' '3‘3I3 ANSTATE UN IEV IIIjIIIII III IIIIII II IIIIII 31293 01593 9949 g-l-A—I ‘n-7 1.__--_ ..-A i 1“¢_'.'t-A_ _:f,_‘- i '3..-’.._- “-91-. . ‘ " . r This is to certify that the dissertation entitled FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED BUSINESS, INDUSTRY, AND GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS WHEN CONTRACTING WITH A COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOR THE DELIVERY OF CUSTOMIZED TRAINING PROGRAMS presented by Olga Holden has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Educational Administration -/’ -IT 7%” ,1- /‘/fi 4 / L/\\ j Major professor Richard E. Gardner Date March 1985 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to MSU LJBRARJES remove this checkout from —_ your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. If“: .w"""""';*- 1.6;? "I “ 3 {3'4 .‘ '. I. g, III-mmgm . 39-082092 g MU ,1.) ",1 _. -v t §~ 071 ‘75 l A, 1:». I ~. V. .. y} C” ‘3 ’E‘W 5" ,4 "fl hi g’.‘ K's. J (3;,- \LJ FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED BUSINESS. INDUSTRY, AND GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS WHEN CONTRACTING WITH A COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOR THE DELIVERY OF CUSTOMIZED TRAINING PROGRAMS By Olga Holden A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration l985 Sflr7 ‘/o ABSTRACT FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED BUSINESS. INDUSTRY. AND GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS wHEN CONTRACTING WITH A COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOR THE DELIVERY OF CUSTOMIZED TRAINING PROGRAMS By Olga Holden The purpose that guided the researcher was to determine the factors that influenced business. industry. and government organiza- tions to contract with the Management Development Center (MDC) at Lansing Community College to develop and deliver customized training programs. Further. the research was intended to determine if differ- ences existed between private- and public-sector organizations and between single- and multiple-user organizations concerning important factors. I The study was based on market research. which studies the buying practices of clients to enable the seller to make effective decisions for future product development. delivery. and marketing. The findings can guide community college and other educational training units as they develop and build collaborative relationships with business. industry. and government organizations. The organizations involved in this study were the 29 private- sector and 18 public-sector organizations that had contracted with the Olga Holden MDC to develop and deliver one or more customized employee-training programs between 1982 and 1984. Since similar research had not been conducted. a survey ques- tionnaire was developed and validated through a review of literature. a panel of experts. and a pilot study. The final questionnaire had 32 factors. 12 of which were added to those found through the literature review. The major findings were as follows: l. All 32 factors had a relatively high level of importance for the responding organizations. Factors of highest importance included trainer skills and expertise. confidence that the trainer would deliver the training as planned and proposed. flexible scheduling. proposals clearly stating training objectives and outcomes. curriculum customized to meet client needs. and program delivery emphasizing student involvement and participation. 2. A number of factors. in addition to those found in the literature. were found to be important in the delivery of customized training. Such new factors were training-unit recognition and reputation. delivery by an academic institution. optional achievement/ completion certificates. use of appropriate equipment and facilities. and program follow-up by the training providers. 3. Significant differences between (1) private- and public- sector organizations and (2) single- and multiple-user organizations were found on 3 of the 32 factors examined. This dissertation is dedicated to my three daughters. Karen. Kristine. and Beth. for whom my legacy is that lifelong education is both a privilege and a right. AjféNOWLEDGMENTS It is with deep appreciation that I thank Dr. Richard Gardner. who began as my major professor and advisor and has become my friend and colleague. Sincere thanks are expressed for the support and encouragement I received from him and from my committee members: Professors Howard Hickey. Richard Featherstone. and Robert Poland. Special thank-yous are given to those people who served in various roles. all important. throughout the entire Ph.D. program: Judith Taylor. who started as my "999" professor and continued to guide me through the research and statistical analysis to the very end. Vivian Keeney. my friend and typist. whose endless hours of typing produced countless finished pages during these past several years. My special friends and colleagues: Carol Gear. who knew long before I that I would "complete the requirements" for a Phil. and Marge Zibbel. who always challenges me to be all that I can. My husband. Blair. who encouraged me to "go the distance." and our three daughters. who accepted with pride having a "school" mom. It is through the encouragement of each of these individuals that."Continuing Education" brought new meaning to me. both as a major course of study and as a real living goal. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TMLES O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 0 Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCT ION O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction to the Study Statement of the Problem Need for the Study . . Research Methodology . Research Questions . . Definition of Terms . . Limitations . . . . . . Overview of the Remainde of th D A0000000 fi000000 0 r a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Need for Lifelong Education and Training Involvement of Community Colleges in Continuing Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Marketing Orientation for Community Colleges: Concepts and Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . Important Factors to Organizations When Contracting for Customized Training Programs . . summa ry O O I O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design and Development of the Survey Instrument Identification of the Factors . . . . Validation of the Survey Instrument . Construction of the Survey Instrument Collection of the Data . . . . . . . . Reliability Analysis . . . . . . . . . Data-Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . Page vi -—l C‘OGDNU'IU‘l—n ,H/lz, I3 13 13 l4 l6 20 22 23 23 25 25 3O 35 36 38 Page IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Demographic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Analysis of Data for Primary Research Question . . . . 4l Analysis of Data for Group Relationship Question 1 . . 49 Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Category Means Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 "Free Choice" Category Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . Sl Analysis of Data for Group Relationship Question 2 . . 54 Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Category Means Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 "Free Choice" Category Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Supplementary Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 V. SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . 65 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Recommendations for Practical Applications . . . . . 77 Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . . 79 APKNDICES O O O O O O O O O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 8O SELECTED BIBLImRAH-IY O O I O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 90 9. 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Reliability Coefficients for Categories A Through J and Inconsistent Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Private- and Public-Sector Organizations used 1" the StUdy I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Frequency of MDC Use by 47 Private and Public Client Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means of 32 Factors From Survey Questionnaire. Listed 1" Rank order 0 O O I O O O O O C O O I O O O O O O 0 Means and Rankings of Categories A Through J . . . . . . Frequencies and Overall Rankings of Responses to Questions 33 and 34: Most and Second Most Important categories 0 O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O I O O Frequencies and Overall Rankings of Responses to Questions 35 and 36: Least and Second Least Important categor1 es 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 Comparison of Rankings Between Category Means and Free- Choice Responses to Most Important and Least Important categor1es O 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O I O O I O O I 0 Results of the Two-Tailed t-Test of the Factor Mean Scores of Private-Sector and Public-Sector Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of Two-Tailed t-Test of the Category Mean Scores of Private-Sector and Public-Sector Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Frequencies and Rankings of Responses to Most and Second Most Important Categories Between 29 Private-Sector and 18 Public-Sector Organizations . Page 37 4O 41 42 45 47 47 48 SO 52 53 Page Comparison of Frequencies and Rankings of Responses to Least and Second Least Important Categories Between 29 Private-Sector and 17 Public-Sector Organizations . . 55 Results of Two-Tailed t-Test of the Factor Mean Scores of Single-User and Multiple-User Organizations . . . . . 57 Results of Two-Tailed t-Test of the Category Mean Scores of Single-User and Multiple-User Organizations . 58 Comparison of Frequencies and Rankings of Responses to Most and Second Most Important Categories Between 33 Single-User and 14 Multiple-User Organizations . . . 60 Comparison of Frequencies and Rankings of Responses to Least and Second Least Important Categories Between 33 Single-User and 14 Multiple-User Organizations . . . 62 Frequencies and Percentages of Potential Training for 29 Private-Sector and 18 Public-Sector Organizations . . 63 Frequencies and Percentages of Potential Employee- Training Groups for 29 Private-Sector and 18 PUbI‘IC-SBC'IZOI‘ orgafllzatlons 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o o 0 o 64 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION WW Community colleges need to be involved in the continuing education and training of the workforce of business. industry. and government organizations for two reasons. First. the demand for lifelong continuing training and education is increasing rapidly. paralleling the changes brought about by growing technology. Second. if community colleges are to maintain their primary role as community educators. they must respond to these growing nontraditional lifelong educational needs. This response includes establishing partnerships with business. industry. and government organizations to provide training or retraining for their workers. The first of ten megatrends Naisbett (1982) enumerated is "a megashift from an industrial to an information-based society!’ He noted that most of the other nine megatrends are consequences of this single most important change: America's transformation into an information-based society. According to Naisbett's theory. as America shifts from industrial production to providing information and serv- ices. workers will be less likely to remain in the same job or profes- sion for life. but will be forced to seek retraining again and again to remain current in technological changes. Reich (1983) stated. "the important point is to integrate retraining with industrial changeJ' Increasingly. business. industry. and government organizations are providing their own training and education programs. The most common are programs customized to meet specific company and employee needs. delivered at convenient times by qualified instructors (Brickell & Aslanian. 1981). Estimates of the amount of money spent annually by these organizations for employee training vary; however. many authori- ties believe that the amount is equal to or exceeds the $60 billion currently spent on all of higher education (Lynton. 1982). Gorowitz (1982) estimated that business and industry spent $20 to $30 billion on formal employee training and as much as $100 billion on on-the-job training in 1982. Many of these organizations have stated they want educational institutions to exercise a greater role in employee educa- tion and training (Brickell & Aslanian. 1981). Community colleges. generally flexible and responsive in pro- gram delivery. are in an ideal position to establish collaborative relationships with business. industry. and government organizations to help meet the growing education and training needs (Warmbrod & Faddis. 1983). However. to respond effectively to changing continuing educa- tion needs. community colleges must understand what factors are important to the business. industry. and government clientele in the planning. development. and delivery of customized training programs (Brickell & Aslanian. 1981). Community colleges should consider adopting a marketing orientation. That is. they need to develop and deliver services in response to the requirements of their clientele. not to offer services educational institutions perceive to be needed. Philip Kotler (1980). considered by many to be the "father" of public-sector marketing. used the following definition of marketing for community colleges: Marketing management is the analysis. planning. implementation and control of programs designed to create. build. and maintain mutu- ally beneficial exchanges and relationships with target markets for the purpose of achieving organizational objectives. It relies on a disciplined analysis of the needs. wants. perceptions and prefer- ences of target and intermediary markets as the basis for effective product or program design. pricing. communication. and distribu- tion. (p. 22) The present study was based on two primary marketing concepts that apply to all organizations. including educational ones (Kotler. 1982L. First. an organization must know itself well--its purpose. mission. and capabilities. Second. an organization must understand the buying behavior of its c1ientele--how customers make buying decisions and why they have chosen to buy a particular product or service. By charter. community colleges were established to respond to the educational needs of the communities they serve. The mission statement of the community college used in this study is typical of that Of many other comprehensive community colleges. It states in part: Lansing Community College is committed to the idea that education today is a lifelong process. With their diverse personal and career needs. students demand from the educational marketplace relevant instruction. flexible scheduling and individualized services. 'The college believes it must respond with instruction that has quality. timeliness and relatively low cost. To meet this commitment. the college works closely with business. industry. labor. government. community agencies and educational institutions. The college measures its vitality by how well it responds to the students and community. (Lansing Community College Catalogue. 1983. p. 6) Each division. department. or unit within a community college is responsible for helping the college accomplish its mission through the goals and objectives it sets. Although broader in scope. the activities of the Management Development Center (MDC). a Lansing Community College Business Division department. are similar to those of other community-outreach divisions/departments found in comprehensive Michigan community colleges. The mission of the Management Development Center is to serve indi- viduals and business. industry. government and non-profit organiza- tions in the community with a wide range of resources. professional advising and training services for improving organizations and for developing a quality workforce. (Management Development Center. 1982. n.p.) Clearly. community colleges have a mandate to be involved in the continuing education and training of the workforce of business. industry. and government organizations (Cosand. 1981). Such involve- ment includes delivering programs customized to meet specific client needs. Although it is important to understand the buyer behavior of the clientele one seeks to serve. it is equally important to understand the buyer behavior of present users (Worcester. 1972). What is learned by studying the buying behavior of.present users can serve as a basis for making decisions regarding future program development and delivery. Fidler (1982) supported this premise by asking: What conclusions can be drawn from examination of current industry and education relationships to project impacts that community colleges can reasonably expect to generate with business and industry in the future? (p. 23) W The purpose that guided the researcher was to determine and examine the factors that have influenced private- and public-sector organizations to contract with Lansing Community College's Management Development Center (MDC) to develop and deliver customized training programs. For the MDC to accomplish its mission of providing continu- ing education and training for the workforce of community public- and private-sector organizations. client needs must be understood. Assump- tions can be drawn from current literature. but more specific data are needed concerning the reasons area organizations have selected the MDC to deliver customized training to their employees. ISuch information can lead to more efficient program management and result in more effec- tive service delivery. NssdJOLthLStudx Much has been written about the need for cooperation between educational institutions and business and industry. A recent College Board publication. W (1983). included 60 college- employer profiles. Cross (1981) and Brickell and Aslanian (1981) are leading proponents of the concept that colleges should establish coop- erative relationships with business and industry organizations. Cross emphasized the need for higher education institutions to understand the diverse and specific needs of these organizations and to respond with education and training that is customized in terms of content. delivery. place. duration. and time. Brickell and Aslanian noted changes that are needed in traditional higher education delivery. They also suggested that colleges borrow marketing techniques from the private sector to assess their markets. This would include studying current markets to identify the reasons buyers have chosen particular products or services (Kotler. 1982L Although the need for cooperative relationships between higher education institutions and public— and private-sector organizations has been stressed. research has been limited to descriptive surveys in which a cooperative relationship was just one of several topics within a broader study. Darkenwald (1983) stated: Clearly. educational institutions play a prominent role in the continuing education of the nation's workforce through cooperative programming with business and industry. However. industry's per- ceptions concerning fruitful areas for cooperative ventures and of factors that deter or facilitate linkages with educational organi- zations have not to date been carefully examined. Research tar- geted specifically on these questions could be of value to continuing educators who wish to initiate. expand. or improve cooperative programming with private sector employers. UL 231) A need exists for research that focuses specifically on collaborative relationships between educational institutions and business. industry. and government organizations. Writers generally refer to "business and industry." "industry." or "private sector" when discussing the need for linkages with educa- tional institutions. College Board (1983) employers are divided into two major categories: (1) business and industry and (2) government agencies and voluntary associations. The present research included "government" and other public-sector nonprofit organizations. inasmuch as they were part of the clientele studied. These organizations can be considered a potential market for training or retraining because their employees constitute nearly one-fifth of the total United States work- force (Verway. 1982—83). Parnell (1982) acknowledged the importance of including both sectors. public and private. by using the term "employ- ers" when he discussed cooperative relationships with educational institutions. In the present research. organizations were categorized into "public" and ”private" sectors. W The population for this study comprised the 50 business. industry. and government organizations that had used the Management Development Center at Lansing Community College to develop and deliver one or more customized training programs for their employees from July 1. 1982. through March 31. 1984. ‘The training programs were clustered into eight areas: Management. Supervision. Marketing. Sales. Personnel Management. Small Business Management. Computer Training. and Board Leadership. A survey instrument in the form of a questionnaire was devel- oped for use in this research. The questionnaire included a list of 32 factors identified through a review of literature and validated by a panel of experts as important to client organizations when selecting a community college to deliver customized training programs. The 32 factors were clustered into 10 major categories. Respondents were asked to rate each factor on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from Extremely Important to Not At All Important and to indicate the most important and the least important of the 10 categories. IAdditional demographic data such as type of organization and number of uses of the M00 was also gathered. These variables were analyzed to determine the nature of relationships between them. The survey was administered to the individual from each client organization with whom the Management Development Center staff had primary contact. This person generally made initial contact and was responsible for planning the training program. The survey was admin- istered by mail. with a telephone follow-up to nonrespondents. Because of the on-going working relationship with many of the respondents. a high rate of return was anticipated and attained. The response rate was 94%. W This research is a study of client organizations that have used the Management Development Center of Lansing Community College to provide customized training programs for their employees. The primary question that influenced the direction of this study was as follows: "What were the important factors that influenced business. industry. and government organizations to use the Management Development Center of Lansing Community College~to deliver customized training programs for their employees?" The following three questions also provided direction for the research: 1. Are there differences in the importance of factors between private- and public-sector organizations? 2. Are there differences in the importance of factors between organizations that contracted for one program and those that contracted for more than one program? 3. Would client organizations use the MDC to deliver custom- ized training programs in the future? If so. for what content areas and for which employee groups would they do so? We The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this dissertation: EEmmnunlI¥_QQll§ge_nuh11§s: Internal and external groups with identified interests in and/or needs that can be met through the resources of the institution. Internal publics include faculty. staff. administrators. and board of trustees; external publics include stu- dents. taxpayers. and business. industry. and government organizations. Lgmmnun111_ggtreagn_un11: A unit (center. department. or division) whose function is to "reach out" to the community. offering conventional and nonconventional educational programs and services that are generally scheduled at times and locations convenient for the specific client population. W: A higher education institution serving both traditional and nontraditional student populations with a broad range of educational services and programs. 10 ICustomlzed_tra1ndng_prggnam: Educational and training units of varying lengths. with specific goals and objectives. designed and developed to meet identified needs of a particular client group. factors: Those aspects of the planning. development. delivery. and evaluation of training that actively contribute to client satisfac- tion. .Marketlng_nesear§h: An analysis of the buyer behavior of con- sumers for the purpose of making future management and marketing deci- sions. .Erixatezsectgr_gngan1zatign: A business operated privately for profit for the benefit of stockholders. IEUb119:sectgr_grganiza11gn: A nonprofit organization. includ- ing government. religious. social-cause. educational. and cultural organizations. Iraining_pngxiner: A public- or private-sector unit whose primary function is the delivery of training and retraining programs and services. including customized training. Limitations Because only one community college was used in the research. the findings of this study cannot be generalized to other Michigan community colleges. Although it is believed the findings will be helpful to other comprehensive community colleges in program planning and delivery. much depends on the structure of a particular outreach unit and its ability to deliver customized training programs. The MDC 11 is a mature outreach unit with strong institutional support to engage in this activity. Other factors that might have affected the results of this study are as follows: 1. A large segment of the population had some association with the mid-Michigan community collegerused in this research. Seventy-five percent of all individuals living in the community college service area have had some association with the college; they or a member of their immediate family is or has been a student and/or employee of the college. 2. The MDC has been operating for 12 years; thus it is Older than similar units in other community colleges. 3. The community college is located in a capital city/ university area. 4. The fact that the researcher knew the identity of the organizations and respondents included in the study might have affected responses to the survey instrument. 5. The ratings and rankings given by respondents to the level of importance of certain factors and/or categories on the survey questionnaire may be related to the respondents' level of training and expertise and may not reflect organizational beliefs. 6. The inclusive dates of training-program delivery used in this study would automatically place recent client organizations in the single-user category. 12 Wu A selected review of literature is reported in Chapter II. The major sections of the chapter are (1) the need for lifelong education and training. (2) involvement of community colleges in continuing education. (3) marketing orientation for community colleges. and (4) important factors to client organizations when contracting with educational institutions for customized training programs. The design and methodology of the study are presented in Chapter III. This chapter includes a description of the population. the design and development of the survey instrument. and the procedures used to analyze the data. The data collected for the study are presented and analyzed in Chapter IV. Chapter V includes a summary of the research findings. conclusions based on these findings. and recommendations for practical applications and for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Inlnndusllnn This chapter contains a selected review of literature in the following three areas: (1) involvement of community colleges in continuing education; (2)1narketing orientation for community colleges; and (3) important factors to organizations when contracting for customized training programs. To keep pace with the technological changes evolving from the transformation of an industrial society into an information society. lifelong learning is quickly becoming an established concept (Quick. 1983). Adults are increasingly involved in continuing education and training. much of which is work related and is often provided by their employers. Increasingly. business. industry. and government organiza- tions are providing their own employee training. Most often. such training is organization- and employee-specific. with customized con- tent delivered at a time and place convenient to the employees. Although many organizations are providing their own training. a number 13 14 of these organizations would like educational institutions to assist in program delivery (Brickell & Aslanian. 1981). WWO ContinuinLEducatjm Community colleges should be involved in the continuing educa- tion and skills upgrading of the United States workforce for two reasons. First. such involvement is part of their mission as community educators. Community colleges are especially suited to establish col- laborative relationships with business. industry. and government organizations to assist in the delivery of customized training pro- grams. Their mission supports community colleges' commitment to addressing various "community" needs. including those of individuals and business. industry. and government organizations (Cosand. 1981). Jackson (1981) contended that. because of their mission. community colleges should not only stand ready to respond. but should initiate collaborative training and retraining relationships with community business. industry. and government organizations. The economic health of any community depends in part on a well- trained workforce. According to Warmbrod and Faddis (1983). community colleges have an impressive record among higher education institutions of responding to training and retraining needs. However. they are being challenged to take an even greater role in community economic development. primarily through training and retraining activities. Survival is the second reason community colleges should be interested in expanding the "markets" in which to deliver educational 15 services. The traditional student population is changing. The number of high school graduates. once the primary source of new community college students. decreased from 3.2 million in 1977 to 2.8 million in 1982 and is expected to stay at that level (Hodgkinson. 1983). Thus. to maintain their enrollments. community colleges will have to make up the decrease in high-school-graduate enrollment with nontraditional students in nonconventional programs. Numerous case studies have described employee training and retraining programs provided by educational institutions. 'Two current publications have given extensive coverage of programs in which post- secondary educational institutions have established training and educa- tional linkages with business. industry. and government organizations. WW (Brickell. Chapman. & Hoffmann. 1983) described 60 training-by-contract programs delivered by a cross-representation of two- and four-year colleges to a large vari- ety of organizations--businesses. industries. government agencies. and voluntary associations. The "profiles" provide valuable information regarding each of the 60 contracted programs. including students' qualifications and backgrounds. subject and content areas. methods of instruction. composition of the faculty. location. schedule and cost of training. types of program evaluation. kinds of certification. and services provided by the college and the client organization. .Betnain: Manchu—Wu mm (Warm- brod & Faddis. 1983) provided an in-depth examination of successful upgrading and retraining programs in colleges in diverse situations 16 across the country. Community colleges should study such models of successful relationships with business. industry. and government organizations to learn what is important to these clienteles as they decide who will provide their training and retraining programs (Brickell et a1.. 1983). MW Wm To establish and maintain successful alliances with business. industry. and government organizations. colleges must borrow management practices. including marketing. from business (Brickell & Aslanian. 1981). Colleges need to consider adopting a marketing orientation. Kotler (1982) distinguished between a marketing orientation and a production orientation as follows: A production orientation holds that the major task of an organiza- tion is to put out products/services which it thinks would be good for the public and places emphasis on efficiency in production and distribution. particularly sales. A marketing orientation holds that the main task of the organization is to determine the needs and wants of target markets and to satisfy them through the design. communication. pricing and delivery of appropriately and competi- tively viable products and services. (p. 23) McCarthy (1982) believed that. for an organization to adopt a marketing orientation. the first and most important step is a serious commitment to a customer orientation. An organization must think through what it is doing. and why. and develop a plan for accomplishing its objectives. Acceptance of a marketing orientation is a sign of a responsive organization. Kotler (1982) defined a responsive organization as "one that makes every effort to sense. serve and satisfy the needs and wants 17 of its clients and publics within the constraints of its budget" (p. 33). He stated that a responsive organization continuously moni- tors itself and includes as part of its on-going planning and evalua- tion process an analysis of the components of a marketing strategy. which are as follows: 1. Uncontrollable variables cultural and social political and legal economic competitive - resources and objectives of an organization 2. Consumer analysis - target markets - buyer behavior 3. Publics - internal publics - external publics 4. marketing mix product/service promotion/communication price place/delivery Kotler (1982) stressed the importance of continuous analysis of the marketing-strategy components by an organization to adapt optimally to its marketing opportunities. Analysis of the uncontrollable variables includes assessing demographic. economic. social. political. legal. and competitive environments. Consumer analysis includes the person or organization that is the target of marketing effort. It measures total market size and market-segment characteristics and 18 analyzes consumers' decision making with respect to buying behavior. Internal and external publics are those individuals and organizations that affect the institution. Internal publics include faculty. admin- istrators. staff. and boards; external publics comprise community forces such as taxpayers. political groups. legislators. and area business. industry. and government organizations. as well as the stu- dent consumers. An analysis of the uncontrollable variables. the consumer markets. and the institution's publics becomes the core of the market- ing analysis. ‘The marketing analysis includes the same four factors that are studied and considered when establishing an organization mission and that become the basis for effective decision making regard- ing the marketing mix: product development. pricing. place (delivery). and promotion. In the analysis of the marketing mix (product. promotion. price. and place). there must be consistency between each product or educational service and its price. place (delivery). and promotion (communicationh Each element.of the marketing mix is then assessed for its strengths. weaknesses. target markets. and future opportu- nities. To have a marketing orientation. an organization must integrate analysis of the marketing-strategy components into its planning process (Kotler. 1982). The rapidly changing environment requires that an organization continuously analyze the uncontrollable variables and 19 monitor its existing and potential markets if it is to remain produc- tive and viable. In addition to knowing itself well--its purpose. mission. and capabilities--an organization must understand the buying behavior of its clientele: how customers make buying decisions and why they have chosen a particular product or service. Analysis of the buying behavior of existing consumers is based on market research and is referred to as "market measurement" (Worcester. 1972). The primary role of market research is to improve the quality of planning and decision making. Business. industry. and government clienteles want and have many choices of sources for training and retraining programs. including providing their own. Community colleges that want to be involved in the planning. development. and delivery of such programs need to understand this nontraditional market (Worcester. 1972). This is particularly true when colleges are dealing with business and industry. in which marketing practices are a normal part of business operations (Bevelacqua. 1982L If’community colleges are to be successful in providing educational services in a competitive environment. they need to adopt marketing practices (Kotler. 1982). Community colleges have been showing an increased interest and involvement in the marketing process. Numerous articles have described marketing techniques. plans. and strategies. Three recent publications were dedicated entirely to marketing in educational institutions (New WNW. December 20 1981; WWW MAM—1.09.310. 1979; WNW MSW. Spring 1978). All of the sources encouraged adoption of a marketing orientation. particularly as institutions are challenged to adapt to a rapidly changing environment. WW3 Wm: More efficient. effective. and responsible training programs are needed for this country's workers. Community colleges can be involved in the training process. but they must understand important aspects of successful relationships with business. industry. and gov- ernment organizations (Jackson. 1981). Community college personnel need to acknowledge the existence of different philosophies. proce- dures. and practices. Therefore. there is a need for good communica- tion and a clear understanding of each other's points of view. Mutually supportive relationships based on trust and respect should be established. Specific differences between college-business alliances and traditional delivery must be addressed. Degrees are not essential. but relevant learning is the goal. Traditional college programs are often too rigid and the content too theoretical. Teaching methods need to be tailored to adult learners. Cross (1981) pointed out the need for greater emphasis on student involvement; tailoring of methods. course length. and course curriculum to individual needs; and increased use of 21 instructional technologies. Attention must be given to quality in program planning. development. and delivery. Brickell and Aslanian (1981) wrote. "Colleges will have to abandon current ideas about how. when and where to teach. Traditional classroom instruction . . . will not meet most of the needs" (p. 18). What factors are important in cooperative relationships between business. industry. and government organizations and educational insti- tutions? The information found in the review of literature can be clustered into 10 categories: 1. Pre—Program Planning Process 2. Responsiveness 3. Scheduling 4. Location 5. Cost 6. Academic Credit 7. Curriculum Content 8. Instructional Delivery 9. Instructional Techniques 10. Evaluation T. J. Settle (1981). Director of NCR Corporation's Management College and Career Development Center. offered the following advice to colleges that want to establish cooperative relationships with busi- ness. industry. and government organizations: Colleges that want to work with companies will have to seek company business. study company needs. adjust curriculum. modify time 22 schedules. teach exceedingly well and remember that what a company values most is training that shows up in better Job performance. (p. 2) £1.1an Community colleges and business. industry. and government organizations can all profit from good working relationships. Because of its public-service mission. the community college should take the initiative in developing these relationships but first must develop a readiness for thenu Readiness for developing effective working rela- tionships can be attained by considering the important factors involved in working with business. industry. and government personnel to plan. develop. and deliver training and retraining programs. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Intooouotjon This study was undertaken to determine and examine the factors that influenced private- and public-sector organizations to contract with Lansing Community College's Management Development Center (MDC) to develop and deliver customized employee-training programs. The study was based on marketing research. in which the buying practices of’pa§t_ clients/are studied to enable the seller to make more effective (decisions for future product and service development. delivery. and marketing strategies. This chapter includes a description of the study population. the design and development of the survey instrument. col- lection of the data. and procedures used to analyze the data. EoouJotJon The population for this study comprised the 50 business. industry. and government organizations that contracted with Lansing Community College's MDC to deliver one or more customized employee— training programs between July 1. 1982. and March 31. 1984. The cus- tomized training was contracted. scheduled. and delivered to these client organizations on an "as-needed" basis to meet their specific employee needs. The respondent from each organization was the person 23 24 with whom the MDC staff had primary contact in contracting and planning the training program. The organizations included in the study were grouped into two categories: private sector and public sector. The literature gen- erally referred to "business." "industry." or "business and industry." with occasional references to government and nonprofit organizations. To best describe all of the organizations used in this study. the private- and public-sector categories were chosen. A private-sector organization was defined as a business operated privately for profit for the benefit of stockholders; a public-sector organization was defined as a nonprofit organization. including government. religious. social-cause. educational. and cultural organizations. The time period from July 1. 1982. through March 31. 1984. was chosen for study because it represents a period of stability and con- tinued growth of customized training delivery for the MDC. Customized training was initiated at the MDC in 1981. Early 1982 was a period of program building and marketing to increase visibility in the community college service area. Beginning in mid-1982. the MDC entered a period of stability that included planned continuing growth in the delivery of customized training programs. The customized training program content fell into eight broad categories: management. supervision. board leadership. small-business management. marketing. sales. computer training. and personnel manage- ment; The five employee groups for whom the training programs were delivered were toplnanagement. middle management. first-level 25 supervision. hourly workers. and secretarial/clerical: the majority fell in the middle-management. first-line supervision. and secretarial/ clerical groups. DosJoandMoomonIJLtnoJomansnumonI The core of the survey instrument comprised the factors that were important to client organizations when contracting with educa- tional institutions to provide customized training programs for their employees. ‘The review of literature revealed factors stated by researchers as important for colleges to recognize and/or to perform in the planning. development. and delivery of customized training programs for business. industry. and government organizations. No researcher reported how these factors were determined. nor was any research reported concerning what factors influenced client organizations to contract with colleges to deliver customized training programs. There- fore. this investigator's first task was to develop and validate a survey instrument in the form of a questionnaire to identify these important factors. The following steps were taken in developing the questionnaire. WW Instrument development began with a review of literature related to collaborative relationships between college and community organizations for the delivery of training and retraining programs. The work of Aslanian and Brickell (1982) and Brickell and Aslanian (1981) provided the most relevant information with respect to important 26 factors in successful collaborative college-organization relationships. Identification and validation of the factors followed. and these fac— tors became the basis of the survey questionnaire. The preliminary step was to identify factors in the literature that were said to be important in collaborative college-organization partnerships. The following factors were gleaned from the writings of the identified authors: Aslanian and Brickell (1982) - specific curriculum - scheduling - delivery Bevelacqua (1982) - flexibility responsiveness ability to tailor timely delivery businesslike delivery Brickell and Aslanian (l981) - qualified instructors - customized content - tailored time schedules - convenient location - varied methods - varied instructional materials - evaluation performance/work-based. not grades - evaluation done by peers/supervisors. not instructors - credits and degrees granted for competency rather than course completion Brickell. Chapman. and Hoffman (1983) - on-site location - academic credit hours - instructional variety - flexible time schedules - customized curriculum content - high teaching standards 27 (1981) flexibility in course/program length flexibility in course/program content adult learner differences acknowledged services to off-campus students turn-around time; quick response time college credit reasonable price professional trainers (1981) emphasis on student involvement tailoring of methods tailoring of course length tailoring of curriculum to individual needs increased use of instructional technologies Darkenwald (1983) faculty expertise Jackson (1981) flexibility - mutual planning Lynton (1982) training that results in more productive employees attention to adult learners. based on experiences varied program formats adaptability in time. place. and format of program offerings Palmer (l982) - cost - quality timeliness 28 Warmbrod (1983) cooperative planning of customized program involving community college coordinator and instructor and organization representative flexible scheduling facilities quality instructors location content modes of instruction The 53 factors were analyzed for similarities and consolidated into 35 factors. Next. the 35 factors were synthesized and organized. and similar factors were grouped to form 10 categories. The 10 cate- gories were given content-descriptive titles. The original list of factors was as follows: 1. PRE-PROGRAM PLANNING PROCESS Client needs mutually identified by the client and the MDC Program mutually planned by the client and the MDC Type of training mutually determined. based on desired end goals of client Objectives clearly stated in proposal Planning meetings. proposals. and confirmation letters con- ducted and presented in a professional way 2. RESPONSIVENESS - Quick response to request for proposal - Timeliness: training delivered when needed 3. SCHEDULING Tailored time schedules (hours) Flexibility in course length Length of course determined by specific client needs Starting and ending dates scheduled to meet client organi- zation needs 29 LOCATION - Choice of campus or on-site location for training - Campus classrooms are "seminar" rooms furnished with tables and chairs which can be arranged in configuration to meet particular training needs COST - Reasonable prices for value received - Prices competitive or lower than other vendors - No additional charge for granting academic credit if applicable ACADEMIC CREDIT - If the training program meets academic requirements. college credit may be granted as an option to the client CURRICULUM/CONTENT - Curriculum is customized according to program objectives. which are set to meet specific requirements of client - Flexibility in program development that could include some portions of program to be planned and delivered by client organization staff - Tailored curriculum to address individual employee needs: i.e.. examples. case studies. etc.. are related to employee's organization INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY - Trainer has expertise (academic and experience) in content area - Trainer knows and uses adult learning principles (i.e.. facilitates learning process rather than lecturing) - Trainer uses training techniques to address needs of adult learners - Trainer has good "stand-up" presentation skills - Trainer facilitates learning through varied delivery tech- niques - Trainer maintains professional businesslike standards in training (i.e.. does not treat the trainees like "students" in a classroom) 30 9. INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNIQUES - Varied materials are used in training Varied methods are used in training Adult-learner differences are acknowledged Emphasis is put on student involvement Varied/new instructional technologies are used (i.e.. video tapes. customized tapes and slides made for particular train- ing. video play-backs. computer-assisted instruction) lO. EVALUATION - Evaluation is performance/work-based - Evaluation is competency-based - Evaluation is shared by peers/supervisors - Grades are de-emphasized W The original list of 35 factors grouped into 10 categories was subjected to the following seven-step validation process: 1. The 35 factors were presented to a panel of seven experts who were chosen for their knowledge and expertise in the area of training-program delivery. The experts came from higher educational institutions and from business. industry. and government organizations. Panel members were asked to make suggestions and recommendations regarding the 35 factors. the overall framework of the 10 categories. and the consistency between the categories and the factors listed in each category. 'They were also asked to review the list for redundancy or voids in individual factors or in total categories. 2; Using the recommendations of the panel of experts. a revised list of "important factors" was developed; it included 41 factors grouped into 11 categories. 3. An initial questionnaire was developed. 31 4. The initial questionnaire was field tested with 13 respond- ents. including individuals from organizations representative of the total population. The 13 pilot-study participants were classified as experts who were training-program providers. clients who had training expertise. and clients who were decision makers but had no formal experience in the training field. The purpose of the pilot study was to validate further the "important factors" listed in the question— naire. as well as to test the survey instrument itself for readability and ease of completion. 5. A second questionnaire was developed. incorporating the suggestions and recommendations of the pilot-study respondents. After refining. eliminating redundant factors. and adding and combining fac- tors. the second questionnaire contained 32 factors grouped into l0 categories. 6. The second questionnaire was pilot tested with seven respondents. three from the original pilot group. two research/ questionnaire experts. and two who were representative of the popula- tion used in the study but who had not previously seen the question- naire. 7. The third and final questionnaire was developed to include revisions suggested by the respondents described in step 6. See Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire used in the study. As a result of the validation process. the final survey ques- tionnaire contained 32 factors grouped into 10 categories. One of the categories. Recognition/Reputation (of Lansing Community College and 32 the MDC as training providers). was new: two categories. Instructional Delivery and Instructional Techniques. were combined into Instructional Delivery/Techniques. Another category. Academic Credit. was expanded and renamed Academic Recognition. ‘The original 35 factors were revised through adding. eliminating. combining. and rewording to total 32. of which 12 were new factors. Following is a final list of factors used in the survey instrument. An asterisk indicates the new factors. A. RECOGNITION/REPUTATION *l. Recognition/reputation of the Management Development Center (MDC) as a training unit. *2. The MDC is a Lansing Community College department whose purpose is to provide a variety of educational services. including customized training programs. *3. Word-of-moth reputation and referrals to the MDC as a deliverer of customized training programs. *4. Confidence that the MDC professional training staff can deliver training programs as planned and proposed. 8. PRE-PROGRAM PLANNING PROCESS 5. Needs-assessment process is facilitated by the MDC. 6. Your training needs are mutually identified by you and the MDC. 7. Objectives and outcomes of training are clearly stated in the proposal. C. RESPONSIVENESS 8. Quick response time by the MDC to requests for training program proposal. *9. Quick turn-around time from initial contact to time of program delivery. *10. As a client. you experience no inappropriate delays on part of MDC in meeting timelines for training development and delivery. 33 FLEXIBLE SCHEDULING ll. Ability of MDC to deliver training at times (hours and days) specified by client. 12. Starting and ending dates of training program determined by specific client needs: not a standardized term/semester time frame to fit educational institution calendar. LOCATION l3. Choice of client-specific location for delivery of training program. COST l4. Prices are competitive with other training providers. 15. There is no additional charge for granting academic credit if applicable. *l6. Client organization does not have to provide/use its own professional training staff. ACADEMIC RECOGNITION 17. College credit may be offered as an option if the training program meets academic requirements. *18. Certificates of completion/achievement are offered as an option. *19. Instruction is delivered by an academic institution. CURRICULUM/CONTENT 20. Curriculum is customized according to program objectives which are set to meet specific requirements of client. 21. Flexibility in program development that could include some portions of program to be planned and delivered by client's training staff. 22. Instructional materials are directly related to client's operations. 34 I. INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY/TECHNIQUES 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. *29. Trainer has academic expertise in content area of training program. Trainer has work experience/expertise in content area of training program. Trainer builds on (incorporates) work/life experiences of trainees in training program delivery. Trainer uses a variety of delivery techniques: lecture. case studies. group discussions. simulations. role plays. films. video. etc. Trainer has good "stand-up" presentation skills. In training program delivery. emphasis is put on student involvement/participation. Appropriate equipment/facilities/room layout are used for the particular training being delivered. J. EVALUATION 30. *31. *32. Evaluation of participants is performance/work-based. Evaluation of success of training program is not based on grades. but on how training met stated and mutually planned objectives of client. Follow-up is conducted with you by the MDC staff at the end of training program. These 32 factors became the basis of the survey questionnaire. which was designed to provide information regarding the primary research question: "What were the important factors that influenced business. industry. and government organizations to use the Management Development Center of Lansing Community College to deliver customized training programs for their employees?" 35 WW Identification and validation of important factors were the initial steps leading to development of the survey instrument. The survey instrument was constructed in the form of a questionnaire. Thirty-two factors formed the core of the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to use the following 5-point Likert-type rating scale to rate each of the 32 factors: 5--Extremely Important 4--Very Important 3--Important 2--Slightly Important l--Not At All Important After rating the 32 factors. respondents were asked to rank the most and second W and the least and second W of the 10 categories. Two supplementary questions were asked to dis- cover additional characteristics of the population regarding potential use of the MDC to deliver customized training programs. A demographic question was posed to gather data for the research question. "Are there differences in important factors between private- and public-sector organizations?" The respondent was asked to indicate whether his/her organization was public or private sector. It was not necessary to gather other demographic data because the researcher had access to such information. W11 The researcher wrote a cover letter to the questionnaire recip- ients. encouraging them to participate in the study and indicating its purpose and importance (see Appendix 8). Because the survey returns 36 identified the respondents and their organizations. confidentiality of response was assured. In addition. the dean of Lansing Community Col- lege's Business Division wrote an endorsement letter (see Appendix C). Both the cover letter and the endorsement letter were written on Lan- sing Community College letterhead. The survey questionnaire. cover and endorsement letters. and a stamped return-addressed envelope were mailed first-class to the 50 individuals who constituted the study population. Thirty-six surveys were returned within three weeks. Follow-up telephone calls were made to the 14 nonrespondents. ll of whom returned their completed surveys during the following two weeks. The phone calls revealed that one nonrespondent had retired. one had moved. and the last one did not want to take the time to respond. The total number of returned survey questionnaires was 47 (of SD). for a 94% response rate. BollabJJJILAnostls Because the 32 factors were grouped into l0 categories that were predetermined by the researcher and modified by the panel of experts and pilot-study participants. a reliability analysis was con- ducted to check the consistency of the factors within each category. Table 1 shows the reliability coefficient of each category and indi- cates factors that. if deleted. would have increased the value of the reliability coefficient. 37 Table‘Lr-Reliability coefficients for categories A through J and inconsistent factors. Category Coefficient Factor Numbera A. (Items 1-4) .715 B. (Items 5-7) .572 7 C. (Items 8-10) .767 10 D. (Items 11-12) .408 11. 12 E. (Item 13) ... F. (Items 14-16) .670 G. (Items 17-19) .681 19 H. (Items 20-22) .564 I. (Items 23-29) .783 J. (Items 30-32) .663 32 aFactors that were included within a category that. if deleted. would have increased the alpha coefficient score. A reliability coefficient over .7l indicated reasonably consistent categories: a value of .4 to .7 was moderate. and a value less than #4 indicated a weak category. Categories A (Recognition/ Reputation). C (Responsiveness). and I (Instructional Delivery/Tech- niques) had reasonable internal consistency across the factors within each category. and Categories B. C. G. H. and J were moderately consis- tent. Category D had a weak reliability coefficient. which indicates that the factors were not consistent. Category E had only one factor. so it could not be analyzed for a reliability coefficient. Overall. with the exception of Category D. the categories and the factors within each category on the survey questionnaire were moderately consistent. 38 WWW The 47 completed questionnaires were manually coded to identify demographic information. 'This information was transferred directly from the questionnaires to computer cards. The data were analyzed by using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSSO (Nie. Hull. Jenkins. Steinbrenner. & Bent. 1975). Descriptive analyses were used in the factor and category analyses. This included means. frequencies. and rankings. The group relationships between (1) public- and private-sector organizations and (20 one-time and multiple-time users were tested using two-tailed t-tests. Chapter IV contains the results of the data analysis conducted for this investigation. UMBERIV ANALYSIS OF DATA Inimymon This chapter presents an analysis of the data gathered through a survey questionnaire distributed to 47 private- and public-sector organizations that have used Lansing Community College's Management Development Center (MDC) to develop and deliver customized training programs for their employees. The results presented in this chapter are designed to address one primary and three group-relationship research questions. The primary question was as follows: What were the important factors that influenced business. industry. and govern- ment organizations to use the Management Development Center of Lansing Community College to deliver customized training programs for their employees? The following three group-relationship questions were also posed: 1. Are there differences in the importance of factors between private- and public-sector organizations? 2. Are there differences in the importance of factors between organizations that contracted for one program and those that contracted for more than one program? 39 40 In addition. two supplementary questions were explored to investigate potential future client use of the MDC to deliver customized training programs. These questions addressed (1) possible training-program-content categories and (2) various employee groups for whom the training could be delivered. 'The data are presented in the following three sections: 1. demographic information on the client organizations 2. analysis of responses to the survey questionnaire 3. analysis of potential future use of the MDC to deliver customized training programs Frequencies and means are used to report the questionnaire responses. The results of the study are presented in this chapter and are discussed in Chapter V. Demognaonlaniocmation The distribution of the responding client organizations by private and public sector is shown in Table 2. Table 2.--Distribution of private- and public-sector organizations used in the study (N = 47). Organization N Percentage Private sector 29 61.7 Public sector 18 38.3 Total 47 100.0 41 The breakdown of single-user and multiple-user organizations is presented in Table 3. Table 3.--Frequency of MDC use by 47 private and public client organizations. Private-Sector Orgs. Public-Sector Orgs. (N = 29) (N = 18) User Type N Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage One-time user 33 22 75.9 11 61.1 Multiple user 14 7 24.1 7 38.9 Total 47 29 100.0 18 100.0 AnalstLoLDotoJoLELimarLBosoaronJuosnon The primary research question was: What were the important factors that influenced business. industry. and government organiza- tions to use the Management Development Center of Lansing Community College to deliver customized training programs for their employees? The survey questionnaire contained 32 factors grouped into 10 categories. 'Table 4 gives the 32 factor means based on responses from all 47 client organizations. listed in rank order. Of the top 25%. or eight. highest-rated factors. Factors 27. 4. and 23 refer to trainer skills and expertise. along with confidence that the trainer can and will deliver the proposed training. Factors 11 and 12 refer to flexible scheduling. and Factor 7 refers to a proposal that clearly states training objectives and outcomes. 42 Table 4.--Means of 32 factors from survey questionnaire. listed in rank order. Questionnaire Item Mean Mean Ranking 27. Trainer has good "stand-up" presentation skills. 4.52 l 11. Ability of MDC to deliver training at times (hours & days) specified by client. 4.40 2 7. Objectives and outcomes of training are clearly stated in the proposal. 4.35 3 4. Confidence that the MDC professional training staff can deliver training 4.34 4 programs as planned and proposed. 12. Starting and ending dates of training pro- gram determined by specific client needs: 4.33 5 not a standardized term/semester time frame to fit educational institution calendar. 20. Curriculum is customized according to program objectives which are set to meet 4.30 6 specific requirements of client. 23. Trainer has academic expertise in content area of training program. 4.23 7 28. In training program delivery. emphasis is put on student involvement/participation. 4.21 8 22. Instructional materials are directly \ related to client's operations. 4.20 915 26. Trainer uses a variety of delivery tech- niques: lecture. case studies. group 4.20 9.5 discussions. simulations. role plays. films. video. etc. 6. Your training needs are mutually identi- fied by you and the MDC. 4.17 ll 43 Table 4.--Continued. Questionnaire Item Mean Mean Ranking 13. 24. 10. 25. 31. 29. 14. Choice of client-specified location for delivery of training program. Trainer has work experience/expertise in content area of training program. Quick response time by the MDC to your requests for training program proposal. Quick turn-around time from your initial contact to time of program delivery. As a client. you experience no inappropriate delays on part of MDC in meeting timelines for training development and delivery. Trainer builds on (incorporates) work/life experiences of trainees in training pro- gram delivery. Evaluation of success of training program is not based on grades. but on how train- ing met stated and mutually planned objectives of client. Appropriate equipment/facilities/room layout is used for the particular training being delivered. Prices are competitive with other training providers. The MDC is a Lansing Community College department whose purpose is to provide a variety of educational services. including customized training programs. Needs-assessment process is facilitated by the MDC. 4.17 4.11 4.06 4.04 4.04 4.04 3.89 3.77 3.75 3.67 3.63 12 13 14 16 16 16 18 19 20 21 22 44 Table 4.--Continued. Questionnaire Item Mean Mean Ranking 32. Follow—up is conducted with you by the MDC staff at the end of the training program. 3.60 23 30. Evaluation of participants is performance/work-based. 3.53 24 3. Word-of-mouth reputation and referrals to the MDC as a deliverer of customized 3.51 25 training programs. ' 16. Client organization does not have to provide/ use its own professional training staff. 3.46 26 l. Recognition/reputation of the Management Development Center (MDC) as a training unit. 3.45 27 15. There is no additional charge for granting academic credit if applicable. 3.26 28.5 21. Flexibility in program development that could include some portions of program to be planned and delivered by client's 3.26 28.5 training staff. 19. Instruction is delivered by an academic institution. 3.00 30 17. College credit may be offered as an option if the training program meets 2.92 31 academic requirements. 18. Certificates of completion/achievement are offered as an option. 2.75 32 45 Factor 20 refers to curriculum customized to meet client needs. and Factor 28 refers to program delivery in which student involvement and participation are emphasized. Thirty of the 32 factors were rated 3.0 (Important) and above. Only two factors. Factor 17 (College credit offered if training program meets academic requirements) and Factor 18 (Instruction delivered by an academic institution). were ranked less than 3IL Factor 17 had a mean rating of 2.92. and Factor 18 had a mean rating of 2.75. The 32 factors on the questionnaire were grouped into 10 categories. The category means and rankings for the 10 categories. A through J. are shown in Table 5. The category means are based on the mean of factor means of individual responses within each category. Table S.--Means and rankings of Categories A through J. Category Mean Mean Ranking D. Flexible Scheduling 4.37 l E. Location 4.17 2 1. Instructional Delivery/Techniques 4.15 3 B. Pre—Program Planning Process 4.04 4 C. Responsiveness 4.05 5 H. Curriculum/Content 3.92 6 A. Recognition/Reputation 3.75 7 J. Evaluation 3.67 8 F. Cost 3.50 9 G. Academic Recognition 2.89 10 46 The first. second. and third highest category means were for Categories D (Flexible Scheduling). E (Location). and I (Instructional Delivery/Techniques). The first. second. and third lowest category means were for Categories G (Academic Recognition). F (Cost). and J (Evaluation). It might be noted that Category D included two factors and that Category E had just one factor. Therefore. the factor mean for Category E was also the category mean. All other categories had between three and seven factors. Four free-choice questions (Questions 33-36)) were included in the survey questionnaire. The 10 category titles were listed. and respondents were asked to select the most and second most important categories and the least and second least important categories. Table 6 shows the frequency of responses for Question 33 (most important category) and Question 34 (second most important category) and the overall category rankings for Questions 33 and 34 combined. The three highest rankings for most and second most important cate- gories were obtained for Categories H (Curriculum/Content). I (Instruc- tional Delivery/Techniques). and B (Pre-Program Planning Process). Table 7 shows the frequency of responses for Question 35 (least important category) and Question 36 (second least important category) and the overall category rankings for Questions 35 and 36 combined. In rank order. the least and second least important categories combined were Categories G (Academic Recognition). E (Location). and A.(Recog- nition/Reputation). 47 Table 6.--Frequencies and overall rankings of responses to Questions 33 and 34: most and second most important categories. Frequencies Rankings Category 033 034 033 8 034 033 8. 034 H. Curriculum/Content 24 4 28 l 1. Instructional Delivery/ Techniques 6 13 T9 2 B. Pre-Program Planning 11 6 l7 3 F. Cost 1 8 9 4 C. Responsiveness 3 5 8 5 D. Flexible Scheduling l 6 7 6 A. Recognition/Reputation l 4 5 7 G. Academic Recognition 0 l l 8 E. Location 0 0 0 9.5 J. Evaluation 0 0 0 9.5 Table 7.--Frequencies and overall rankings of responses to Questions 35 and 36: least and second least important categories (N = 45).a Frequencies Rankings Category 035 036 035 8. 036 035 8. 036 G. Academic Recognition 23 4 27 l E. Location 5 10 15 2 A. Recognition/Reputation 5 9 l4 3 J. Evaluation 5 7 12 4 F. Cost 1 6 7 5 0. Flexible Scheduling 3 l 4 6.5 I. Instructional Delivery/ Techniques 0 4 4 6.5 C. Responsiveness l 2 3 8 B. Pre-Program Planning 0 2 2 9.5 H. Curriculum/Content 2 0 2 9.5 aTwo organizations did not respond to Questions 35 and 36. 48 The rankings of category means based on responses to individual factors only partially agreed with the category rankings based on free- response choices to the list of category titles. Table 8 shows a comparison between category rankings by means and category rankings by free choice in terms of the three highest and three lowest ranked categories. In the comparisons of the three highest and three lowest ranked categories. similarities were found in four categories: Cate- gories A (Recognition/Reputation). B (Pre-Program Planning Process). G (Academic Recognition). and I (Instructional Delivery/TechniquesL Disagreement can be seen in two categories: Categories E (Location) and H (Curriculum/Contenth Table 8.--Comparison of rankings between category means and free- choice responses to most important and least important categories.a Ranking of Category Importance by A B C D E F G H I J Category Mean 7 4 5 l 2 9 10 6 3 8 Most important category choice 3 1 2 Least important category choice 8 9 10 aLeast important category ranking was converted from 1. 2. and 3 in Table 7 to 10. 9. and 8 for this table. 49 WW Group Relationship Question 1 was: Are there differences in the importance of factors between private- and public-sector organiza- tions? Twenty-nine of the organizations included in the study were in the private-sector group. and 18 organizations were in the public- sector group. Analyses for group differences were conducted on factor means. category means. and free-choice responses for Categories A through J. antoLAnastis Two-tailed t-test analyses were conducted to determine if significant differences existed between the factor mean scores of private- and public-sector organizations. A summary of test results is presented in Table 9. On two questionnaire factors. 10. "As a client. you experience no inappropriate delays on part of MDC in meeting timelines for train- ing development and delivery." and 28. "In training program delivery. emphasis is put on student involvement/participation." the probability levels obtained were less than the.05 alpha level: therefore. public- and private-sector organizations were significantly different from each other on these two factors. Factor 10 had a t-value of -2.23 with a probability level of .031. The mean score was 3.83 for private-sector organizations and 4.39 for publ ic-sector organizations. Factor 28 had a t-val ue of 2.65 with a probability level of .012. The mean score was 4.38 for private-sector organizations and 3.94 for public-sector organizations. 50 Table 9.--Resu1ts of the two-tailed t-test of the factor mean scores of private-sector and public-sector organizations (N = 47). Private-Sector Public-Sector Questionnaire Organizations Organizations t-Value Two-Tailed Item Mean Mean Probability (N=29) (N=18) l 3.28 3.72 -1.43 .161 2 3.52 3.94 -l.64 .108 3 3.31 3.83 -l.63 .111 4 4.31 4.39 -0.42 .679 5 3.62 3.65 -0.09 .928 6 4.21 4.12 0.30 .769 7 4.38 4.29 0.30 .766 8 4.00 4.17 -0.70 .488 9 3.97 4.17 -0.84 .408 10 3.83 4.39 -2.23 .031* 11 4.45 4.33 0.48 .636 12 4.43 4.17 0.80 .429 13 4.10 4.28 -0.71 .481 14 3.72 3.78 -0.19 .853 15 3.24 3.28 -O.lO .917 16 3.41 3.61 -0.67 .506 17 2.86 3.00 -0.42 .679 18 2.62 2.94 -1.02 .317 19 3.00 3.00 0.00 1.000 20 4.34 4.22 0.52 .608 21 3.34 3.11 0.70 .489 22 4.24 4.12 0.54 .592 23 4.21 4.28 -0.31 .758 24 4.17 4.00 0.70 .485 25 4.10 3.94 0.58 .565 26 4.18 4.22 -0.18 .860 27 4.54 4.50 0.20 .842 28 4.38 3.94 2.65 .012* 29 3.72 3.83 -O.48 .635 30 3.66 3.33 1.37 .180 31 3.86 3.94 0.32 .752 32 3.62 3.56 0.22 .830 *Statistically significant at the .05 probability level. 51 It can be assumed from the statistical evidence that a sig- nificant difference existed between private- and public-sector organi- zations in terms of the level of importance for Factors 10 and 28. Fer Factor 10. the level of importance was greater for the public-sector than for the private-sector group. For Factor 28. the level of impor- tance was greater for the private-sector than for the public sector group. No statistically significant difference existed between private- and public-sector organizations on the level of importance of the remaining 30 factors. QateoonLMoanLAnastis Two-tailed t-test analyses were conducted to determine if statistically significant differences existed between private- and publ ic-sector organizations on the 10 category mean scores. A summary of test results is presented in Table 10. No statistically significant differences existed between private- and public-sector organizations in terms of the level of importance of the 10 categories. For Questions 33 through 36 on the survey questionnaire. the titles of Categories A through J were listed. For Questions 33 and 34. respondents were asked to choose the most and second most important categories from the list. A summary of comparisons of private- and public-sector organization choices for most and second most important categories is presented in Table 11. Responses for the two questions are combined. 52 Table 10.--Resu1ts of two-tailed t-test of the category mean scores of private-sector and public-sector organizations (N = 47). Private-Sector Public-Sector Category Organizations Organizations t-Value Two-Tailed Mean Mean Probability (N=29) (N=18) A. Recognition/ Reputation 3.60 3.97 -l.89 .066 B. Pre-Program Planning 4.07 4.02 0.22 .825 C. Responsiveness 3.93 4.24 -l.48 .148 D. Flexible Scheduling 4.45 4.25 0.86 .400 E. Location 4.10 4.28 -0.71 .481 F. Cost 3.46 3.56 -0.42 .680 G. Academic Recognition 2.83 2.98 -O.62 .540 H. Curriculum/ Content 3.98 3.81 0.78 .444 I. Instructional Delivery/ 4.18 4.10 0.53 .599 Techniques J. Evaluation 3.71 3.61 0.50 .617 In order. the four highest-ranking categories for the combined group of private- and public-sector organizations were Categories H (Curriculum/Content). I (Instructional Delivery/Techniques). B (Pre- Program Planning). and F (CostL The four highest-ranking categories for private-sector organizations were Categories H. I. B. and 0 (Flexible Scheduling). in that order. The four highest-ranking cate- gories for public-sector organizations were Categories H. I. B. and F. in that orden. The level of importance of Categories B and D was slightly greater for private-sector than for public-sector organizations. The level of importance of Categories F. H. and I was 53 .>o:um ecu c_ tom: mco_umu_cmmoo Lo guess: .mauom osu o_n:Ou oom >ozu ooco; “voc_neou mom am one mm mco_umo:d Lew mo_uco:uoouo o.oo_ om o.oo_ mm o.oo_ :m m ... o m.m ... o m.m ... o co_um:_m>u .w m co. 0 moN 0.. o mom coo o COmWQUOI— om ... . . co_u_c coo: m o w m _ _ w _ _ _ o_Eocmo< .u . . . . copumuaaoz m m m w m N a m N m m m m \co_u_cmouo¢ .< . . . mc__:uu;um m m N _ a m o. m m a m n o.n.xo_u .o m.m m.» m m.m o.w m m m.m m mmocu>bmcoamox .u a N... : m.m 9m m a 9m m m 3.8 ... . . . c_ccm_m m m m. m N m ON N. m _ m_ m. EmLmOLmuoom .m mo:o_ccooh N ~.- m m m.m_ __ N ~.o~ m. \>Lo>__mo .mco_uu:oumc_ ._ . . . acouco _ m mm N. _ 0 RN m_ _ w mN wN \e=_=u_ta=w .: xcmx N .oocm xcmm N .ooom xcmm N .uoom mco_um~_cmmoo mco_um~mcmmoo m:0mewwcmmoo o0uuowuo__n:m LOuoomnoum>_om u m >o0moumu -u__a=a a -oum>.am mfiam ucm mm mco_umoadv mo_ucosuoom .mcomum~_cmmoo ocuoomuu__n:o m. ocm ocuoomuoum>_oa mu coozuoo mo_oomoumu acmuooae_ umoe tcooom new umos n: momcoomoo we mmc_xcmo ucm mo_ucozooom mo :Ommomaeounn.__ 0.3m» 54 slightly greater for public-sector than for private-sector organiza- tions. For Questions 35 and 36. respondents were asked to choose the least and second least important categories from the list of 10 categories. A summary of comparisons of private- and public-sector organization choices for least and second least important categories is presented in Table 12. In order. the four lowest-ranking categories for private- and public-sector organizations combined were Categories G (Academic Recog- nition). E (Location). A (Recognition/Reputation). and J (Evaluationh The four lowest-ranking categories for private-sector organizations were Categories G. E. A. and J. in that order. The five (there was a tie for fourth place) lowest-ranking categories for public-sector organizations were Categories G. J. E. A. and F. in that order. Categories A and E were slightly less important for private-sector than for public-sector organizations. Categories G. J. and F were slightly less important for public-sector than for private-sector organizations. WWW Group Relationship Question 2 was: Are there differences in the importance of factors between organizations that contracted for one program (single-user group) and organizations that contracted for more than one program (multiple-user group)? 55 *0 Logan: .mauum ecu o_n:ov mom >osu coco; “uoc_aeou mom cm can mm mco_umo:d Lo» mo_uco:uoou .>v:um ozu c_ vow: mco_um~_cmmoo a .om new mm mco_umo:d o» voucOQmoc mco_um~_cmmoo ecu mo ..m uozm o.oo_ mm o.oo_ mm 0.00. cm acouco N ..s N o. ... o m.m N.N N Ne=_=u_ttsw .= mc.ccm m.m ... o N m.N N m.m N.N N amusem.-.uu .N m.m ... o o m.m m m :.m m mmoco>mmcoomo¢ .u mo:U_ccuoh N ..s N N m.m N m.o s.s s \Ntu>__.o .mco_uoaoumc. ._ . . . . m:__=uo;um N _ o N m m m N m o a a : o_n_xo_u .o m.: _.m m m o.N : m w.N N umou .u N ..w_ m : m.o_ m : m.m_ N. :o_um:_M>m .s so you: o m.: _.m m m.N N.m_ __ m m.m_ s. \co_w_=mou.” .< m ..N. : m.N m.m_ __ N N.o_ m. co_wmooA .m co.u.: ouo _ m.mm __ _ ..NN m. _ o.om NN .umeonmuu .u xcmm N .Uoou xcmm N .UOou xcmx N .Uoou m m mco_um~_cmmco mco_um~_cm Lo mco_um~_cm to ocuoom >Lomoumu o0uuomnum_n:m o0uuomnoum>_om -u__n=a N -oum>_ta naem vcm mm mco_umo:dv mo_ucuaooou m.mcomum~_cmmoo EONoomuu__n:o N. ucm copuomuoum>_oo mN coozuon mo_o0moumo ucmuoooe_ ammo. ccouom vcm ammo. o» momcoomoo mo mmc_xcmc cam mowucoaaoc» mo c0m_omaEOuuu.N_ o_nmh 56 antoLAnastis Two-tailed t-tests were used to analyze the data for Group Relationship Question 2. This analysis was conducted to determine if statistically significant differences existed between the factor mean scores of single-user and multiple-user organizations. Thirty-three organizations constituted the single-user group. and 14 organizations were in the multiple-user group. A summary of test results is pre- sented in Table 13. On Factor 2. the probability level obtained was less than .05: therefore. single— and multiple-user groups differed significantly on this factor. Factor 2 had a t-val ue of -2.12 with a probability level of .041. The mean score was 3.52 for single users and 4.07 for multiple users. It can be assumed from the statistical evidence that there was a statistically significant difference between single— and multiple-user organizations concerning the level of importance of Factor 2. "The MDC is a Lansing Community College department whose purpose is to provide a variety of educational services. including customized training programs)‘ The level of importance of this factor was greater for multiple-user than for single-user organizations. For Factor 18. the probability level obtained was slightly above the .05 alpha level. Item 18 had a t-val ue of -2.04 with a probability level of .053. The mean score was 2.55 for single users and 3.21 for multiple users. Thus the level of importance for Factor 18. "Certificates of completion/achievement are offered as an optionfl' was slightly greater for multiple-user than for single-user 57 Table l3.--Results of two-tailed t-test of the factor mean scores of single-user and multiple-user organizations (N = 47). Single-User Multiple-User Questionnaire Organizations Organizations t-Value Two-Tailed Item Mean Mean Probability (N=33) (N=l4) l 3.39 3.57 -0.55 .587 2 3.52 4.07 -2.12 .041* 3 3.55 3.43 0.33 .742 4 4.24 4.57 -l.62 .119 5 3.72 3.43 0.80 .433 6 4.19 4.14 0.13 .894 7 4.31 4.43 -O.43 .671 8 4.09 4.00 0.39 .700 9 4.09 3.93 0.67 .511 10 4.15 3.79 1.11 .282 11 4.33 4.57 -l.06 .295 12 4.22 4.57 -l.38 .176 13 4.09 4.36 -l.ll .275 14 3.82 3.57 -0.88 .388 15 3.15 3.50 -l.l7 .249 16 3.36 3.79 -l.43 .162 17 2.85 3.07 -0.70 .490 18 2.55 3.21 -2.04 .053 19 3.00 3.00 0.00 1.000 20 4.24 4.42 -0.86 .397 21 3.24 3.29 -0.13 .895 22 4.19 4.21 -0.11 .911 23 4.12 4.50 -l.90 .065 24 4.06 4.21 -0.55 .587 25 4.00 4.14 -0.50 .621 26 4.19 4.21 -0.10 .923 27 4.53 4.50 0.15 .880 28 4.21 4.21 -0.01 .991 29 3.70 3.93 -0.89 .380 30 3.52 3.57 -0.23 .823 31 3.85 4.00 -0.48 .634 32 3.64 3.50 0.45 .659 *Statistically significant at the .05 probability level. 58 organizations. For the remaining 30 factors included in the survey questionnaire. no statistically significant differences existed between single— and multiple-user organizations concerning the level of impor- tance of the factors. CatoootxzhioanLAnalsto Two-tailed t-test analyses were conducted to determine if statistically significant differences existed between single— and multiple-user organizations on the 10 category mean scores. A summary of test results is presented in Table 14. No statistically significant differences existed between single- and multiple-user organizations concerning the level of importance of any of the categories. " N For Questions 33 through 36 on the survey questionnaire. the titles of the 10 categories were listed. On Questions 33 and 34. respondents were asked to choose the most and second most important categories from the list. A summary of comparisons of single- and multiple-user organization choices of most important categories is presented in Table 15. Responses for the two questions are combined. In order. the four tOp-ranking categories for single- and multiple-user organizations combined were Categories H (Curricul um/ Content). I (Instructional Delivery/Techniques). B (Pre-Program Plan- ning). and F (CostL The five top-ranking categories for single-user organizations were Categories H. I. B. and D and F (tied for fourthL For multiple-user organizations. the five top-ranking categories were 59 Categories H. I. B. and C and F (tied for fourth). For Categories D (Flexible Scheduling) and H. the level of importance was slightly greater for single-user than for multiple-user organizations. For Categories C (Responsiveness) and I. the level of importance was slightly greater for multiple-user than for single-user organizations. For Categories B and F. the level of importance was very similar for both user types. Table l4.--Results of two-tailed t-test of the category mean scores of single-user and multiple-user organizations (N = 47). Single-User Multiple-User Category Organizations Organizations t-Value Two—Tailed Mean Mean Probability (N=33) (N=l4) A. Recognition/ Reputation 3.67 3.91 -l.12 .271 B. Pre-Program Planning 4.07 4.00 0.30 .754 C. Responsiveness 4.11 3.90 0.97 .342 0. Flexible Scheduling 4.29 4.57 -1.41 .169 E. Location 4.09 4.36 -l.ll .275 F. Cost 3.44 3.62 -0.77 .447 G. Academic Recognition 2.80 3.10 -l.13 .270 H. Curriculum/ Content 3.89 3.98 -0.47 .644 I. Instructional Delivery/ 4.11 4.24 -0.80 .429 Techniques J. Evaluation 3.67 3.69 -0.11 .914 As a point of interest. the three top-ranking free-choice responses of Categories H (Curriculum/Content). I (Instructional .>t:um any c_ com: mco_um~_cmmoo mo Lucas: .mauom ozu 0.2:Ov mom >ocu coco; "voc_neou now am tam mm mco_umo:d Lo; mo_uco:uooum 6O o.oo_ mN o.oo_ mm o.oo_ :m m o N... 0 ma o 83.3.... .4 m .00 o mom on. o mom .0. o co~umU°J om ... m. . co.n.:mouum m o m _ . m N _ _ u.Eoomu< .o . . . co_umu:oom N . N N N m .. N N N m m 52.88... ... . . . . m:..=uu;um N m m . m a . m o m s N N o.n.xo.a .o m.: N.o_ m o m.n m m m.w w mmoco>_mcoamox .u m.: N.o. m m.: ..m o : m.m m m umou .o c.ccm m m.N. m m.N N.N. N. N ..N. N. emtmoha-8”M .N m0:u.c:00h m.. o.mN N m.N N.m. N. N N.oN m. NNLb)..oe .mcomuuaoumc_ ._ m. o.mN N . 9: .N . w.mN wN 23:8 \E:_2u_oo:u .: xcmx N .Uoom xcmm N .Uocu xcmm N .Uoou mco_um~_cmmoo m:o_um~_cmmoo mco_umN_cmmoo com: >o0moumu oomauo_a_u_:z tumzno_mc_m no_a_u_:z w no_m:_m mAam new mm mco.umoadv mo_oco:ooom .mco.um~.cmmoo comaao_a_u_:e a. new townie—mamm mm coozuon mo_.omoumo acmuoooew umos vcooom ocm umoe 0u momcoomoo mo mmc_xcmc new mo_uco:ooow we c0m_oma80uaa.m_ o_omh 61 Delivery/Techniques). and B (Pre-Program Planning) for most and second most important categories were the same for the "sector" and "user" groups. On Questions 35 and 36. respondents were asked to choose the least and second least important categories from the list of 10 categories. A summary of comparisons of single— and multiple-user organization choices for least important categories is presented in Table 16. In order. the four lowest-ranking categories for single- and multiple-user organizations combined were Categories G (Academic Recog- nition). E (Location). A (Recognition/Reputation). and J (Evaluation). The four lowest-ranking categories for single-user organizations were Categories G. E. J. and A. in that order. For the multiple-user organizations. the four lowest-ranking categories were Categories A. G. E. and F (Cost). in that order. Categories G and J were slightly less important to single-user than to multiple-user organizations. Categories A and F were slightly less important to multiple-user than to single-user organizations. For Category E. the level of importance was similar for both user types. Won: Two supplementary questions were asked to explore potential future client use of the MDC to deliver customized training programs. These questions asked for responses to (1) possible training program- content categories (Questions 37 through 44) and (2) various employee groups for whom training might be delivered (Questions 45 through 49). 62 .0 Logan: .mauom on» 0.3306 mom Nona mono; .noc.nsou mom on tam mm mco.umoad to. mo.ucoacocu .>u:um ocu c. tom: mco.um~.cmmoo n .om ocm mm mco.umoad cu voucoamoo mco.um~.cmmoo ecu .o ..m uozm o.oo. mN 0.00. mm 0.00. cm . ... . . acoucOu o o m N o. o m m N N N \E:.:o.ooau .1 . . . . Nc.ccm.N N o J . N N . . m N N N N Emtmota-... .N m.m ... o N w.: m m m.m m mmoco>.mcoomom .u mono.::ook N o.N N N ..N N N.N N.N : N>L8>..8N .mco.uu:cumc_ ._ . ... . . . . Na..suugum mm 0 mm NN .. NN .... .. «Seat... : o.N. m m.m N.o : m m.N N umou .u o o.m N m :.m. o. : m.m. N. co.uma.M>u .5 . . . co.umu: ox . o :N m a m N. m m m m. :. \co.u.cmoUo¢ .< m o.m. : N m.o. .. N N.w. m. co.wmu04 .m . . . co.u.c ooom N 0 ON m . m mm NN . o om NN u.Eoumu< .u xcmm N .Uoou xcmm N .ooou xcmm N .Uoou mco.um~.cmmoo mco.um~.cmmoo mco.umu.cmmoo Lon: NLOmoumu oomauo.o.u.:z oomzuo.mc.m -u.a.u.=z N -o.N=.N nAmm vcm mm mco.umosov mo.ucoaooou m.mco.um~.cmmoo Lonnie—a.u.:e :. vcm oomauo.mc.m mm coozuoa mo.oomoumu ucmNLOoE. ammo. ncouom ucm ammo. ea momcoomo. mo mmc.xcmo can mo.uco:coom .o cOm.omaEOuan.m. o.nmh 63 The questions asked. "Would you contract with the MDC to deliver customized training again?" Questions 37 through 44 explored "for which content areas?"; Questions 45 through 49 explored "for which employee groups?" A check mark indicated a "yes" answer. Table 17 gives the frequencies of "yes" responses for potential training-program-content categories. Supervision. management. and personnel management were the most frequently stated training-program- content categories for which the responding organizations would again use the MDC for customized training. Table l7.--Frequencies and percentages of potential training for 29 private-sector and 18 public-sector organizations (N = 47). Question Content Number Category Frequency 5 Rank 38 Supervision 31 70.5 1 37 Management 27 61.4 2 44 Personnel Management 20 45.5 3 43 Computer Training 16 36.4 4 42 Sales 12 27.3 5 41 Marketing 8 18.2 6 39 Board Leadership 2 4.5 7.5 40 Small Business Management 2 4.5 7.5 Table 18 shows the frequencies of ”yes" responses concerning potential employee groups for which the client organization would again contract with the MDC for customized training programs. Middle manage- ment. first-level supervisory. and secretarial/clerical were the most 64 frequently stated employee groups for whom the organizations would use the MDC to deliver customized training programs. Table 18cm-Frequencies and percentages of potential employee-training groups for 29 private-sector and 18 public—sector organiza- tions (N = 47). Question Employee Number Group Frequency 5 Rank 46 Middle management 30 69.8 1.5 47 First-level supervisory 30 69.8 1.5 49 Secretarial/clerical 20 46.5 3 48 Hourly workers 17 39.5 4 45 Top management 11 25.6 5 Chapter V contains a summary of the study. conclusions based on the research findings. and recommendations for practical applications and for further research. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Wu The importance for educational institutions to develop collaborative relationships with business. industry. and government organizations to deliver training and retraining programs has been well documented in recent literature. Collaborative relationships are particularly important in developing customized programs to meet specific training needs. Experts such as Aslanian and Brickell (1982) and Cross (1981) emphasized the factors that are important for the training provider in developing and delivering customized training programs. Howevengfieggtsmmgfflresearch or studies that involved client organizations to determine and/or verify factors that were considered important when contracting for customized training. The purpose of this study was to determine the factors that were important to private- and public-sector client organizations and influenced them to contract with a community college to develop and deliver customized training programs. Further. the research was designed to determine if differences existed between private- and public-sector organizations and between single- and multiple-user organizations regarding the importance of specific factors. The study was based on market research. in which the buying practices of past 65 66 clients are studied to enable the seller to make more effective deci- sions for future product and service development. delivery. and market- ing strategies. The findings from this study are important for future program planning. development. and delivery. In addition. the findings can guide other educational training units as they develop and build collaborative relationships with business. industry. and government organizations. The primary question that influenced the direction of this study was as follows: What were the important factors that influenced business. industry. and government organizations to use the Management Development Center of Lansing Community College to deliver customized training programs for their employees? The following three questions also provided direction for the research: 1. Are there differences in the importance of factors between private- and public-sector organizations? 2. iAre there differences in the importance of factors between organizations that contracted for one program and those that contracted for more than one program? 3. Would client organizations use the Management Development Center to deliver customized training programs in the future? If so. for what content areas and for which employee groups would they do so? The organizations involved in this study were the 29 private- sector and 18 public-sector organizations that had used the Management Development Center (MDC) at Lansing Community College to develop and 67 deliver one or more customized training programs for their employees between July 1. 1982. and March 31. 1984. Of the organizations that participated in this study. 61.7% were private-sector and 38.3% were public-sector organizations. This distribution is different from the approximate 80% private- and 20% public-sector organization breakdown in the general population (Verway. 1982-83). yet it is characteristic of the organizations found in the mid-Michigan area where the study was done. Lansing is a capital city and is the location of many state associations as well as state government departments. Thirty-three of the participating organizations were single program users. and 14 were multiple program users. There was a higher percentage of multiple use (38.9%) by public-sector organizations than by private-sector organizations (24.1%). This may have been due to the history of MDC training-program delivery to state government employees through the centralized Civil Service Personnel Division. thereby developing the MDC's reputation as a training provider among individual state government departments included in this study. On the other hand. private-sector organizations for the most part first learned of the MDC as a training provider when customized training was initiated in 1981. Developing a survey instrument was necessary because similar research had not been conducted. A questionnaire was developed and validated through a review of literature. feedback from a panel of experts. and results of a pilot study. Factors said to be important to client organizations when contracting for customized training were 68 identified through a review of literature. The panel of experts from higher education institutions and business. industry. and government organizations. chosen for their knowledge of training program delivery. validated the survey questionnaire. Further validation was accomp- lished through a pilot study. which included 13 respondents from organizations representative of the total population. The final survey questionnaire contained 32 factors. grouped into 10 major categories. Each category contained between one and seven factors. Through the questionnaire development and validation process. new factors and categories. independent of factors found through the review of literature. were added. Twelve new factors were added among several categories. One new category. Recognition/Reputation (of training). was added. Another category. Academic Credit. was expanded to include certificates. and so on. and was renamed Academic Recog- nition. Respondents were asked to rate the 32 factors on a.5-point Likert-type scale ranging from Extremely Important to Not At All Important. ‘They were then asked in four free-choice questions to select the two most-important and two least-important categories from the total of 10 categories. ‘Two supplementary questions were asked to explore potential future client use of the MDC to deliver customized training programs. The survey questionnaire was mailed to 50 organizations. directed to the person with whom the MDC had primary contact. Forty- seven questionnaires were returned. for a 94% response rate. The 47 69 completed returns were manually coded. and the information was transferred to computer cards and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie et aLN 1975L The data provided information concerning the primary and group-relationship research questions. Conclusions A major purpose of the researcher was to gain a better under- standing of what was important to client organizations and influenced them in choosing an educational training unit within a community col- lege to develop and deliver customized training programs for their employees. This information should prove valuable to training pro- viders in making more effective decisions for future program planning. development. delivery. and marketing. Several major conclusions were drawn as the result of this research effort to answer the primary research question and the group-relationship questions. These conclu- sions are discussed on the following pages. Conclusion_1: Community college training providers need to carefully select and assign trainers with appropriate skills and expertise to develop and deliver customized training programs. It is noteworthy that three of the top 25%. or eight. highest- ranked factors referred to trainer skills. Three other factors on the survey questionnaire also referred to "trainer skills." Although these factors were not ranked in the top 25%. each had a rating of over 4J1 (Very ImportantL This high level of importance not only has implica- tions in the selection and assignment of trainers for customized 70 training programs. but also suggests that the trainer should be involved in the planning and development stages of the training pro- gram. Comm: Community college training providers need to include delivery systems that adapt to the diverse. individualized content and scheduling needs of business. industry. and government organizations. Flexible scheduling was of very high importance. 'This factor was the one most often mentioned in the literature. In this researcher's experience. clients' perception of "customized" training includes delivery at a time and place convenient for them. as well as curriculum that is personalized to meet their specific needs. .Cong1u519n_3: Community college training providers need to develop a training program proposal that clearly states objectives and outcomes of the training. This proposal should include specific opera- tional details such as location. price. and scheduling. A proposal that clearly states objectives and outcomes of training as well as specifying the role and expectations of both the training provider and the client organization is essential. The organization often uses the proposal as a tool for internal discussion and decision making: the proposal later becomes the basis for program confirmation and agreement. The three factors relating to cost and the three factors relating to academic credit/recognition were rated overall in the lowest third of the ranking. 'Yet most of these factors rated slightly above or just below 3.0 (Important). One factor referring to "competi- tive" prices was close to a Very Important rating. with a 3.75. Thus. 71 it can be concluded that the clients did not expect lower prices from an educational training provider but wanted and expected prices that are competitive with those of other training providers. ‘Conglu519n_4: Because all 32 factors had a relatively high level of importance for the responding organiza- tions. community college training providers must give consideration to all of the factors when developing and delivering customized training programs. Thirty of the 32 factors had a mean score of 3.0 or higher (3.0 = Important. 4.0 = Very Important. 5.0 = Extremely Important). Only two factors. 17 and 18. had a mean rating of less than BIL Factor 17 (College credit may be offered as an option if the training program meets academic requirements) had a mean score of 2.92. Factor 18 (Certificates of completion/achievement are offered as an option) had a mean score of 2.75. Overall. it can be concluded that the 32 factors had a relatively high level of importance to the client organizations that participated in this study. Of most importance were factors that related to trainer skills. flexible scheduling. a clear and concise proposal. customized content. and delivery that emphasizes student participation. .Conglusign_5: Factors claimed to be important in the literature were indeed important to the client organizations used in this study and therefore must be considered by community college training providers in the development and delivery of customized training programs. The finding that most of the factors were thought to be Important to Extremely Important confirmed what the literature reported 72 was important for educational institutions to recognize and/or do in the planning. development. and delivery of customized training programs for business. industry. and government organizations. Each of the ten authors referenced in developing the survey instrument said "flexible scheduling" and "customized content" were important. Although speaking of adult learners in general. most authors referred to the need for delivery strategies and techniques that considered the experienced working adult trainee and emphasized student participation and involvement. Half of the authors stressed trainer skills. Six factors in the survey questionnaire referred to trainer skills. and all were rated Very Important (4.0) or above. It is also interesting that only one author (Bevelacqua. 1982) referred to incorporating businesslike practices in client relation- ships. including training-program proposals. Yet "proposals clearly stating training objectives and outcomes" ranked third most important overall with the responding client organizations. Factors asking about the importance of college credit (Factor 17) and certificates of completion/achievement (Factor 18) were ranked lowest. Only one author (Brickell. 1983) referred to the importance of college credit as an option. An interesting point is that for Factor 15 (There is no additional charge for granting academic credit if applicable). the mean rating was 3.26 (Important). More than three- fourths of the programs developed for and delivered to the client organizations used in this study included academic credit. This researcher has found that academic credit is preferred if it is 73 available at no additional cost. This supports the premise of Brickell and Aslanian (1981). Cross (1981). and Lynton (1982). who stated that the traditional methods of educational delivery. including traditional grading methods. will have to change to meet the needs of new adult. working student populations. gong1u519n_§: A number of factors. in addition to those found in the literature. were important to client organizations and must be considered by commu- nity college training providers in the develop- ment and delivery of customized training pro- grams. The final survey questionnaire contained 32 factors. Twelve of these factors were added to the total list by the panel of experts and through the pilot study. The new factors included recognition and reputation of the training unit. confidence that the trainer can deliver training as planned and proposed. quick turn around from time of initial contact to program delivery. client organization not having to provide/use its own training staff. certificates of completion/ achievement being an option. training delivered by an academic institu- tion. appropriate training equipment and facilities used. evaluation based on how training met stated goals. and post-program follow-up conducted by training providers. Of the 12 new factors. 11 had a mean score of 3I)(Important) or above. Only one factor. "Certificates of completion/achievement offered as an option." had a mean score of less than 3.0 (2.75). One of the added factors. "Confidence that the professional training staff 74 can deliver training programs as planned and proposed." with a mean score of 4.34. was the fourth highest ranked of the 32 factors. Four of the new factors were in the area of recognition and reputation of the training unit and of the college as customized train- ing providers. The mean rating of these factors ranged from 3.45 to 4.34 (3.0 = Important and 4.0 = Very Important). As stated before. confidence that the MDC professional training staff can deliver training programs as planned and proposed was fourth in overall factor ranking. This suggests the importance of the trainer's being very clear about the specifics of the proposed program and understanding clearly what is expected of him/her in training- program delivery. Their level of importance to current clients suggests that all of these factors should be taken into account in future planning and marketing strategies with present and future clients. .Qonclusion_1: Statistically significant differences between (1) private- and public-sector organizations and (2) single— and multiple-user organizations were found for 3 of the 32 factors examined. In the factor analysis. public- and private-sector organiza- tions differed significantly in terms of the relative importance of 2 of the 32 factors. For Factor 10 (The client experiences no inapprop- riate delays on the part of MDC in meeting timelines for training development and delivery). the level of importance was greater for the public-sector than for the private-sector group. For Factor 28 (Empha- sis is put on student involvement/participation in the training program delivery). the level of importance was greater for the private-sector 75 than for the public-sector group. For Factor 2 (The MDC is a Lansing Community College department whose purpose is to provide a variety of educational services. including customized training programs). the level of importance was greater for multiple—user than for single-user organizations. The 32 factors were grouped into 10 categories. When rankings of the categories were compared. no statistically significant group differences were found between sector- or user-type organizations in terms of the relative importance of particular categories. Overall. the findings suggest that the population subgroups-- private and public sectors and single and multiple users--can be treated similarly by the MDC in terms of future program planning. delivery. and promotion. .an91u519n_8: The factor rankings on the survey questionnaire provide more relevant data and have more utility for future programming decisions than do cate- gory rankings. Each of the 32 factors was rated individually by the respond- ents while the categories were considered only by titles or ranked by mean scores of factor means. 'The category rankings based on factor mean scores differed from category rankings based on free-choice selec- tion by category title. Dissimilarities in the comparison of rankings between category means based on factor responses and on free-choice responses to cate- gory titles might have occurred because 76 1. The factors were placed in categories that did not adequately describe them. 2. A disparate number of factors was contained in each category--from one to seven. Categories with a higher number of factors tended to elicit more variability in responses. resulting in a lower category mean. 3. The category titles. when listed alone. elicited different perceptions and responses from the respondents. .Qonglusion_2: The training program topics and employee groups for which clients would use the MDC to develop and deliver future customized training are simi- lar to the programs delivered to clients included in this study. yet point out potential untapped markets. Management. supervision. and personnel management training delivered to middle management and first-level supervisors are the content and population most likely to be included in future customized training planning. Worthy of note is that two employee groups. secre- tarial/clerical and hourly. were ranked higher for potential interest than is currently being used. This finding indicates a potential market that is presently not being captured. 'This is true for program content that falls in the category of computer training. (Although computer training constituted a small portion of training included in the study. more than one-third of the organizations indicated they would use the MDC to deliver this content. Only one-fourth of the responding organizations said they would use the MDC to deliver customized training to top management employees. Since this finding could likely be related to the image of the 77 community college. further study is advised before the MDC or any community college training unit focuses on this target market. It is interesting that only one of the 47 respondents indicated his/her organization would "probably not" use the MDC to deliver customized training again. The other 46 respondents indicated "yes" to the MDC's delivery of training in one or more content categories for one or more employee groups. This indicates potential future markets in both private- and public sector and single- and multiple—user organizations. Booomondations In this study. basic data were gathered on client organizations that had used Lansing Community College's MDC to develop and deliver customized employee-training programs. It is hoped that recommenda- tions drawn from the findings will serve as a stimulus to others who have an interest in collaborative relationships between educational institutions and business. industry. and government organizations. Keeping in mind the limitation that only one community college was used in the research. a number of recommendations are made for practical applications and further research. WW1 Aooljoations Training providers who plan. develop. and deliver customized training programs should consider the following recommendations in making management and marketing decisions. 78 l. The training needs assessment and analysis is a mutual process that includes the client and the training provider. 2. A proposal should be used. and it should clearly state the objectives and outcomes of the training. 3. The trainer should be included. to the extent possible. in the planning and proposing stages of the program. In every case. the trainer must be aware of what is expected of him/her in meeting the objectives of the proposed program. 4. Flexible scheduling (hours. days. starting and ending dates of training) should be an option for the client organization. 5. Training-program content should be customized/tailored/ adapted for the specific client organization's setting and requirements. 6. The trainer's presentation skills and academic and work experience are very important to the client organization. Therefore. the appropriate trainer/organization match should be made according to the specific client and program needs. In addition. the trainer should be included in the program planning and development stages. 7. Staff development for trainers should be conducted and should include instruction in working with adult employees. presenta- tion skills. and a total familiarity with the customizing process. 8. Promotional literature should emphasize the mutual planning process. flexible scheduling. trainer skills and expertise. and custom- ized program development and instructional delivery to meet the unique needs of the client organization. 79 WW Based on the findings of this study. the following recommenda- tions are made for further research. 1. This study should be replicated with similar training units in community colleges in other geographic areas. iua. larger cities. smaller communities. and medium-size cities that are not state capitals. 2. This study should be replicated with nonuser organizations to compare similarities and/or differences between present client organizations and those that have not used the MDC to develop and deliver customized training. The results of such research would be helpful in determining if different program planning and marketing strategies should be used with the two groups. 3. A similar study should be conducted by an "in-house" training unit to determine if there are similarities between internal (in-house) and external training providers concerning what they believe is important in training program planning. development. and delivery. 4. The survey questionnaire format should be changed in the following ways: a. List the selected factors without grouping them into categories. b. Ask respondents to select most and least important factors instead of the present categories. APPENDICES 8O APPENDIX A THE QUESTIONNAIRE 81 82 Please rate the following factors according to the level of importance as you made the decision to use the Management Development Center to deliver a customized training program(s) for your organization. Using the following scale, rate each factor: 5--thremely Important 4--Very Important 3--Important 2--Slightly Important 1--Not at all Important 4- W W 1. Recognition/reputation of the Management 5 4 3 2 1 Development Center (MDC) as a training unit 2. The MDC is a Lansing Community College 5 4 3 2 1 department whose purpose is to prov1de a variety of educational services, including customized training programs 3. Hord-of-mouth reputation and referrals 5 4 3 2 1 to the HDC as a deliverer of customized training programs 4. Confidence that the M00 professional 5 4 3 2 1 training staff can deliver training programs as planned and proposed 4W 5. Needs assessment process is 5 4 3 2 1 faCilitated by the HDC 6. Your training needs are mutually 5 4 3 2 1 identified by you and the HDC 7. Objectives and outcomes of training 5 4 3 2 1 are clearly stated in the proposal 0W 8. Quick response time by the MDC to your 5 4 3 2 1 requests for training program proposal 9. Quick turn-around time; from your initial 5 4 3 2 1 contact to time of program delivery 10. As a client. you experience no inappropriate 5 4 3 2 1 delays on part of MDC in meeting time- lines for training development and delivery 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 83 W = S--Extremely Important 4-—Very Important 3--Important 2--Slightly Important 1--Not at all Important ELEXLEL£_§£H£DHLLN§ Ability of MDC to deliver training at times (hours and days) specified by client Starting and ending dates of training program determined by specific client needs; not a standardized term/semester time frame to fit educational institution calendar LQEAILQE Choice of client-specified location for delivery of training program CQSI Prices are competitive with other training proViders There is no additional charge for granting academic credit if applicable Client organization does not have to prov1de/ use its own profeSSional training staff AEAREHLE_B££2§ELILQE College credit may be offered as an option if the training program meets academic requirements Certificates of completion/achiever ment are offered as an option Instruction is delivered by an academic institution EHBBLQELMLULQQNIEEI Curriculum is customized according to program objectives which are set to meet specific requirements of client Flexibility in program development that could include some portions of program to be planned and delivered by client's training staff Instructional materials are directly related to client‘s operations 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 84 ”filng sag {9119"105 §S£12 £912 £300 factor: 5--£xtreme1y Important 4--Very Important 3--Important 2--Slightly lmportant 1--Not at all Important W Trainer has academic expertise in content area of training program Trainer has work experience/expertise in content area of training program Trainer builds on (incorporates) work/life experiences of trainees in training program delivery Trainer uses a variety of delivery techniques; lecture. case studies, group discussions, simulations, role plays, films, Video etc. Trainer has good "stand-up" presentation skills In training program delivery, emphasis is put on student involvement/participation Appropriate equipment/facilities/room layout are used for the particular training being delivered EVALUAIION Evaluation of partiCipants is performance/work-based Evaluation on success of training program is not based on grades, but on how training met stated and mutually planned objectives of client Follow-up is conducted with you by the HDC staff at the end of training program 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 85 The factors you have rated fall into 10 categories: A. Recognition/reputation F. Cost 8 Pre-program planning G. Academic recognition process H. Curriculum/content C. Responsiveness I. Instructional delivery/ D. FleXible scheduling techniques E Location J. Evaluation Please select the categories which are m9§§ impgpggnt and those which are 1£g1t__imnggtant to you by writing the letters of the categories next your choice. Letter ______ Most important category Letter ______ Second most important category Letter ______ Least important category Letter ______ Second least important category Would you contract with the MDC to deliver customized training again? If yes, for which content areas? [please check your choice(s)l _____ Management _____Marketing _____ Supervision _____Sales _____ Board Leadership _-___Computer Training _____ Small BuSiness Management __-__Personnel Management for which employe groups? (please check your choiceis)! _____ Top management _____Hourly workers _____ Middle management _____Secretaria1/clerical _____ First-level supervisory Are there factors important to you that are not listed on this survey? If so, please list them. USing the following definitions. check the type which best describes your organization: ___- R VA E TOR ORG N Z ' A buSiness privately operated for profit for the benefit of stockholders. ____ P 10 G ' Organizations which are nonprofit; including government. religious. SOClal cause. educational and cultural organizations. Thank you! Olav APPENDIX 8 COVER LETTER 86 87 Lansing Community College P£180x400K1 Lansing. Michigan 48901-7211 Name _______ As director of the Management Development CenteriMDC) at Lansing Community College. I am interested in learning what is important to our clientele as they make choices for the delivery of their training programs. Since you have used the MDC to deliver customized training, it is important to get your feedback. Though the information will be included as part of my Ph.D. dissertation. the primary purpose for collecting this data is to assist the MDC in planning. developing and delivering training programs/services more efficiently and effectively. Whether used for MDC program planning or reported in the Ph.D. dissertation. all information will be treated confidentially. To this end. individual respondents and organizations will not be identified; only aggregate data will be used. If you are interested in the information collected in this study, I will be glad to send you a summary of the results. Just indicate your interest on the survey return form. Successful cooperative relationships between community organizations and the MDC to prOVide continuing education/training needs are possible only if we respond with needed programs/serVices. Your response to this survey will prOVide important information to accomplish this. Please take a few minutes to complete and mail the enclosed survey questionnaire. Your prompt response is needed--and appreciated. Sincerely. Olga Holden. Director Management Development Center Enclosure APPENDIX C ENDORSEMENT LETTER 88 89 Lansing Community College PO. Box 40010 Lansing. Michigan 48901-7211 July 25, 1984 Lansing Community College is committed to developing and maintaining successful linkages with community business, industry and government organizations. Knowing what is important to our clientele will help us develop and deliver more effective training education/services. Olga Holden, Director of the Business Division's Management Development Center (MDC), is conducting a study to gather information from client organizations which have contracted with the MDC to deliver customized training programs. The primary objective is to collect data which will assist us in future program planning. It would be most helpful if you can take a few minutes to complete the survey questionnaire. Sincerely, Norman L. Cloutier, Dean Business Division SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 9.0 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Aslanian. Carol B.. and Brickell. Henry M. "The College and Business Competition." .Iho.Nox.Io£K.Iimos. August 30. 1982. Section 12. Bevelacqua. Joan. "Management Strategy for Extending Services to Busi- nesses." Cmunitx Somcioos Qatalxst 13 (1982). Brickell. Henry M.. and Aslanian. Carol B. "On Beyond Alliances? The New Reality for Companies." .Ihe,College.Boand.3ayien 121 (Fall 1981): 16-19. Brickell. Henry M.; Chapman. Dale; and Hoffmann. Harriet. .Inalning .hx.Conttaoti.Collooozfimoloxon.Enoiilos. New York: The College Board. 1983. Brown. Stephen. "Primer for Colleges to Provide Training for Industry." Bethesda. Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service. 1981. ED 210 069 Cosand. Joseph P. "Perspectives: Community Education and Services in the 1980's." Comunitx Sonics: Qatalxst 11 (1981). Cross. Patricia K. "New Frontiers for Higher Education." .Cunnent Issuosiniiionotfiduoation 3 (1981). Darkenwald. Gordon G. "Perspectives of Business and Industry on Coop- erative Programming with Educational Institutions." fifiMlI.Edu: oational Quartoclx 33 (1983). Fidler. Timothy A. "Advancing Community College Impact Through Business and Industry." Non Mneotions .foc .Qomunitx .Qouooos 38 (1982). Gorowitz. Elizabeth. "Employee Training. Current Trends. Future Changes." .Inaining.and.Doxoloomont.lounna1 (August 1983). Hodgkinson. Harold L. "Guess Who's Coming to College: Your Students in 1980." Paper written for the National Institute of Independent Colleges and Universities. Washington. 0.0.. 1983. 91 92 Jackson. Richard J. "An Analysis of Corporate-Community College Rela- tions." .anunithonLioosCatalxst 11 (1981). Kotler. Philip. Mankotino to]: Nonocofit .Qnoanizations. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1982. _..__.... MankotinoManaoamontAnalxsiszfllananoanoContml. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1980. Lansing.Communitx.Collaoo.0ataloguo. Lansing: Lansing Community College. 1983. Lynton. Ernest A. "Improving Cooperation Between Colleges and Corpora- tions." .Egugatlonal.fiegonn (Fall 1982). Management Development Center. Lansing Community College. "MDC Semi- nars and Services." Lansing: Lansing Community College. 1982. (Brochure.) McCarthy. E. Jerome. .Essentlals of Manketing. Homewood. 111.: Richard D. Irwin. 1982. Naisbett. John. ,Megatnends. New York: Warner Books. 1982. Nie. N. H.; Hull. C. H.: Jenkins. J. G.; Steinbrenner. K.; and Bent. D. H. Statistical Eackaoa for: the Social Soionoes- 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1975. Palmer. Jim. ”College-Industry Cooperation." .0ommunitx.§onxioa 'ngglyfii 12 (1982). Parnell. Dale. Report to Lansing Community College faculty and administrative staff. Fall 1983. Quick. Thomas L. "Human Resources in the Year 2000: A Delphi Study." Icainino Nous (May 1983). Reich. Robert B. .Ina.Noxt.Amonioan.ELontian. Scranton. Pa.: Times Books. Harper 8 Row. 1983. Settle. Theodore J. "Interaction Between the Corporation and the University." Paper presented at the National Conference on Higher Education. American Association for Higher Education. Mach 5. 1981. 93 Verway. David I.. ed. .Michigan Statistical Abstnagt. 17th ed. Detroit: Wayne State University. 1982-83. Warmbrod. Catherine P.. and Faddis. Constance R. .Betnaining and Hockansinfiuiooiotfiostsaoonoarxfiouoatons. No. 235. Columbus. Ohio: The National Center for Research in Vocational Education. 1983. Worcester. Robert M. .Consumor.Mankotino.Bosaanoh.flandoook. England: McGraw-Hill. 1972. 1111111111111111“