an analytieal soureebook with eases. West Hartford Conn: Kumarian Press. Van Til, J. (1988). WWW eeonomy. USA: The Foundation Center. Vic, N. J. (1988). Technology, philosophy, and the State: An overview. In M. E. Kraft & N. J. Vig (Eds), Ieehnology_and_Rolitios (pp. 8-32). Durham and London: Duke University Press. Weiss, RM. (1989). Organizational structure in human service agencies. In LE. Miller (Ed), WW (1)11 21-38). New York: Quorum Books. Wilson, M. I. (1991). W. East Lansing, MI: Urban Affairs Program & Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, Michigan State University. Woodward. J. (1965). WWW London: Oxford University Press. York. R. O. (1982). BMW Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. "‘1111111111111111: