.I I 'I ”III” IIIII‘I III" M; “II ' w‘qqa I." ..I. +32? ; ..I I; I}! III I . “I IIIIfiI II «pIII‘II‘ AIR?!“ I; ISIIII III. III’IIIIIIIIII IIIII‘IKEII Hgég'flié ‘II:‘I€"I’ lg}. .IIIIII‘ ‘I-‘LIfIf‘ fifii} ’ 'I w 1 IE; pg: ‘ . ,- I. ;.IIII IIIIIIIII I'II IIIIII III IM; IIIIIIIIIIII. . II I; III. ”I II I‘IIIIII'IIIII ’IIIII' ; ; m! ; 31:; ,. I‘II;IIIIIIIIII II I ”5 ‘ III: II IIII'I IIIIIII IIIIII III III III.’I;I‘&""}. I'JIII’I - IIIII‘II JIIIIIIIIIII’I IIIII "-‘III*I*IIIIII" I' . r. ::_. . 1 ' I' I 'I’ (III III IIIIIII III II;II|IIIIIII 1.. IIIII‘IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII II” "'III; I: I I' ..IIII ' I ,I I “II .; ‘IIIII'II II. I'II. I‘ U“ ”$43353: ._ ‘ . ' ;.;;I; l;I; 2; .;,; M; I;”I";I'I;I;IIII.IJ I'I III I; IITIII “III“ III .I IIIII;I.IIII I I33”. ;I;; ;;<;I;‘;q.;.-I;’;-II§-‘ . -: ‘14:” I;;. ‘;;II I’ll'IIIIHlIIIr I'M“; “I; III; 'III ;III- (IIII I‘IIIIIIIIIII IIII III'ZylfiIIIIQI+§I¥?I:“; " KI I. 3.‘ " I I; II .‘II I?) h’ "I ‘01.”. u I .I II. IIII, .;;;III;.I 'I. ;;I.'; II“; .4 .|.'II h; ; H II} III‘III .Igiw If. II’IIIII§$IIEIEII"I~"~I H II I I'II'I' 'I I IIIII IIII II 'IIII.II .I 'I’III. IIIIII IIIIIII ”IIIJIIIIL‘I I I5: {If}; {1: f I . IIII'IIIIII I . III ,‘I! I-z IJ‘ PII‘I . IIIIII;I ;I;I' I‘IIIII; .I. IIIII. III I. ;;|4 I ‘ IIIII ‘;i;:.'; ..I”): III IfIIII ”1‘ I; IIIIIIIIII‘IéIIIfIII: II";;I}I;I «ggigfi I II'I I I I I III; I I‘Iz‘v'II1IIII": “‘3. ' . 1 5;] HI}... I I IJ ;I IIIIHIII'I .IIIIII I; II;;;II;;I I II;I;III I;III' ;I (”m I‘ {ha}; J.I II‘; I I ”'3; u; '9“ flIigpjéIIE:§:—'II:{IIIII:I':III'I , II; ’;' IJ. ...... IIII. III" I’ II I.’fI‘ .‘ II; I; III... "I: III‘IIII‘ III II“ ;I;I,‘.I...Ir.f-31I§7III7:. ..I‘.I'I'III‘3I,£ 2 .,I I ., I ..I. ‘II' II ”II“ I‘ ' I. «III I -~ .. :I'luwna ~"H I43 :41 LII HIII§'i5.;II'i‘I!III.‘I-‘. ‘ I IIglI', 1;; IJIL‘I";II‘.- .'I)I 1“!le ‘l ' l' )( .n ' - I‘MI JI'IIIII' I'LIIiII ””0 I33". ‘I' ”I“; IIIiIIILI-I'; I11“; :2 h. Hr“; ." If II If: ';;;;I;‘ I; II I IIIIII II' IIIII;II’ ’II;III’I 'III'IWIII; III ...III IIIIII'II IIII; I,'I.II_';; II”;; II; IIII; ;{;;dIFWHI'1’ {II W1 III;;I;...:[I,I IIII'I' “III III IIIII-III IIIII IIIIIIIIII'II IIIIII’I I‘I 'i 'IIg-I: 'II‘I III‘ I IIIIII'III‘I IIIIIIIII'I IIIII III I;..‘I.I I; II! I ‘ III? I. IIIII'I'I- iIII ”III mI I,I III"I I'IIIIIIIII I' IIIII’II' ‘I'IIHII (II/r . ;. 'I . III II. III I ‘ "I IIIII'I‘I'; ‘l‘;I|;II‘I' III! 5"" ”I III‘HIII F- ? I...I II'I" I;.II I .F’III'III I |\ I H‘IC; IIIIIII“; ; IIIIIII;I;‘.' ; II;II\”.I ”I!" ”i; ISfI. fl ISI‘II‘IIIIII Ivé‘lfiI III; (..I" “III? 7]! 3’ fa}; 9% I" {sf L. “47 I IIIII I”); ‘I;I; IIII'I; MI; ;III INIH II ;I:II fII;-II 'II;I.HIIII ;;;; M. ;I {XII ’ q} J. _. I13. @ III" III I; “in; II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I, III; II‘ IIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIII’IIIIII I.I;;. IIIIIIIIJII IIIIJIIII III III .‘IIIIIIIII'IIII ~5I- M43 (‘0; “III?" I \II; III. “Ill.” ;.I"'.‘ ; .I_I .; );; ;';I;I;.I .l.' WI}; HI“, “MW; IIHW '; . . _.',I II . LI? It, A.“ I ”ILI‘ III|||'III;I' ‘I III I' III I I5IIIIII' I III; III 7;”; H;‘;I;I'.I;I I IIIII IIIIIIIIW‘I' 'IllfrIFII III; I WIN ILIIIII ‘iIIIIII' (In 3.‘I . III UI wIIIIoIIgN‘ - IIILIIIH'IIIIII I II ”I I#‘[' ";;;I;I III IIIIMIIII‘ III‘III’II'III’I. II'II"'I . IIIWIIIIII IIIIIIIII'IIIII 'IfI'”IIIIIIIIIIIIII'II"I'I'IIIIIII”IIII’IIIIII IIIII ..IIIIIIII .I .. .I' ..I. III? III} .II'IIJ- IIIIIIIIIII-II “W?" 'W 2"1'.I-IIIII'IIIIII'"IIIII-IIIIIII'IIIIIIIII'II.I'II ""‘IIIIIIIII‘IIIII " II I’I‘IITIII' -IIIII|U'.I ‘II III ..nIIIIIIII . III "If‘II'U' II I. II IIII‘IIIII, “”I' 1' III?" III III ..I: .IIIIIII .. I'III ., h ..I. .I‘IIIII. ; II _- I .. I] . I, ..I “III“ ‘ "‘I""”“" II'IIIIII IIII'I IIII‘IIIIII_I III‘ III. M... 'TIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I'IIIIIIIII ’III. II I..IIIIIIIIIIIJI I'III‘IIII'II III..'IIIIII".’IIIIII II. ..III . M” IIII‘III I‘l‘II'lIwIII'H I. HUI ; WW. I‘lffi ;IIIIII , III“ ;. IN. ”MI. I IIIfiIII-IIOIIIIIIIILIII . my... J ““qu IIIIIIIIIIIIEIII‘ ‘II'IIIIIIHI m IIIII" I I ”LIIIIII;I:'”.‘IIII l R'Il} I I!” II I‘III IIII IIIIII IIIIIIIII. I. IIIIIIII ; IIIIIIIIII' II';';'I; ;I.:I;;I; III! IIIII”;;4;U;I; I' IUII'I'I ;I;;|IIII 1;; I. III} "III . H '..I of); III 1'1;IIII"('\;II H .;;;;I; I I... I I.. I; III; III I'IIIII MHIIHIIIIII'I- \ WI”; 1mm“Igfl'ldfiIUHIfII(IIII;1:;IIII~IIIIII III “PIIIQUIIIW I;l:i_; .I ... II.-. -I4I Ma IuImo IIIIUMMI II‘Id “NIL-”ND“ - I IIIJIL; .-I .I4' LI"; ' II. I ‘ I II"'III‘ MINI!!!" HUIHIHHIHHI H” I” ”HIM 293 10063 4116 This is to certify that the thesis entitled FACTORS RELATED TO USER SATISFACTION OF STATE EXTENSION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM IN THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE presented by HARLEM D. SANDBERG has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. d . Admin 6: Higher Educ egreein (Major: Continuing Education) ”£42? 5'. dwcw Major professor Date August 21, 1979 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY . PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FACTORS RELATED TO USER SATISFACTION OF A STATE EXTENSION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM IN THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE By Harlem D. Sandberg A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administration and Higher Education l979 ABSTRACT FACTORS RELATED TO USER SATISFACTION OF A STATE EXTENSION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM IN THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE By Harlem D. Sandberg The purpose of this research was to determine the relation- ships of selected human and organizational factors on user satisfac- tion of a State Extension Management Information System. By identi- fying factors which are contributing to dissatisfaction with SEMIS, then appropriate CES management can make necessary decisions that will help improve SEMIS and thereby improve its utility as a manage- ment tool. Via literature review 15 human and 42 organizational factors were selected as the independent variables for the study and by logical analysis were placed into nine groups. The human factor groups were attitudes toward cost, employee relationships and demo- graphic variables. The organizational factor groups were system design input quality, system design output quality, training and ongoing user assistance, management attitudes, system security/ computer compatibility, decision making/organizational purpose, and system (SEMIS) purpose. Harlem D. Sandberg User satisfaction was identified as the dependent variable and was measured by a satisfaction score on question one and by the combined score on questions one through twelve of the research instrument. The research instrument used was a mail questionnaire which was sent to l38 full and part-time professional CES employees in one state. One hundred thirty-two completed questionnaires were returned (95%) and comprised the research sample. Nine separate hypotheses were formulated and tested in the study. Hypothesis l was tested via Multiple Regression Analysis and Hypothesis 2 was tested via Multivariate Analysis of Variance. Tests of the hypotheses yielded the following results at the .05 level of significance. Hypothesis l: User satisfaction can be predicted by employee relationships, training and ongoing user assistance, system design input quality, and to a less degree by management attitudes and system design output quality. The predictor variables system (SEMIS) purpose, decisions making/organizational purpose, system security/ computer compatibility and cost failed to predict user satisfaction with SEMIS. Hypothesis 2a: User satisfaction was significantly related to users employment position. Specifically, administrators were more satisfied with SEMIS compared to county agents and specialists, and county agents were more satisfied with SEMIS than specialists. Harlem D. Sandberg Hypothesis 2b: User satisfaction was significantly related to users years of employment. Specifically, employees who had 2l-25 years of employment with CES were significantly more satisfied with SEMIS than those who had 0-20 years of employment. Hypothesis 2c: The relationship between user satisfaction and users age was found not significant. Hypothesis 2d: User satisfaction was significantly related to highest academic degree held. Specifically, users holding bachelors or masters degrees were significantly more satisfied than those holding a doctorate degree. Hypothesis 2e: The relationship between user satisfaction and area of highest academic degree was found not significant. H2f: The relationship between user satisfaction and total number of employees in users office was found not significant. Hypothesis 29: The relationship between user satisfaction and the position of office chairperson and nonchairperson was found not significant. DEDICATION To my mother and father who have always encouraged me to go to school. Not once did they ever discourage my desire to "go on" to college or to continue on for another degree. To my family who have had to endure much through this doctoral degree program. Only they know what it is like from their perspective. Margaret, you have extended yourself unselfishly in providing love, reassurance and support for your husband and our children. Tecla and Todd, you have shown much patience and understanding when Daddy had to go and study. No longer will you need to ask, "Daddy, are you going to work on your dissertation?" Once again my family can become the center of my life. To my late mother-in-law, Mrs. Marion Parker and my father- in-law, Dr. Floyd 6. Parker for their loving care and support. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The researcher wishes to thank his doctoral committee for their guidance and support of this research project: Dr. Melvin Buschman, chairman, for his advice, patience, encouragement and gentleness and seeing to it that all details were in order. Dr. Charles McKee, for his logical insight and advice. Dr. Howard Miller, for his practical approach to this research project. Dr. Iwao Ishino, for his critical and systematic analysis of the research effort. Also, former committee member and now retired, Professor Russell Kleis, for his scholarly advice. The researcher also wishes to thank Mr. James B. Douglass, statistician, for his excellent help and Mr. Madhi Ghodes, fellow graduate student, for his superb assistance in doing the computer runs. The researcher is indebted to the Cooperative Extension Service faculty of Sample state for their cooperation in completing the research questionnaire. Appreciation is also expressed to the University of Alaska for sabbatical leave during which this doctoral program was begun. iii Special thanks to Dr. James N. Matthews, Director, Cooperative Extension Service for all his support and encouragement. Finally, there are numerous peOple who have helped physically, morally, intellectually or spiritually to complete this research. To each, a sincere thank you. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . l Development of the Extension Management Information System . . . . . l Response to the State Extension Management Information System . . . . . . . . . . 4 Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . l0 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . lO Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 14 II. LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . l5 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 15 Management Information Systems . . . . . . . l6 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . l7 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Models . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Underlying Concepts . . . . . . . . . . 20 User Satisfaction Studies . . . . . . . . . 23 Reasons for MIS Failures . . . . . . 28 Cooperative Extension Service Management Information System . . . . . . . . . . 34 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Chapter Collection of Data . Coding and Tabulation of Data Hypotheses . . . . . Dependent Variable Independent Variables Analysis . Differences Between This Study and Other User Satisfaction Studies . . . Sumary . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Profile of Respondents . . Analysis of the Hypotheses Discussion . . . Summary. V. SUMMARY Conclusions Discussion . Implications for Future Research REFERENCES APPENDICES vi Table 0301wa TO. IT. 12. T3. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Major Users of Management Information Systems . Management Information System Concepts Variable/Questionnaire Explanation Independent Variables . Classification of Respondents by Age . Classification of Respondents by Present Employment Positions . . . Classification of Respondents by Employment Positions for Other County Staff Positions . Classification of Respondents by Total Years Employed by Cooperative Extension Service Classification of Respondents by Highest Academic Degree Achieved . . . . Classification of Respondents by Area of Degree Classification of Respondents by Area of Degree for Other Areas of Degree . . . . . Multiple Regression Statistics for Overall Satisfaction Score . Multiple Regression Statistics for Score on Milton Jenkins User Satisfaction Questions . Correlation Coefficients Between Predictor Variables and Overall Satisfaction Score and Score on Milton Jenkins Satisfaction Questions Multivariate Tests of Significance for Employment Position . . . . . . . . . vii Page 18 22 4l 50 58 58 59 6O 6T 6T 62 65 66 67 69 Table Page l6. Means and Standard Deviations for Employment Position Held . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 l7. Means and Standard Deviations for Years of Employment with Cooperative Extension Service . . 7l l8. Means and Standard Deviations for Highest Academic Degree Held . . . . . . . . . . 74 viii Figure 4-500“) LIST OF FIGURES Diagram of an MIS . Basic Model of an MIS More Complex Model of an MIS Multiple Regression Analysis for Testing Hypothesis Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Testing Hypothesis 2 . . . ix Page 19 21 21 52 54 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Research Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 91 B Cover Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 C. Follow-Up Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 D Second Cover Letter . . . . . . . . . . . 106 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Today, from a management perspective, the concept of accountability is prevalent within governmental or public institu- tions. Within the field of education, be it formal or informal, boards, presidents, Chancellors, superintendents, directors, and teachers are all being asked for accountability in expenditure of funds, public and/or private. People are not only conscious of the cost of education, but are looking at the end product of its invest- ment, the student or audiences served. Educational needs for a society change over time and competition for resources to mount programs to meet the various needs have increased at all levels of government. Development of the Extension Managgment Information System The Cooperative Extension Service (CES), an adult educational agency, is experiencing this competition for public funds while at the same time finding the demand for its services increasing: In the 60's legislative bodies at all levels began to demand accountability, not for new funds but for funds already in hand. This situation is illustrated by the fact that nationally the size of the Cooperative Extension staff hasn't changed much since 1961. Increases in Extension funds came in areas of national concern, such as expanded nutrition and pesticides. The trend for increased 1 emphasis on accountability will probably continue. There- fore, it demands continued attention (Lutz and Swoboda, 1972, p. 45). Accountability for the Cooperative Extension Service means providing a credible demonstration of accomplishments toward objectives stated and implied in its enabling and subsequent legislation (p. 45). Several programs dealing with accountability but called by different names include program budgeting, cost effectiveness, and zero based budgeting. These all have the same intent which is to demonstrate accountability (p. 45). But accountability goes beyond just showing, for example,how efforts were expanded. It is directly related to management and involves not only the managers but the management process which ultimately is concerned with results. Additionally, ". . . a major consideration in moving toward account- ability must be development of information systems, including the data gathering and analytical activities needed to support them" (Barro, 1973, p. 125). At the federal level, the search for a mechanism to control funds was most visible in the Department of Defense under Secretary Robert McNamara, in the form of program budgeting. President Johnson expanded this idea to include all agencies of the federal government. Thus, the USDA and its agencies were brought into such a system. With this action, along with earlier planning, the federal administrators of Extension developed the Extension Management Information System (EMIS) for the total agency, along with its counterpart in each state referred to as SEMIS (State Extension Management Information System). The EMIS/SEMIS concept was "one of the first steps taken to evaluate the effect of govern- ment spending, from a management approach" (Lutz and Swoboda, p. 47). More explicitly SEMIS is a management information system (MIS) which is used as a tool in the management process. It is a computer assisted management information system designed to provide manage- ment information to CES staff members at county, regional, state and national levels. State Extension Management Information Systems (SEMIS) are operational in fifty states, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia and the Extension Service, USDA. The national Extension Management Information System (EMIS) is composed of the fifty state systems. Each of these entities operates a SEMIS specifically designed for its needs and has the capability to collect, store and retrieve data. The CES Management Information System was designed to assist CES Management in areas which include: 1. Development of short- and long-range plans that reflect national goals, state targets and local needs. 2. Determination of alternatives in resource organization and allocation. 3. Determination of progress in achieving stated purposes and objectives at all CES levels. 4. Determination of resource expenditures associated with specific purposes and objectives (Rosenberg, Davis, Landacta, Muller, Radness and Walter, 1967, p. 1). The basic information fed into SEMIS includes the tasks or educational plans developed by the staff member. Usually each staff member has several tasks which constitute his plan of work for the fiscal year. The SEMIS activity report is the "follow-up" informa- tion system. It records how staff members expend their time based on the above identified divisions. Computer printouts portray in selected ways how the staff plans its efforts and how they have expended them. Since the advent of EMIS/SEMIS in the later sixties, it has undergone three modifications. In fiscal year 1967 EMIS data collec- tion was eliminated. At the same time the Extension Service (ES), Washington, D.C., requested less data on planning and time expended from each state because the USDA required less data and on a slightly different basis. That change essentially amounted to combining two major categories of task and activity input information into a new category. One implication of that change is to modify SEMIS accord- ingly. Although the Extension Service did not recommend that SEMIS Version III be altered as a result of these recommendations, it did instruct the states how to convert SEMIS data into the revised component category. Interestingly a few states viewed this request for modified data as an opportunity to revise their SEMIS format which actually amounts to a fourth revision of SEMIS. These altera- tions illustrate that SEMIS is a flexible system. Response to the State Extension Management Ihfbrmation System The response to SEMIS by CES staff nationally has varied. In Minnesota a survey of CES staff showed that a negative feeling was dominant and that there was polarization of feelings toward SEMIS (Keel, 1973). Both county staff and state specialists were negative toward the system with the polarization more pronounced among state specialists as a group. Administrators generally were supportive of SEMIS. In a single-state survey conducted in Tennessee (Henderson and Carter, 1975, p. 3), the majority of the Extension staff surveyed (71 percent) felt the purpose of the weekly activity report was to keep a record of time spent or show what was done. Additionally, they felt the report was aimed at the state and/or national administra- tive level (57 percent) rather than the county (15 percent). Eighteen percent felt it was aimed at all levels while 7 percent felt it was aimed at both state and county levels. A majority of the Extension Staff (54 percent) felt that the staff time expended to complete the weekly activity report was justified by their present use of the printout data. Thirty-two percent of the staff felt that the staff time expended to complete the weekly activity report was justified by their present use of the printout data while 9 percent of the staff felt it was a questionable use of their time (p. 3). Regarding uses made of the printout data, reporting was most frequently mentioned (39 percent) followed by using the data to com- pare expended time with planned time (25 percent). Of the remaining ten staff members (35 percent), nine used the data in conjunction with evaluation, planning or a combination of evaluation, reporting and planning while one had not used the data. Regarding usefulness of the data to show accomplishment of objectives, the staff members were nearly equally split in their opinions but they were almost totally in agreement that the data could not be used to reflect the effectiveness of activities conducted (p. 3). During the 1973 Extension Winter School where twenty-two Extension professionals representing fifteen state Extension Services were asked to respond to three statements relating to SEMIS, one statement was "What I like or dislike about SEMIS." Dislikes of SEMIS accounted for the majority of the responses. Some responses were: Despite the fact that SEMIS is an easier method of reporting for me, I still don't feel it serves much pur- pose for me. It seems to me that it does not reflect quality of programs as it should. After reporting by number I cannot analyze and review any program progress. In other words, the reporting sys- tem is meaningless. It isn't a qualitative indication of the programs but rather is a quantitative one. Printouts arrive months afterwards. Dislike time in keeping it and coding is not perma- nent and does not give a true picture of program plan- ing. SEMIS categories are difficult to use because more of the work does not seem to come under any of them. We were initially supposed to be relieved of our terminal reports. Ha! Now we have SEMIS, progress, terminal, and special (then they usually ask us to repeat). Numbers are too broad--difficult to 'pinpoint' activities. It's another report. I just don't like reports. I think SEMIS would mean something if it were used properly. It should be related to program - plan of work - progress - civil rights and nondiscrimination - county situation and become one part of the program development process. The program as it is now managed does not provide information often enough or on enough relevant subjects to provide the agent with relevant information. Dislike it because I have not really learned how to use it (Soobitsky and Lukens, 1973). Apparently much dissatisfaction was expressed among state cooperative extension services during 1975 which in turn resulted in a letter to State Extension Directors from ES Administrator Kirby (1975) in which he stated the following: For the past several weeks there has been much discus- sion about the future of EMIS/SEMIS. This is to confirm and re-emphasize my comments at the Land-grant Meeting on the need for maintaining and strengthening our Extension Management Information System. Kirby appointed a committee whose purpose was to recommend policy regarding program data and information needs within ES-USDA which in turn should enhance the effectiveness of SEMIS. CES-sponsored conferences on SEMIS which this researcher has attended have focused on the problem areas of acceptance, operation and design. Also, comments heard by this researcher about SEMIS when interacting with CES staff from various states are usually negative. Need for the Stugy Currently the situation relevant to SEMIS research is as follows: 1. SEMIS has been operating for nearly a decade and yet few indepth empirical studies of the system have been conducted despite the current concerns. The surveys mentioned above and two other Tennessee studies (McBroom, Jr., Carter, Jr., and Datson, 1972; Gault, 1976) are apparently the only systematic research which have been done on SEMIS and which was done on Version II. No systematic research has been done on Version III. 2. SEMIS is an extensive system in which each state and the Extension Service, Washington, D.C., have invested considerable resources in materials, manpower, and time. With nearly a ten-year history the system now is receiving considerable review nationally and there is little evidence to indicate a few states have modified the system substantially. This has resulted in less information being made available than before. At the national level EMIS data were last generated in fiscal year 1976 via automatic conversion of SEMIS data. The scarcity of research indicates that no in-depth empirical studies have been done on SEMIS, yet, the system has undergone three revisions and there is the potential for yet a fourth. This all occurred without the aid of empirical research. SEMIS is in the operational phase and consequently empirical research can aid in its improvement. The ability to determine reliable ratings of satisfac- tion will help identify problem areas, or in this case selected human and organizational factors, which apparently are contributing to dissatisfaction with the system. This in turn should help appropriate CES management to make better decisions in its attempt to improve SEMIS. An improved SEMIS, in turn will further help CES in demonstrating accountability. In addition, it is anticipated this study will contribute to the research on management information systems, especially those used in education and particularly by large- scale adult educational organizations. Purpose Eminating from previous research, the central question pro- viding the basis for this study is, "What factors contribute to dissatisfaction of SEMIS among CES staff?" The literature shows that the measurement of user satisfac- tion is one method of assessing operational feasibility of a manage- ment information system. According to Ahern, McIntyre, Sand and Thomas (1977): Ideally . . . the only factors affecting satisfaction are how well the users' needs were reflected in the formal system objectives and how well the system design met those objectives. However, other factors will affect satisfac- tion; they should be identified and measured (p. 6). The literature review identifies many factors which affect users' satisfaction with an MIS. This study will include selected human and organizational factors. Human factors include: (1) employee relationships, (2) user attitude toward cost, (3) user attitude toward computers, and (4) demographic data. Organizational factors include: (1) systems design factors, (2) training and ongoing user assistance, (3) management attitudes, (4) data security, (5) user perceptions of how the system is used in decision making, (6) user perceptions of how it serves the purpose of the organization, and (7) user perceptions of the degree to which it fulfills the purpose for which it was designed. 10 The purpose of this study is to determine the relationships of selected human and organizational factors on user satisfaction of a State Extension Management Information System. User satisfac- tion in this research is a general term to describe how well users feel the system meets their needs (Ahern et al., p. 1). One method to determine user satisfaction is to measure the attitudes of individual users. Attitudes in this research refers to an individ- ual's belief, opinion or mood. Hypothesis The general hypothesis for this study is that a relationship exists between user satisfaction scores and selected human and organizational factors in a Cooperative Extension Service State Extension Management Information System. Limitations The population for the study included all full and part-time Cooperative Extension Service Staff of one state who are users of SEMIS. The population did not include paraprofessionals and nutri- tion aides. In structuring the sample for this research, Extension Service staff, Washington D. C. was asked to identify one or more states with moderate CES staff size which were using Version III of a smoothly Operating SEMIS system. Three states were identified from which the researcher chose "Sample State" (it was requested that the identity of the state not be revealed to protect staff ll anonymity). It was chosen because it had the most typical operating Version III of SEMIS, because the state was very willing to cooperate in this research, which apparently contributed to a very high return level of the questionnaire, and because its moderate size staff (approximately 150) provided an adequate size sample for statistical analysis. The study is limited to the State Extension Management Information System. It does not include EMIS. The data employed in the analysis are limited to the State Extension Management Information System. The data employed in the analysis are limited to these obtained from the research questionnaire completed by the full and part-time CES staff of one state. Assumptions This study is based on the following assumptions: 1. That Cooperative Extension Service needed a management information system to demonstrate accountability. 2. The SEMIS system was designed to meet this need for accountability. 3. That CES staff provides data appropriately and accurately into the system. During the operational phase, the effectiveness of the system is dependent primarily upon each staff member who collects and submits data into the system. 12 Definitions Cooperative Extension Service (CES)--The informal educational organization of the United States Department of Agriculture, whose purpose as defined by the Smith Lever Act of 1914 is to disseminate information on agriculture, home economics and related items to the people. The state office is located in each state's land-grant university and field offices are located in each county of the states. "Extension Management Information System (EMIS)--The part of the (computer assisted) national management information system data base specifically designed for ES-USDA to systematically collect and analyze aggregated data from state Extension educational programs for utilization in program management and administration" (Lawrence, 1974, p. 14). "State Extension Management Information System (SEMIS)--The part of the (computer assisted) state management information system data base specifically designed for state and local planning units to collect and analyze Extension program data for utilization in program development and program administration" (Lawrence, 1974, p. 16). "Program Development--The continuous series of processes which includes organizing, planning a program, preparing a plan of work and teaching plans, implementing the plans, evaluating, and reporting accomplishments," (Lawrence, 1974, p. 15). 13 "Plan of Work (written document)--A written outline of strategy for one year or less for each problem or concern involved in a program that sets forth in an integrated and coordinated manner the following elements: 1) educational, operational, and/or organiza- tional objectives to be achieved; 2) learning experiences, activities, events, and/or situations to be undertaken, calendarized, and related to appropriate objectives; 3) evidence of accomplishments, kind of, and calendar for evaluation; 4) time to be devoted to each activity, event, and/or learning situation; 5) who will assume primary and support leadership responsibilities; and 6) coordination, internal and external" (Lawrence, 1974, p. 15). Human factors--The factors or independent variables in this study which are initially based in the individual user. That is, the user provides these factors, i.e., demographic data, employee relation- ship, etc. Organizational factors--The factors or independent variables in this study which are initially based on the organization. That is, the organization or the management of the organization provides these factors, i.e., purpose of the organization, training, etc. Version I--The original version of the Extension Management Information System. It was field tested in several selected states and with federal Extension Service employees. Version II--The second version of the Extension Management Information System. It was a modification of Version I and was the version implemented nationally. 14 Version III--The third version of the Extension Management Information System. It was a modification of Version II with substan- tial changes, including: addition of data fields, addition of English language, explanation of numerical codes in printouts and increased flexibility in data handling. Overview of the Study The thesis is organized into five chapters. The introductory chapter presents the background of the problem, the purpose of the study, the hypothesis, limitations, and definitions. Chapter II reviews the literature on management information systems and explains the State Extension Management System. Chapter III describes the design of the research and the methodology of the study. It identifies the population and explains the research hypotheses, variables and instrument, and statistical analysis. Chapter III also looks at the differences between this study and others examining user satisfaction. Chapter IV presents an analysis of the data. The final chapter details the conclusions of the study, offers recom- mendations and implications for further research and summarizes. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Management Information Systems are inherently related to management. The literature abounds with definitions of management with it frequently defined simply as "getting things done through people." But scholars view management as more complex and involved. Shrode and Voich (1974) tie together the concepts of input, output and organization in their definition as follows: . . . management can be viewed as a set of activities or a process for coordinating and integrating the use of resources to accomplish organizational purpose (producti- vity and satisfaction), through pe0ple, via techniques and information, and in an organized structure (p. 7). Johnson, Kast and Rosenzweig (1967) assert that the manage- ment process involves relating three unrelated resources: men, machines and money, into a total system for objective accomplishment. And Hostrop (1973) relates management to accountability by saying, "Management is the acceptance of personal accountability determined by measurable results" (p. 3). In the study of management as a process, authors delineate the functions of management in various ways. For purposes of this research, the major functions of management are defined as "planning, organizing, staffing, directing and control" (Koontz and O'Donnell, 15 16 1968, pp. 47-48). The manager performs these functions and common functions of management according to Brown (1972) are: 11. 12. _.1 CLOCDVOSU‘l-DwN-d Developing purposes and objectives Setting frames of reference Forecasting and planning Arranging for financing Organizing Obtaining and developing personnel Coordinating and informing Guiding and leading Surveying performance; auditing Testing and evaluating Adjusting and integrating Insuring proper external relationships (p. 16). Despite the fact that basic management functions or principles are common to private and public organizations, it is important to note that public management differs from corporate management in several ways as Bower (1977) indicates: Public sector managers frequently must: - Accept goals that are set by organizations other than their own. - Operate structures designed by groups other than their OWl‘l . - Work with pe0p1e whose careers are in many respects out- side management's control. - Accomplish their goals in less time than is allowed corporate managers (p. 134). Management Information Systems This literature review of Management Information Systems (MIS) is not necessarily concerned with the technical and economic aspects of a computer-based management information system, rather it is mainly concerned with its operational aspects. Historians have traced record-keeping back to the Babylonians in 3500 B.C. whose merchants kept records of wealth on clay tablets. Early systems of 17 mathematics have also been traced back to this same time period. However, it took another 2000 years for the alphabet to be developed by the Phoenicians. These two developments are the basis for all subsequent developments in data and information processing (Burch and Strater, 1974, p. 4). Throughout history the need for more management information has increased, particularly since the indus- trial revolution (Murdick and Ross, 1977, p. l) and more recently due to the increased regulation of society in general by governmental agencies (Burch and Strater, 1974, p. 5). The use of the computer as a management tool originated in the mid-19505 and since then has experienced explosive growth (Matthews, 1976, p. 6). Objectives The fundamental purposes of an M15 are to (1) provide timely information to management, (2) aid in the allocation of resources, and (3) aid in the selection of alternatives (Head, 1972, p. 7). Put another way, "its primary purpose is to provide information for decision making and coordination" (Emery, 1969, p. 34). Ross (1976) ties the objectives of an MIS to management functions as follows: "The objective of an MIS is to provide infor- mation for decision making on planning, initiating, organizing, and controlling the operations of the sub-systems of the firm and to provide a synergistic organization of the process" (PP. 8-9). Who then are the users of an MIS? The major users of an MIS are summarized in Table 1. 18 TABLE l.--Major Users of Management Information Systems. User Uses Clerical Handling transactions, process data and answer personnel inquiries. First-level Obtaining operations data. Assistance with plan- managers ning, scheduling, identifying out-of-control situations and making decisions. Staff Information for analysis. Assistance with specialists analysis, planning and reporting. Management Regular reports. Special retrieval requests. Special analyses. Special reports. Assistance in identifying programs and opportuni- ties. SOURCE: Davis (1974), p. 103. Definition The literature contains numerous definitions of management information systems ranging from complex to simple or comprehensive to basic. Kanter (1977) defines an MIS as "a system that aids management in making, carrying out and controlling deciSions" (p. 1). Murdick and Ross (1977, p. 1) diagrammed an MIS as shown in Figure 1. In addition they state: . . the MIS has the purpose of assisting managers to make decisions. While all workers make decisions, manager's decisions are concerned with planning for, directing, and controlling work groups. They make decisions on longer- term and broader-scale issues than the individual machine operator, clerk, technician, professional, or staff consul- tant. 19 1MIS Management Information System 1. Makes decisions 2. Information con- 3. Systems for regarding: sists of orderly integration of all — Planning selected data used company activities - Operating for making through exchange - Controlling decisions of information FIGURE 1.-—Diagram of an MIS Second, the MIS has the purpose of providing selected data, i.e., information to managers at a time when they are useful in aiding the managers to make decisions. In fact, parts of the MIS may be designed to provide decisions for repetitive classes of problems. Third, the MIS provides information to all managers so that all company activities may be tied together to operate the company as a system (pp. 8-9). Alexander (1974) focuses on the output of an MIS, information, in his definition by stating an MIS is: . . . any information system that provides a manager with information on the activities and pertinent inter- relations about the current status of the production/opera- tion system over which he has authority. The basic objec- tive is to provide the manager with complete, accurate, and timely information relating to the performance of the organization (p. 100). 20 M25. The literature consistently points out that an MIS is a system. It exhibits the basic properties of systems: purpose, wholism, openness, transformation, interrelatedness and control. The basic model of an MIS is shown in Figure 2 (Davis, 1974, p. 103). Taking this basic model and introducing the function of control which relies on feedback, evaluation, and adjustment (Voich, Homer, and Shrode, 1975, p. 36) produces the model in Figure 3. Underlying Concgpts Because an MIS is related to the organization and to human processors within it and several concepts are involved in understand- ing an MIS. These are summarized with comments in Table 2. As has been explained, the output of an MIS is information. According to O'Brien (1975, p. 5), "An MIS should provide management with information (and information analysis techniques) about the internal operations of the business system." This includes informa- tion on activity, status, resources, and their allocation, and plan- ning and control. In addition, the MIS should provide information from the business environment, that which is external to the organiza- tion. The outputs of the "MIS should provide management with information 1) on demand, 2) according to the predetermined schedule, or 3) when exceptional conditions occur" (p. 5). 21 THE BASIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MODEL Data Processing Information BASIC MODEL WITH DATA STORAGE Data Storage Inputs Processing Outputs FIGURE 2.--Basic Model of an M15 Data Storage Inputs Processing Outputs Adjustment: Evaluation ¢ Feedback FIGURE 3.--More Complex Model of an M15 22 TABLE 2.--Management Information System Concepts. Concept Comments Information Information is that which adds to a representa- tion. It has attributes of age and quality. Humans as The capabilities of humans as information pro- information cessors impose limitations on information processors systems and suggest principles of their design. System concepts Organization and management concepts Decision-making Because a management information system is a system, the concepts of systems are useful in understanding and designing approaches to infor- mation system developments. An information system exists within an organiza- tion and is designed to support management func- tions. Information is an important determinant of organizational form. MIS design should reflect not only rational concepts approaches for optimization but also the behavioral theory of organizational decision making. Value of Infbrmation changes decisions. The changes in information the value of the outcomes determines the value of information. SOURCE: Voich, Mattice and Shrode (1975), p. 36. 23 User Satisfaction Studies Garino (1977) noted a management information system's performance can be assessed by its technical, economic, and opera- tional feasibility. Technical feasibility can best be assessed by using information theory and economic feasibility can best be addressed by using the more statistical methods of decision theory. Operational feasibility can be assessed by several different approaches including: determining adequacy or relevancy of output data from the MIS for its users and determining adequacy or rele- vancy of output data from the MIS for its users and determining degree of interaction between specialists and management (pp. 35-36). Other ways of assessing operational feasibility include assessing the use of MIS data in the decision-making process and measuring user satisfaction. Adams (1973, p. l) asserts user satisfaction is one of several components of system effectiveness while Seward (1973, p. 136) considers user satisfaction to be a feasible substitute for measuring overall effectiveness of the information system. Ahern et a1. (1977) studied user satisfaction of an MIS in private industry. They related outcomes to inputs and took the position that user attitudes are part of satisfaction and that the attitudes will be mirrored in usage statistics. Their findings show job satisfaction was related to user satisfaction, but there was no relationship to organizational climate. Our findings include employee position related to user satisfaction, while age and longevity were the only two demographic factors that related to user satisfaction. 24 Factors included in the above study by Ahern et a1. (1977) were system design--report format. content, flexibility, timeliness, accuracy, completeness, and understandability; job satisfaction; perception of overall organization climate; factors at the interface between system function and user--training program, written instruc- tions, ongoing user assistance and general perceptions of the quality of the information systems function; demographic data-~age, longevity with the firm, division, and job category; general attitudes toward computerized systems (p. 6). The research questionnaire in the above study (p. 20) included user satisfaction questions developed by Jenkins (1977). They feund a positive correlation between the Jenkins questions and an independent measure developed by the private industrial firm whose MIS was being studied. Guthrie (1979) surveyed middle managers and found that MIS user attitudes are determined by organizational environment rather than by personal background. The determinants included organization size, job functions, length of service, systems experience, informa- tion systems change experience, participant's experience, MIS familiarity and recent management training. Ahern et a1. (1977) report that Lucas' dissertation uncovered attitudes which bear upon user satisfaction. Lucas focused on all levels of employees and looked at both the data processing and non- data processing parts of the organization. He predicted the follow- ing five relationships: (1) The perceived quality of data-processing 25 service will be directly related to attitudes toward the computer and staff. (2) The greater the perceived management support for the computer, the more favorable the attitudes will be toward data processing. (3) The more involvement in the design of new computer systems, the more favorable the attitudes will be toward the computer and staff. (4) The more contact with data processing, the more favorable the attitudes toward the computer and staff. (5) Older employees and those with longer service will have less favorable attitudes toward the computer than younger employees. The study strongly supported the first two, the third was partly supported, the fourth was more or less contradicted and the fifth was unsupportable. Sartore (1976) found administrative support for an MIS is strongly related to user satisfaction and somewhat related to the performance of the MIS user. For Seward (1975) user satisfaction is a surrogate for over- all information system effectiveness. It can be determined by evaluating the outputs (printouts) via measures of content, degree of currency, format, level of detail and mode of dissemination (p. 132). McClurg (1977) studied computer assisted management informa- tion systems in public higher education and found the greatest problem in utilization was with the complexity of input requirements. Other problems included financial constraints and the resolution of policy related to the MIS. In the same study, McClurg reports users indicated the greatest utility of the MIS was in the areas of 26 keeping records and generating reports, value as an analytical tool, producing information for decision-making, and for institutional research. As a result of substantial research, Lucas (1975) concluded . . that the major reason most information systems have failed is that we have ignored organizational behavior problems in the design and operation of computer-based information systems. If steps are not taken to understand and solve these organizational behavior problems, systems will continue to fail (p. 6). Lucas focused his research on three crucial classes of vari- ables: user attitudes and perceptions, the use of systems, and per- formance (p. 20). He studied the relationships between the variables by developing and testing sixteen propositions via six studies over a fbur-year period which involved over 2000 users of systems in field and laboratory settings. The propositions are as follows: User Attitudes and Perceptions Proposition 1 The systems design and operations policies of the infor- mation services department and the execution of those poli- cies influence the technical quality of information systems. Proposition 2 The systems design and operations policies of the infor- mation services department influence user attitudes and per- ceptions of information systems and the information services staff. Proposition 3 User contact with information services staff members under adverse conditions leads to unfavorable user attitudes and perceptions of information systems and the information services staff. Proposition 4 User involvement in the design and the operation of information systems results in favorable user attitudes and perceptions of information systems and the information ser- vices staff. 27 Proposition 5 Systems with higher technical quality result in more favorable user attitudes and perceptions of information systems and the information services staff. Proposition 6 High levels of management support for and participation in information systems activities result in favorable infor- mation services staff attitudes toward their jobs and users and favorable user attitudes and perceptions of information systems and the information services staff. Use of an Information System Proposition 7 Favorable user attitudes and perceptions of information systems and the information services staff lead to high levels of use of an information system. Proposition 8 Individuals with differing decision styles have differ- ing levels of use of information systems, perform different analyses of data, and take different actions based on infor- mation. Proposition 9 Different personal and situational factors lead to differing levels of use of information systems and action. Proposition 10 High levels of system use result from a system with high technical quality. Proposition 11 High levels of use of an information system make it more likely that a user will take action based on the infor- mation provided. Performance Proposition 12 Individuals with differing decision styles have differ- ing levels of performance. Proposition 13 Different personal and situational factors lead to differing levels of performance. Proposition 14 Low performance stimulates the use of problem finding information produced by information system. 28 Proposition 15 The use of problem-solving information produced by an information system leads Unhigh levels of performance if the user takes action consistent with the information. Proposition 16 For irrelevant information, low levels of use of an information system lead to high performance. Varying support was found for all the propositions. The most important findings, however, were that, The policies of the information services department and the technical quality of systems are associated with favorable user attitudes and perceptions. Favorable attitudes and perceptions and systems with high technical quality are associated with high levels of use of informa- tion systems. Finally, low performance is associated with high levels of use for problem-finding information while the use of problem solving information is positively associated with performance (pp. 105-106). Lucas concludes that, The model and findings stress the fact that informa- tion systems exist within the context of an organization. To design and operate successful information systems, three major groups in the organization must cooperate; management, users, and the information services depart- ment need to consider the organizational and technical variables we have discussed. Information systems have a tremendous potential for users and for the organiza- tion (p. 116). Reasons for MIS Failures The literature on MIS reveals numerous reasons why systems fail or have difficulties. Murdick and Ross (1975) have identified five major difficulties: (1) Emphasis on the computer for clerical processing rather than for managerial decision making (2) Improper definition of system objectives and information require- ments (3) Organization of the systems function (4) Disregarding the impact of the computer on human nature (5) Underestimating MIS complexity and costs (p. 549). 29 Voich, Mattice and Shrode (1975) identified five criticisms of information systems which are providing useless information, providing excessive information, providing untimely information, exces- sive processing costs and disruption of the organization (p. 24). Within nonprofit organizations, Herzlinger (1977) has identified the following reasons for failures of data systems: (1) The method of financing, (2)the characteristics and attitudes of top management, and (3)the executives of nonprofit organizations lack quantitative skills and instead rely on qualitative skills (pp. 81-86). Diran (1977) studied an MIS in a college which "failed" because it was abandoned by the institution. He studied the human problems of acceptance of the MIS and found that vendors who sell the systems and the technicians who design them do not deal with this issue. In the literature he found little about the problems of human acceptance as did this researcher. The purpose of Oiran's study was to "search for a 'theory' which would explain and predict behavior as it pertained to the human acceptance of management information systems in colleges and universities" (p. 45). He theorized that, The level of human acceptance of management information systems in colleges and universities is related to the level of expectations held fbr that system, the methodology of implementation, and the degree of commitment (perceived self-interest) of the constituencies involved. The level of human acceptance is a function of these properties and is related to the perceived degree of success or failure of the system (p. 132). 30 Diran used an interview method in his research with emphasis placed on qualitative rather than quantitative data. The data evolved into the following categories which affected human acceptance of MIS: Level of Expectation, Methodology of Implementation, and Commitment and Self-Interest (p. 67). Diran found that those directly responsible for the system had very high levels of expectation. The system never remotely attained these expectations. This overselling had a profound effect on the attitudes of administrators, faculty, and students toward the system. Each failure of the system decreased satisfaction which brought about decreased cooperation and commitment (p. 73). Additionally, estimates of time needed to implement the system were grossly underestimated as well as were the amount of staff involve- ment, requiring additional staff expertise and resources (p. 75). Diran found that the system was imposed upon the users. Constituents or potential users were not consulted concerning requirements or specifications for the system. "This lack of consul- tation is perhaps the primus inter pares of the four major causes for the current disaffection with DPS . . ." (p. 77). The complex system was also implemented in its entirety rather than stages which had a negative effect upon acceptance. The lack of symbolic, profes- sional and staff leadership had a deleterious effect on the attitudes of the constituencies (pp. 77-83). The justification, pay-off, value, cost-effectiveness, or rationale for the system was unclear to the respondents, and their 31 perceptions of it did not warrant the allocation of resources. This perceived lack of usefulness fbr the system negatively affected the attitudes of the constituencies. Interestingly, the actions of the consultants added to the dissatisfaction to the users with the system (pp. 88-90). Commitment and Self-Interest relates to self-interest and hence commitment of the various constituencies to the system (p. l). The president and his staff were the only group which identified with the system, but were naive in terms of capacities, resources and expertise required for systems development; were "Unapproachable on the topic;" were confused as to whether the system was designed as primarily a planning system or an operational system; and the constituencies did not perceive the same purpose of the system as the president and his staff (p. 99). Perhaps the most significant group in the study was the faculty. They felt the system was "an attempt to erode faculty powers and perogatives and/or increase the relative power of the office of the president" (PP. 108-109). Some faculty felt the real purposes for the data were never revealed, while some felt the data was fbr deans which would enhance their power and that of the office of the president. Significantly, every faculty member felt the data were not neutral but could be a weapon to be used against them (pp. 104-109). Faculty requirements were ignored in the design of the system. Faculty members exhibited a fear of machines which was most pervasive 32 among the humanists and somewhat less with the science faculty. This was compounded by a fear of computers. There was also fear that chairmen would be reduced to the level of employees via machine generated parameters for decision making; and that faculty jobs would be disrupted. A small minority feared that data would show they were doing less than their share and felt their pride was hurt in not being consulted, as they felt they were central to the college. All of this negatively affected system acceptance (pp. 110-112). The cost of the system was considered to be a waste of money by the faculty. It was also perceived as a dehumanizing influence on campus. ". . . entirely too much importance was attached both to the system and to scientific management techniques. The system was considered to dehumanize relationships between people" (p. 115). These two factors had a negative effect on faculty acceptance of the system (pp. 113-115). Attitudes of the faculty were also affected by their concern for privacy. Questions were raised expressing serious concern as to the possible uses of the data. Also, they were not confident in the security or integrity of the computerized data files. This, coupled with a fear of computers, proved deadly. The concern for privacy of data resulted in widespread noncompliance with requests for data and had a negative effect on faculty perceptions of the system (pp. 115-116). Faculty attitudes toward the system were hostile and directed at a variety of sources such as the director of the system, the president, and systems themselves. This hostility 33 did constitute a significant factor in determining faculty attitudes toward the system (pp. 117-119). Oiran's most important findings include: 1. 10. Implementing the management information system funda- mentally altered power relationships or organizational behavior in Metro College. Assuming that the obvious benefits of the system would produce widespread support of it, which did not occur. The setting of unrealistic expectations in terms of time and capabilities. The president's office preordained the system to failure by setting too high a level of expectation for the system. It is inadvisable to have a system perceived as "imposed" upon a college. This was one of the major sources of disaffection with the system. The lack of input by various constituencies led to lack of identification with and alienation from the system. Design and implement the system from "bottom to top" of the organizational structure, not "top to bottom." In the academic setting a system cannot be mandated by the office of the president without prior commitment by the faculty. Implement a management information system in small stages. This keeps problems localized and at a manage- able size. It is important to have available an individual with systems experience. If a system is perceived as operating in the interest of the various constituencies it's chances for acceptance are increased. There must be some generally accepted benefits otherwise problems with resource allocation will arise. Benefits produce support, but if the system is seen operating contrary to the interests of a group it will be opposed by this group. 34 Sanders (1974, p. 14) indicates that valued management information is accurate, timely, complete, concise and relevant. Cohn (1971, pp. 13-16) adds economy and flexibility and Kelly (1970, p. 314) adds reliability, security, capacity, quality, acceptance, and efficiency. Cooperative Extension Service Management Information System The Cooperative Extension Service Management Information System was developed by the System Development Corporation (SOC) based on a request by the Extension Service. The cooperative nature of Extension was a determinant in setting the direction for its development. Thus, four foci were identified in developing EMIS/ SEMIS which were to aid CES management in areas including: 1. Development of short- and long-range plans, National goals, state targets, and local needs. Determination of alternatives in resource organization and allocation. Determination of progress in achieving stated purposes and objectives at all CES levels. Determination of resource expenditures associated with specific purposes and objectives (Rosenberg et al., 1967, p. l boom In the design and implementation of the system the following economic and noneconomic parameters were considered as critical constraints (Rosenberg, et al., pp. 8-9). 1. The time needed by professional staff to gather and transmit data. Time is the single most important resource of staff. 2. Beyond professional time the other costs associated with the system, i.e., clerical time, equipment and related expenses must be considered. (A) \I 35 The data must have utility at the initial gathering level and at other management levels. CES must develop and implement an ongoing internal educational program to accompany the management information system. The management information system must be sufficiently flexible to accept different interpretations by states of the scope and spectrum of CES educational activities. The management infbrmation system must be designed to obtain data despite language differences due to environ- ment, custom, policy, regionality, discipline and other socio-economic factors. At all levels the time intervals needed for reporting should be spread over a longer time period to minimize the time needed for reporting functions in a given day or week. SDC identified the following CES needs (Rosenberg et al., 1967, pp. 10-11): 1. N to O \I Reduce the time gap between recognition of a problem and the implementation of plans to solve the problem. Develop a closer linkage between planning and activity reporting. Improve the feedback of information on reports, particularly for county directors. A need for more management training, particularly for county directors. A need to insure retention of the identity of the contribution by CES in its educational efforts. The MIS must be able to convert its planning and report- ing information to the USDA budgeting process. The MIS must be flexible to meet the needs of individual states yet provide a general framework within which data requirements common to all states and intra-state Extension levels can be collected. SOC in recommending an MIS for the Cooperative Extension Service states (Rosenberg et al., 1967, p. 13): 36 a. Essential to a system capable of meeting such diverse needs are the ability to provide accurate and meaning- ful data for the management and direction functions at each Extension organization level (County, Areas, State, Federal) and the flexibility to continue to provide such accurate and meaningful data in the changing Extension environment. b. The types of data the system must provide includes that concerning what is planned to be done by Extension; what has been accomplished in relation to those plans; how much professional effort was expended in carrying out those plans. SEMIS Version III (EMIS, 1975) which is being studied in this research, consisted of five distinct components: the Plan of Work extract, the Activity Data, Accomplishment of Objectives, SEMIS Personnel Subsystem, and Optional Field Subsystem. The first three components are derived from the program development process above. "All components are interdependent, mutually supportive and must be related to one another in data utilization. No one component or data element stands alone" (sec. 1-4). The data that each SEMIS can process can provide information which is used to (sec. 1-4): - Mirror the State program development processes. - Provide input into the planning and implementation processes. Facilitate program priority determination. Allocate and secure resources. Monitor programs. Analyze programs and plans of work. Facilitate communication (internally and externally). Establish compatible State and national data bases. Establish State and national trends Reduce the necessity for special reports. Provide administration a basis for decision-making related to priorities, resource allocations and resource management. - Provide each Extension worker and program unit a systematic way to categorize planned and expanded effort. - Aid in interpretation of evaluation of effectiveness, impact, and efficiency of Extension's expended efforts. 37 It is necessary to note that one state's SEMIS elements may vary slightly from that of another state and from that of the national EMIS. To use state data nationally, it is necessary to convert it into the national EMIS elements. Summary The review of the literature on Management Information Systems yielded the following major generalizations: 1. Management Information Systems are a tool to assist managers in making, carrying out, and controlling decisions by providing selected data to the managers when needed. As MIS can be assessed from the three perspectives of technical, economic and operational feasibility. Measuring user satisfaction is one way to assess operational feasibility. Studies of user satisfaction have shown that it is related to job satisfaction, age, longevity, perceived management support of the MIS, degree of involvement in system design, output (printouts) quality. The human and organization factors which contribute to management information systems failure can be categorized as follows: Human factors include: Possible lack of quantitative skills by executives Lack of commitment by the users System perceived not operating in the interests of the users - Too high expectations held for the system Characteristics and attitudes of top management Organizational factors include: Methods of financing Incorrect methodology of implementation Alteration of power relationships or organizational behavior Improper definition of system objectives and information requirements 38 Use of the MIS for clerical work rather than decision making Not understanding MIS complexity and cost Organization of the system function The MIS provides useless, excessive and untimely information Criteria to evaluate systems include relevance, timeliness, economy, accuracy, flexibility, security, reliability, capacity, acceptance, efficiency, completeness, concise- ness and quality. The Cooperative Extension Service Management Information System was developed to assist CES staff at county, state, and national levels in planning programs, managing resources, evaluating programs on plans and determining costs associated with plans. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the research design, population, instrument, collection of data, coding and tabulation of data, research hypotheses, dependent variables, independent variables, and analysis. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of selected human and organizational factors on user satisfaction of a State Extension Management Information System. Population The population for this study included all full- and part- time professional CES employees in Sample state. This represented a total of 138 staff. Permission was received from Sample state to send the research questionnaire to its staff who were encouraged to cooperate by completing and returning the questionnaire. Instrument The instrument used in this study was the mailed question- naire (Appendix A). The mailed questionnaire approach had the following advantages (Setting, 1967): l. Standardized wording order of questions, and instructions for recording responses insured uniformity from one measurement situation to another. 39 4O 2. As no signature or clear identification was required, it provided the opportunity for more candid and open replies. 3. Less pressure was placed on the subject for immediate response so that he could ponder a difficult question before answering (p. 238). In addition, Good (1941) states that "questionnaire inquiries are adapted both to gathering facts and to gathering opinions and attitudes and have a wide range of applications" (p. 325). The questionnaire was constructed using the format of the questionnaire used by Ahern et a1. (1977) in their user satisfaction study. Twenty-six of their questions are taken directly or modified slightly to fit this study. The other 45 questions on the research instrument were developed on the basis of the literature review. Table 3 identifies the source of the questions. Staff of the Institute of Social Research, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, were consulted for advice on the design of the questions. The instrument was pretested by sending it to the twenty- eight professional faculty of the Cooperative Extension Service of the University of Alaska. As a result of the pretest, five questions were rewarded, two categories on one question were renamed, and the expected time needed to complete the questionnaire was reduced from 30 to 20 minutes in the instructions. In addition, the response scale was randomly reversed on questions 1 through 65 to reduce any mind-set bias that could occur by having the negative or low score response be always number one on the left of the scale and the positive or high score response be always number seven on muzouc_sa xp om umcacmucw op zupzowmwwc- .muzoucwca we» we mpumqmm «P am mmcmgu pangso cowuoecow=_u Pm:o_uu==$ use use spec SP mm . cu H xcoz co pczoEm- hepamwu new =mpucms= on smumzm my em mocmuwecoo- as» ea :mwmmc co mmmzoom an up mm »p_Fwanmanou .muzoucwca11mcmm: toe smumzm «P mp auw__nmuwam- N quota ucmucwamccm mzu mo mpzapao op mmuMPmm «_ mmupm xpwpwnwxmpm- x— anop mmmcpzmmma- rp m zucm>mpwcu «p m mmmcwpmswu- *9 m gusto»- AF o humppnmucmumcmuczu «_ m comamecoecw we max»- AN_-F meowummaov ap a :o_umegow:w mo uczoEm- kg m zomczoom- we pcmucwamc xp m auwpmzc pmcmcmm- apapaso azaaao daemon EmSmAm .:o_uomwm_umm Lam: we coumowucw mpmcwm uoom m m? AFHUwcwu cowuomemwumm Ppmcm>o mcammme op muqsmuum ;o_:3 P :o_umm:c page canoe can AF cowumozc apcov xenon g_msu cw ems» com: .Pa Hm ccmc< .awzum m:_x:mw soc; ; 23:33 93 2058:: 32» 3:33.75 i P 8333.53 2985 damp mpnm_cm> m_cmuwco mugsom cow» mamz mpnmwcm> acmemompa umAFm=< _mo_mo4 -mwzo .cowumcmpaxm we_m=:owumm=O\m~amwcm>ul.m m4mama=m Bowtum_o .eemum mHZMm new .mgomw>cma:m a«¢.m mmumm cowumgumwcp5u< m naocw .mcoumcumPcwsumuucosmmmcms an «am pm o>vpnmomc mwmum mmzmm ucmucmamucH mHzmm co pecansm um>_mogma arm on menu mempm mazum mmusuwpp< pcmsomucmz e azocw .mcmmz an acmucmamucu EmumAm co zero: um>PwoLoa «am on pmou «P mm mmuoo Papomam mo move—zone a_ an macewaaa to agnos< ._ mm _=La_m; m=o_puzaum=_ xooaaaaz «_ mm Emcmoca m:P:_agu m>wuomcem xooaccm; «P mm mpaaocu m>az can: on op dump; mHzmm one we xuwp_p: «p mm meowpmwzc opewomqm\xoonccm: msu use wwmum mmzum «am um apw>_uommwm xcoz eemum mazmm m quota mo museumwmmm .mmumpzocx «am om wemum mHZNm mo co_mmmgaEH acmucmgmucH .m:_=_acu mm>_o>:H a_ mu papaya; eemum mH2mm mucmumwmm< cum: mewomco new mcwcwmcp ram mp umumm: dew“ co “encam- xem up co_uomgcoo caged mo ammo- «am up zgpcm mo ammo- .ugonmg xuw>muom mgu m_> meow: «an mp :o_umsgoecw mo max»- p azogu an Empmxm mazum ago one? arm ep :owumeLoecw mo #:30551 pcmucmamucH «use co “anew as» ou mmpmpmm «am m— aumczoum- upwpmao page“ max» wpnmwca> mwgmuwgu wucaom cow» msmz mpnmwgm> “seamen—a mwmxpmc< pmquoJ -mmao .aaacaaeou--.m mgmaz op uzmzo on: hSm me cmaaasou new: ugoeeou 5 quote omega apco ma non: canvas: «an me sumszumm mama Scaacaaaaaa can name to »S_L=uam tam as span mazum m=_m= apnoea a;a_m zuwpwnwbemeou cm»:d50u\auwczomm smuwxw moca_cm> co mama—mc< mumwcm>_upaz u_> umpmmu .aumu chwsoc to; m—qu pcmucmamccH :o_umm:c mmsmoma mwmapocm pm cowummao Fmopmop op umgumnazm poz «an _m mcmxgoz mu_mmo segue we consaz now as we Focused aim mm mace “gasses mama mmzmm rim Fm Pacomtmaea a? «pan mazmm mocmagecw tam cm as mcwgpmcmaaa mama mqum Louomg_u co mocmapmc_ ram ma acmgumcaaam mama mczmm som_>cma=m >5 co mucus—we? tem we acagpmcaaum acme mczmm .mumu mHzmm mo cowuawogma gmxcozuoo zs use .Louumg_u .mcmxcoz ram Ne wen we comrade a_;m:o_umpmm c aaocu -oo .Lomw>cmg:m ucm com: com_>cma=m >5 ucmucmgmucH :mmzuma avgmcoPSoch mm>po>cH arm .c new we :mmzumn nwgmcowpm_mm newsmcowumpmm ammo—QEN damp m_nawgm> m_gmp_co woczom cow» osmz mpnawgm> acoEmUmFQ m_mx—ac< Paupmog Immao .aascaaaoo--.m m4m

wuomnao ow$Fomam saw; as no mmgzuwucmaxm motzommg mewsgmpma mcmpa owewumnm :u_3 at an mmcauPucmnxw mogzommc daggemamo cowumooppm mocaommc a« mo :_ mm>wumccmu_m m=PEcmumo :oPHMchamco muczommg ea mm cw mw>wumccmupm mcwecmumo mcmpa as Fe mmcmcumcop co mmmgmocq m:_eimuwa mazmm to agape mmmoncsa :mwmmu Lace may ya on pmsccm co mmmcmoga mewELmuma m azocu newczuoscwmmg co “Fame; as mm mcmpa mace; mcop nopm>mo pcmucmgmucm a mum mcowummzc mmmsp as mm mcmpa _mzccm aopm>wo «flamesa AmHzmmv empaxw mHZUm Ag umpcogaam arm mm mmoqcza Amuuv PacoPHQNEcmmco mmoagzq Pacomum~w=mmco «p cm mHzmm mcwuspuxm mcowm_omu omen F mHme «F mm mcwuapoxm meowmwomu omen nausea w aaogc mavens cowm_owu «am we we umcwamm new: mp upon mHzmm pamaeaaauca ca acme mazmm co am: IIm me sptaaoaa cam: mama mesmm wmomgza Pmcowum~w=emco\mcwxmz cowmwomo waxy mpnmwcm> awcmpmso mogzom cow“ osmz mpnmwgm> “cosmomFA mwmapmc< pmowmoE -mmac .umzcwucouun.m m4moga op «km on mmcmwo mczumoogn Pmu_umwpmum 65mm *~.F we mm< mocowcm> mo mwmxpmc< on» x; cwummgp mew: =mamu= saw no cohoFAEm meow» amass: mpmwcm>wp_:z mw> owgamgmoemu PP< .mamapmce arm we casswmgu mo_w$o umummu pcmvcmamccH Fmowmop on umuomwnzm poz ««N we copppmoa o_:nucmoemo maxw mpamwgm> mwgmuwcu moczom cow» mam: wpamwcm> pcmsmompm mwmapmc< PmowmoA -mmac .umacwucouun.m m4moms oaouwo UHdOSm so» .90: muo> mm3 axflmg odouwo masonm so» .uon mm3 :m>am: oauuwo vasonm sow .Eum3 mm3 zusom= oaouwo canonm so» .ucouommwccw mm3 :oounu: oaouwo vasosm do» .Hooo mmz =o3u= odouwo casonm 90> .uaoo mos =mco: oaoufio pazonm 50> .vaoo >Ho> mm3 no: >um> A m m a m N H u... Emacs» um nausea» be unmsogu an beacon» um unmsoeu um unmnonu be nausea» paoo >Ho> mwddOB mmmm 2H mmbfidmmmzma mmB mH 30m DO» mmDm mx42 so» so» so» 90% 90% so» :0» "NH cone "mmz coaumosv may ma .oamemxm mom .coflcflmo Moo» 0» mwcommouuoo anon noHcB Hm3mem on» maouwo madman .30Hon mcoflumosv on» :0 97 umZOHfiummHQ .cowumuomooo “50» How so» xcmna ca umooxm .pono>ou on #02 HHflz momcommou Hospfl>wpcw Mao» .cofiumcflnsoo Hmowumflumum .mmuscfie hucozu usonm cw meowumosv on» uwzmcm :mo mamoom umoe pen» mumowpnw mumou mnmcwswaoum .non H90» 0» waned uoc moon mammoao :0fln3 coaumosv >dm ouocmH .coflummsw oco had no msflu £056 00» mcwncmmm usonuw3 .macwmmu endoscowumosv many nmsounu xuo3 ommoam .AEwumam coaumEu0mcH unoemmmcmz newmcouxm oumuwv mHzmm mo cowcwmo moo» :Hmuno on vmcmwmop ma mummGGOADmosv mane mmH¢ZZOHBmMDO mHZMm «HGMHO3IOU HMOQ 98 m m v m N H mmonms muo> ”ZOHaod m0 mmmMDOU m>HB¢ZmMB44 UZOZ< UZHBUNHmm Hamom: >um> h mmonms >Ho> n mmmHoms >Hm> h "mom Zmamwm ucm>oHouuH >uo> n NHmeHu Num> A ©666m5nom NHucoHHmoxm A pcmumuoccs b On ammo >Ho> mud COHDMEHOMQH no max» 5 uanu on» :Hmucou coHHMEHomcH h oHuuHH oou :Hmucoo oumusoom >uo> mud n m m mHmB 20mm m m m m m m v v m N H Homwms muo> umZMHmomm OB mZOHBDHOm quaddozmom m N H Hamoms ano> “mimqmomm GZHZHhmO 02¢ wzHMmHBzmQH mBmommm mmB DZHm DON OQ HDmmmD 30m m N H ucm>oHoH xuo> m N H hHoEHucs >H0> m N H wouumEuow mHuoom >uo> "mmd mBDOBZHmm mHEmm Bdflfi Hunk H m N H vcmumumpcs on quoHHMHo hum> ohm m N H coHumEMOMcH mo mam» mcou3 on» chucoo m N H :oHumEu0mcH code 00» :Hmucoo m N H oumunoomcH muo> mud umBDOBZHmm mHme NEE m0 wBZHBZOU Ema Edna m>MHHmm H huouommepmmc: >um> h m m w m N H huouommeDMm >uo> "mmé mBDOBZHmm mHzmm Bde .Hflmmzmo 2H ~¥ZHmB H vammHummmHU wum> h m m v m N H ponmHumm >uo> umd DmmHmUmma Emmm mH mHZMm mBHZ ZOHBU€mmHB0 VS .NH .HH .OH momma mHmcouum muo> n m m e m N H moummmHU aHmcouum auo> .Bmommm zmeeHmzmmws mme mBHz mqmdamomzou mmoz Hmmm H .BDOBszm mmasmzou d 20 mmmeo mmB 92¢ zmeaHmzmmwa mzo .Bmommm midm mme mo mZOHmmm> 038 m>¢m H mH omumm mHmcouum huo> h m m v m N H monommHU aHmcouum >u¢> .mammz w: 9mm: 08 mmm>9 onacszth m0 HBmHm¢> moaozm wmQH>Omm mHzmm moumm mHmcouum huo> n m m v m N H moummmHU hHmcouum >Hm> .Bmmbomm BmUHZ H B¢SB mmzz¢2 MZ< ZH 2300 ZNMOmm m0 DHZHmZOU mm 2&0 mHSmm ZH Qflmoem ¢E¢Q m0 wmowmfidu mUHo> b m m v m N H moummmHo aHmcouum >uo> .mBDoaszm mHzmm ammmmmazH OB BHDonmHQ mH 9H moumm meconum >Ho> b m m e m N H moummmHU hHmdouum huo> .Hm>mH mom M2 09 amaHDm HHmz mam m>HmUmm H meaoeszm was mu moummch >Hmcouum >Ho> h m m v m N H momma mHmcouum muo> .Bmommm H9H>HBU¢ waxmmz mHZMm w: mamqmzou OB HSHB mo BZDOZN HH d mmx¢a EH m>mHHmm H monmmch aHmconum >Ho> N m m v m N H moumm mHmdouum muo> .mHzmm zo monBUmmmoo mommm mxmHHmm H omHmMmHU mHmcouum auo> h m m v m N H omumm hHmdouum >Ho> .Bmommm HBH>H90¢ qummz mHZMm mma memqmzoo OB Hmmm mH EH m>mHHmm H manommo we “soon h m m v m N H muHOMHo he ozone coHumEMOMGH mo om>u GOHDMEMOHQH no mean usmHu on» GHmucoo mcou3 may CHmucoo munouum me a m m a m m H monommm we unonm GOHumEH0mcH usonm doHumEHOHCH none 00» :Hmucoo oHuuHH oou :Hmucoo mumusoom Nnm> one A m m a m m H mumusoomcH Nuo> one umBmOmmm wBH>HBU¢ NAMWNS mHzmm NS ho mBZmBZOU mmB m>MHHmm H .MN .NN .HN .om .mH .mH .hH .mH .mH .vH .MH oommomHv mHmcommm mmo> h w m e m N H oommo HHmcommm mmo> .mHme Baom< wszHdma mo BZDOZd ma¢90ma¢ 2< Om>Hmumm m>¢m H Hmmm H oommo HHmcommm mmo> n o m w m N H oommomHu HHmcommm Hmu> . .mOb NS 20 Bm h o m v m N H oommomHm hHmcommm Hmo> .mHmmwz mMHH MHmomm mom mwHaummmm zm mam mmu oommoch HHocommm Hmo> h m m v m N H oommo mHmcommm >mo> .mHEMm mom BmflOUDm H mmwzmmu QMmomomm OB m>HBmmumm wmm> mum mhmfim mHZHm mma oommomHU HHmcommm Hmo> h m m v m N H oommo HHmcommm >mo> .mmHBHHHmHmzommmm H: 930mm mHBBHH mmmo mmdam mHzmm 100 oommo mHmcommm mmo> n m m v m N H oommoch HHmaommm mmo> .mHzmm mBHB mqmoome m>¢m H 2H 09 00 2&0 H HZOmMHH 20V mumqm UHmHummm m mH mmmma oommome HHmcommm Hmo> h m m e m N H oommo HHmcommm >mo> .Moomozmm mHZMm mma 20mm 3022 OH ammz H 94:3 osz 09 m2 mom Hmmm mH EH .mHzmm 990mm monBmmso onHummm m>¢m H 2mm: oommoch aHmcommm >mo> h m m w m N H oommo HHmcommm mmo> .mHmmHz MMHH mmdam mmu mBHz MHm>HBUmmmm xmoz madam mHZHm NHHaomcnoom A e m a m m H NHHmomcnomm mcomomEoo om moz mcomomfioo HHanm "mm< wmmB 8428 mH hmdfim mHme mmB mo ZOHmmmmHZH Admmzmw NS oommomHU HHmcommm mmo> b m m e m N H oommo aHmcommm wmo> .zmamwm was 20mm onamzmomzH ozHBBmw 2H m: quBmHmmd zH HDmmHmm wmm> mud madam mHzmm oommm aHmcommm mmo> h o m w m N H oommoch mHmcommm mmo> .BmOmmm zmaeHmzmmNB was 2H mozmQHmZOU mmoz m>¢2 H .BDOBZHmm mmBDHZOU ¢ 20 mmmao mme 02¢ ZmBBHmZMHHB mzo .Bmommm midm mme mo mZOHmmm> 035 m>¢m H mH .vm .mm .Nm .Hm .om .mm .mm .hN .mm .mm .vN oommo hHmcommm >mo> h m m v m N H oommomHU hHmcomum >mo> .wemHUOm OB ZOHBDmHmBZOU Hsmmmo < mxdz mmmeomzoo oommomHU mHocommm >mo> N w m e m N H oommo mHmcommm >mo> .mz BmzH<0< 0mm: wszm mH «add mHZHm m>mHHmm H oommo mHmcommm mmo> b m m v m N H oommoch HHmcommm mmo> .9H 09 mmmoo< m>¢m QHDOmm 0:3 mm<9m mmoma OB NHZO MHm¢ mH ¢B h o m e m N H oommm hHmcommm hmo> .¢Bmo> h m m w m N H oommo aHmcomum mmo> .memmomm Gum: wszm mH mama mHzmm BzmaHmzou Hmmm H moccoe o>Huoooc o :H h m m v m N H moccoE o>HmHmom m CH umHZMm Hm QmBUmmh¢ 2mmm mdm mmmxmozlou mUHmmo NZ Q2¢ m: ZNHZBmm mHmmZOHBNHmm was m>WHHmm H mw moccoE o>HmHmom o :H h m m e m N H mosque o>Hmomoc o cH uszmm 2m amaomhmd 2mmm mflm mOmH>MmmDm BUHMBmHQ ME Q24 m2 2mm39mm mHmmZOHeddmm HEB W>MHHmm H oommome hHmcommm >mo> b m n v m N H oommo mHmcommm mmo> .zmamwm HDmmmD ¢ mH mHzmm mHmmm mOmH>mmmDm BUHmBmHQ >2 szmB H oommo mHmcommm >mo> N m m v m N H oommomHU HHmdommm >mo> .mHSmm ho m>HBmOmmDm mH momH>mmmDm BUHmBmHD w: 22Hm8 H oommomHv HHmcomum Hmo> N m m v m N H oommo mHmcommm mmo> .zmamwm Hammma d mH mHzmm mHmmm moeummHa moo MszB H oommomHU HHmcommm mmo> . h m m v m N H oommo HHmcommm Hmo> .mHzmm mo m>HHmommDm mH moaommHo msdHuommm UZHBUN moo mszB H oommo HHmcommm >mo> b m m e m N H oommomHo HHmcommm >mo> .memoo EH 9233 memos mH mHZMm Hmmm H oommomHm HHmcommm >mo> h m m w m N H oommo hHmcommm Hmo> .mmooo HdHummm xmqmzou mo MOQMHZOZH m>HmZMme m>¢m BmDZ mzo .mHzmm mm: me>Hsummmm OB .hv .mv .mw .vv .mv .Nv .Hv .ov .mm .mm .mm .mm .mm oommome HHmcommm mmo> N m m e m N H oommo mHmcommm hmo> .mmu 20 mmom2am 226 m>2mm B=2mmoo mHzmm oommomHU HHmcomum Hmo> N m m w m N H oommo hHmcommm >mo> .¢H¢Q mHzmm OZHQDHUZH 2¢29 mm29¢2 .mHZMm 2¢28 22290 m920222\¢9¢a 92¢ ZOHBHDBZH .mUZNHmmmxm Bm¢m 20 mZOHmHUHQ NZ mm¢m mmmfi¢2 QHDOZ H oommomHU hHmcommm 2mo> N m m v m N H oommo HHmcommm 2mo> .¢B¢o mHzmw 02HQDH02H 2225 222922 .mHzmm 2229 22290 ma2omm2\22 no» mosz oommo HHmdommm mmo> N m m v m N H oommoch mHmcommm >mo> .00 HHH2SBU¢ H 2229 2203 mmMH on H 9229 22222¢ EH 2222 m90092H22 mHzmm oommomHU NHmcommm 2mo> N m m v m N H oommo mecommm mmo> .mon 22 20 H029200 ommmm202H 9200022 mHzmm oommomHv HHmcommm 2mo> N m m H m N H oommm HHmaomum >mo> .H¢20m2222H mH 292d mHzmm oommomHo HHmcommm >mo> N m m v m N H oommo HHmcommm Hmo> .mon Hz 09 onade2 2H moszHHZH Hz m222902229m 292d mHzmm oommo HHmcommm >mo> N m m v m N H oommomHn HHmcommm Hmo> .mon Hz 09 20HB¢Hm2 2H mcaummHQ m9¢HUOmm¢ UZHBU¢ HEB 20 muszHHZH WEB mzmmfiwzmMBm ¢B¢Q mHSMm oommome mHmcommm Nmo> N m m v m N H oommm NHmcommm >mo> .202 22 OH ZOHB¢HM2 2H 20mH>2mmDm BUH2BmHQ 22 mo muszHmzH mmB mzmmaozmmem ¢B¢Q mHZWm .Nm .mm ..mm .vm .mm .Nm .Hm .om .mv .mv 103 .22H¢ZZOHBmMDO 229 20 Emmm mmfi OZHBWHHZOU mmommm mmmzommmm 290% BMH>M2 02¢ 20¢m 00 mm¢mqm .Om 2H NZOHBmMDO 202M 202 mHm¢m 2002¢2 ¢ 20 Qmm22>m2 m2? WDH¢> mH¢0m 229 NMD¢UHQ mZOHBmmDO 228 2 . , 2¢ A ,Hh.H. c . m>¢2 DOM 0H0 ~20 UZHQMMUOKH mmommm Hsmoms Nmo> N o m w m N H mmoHomo >mo> .mm>Haombmo UHmHommm 29H3 ama2H00mm2 m22aaanmmxm 20200mm2 02H2H22mama mmoHoms >mo> N m m v m N H Hamoms >mo> .m22Hm UHmHommm mBH3 0mB¢H00mm¢ mm2DBHazmmxm mu200mm2 02H2Hz2mamo mmoHomm Hmo> N m m w m N H Homoos Hmo> .20H92UOHH2 202Domm2 2H mm>HB22229H2 02H2H22mamo mmoHom: >mo> N o m w m N H Hmmoma mmo> .20HB¢NH2¢020 20200022 2H mm>HE¢ZMNBH¢ 02H2HZ¢MBWD Homoms mmo> N w m e m N H mmoHoms mmo> .Hm22mm mimv moz2H2 202221020H 200» 20 2022 mmm20022 02H2H22mamo mmoHoms >mo> N o m e m N H Hzmomp Hmo> .m22flm H¢522¢ 200% 20 MQ¢2 mmmmwomm 02H2HZMNBNQ Hsmom: >mo> N m m v m N H omoHoms 2mo> .Ammamm mime mzaqm moz2muozoq 220» no azHZNQHm>mo may Homomo >mo> N m m v m NH H mmoHoms mmo> .m2222 H25222 2:0» 20 922220Hm>ma 229 H2H 20HB¢ZMOHZH 20 HUMDOm ¢ m¢ ¢B¢d mHme QZHH DOM OD HDhmmD 302 .m0 .vm .mo .Nm .H0 .00 .mm .mm NHHoomm omoon M monmo wroEQOHo>oo Hummm unoEmoHo>oa Eommomm .oomm :onooHcafiEou umHHmHoomm emu mmHHoHoomm .02 umHHmHoon .02 .2 mmmHamoomm sue conommchHac2 NHHoomm omoon monmo momH>momnm Hmomm Q20 «meow .m2 Hmomm .02 .2 mmwum mlv omo: 20o£o omoon .amemmmno oonmo mm HHHoomm ommon maomm monuo ueom2 amo ucom2 .02 maom2 .om .m maom2 mua mummm omaum Hmomm Hoeono2 mo HUHmmmHo momma Nassau A020 200200 NZOHBHmOH Bzmmmmm 200% mH B¢m3 .00 105 H0>O HO mm om mm om mv ov mm on moves mo mm Hm mm Hm 0v Hv mm Hm mm mm «@3020 00¢ MOON mH B¢23 H0>O HO ov mm om mN 0N mH oH m N Amzo 202200 H2 mm Hm 0N HN 0H HH 0 m o . 222mm Emm2¢m2 CB 220 QZDOMV mUH>2mm ZOHmZMme N>HB¢2WHOOU 2m .20 OWNOHQZM mm¢mw mo mmmSDz H¢BOB .Nw "mafiommm mmmmam Hmnuo mmcflm cofiuwuusz wmmum HMCOflmmmmoummumm.lllll mmmum HMQOflmmmmoum Amvaumumuomm .mUHhmO mDOM ZH mmm%OAmzm ZOHmszxflhflummmZDz .Hh 106 "mmflommm mmmmam Hwnuo mmocowom Havamhnm mocmwom Hmuofl>wsmm\:owumosom mwoamwom Hmwoom mmocmfiom ucmam mmocmwom .mm mOHEocoom mac: AMZO MUflEUV mZH mH mmmwmo mDOM AQAmHmV ¢Wm< mmB mH B¢m3 .ow "Amaommm mmmmam Hmsuo mumuouooo mumummz mHonnomm wumflUOmmd mCOC Amzo MUMEUV mQAOm DON mmmwma UHSWDdUd BmmmUHm mmB mH aflmz .mm APPENDIX B COVER LETTER 107 108 ./ .\_,. //LflwVERSHW’OFALASKA \ lei? / FAIPBANKS ALASKA 99701 April 6, 1979 Cooperative Extension lgService‘FaEulty Dear Co-worker: The State Extension Management Information System (SEMIS--you folks call it __yEMIS) has been in operation throughout the nations Cooperative Extension Services for about ten years. There has been much discussion at county, state, and national levels regarding the system with emphasis on how to make the system more useful in the management of our work. During this ten year period SEMIS has undergone three major modifications. This has been done without the aid of empirical research, except for some descriptive surveys. The enclosed research questionnaire on SEMIS is designed to determine the relationship of human and organizational factors to user satisfaction of SEMIS. Your state, , is the only state being asked to participate in this study because your SEfiIS system is the most similar to the latest SEMIS design. If we identify factors that detract from the effectiveness of SEMIS in where it appears to be running as smoothly as anywhere else, then we will be in a better position to recommend improvements in the overall SEMIS system. Also, with a professional staff of about 150 people, we can easily survey the entire faculty thereby facilitating statistical analysis. The selection has been approved by both your state's Acting Associate Director and the Chief, Manage- ment Information System Branch, SEA-Extension, Washington, D.C. In addition, you should know this study is being done as my doctoral disseration. Your answers to the questions will be held in strictest confidence and no report will contain any specific reference to single individuals. In fact, your state's name will not be identified in the dissertation. Also, in working with or other members of your staff, I will not reveal identity of any spedific information. Please complete the questionnaire by April 20, 1979 and return to me in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Thank you for your cooperation. Yours truly, Harlem D. Sandberg, Coordinator Program and Staff Development UNUVERSITY DFALASKA. AND U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING APPENDIX C FOLLOW-UP LETTER 109 110 ,EOOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE 5 .l ‘ >m_,— /’L»uVEpSHWrOFALASKA m\£[1,/ anBANKs ALASKASSVOi M E M 0 R A N 0 U M T0: Cooperative Extension Service Faculty FROM: Harlem D. Sandberg, Coordinator Program and Staff Development DATE: April 20, l979 SUBJECT: SEMIS Questionnaire On April 9, 1979, I mailed you a SEMIS Questionnaire and asked for your cooperation in completing it. It is for a research study on the State Extension Management System used by Cooperative Extension Service in each state. However, only CES faculty are participating in the study. Many of you have completed and returned the questionnaire. Thank you very much for this cooperation. For those of you who have not taken the time, approximately 20 minutes, to complete the questionnaire, I sincerely ask you to do so and return to me promptly. Your response and participation in this first empirical research study on SEMIS is helpful and important. Thank you for taking the time to do so. HDS:hec UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA. AND U S DERARTME NT OF AGRICULTURE CDDRE RATING APPENDIX D SECOND COVER LETTER lll 112 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE . h ---u anvensww’OFALASKA x. 3911/! FAIRBANKS ALASKA 99701 M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: Selected Cooperative Extension Service Faculty FROM: Harlem D. Sandberg, Coordinator Program and Staff Development DATE: May 2, l979 SUBJECT: SEMIS Questionnaire To date l02 of your co-workers have returned the SEMIS questionnaire I sent on April 9, 1979. I'm looking forward to receiving yours so that I can include your data. AS I explained in my original letters only CES faculty are participating in this study. The purpose of the research is to determine the relationship of human and organizational factors to user satisfaction of SEMIS. It is the first empirical study of the latest SEMIS design. involvement has been approved by your Acting Associate Director and SEA-Extension. Naturally I am interested in getting as high a return as possible as it will strengthen the validity of the study, thus I'd very much appreciate you taking the time, approximately 20 minutes, to complete the questionnaire and return to me. Your answers to the questions will be held in strictest confidence and no report will contain any specific reference to single individuals. I am enclosing a duplicate copy of the questionnaire in the event you misplaced the original or it never got to you. If you recently com- pleted the questionnaire and it "crosses” this letter in the mail, please disregard this request. Thank you for your help. HDS:hec Enclosure UNIVERSITY DFALASKA. AND U S DERARTME NT OF- AGRICULTURE COORE RATING "‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEs