INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy o f a docum ent sent to us fo r microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material subm itted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "targ et” for pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is "Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of com plete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we m eant to delete copyrighted materials th a t should n o t have been film ed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being ph o to ­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite m ethod in "sectioning" the material. It is custom ary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until com plete. 4. For any illustrations th a t cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services D epartm ent. 5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 3 0 0 N Z E E B RD , ANN A R B O R , Ml 4 8 1 0 6 8212434 Olson, Karan Potter MICHIGAN’S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN: A CASE STUDY IN INNOVATION Michigan State University University Microfilms International PRD. 1981 300 N.Zeeb Road, Ann Altar, Ml 4S106 PLEASE NOTE: In all c a se s this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V . 1. Glossy photographs or p a g e s_____ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_____ 3. Photographs with dark background______ 4. Illustrations are poor copy______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy_____ 6. Print shows through a s there is text on both sides of page_____ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several 8. Print exceeds margin requirem ents______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in sp in e_____ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______ 11. Page(s)____________lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)____________seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. 14. 15. Two pages num bered ifrq pages___ . Text follows. Curling and wrinkled p a g e s ______ Other_____________________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International MICHIGAN'S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN: A CASE STUDY IN INNOVATION By Karen P o t t e r Olson A DISSERTATION S ubm itted to M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e r e q u ire m e n ts f o r t h e d e g re e of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY D epartm ent of F o r e s t r y 1981 ABSTRACT MICHIGAN'S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN: A CASE STUDY IN INNOVATION By Karen P o t t e r Olson The F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n o f th e M ichigan Department of N a tu r a l R eso urces h a s been im plem enting i t s S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esou rces P la n n in g p r o c e s s (SFRP) s in c e e a r l y 1978. The SFRP i s a com prehensive p la n which a s s e s s e s a l l f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s in M ichigan and recommends d i r e c t i o n s f o r f o r e s t management s t a t e w i d e . M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n a s a c a se s tu d y o f in n o v a tio n in an o r g a n i z a t i o n i s examined i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . A re v ie w of in n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n l i t e r a t u r e i s used to dev elop a framework f o r a n a l y z i n g th e f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e th e s u c c e s s f u l a d o p tio n of an i n n o v a ti o n . The f a c t o r s which in f l u e n c e d th e d e v e lo p ­ ment and im p lem en tatio n of M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n a r e d e s c r ib e d u s in g t h i s framework. The developm ent and im p lem en tatio n o f M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R e so u rc e s P la n i s th e n c r i t i q u e d w ith r e s p e c t to how e f f e c t i v e th e s t r a t e g i e s used to implement th e SFRP were a t v a r i o u s s t a g e s in th e p r o c e s s . The s u p p o rt of th e c h i e f ex e c u ­ t i v e of th e D i v i s i o n , th e use of o u t s i d e a i d and th e u se o f s p e c i a l teams f o r each s t a g e in th e SFRP p r o c e s s a r e a s s e s s e d a s b e in g e s p e c i a l l y im p o rta n t in th e developm ent and im p le m e n ta tio n . f u t u r e im p le m e n ta tio n a c t i v i t i e s a r e a l s o made. S u g g e s tio n s f o r ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The a u t h o r would l i k e to e x p r e s s h e r g r a t i t u d e to Dr. R ob ert S. Manthy f o r h i s g u id a n c e , a i d and encouragem ent th ro u g h o u t t h i s research. The M ichigan D epartm ent o f N a tu r a l R e s o u rc e s, F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n i s a l s o due th a n k s f o r e n a b l in g th e a u t h o r to work on M ichi­ g a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n from 1978 to 1981. S p e c ia l th a n k s a r e g iv e n to Henry W ebster, Jim O lm stead, G erald Rose, G erald Thiede and Gordon T e rry o f th e D i v i s i o n . G r a t e f u l acknowledgement i s a l s o made of th e fun ds made a v a i l a b l e from th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , N o r t h e a s t e r n S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y Branch f o r t h e i r p a r t in th e fu n d in g o f th e a u t h o r ' s r e s e a r c h a s s i s ta n tsh ip . The s u p p o rt and c o u n s e l o f Dr. Lee James, Dr. R obert M arty, Dr. Donald H olecek, Dr. Sandra M a r l a t t , Mrs. Joan P e r r y and J e f f r e y Olson are a ls o g r e a tly a p p re c ia te d . ii TABLE OF CONTENTS L i s t o f T a b le s ............................................................................................................. L i s t o f F ig u r e s ............... v vi C hap ter 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. Problem S tatem en t ...................................... G oals ......................... Methods .................... 2. 3. 4. 1 1 2 3 THE HISTORY OF MICHIGAN'S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN ............................................................................................. 5 I n t r o d u c t i o n ........... P r e - P la n n in g ............................................................................................. The A ssessm ent ............. The Recommended Program .................................................................... 5 7 19 24 INNOVATION IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT ..................................... 34 I n t r o d u c t i o n ............................................................................................. F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g I n n o v a tio n in an O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S i t u a t i o n ............................................. N ature o f P r o b l e m ...................................................................... Key P a r t i c i p a n t s ......................................................................... S ta g e s in th e A doption of an I n n o v a tio n ..................... Type o f I n n o v a tio n D e c is io n ................................................ O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Environment .................................................. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of th e I n n o v a tio n .............................. S t r a t e g i e s f o r Im plem enting an I n n o v a tio n in an O r g a n i z a t i o n ........................... Types o f S t r a t e g i e s .................................................................. S t r a t e g i e s f o r t h e I n n o v a tio n D e c is io n S ta g e s . . . . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s in th e I n n o v a tio n P r o c e s s ........................................................................................ 34 THE DIFFUSION OF MICHIGAN'S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN ............................................................................................. I n t r o d u c t i o n ............................................................................................. F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g I n n o v a tio n in th e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n .................................... iii 35 36 37 40 45 49 55 57 58 63 66 71 71 72 N ature o f th e P r o b l e m ................................................................ Key P a r t i c i p a n t s ...................................................... Type o f I n n o v a tio n D e c is io n .................................................. Environment o f th e F o r e s t Management D iv is io n ............ C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P l a n ............................................................................. C r i t i q u e o f S t r a t e g i e s Used to D if f u s e M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P l a n ................................................. Approach ............................................................................................. O v e r a ll D i f f u s i o n S t r a t e g y .................................................. S t r a t e g i e s f o r t h e In n o v a tio n D e c is io n S ta g e s ........... O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s in th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n n in g P ro c e s s ................................ 5. 72 74 75 75 81 85 85 85 86 99 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................... 104 Summary ...................................................... 104 C o n c lu s io n s .................................... 107 Environment of th e F o r e s t Management D iv is io n ......... 107 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n ........................................................................... 109 Type o f S t r a t e g i e s Used .......................................................... 119 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s Used ........................................... 115 APPENDIX A. OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF MICHIGAN’ S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN .................................................................. 119 APPENDIX B. SURVEY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MICHIGAN'S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN ........................................... 123 INTERVIEWS OF THE PRINCIPALS OF MICHIGAN'S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN ........................................... 131 RECOMMENDED DIFFUSION STRATEGIES FOR MICHIGAN’ S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN ........................................... 138 LIST OF REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 142 APPENDIX C. APPENDIX D. iv LIST OF TABLES T a b le 2.1 T able 2 .2 S ta te w id e F o r e s t R e so u rc e s P la n P a r t i c i p a n t s by Group ...................... 10 S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esou rces P la n P a r t i c i p a n t s by A c t i v i t y .................................... 17 T able 5.1 Summary o f th e I n f l u e n c e s o f th e Environment o f th e F o r e s t Management D iv i s io n on th e D if f u s i o n of th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esou rces P la n ............................................................................................................. 108 T able 5 .2 Summary o f th e I n f l u e n c e s o f th e C h a r a c t e r ­ i s t i c s of th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esou rces P la n on i t s D i f f u s i o n ....................................................................... 110 T able 5 .3 Summary of th e E f f e c t i v e n e s s of S t r a t e g i e s Used in th e D i f f u s i o n o f M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esou rces P la n ...................................................................... 112 T able C .l I n te r v ie w R e s u l t s ............................................................................... 134 T able D .l Recommended D i f f u s i o n S t r a t e g i e s f o r M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P l a n : Agency Change T a rg e t Groups ......................................................................... 138 T able D.2 Recommended D i f f u s i o n S t r a t e g i e s f o r M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n : P u b lic Change T a rg e t Groups ......................................................................... 140 v LIST OF FIGURES F ig u re 2.1 M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esou rces P la n P r o c e s s ................................................................................................. 8 M ichigan D epartm ent of N a tu r a l R eso u rces O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C hart .................................................................... 13 F o r e s t Management D iv is io n O r g a n i z a t io n a l C h a r t , 1978 ........................................................................................ 14 F o r e s t Management D iv is io n O r g a n i z a t io n a l C h a r t , 1980 ........................................................................................ 15 F ig u re 2 .5 D r a f t A l t e r n a t i v e s , August 1979 ................... 27 F ig u re C .l M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esou rces P la n I n te r v i e w Q u e s tio n s ............................... 133 F ig u re 2 .2 F ig u re 2 .3 F ig u re 2 .4 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Problem S tatem en t S ta te w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p la n n in g (SFRP) I s an I n n o v a tio n in s t a t e le v e l p lan n in g . L ike th e p la n n in g done und er th e f e d e r a l R eso u rces P la n n in g Act (RPA, P L 9 3-3 78 ), i t a s s e s s e s and p la n s f o r tim ber* r e c r e a ­ t i o n , f i s h , w i l d l i f e , ra n g e and a l l o t h e r f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s . The g u id e ­ l i n e s f o r s t a t e l e v e l p la n n i n g , how ever, have been much l e s s r ig o r o u s th a n f o r f e d e r a l RPA p l a n n i n g . Each s t a t e t h a t h a s u n d e rta k e n compre­ h e n s iv e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p l a n n in g h a s , t h e r e f o r e , dev elo p ed i t s own, p a r t i c u l a r , a p p ro a c h . These s t a t e p la n n in g e f f o r t s v a r y by th e agency d oin g th e p l a n n i n g , t h e l e v e l in th e b u r e a u c ra c y in which i t i s done, th e l e v e l o f d e t a i l in t h e i r p l a n s , how q u a n t i t a t i v e th e y a r e , and th e a u d ie n c e a t which th e y a r e aim ed. The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n and environm ent in which th e p l a n s a r e done a l s o v a r i e s . S ta te w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p l a n s v a ry a s to th e l e v e l o f s t a t e s u p p o rt th e y h a v e , t h e d o l l a r s , tim e and w o rk fo rc e a l l o c a t e d to th e p r o j e c t , and t h e a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e p l a n by agency p e r s o n n e l and p e r s o n n e l o f o t h e r a g e n c ie s a f f e c t e d by t h e p l a n . D e s p i te th e d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t a t e w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p la n n in g e f f o r t s , t h e r e a r e common e le m e n ts in th e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and e n v ir o n ­ m en tal s i t u a t i o n s fa c e d by s t a t e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p l a n n e r s . P la n n e r s who must d ev elo p and implement an i n n o v a ti v e p l a n n in g p r o c e s s may n o t 1 r e c o g n iz e t h a t many of th e problem s th e y e n c o u n te r a r e common to a l l c a s e s where an in n o v a tio n i s b ro u g h t i n t o an o r g a n i z a t i o n . R ecog nizing t h e s e problem s and exam ining them a s problem s in th e d i f f u s i o n of an in n o v a t io n i s a m ajor s te p tow ard t h e i r s o l u t i o n . P la n n e r s can th e n choose among s t r a t e g i e s s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s ig n e d f o r c a s e s o f im ple­ m enting an i n n o v a t io n and u se them t o s o lv e t h e i r p l a n n in g p ro b le m s. Coals The g o a ls o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n a r e : 1) t o p r o v id e a documented c a s e s tu d y o f a s t a t e w i d e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p la n n in g p r o c e s s and 2) t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f in n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n th eo ry a p p lie d to t h i s p lan n in g . I t i s hoped t h a t t h i s ex a m in a tio n o f a c a s e s tu d y o f s ta t e w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p la n n in g (SFRP) in M ichigan w i l l e n a b le o t h e r p l a n n e r s to l e a r n from M ic h ig a n 's s u c c e s s e s and s h o rtc o m in g s . M ic h ig a n 's S t a t e ­ wide F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n i s u sed t o i l l u s t r a t e th e t y p e s o f s i t u a t i o n s and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e n v iro n m e n ts t h a t a r e l i k e l y t o be fa c e d by p l a n n e r s who must implement in n o v a ti v e p la n n i n g . I n n o v a tio n s which a r e i n t r o ­ duced i n t o o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i l l meet r e s i s t a n c e . T h is r e s i s t a n c e a r i s e s f o r v a r i o u s r e a s o n s and v a r i e s a s to s t r e n g t h and m a n i f e s t a t i o n s . T h is s t u d y , t h u s , a l s o i l l u s t r a t e s some o f th e in n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n s t r a t e g i e s a v a i l a b l e to p l a n n e r s t o p r e v e n t o r overcome r e s i s t a n c e , and p r o v id e s g u i d e l i n e s f o r th e u se o f t h e s e s t r a t e g i e s . 3 Methods In o r d e r to meet th e g o a ls d e f in e d above, th e h i s t o r y of M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esources P la n i s d e s c r i b e d from l a t e 1977 to e a r l y 1981, r e s e a r c h on th e d i f f u s i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s i s review ed and th e m e r it s and d e f i c i e n c i e s of th e e x e c u tio n o f M ic h ig a n 's SFRP in l i g h t o f in n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n r e s e a r c h a r e d i s c u s s e d . The SFRP h i s t o r y d e s c r ib e d below i n c l u d e s b o th o b j e c t i v e and s u b je c tiv e p o rtio n s . The a u th o r was one of th e p r i n c i p a l s o f th e SFRP from A p r i l 1978 to March 1981. During t h i s tim e a lo g book was k e p t o f p r o c e d u r e s , major e v e n t s , a c t i v i t i e s and m i l e s t o n e s in M ic h ig a n 's SFRP. T his lo g book i s used a s th e p rim ary s o u rc e f o r t h e ca se h i s t o r y d e t a i l e d below. Two d e v ic e s a r e used to examine s u b j e c t i v e view s of th e h i s t o r y o f M ic h ig a n 's SFRP. I n te r v ie w s of p r i n c i p a l M ichigan Department of N a tu r a l R eso u rces (DNR), F o r e s t Management D iv is io n and M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y s t a f f were c o n d u c te d . These i n t e r v i e w s were d e sig n e d to e s t a b l i s h what th e p r i n c i p a l s ' p e r s p e c t i v e s were of t h e need f o r a SFRP and what were im p o rta n t e v e n t s , a c t i v i t i e s , p e r s o n n e l and work a rra n g e m e n ts in i t s developm ent. A su rv ey of tw enty-on e DNR and U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e p e r s o n n e l who had been d i r e c t l y in v o lv ed In th e developm ent of th e SFRP was a l s o ta k e n . T h is survey re c o rd e d and a n a ly z e d p e r c e p t i o n s of th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of M ic h ig a n 's SFRP which might make i t e a s i e r o r more d i f f i c u l t to implement. S ta te w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p l a n n in g i s an in n o v a tio n in f o r e s t management a t th e s t a t e l e v e l . The a p p l i c a t i o n o f in n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n t h e o r y can p r o v id e s ta t e w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p l a n n e r s w ith v a l u a b l e 4 to o ls. I t can h e lp them a n t i c i p a t e r e s i s t a n c e to i n n o v a tio n and to develop p r o c e d u re s and use a c t i v i t i e s which w i l l f a c i l i t a t e th e s u c c e s s of th e i n n o v a t io n . The d i s c u s s i o n o f i n n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n below concen­ t r a t e s on th e e n v iro n m e n ta l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , which i f u n reco g ­ n iz e d o r t r e a t e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y , can cau se an i n n o v a tio n to be r e j e c t e d or can impede i t s a d o p t i o n . Also d e s c r i b e d h e r e i n a r e ty p e s o f in n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n s t r a t e g i e s and th e c o n d i t i o n s u n d er which each a r e e f f e c t i v e . The c r i t i q u e o f M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso urces P la n i l l u s ­ t r a t e s how some ap p ro a c h e s in a g iv e n s i t u a t i o n . and s t r a t e g i e s a r e o r a r e not e f fe c tiv e The e n v iro n m e n ta l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e d M ic h ig a n 's s i t u a t i o n , th e im p o rta n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e SFRP I t s e l f , and th e s t r a t e g i e s used in th e SFRP p r o c e s s a r e d e sc rib e d . The p r o g r e s s o f M ic h ig a n 's SFRP i s th e n e v a l u a t e d a s to th e s t r a t e g i e s which were o r were n o t e f f e c t i v e and th e s t r a t e g i e s which m ight have been more e f f e c t i v e a r e i d e n t i f i e d . I t i s re c o g n iz e d t h a t c a se s t u d i e s in which t h e p a r t i c i p a n t have th e p o s s i b i l i t y of b i a s . a u t h o r was a E f f o r t h a s been ta k e n in t h i s r e s e a r c h to l i m i t t h i s b i a s a s much a s p o s s i b l e . I t i s th e a u t h o r 's b e l i e f t h a t th e i n s i g h t g ain ed th ro u g h p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e SFRP p r o c e s s outw eigh s th e a s s o c i a t e d p roblem s o f b i a s . I t is th is i n s i g h t i n t o th e problem s of s t a t e w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p la n n in g t h a t sh o u ld be v a l u a b l e to o t h e r p l a n n e r s and r e s o u r c e e c o n o m is ts . CHAPTER II THE HISTORY OF MICHIGAN'S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN In tro d u c tio n M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n (SFRP) i s a p r o c e s s t o develo p and recommend f o r e s t p o l i c y f o r M ichigan and d i r e c t i o n f o r a l l p u b l i c f o r e s t r y program s i n th e s t a t e . th re e phases: The SFRP p r o c e s s h a s (1) g a t h e r i n g in f o r m a tio n on t h e s i z e , e x t e n t , c o n d i t i o n and use o f th e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s o f th e s t a t e and on t h e program s which a f f e c t th e r e s o u r c e s , (2) d e te r m in in g th e m ajor a r e a s o f c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r th e u se o r management o f th e s t a t e ' s f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s an d, (3) recommending p o l i c y and program d i r e c t i o n f o r f o r e s t management in th e s t a t e b ased upon th e r e s u l t s o f t h e f i r s t two p h a s e s o f th e p r o c e s s . Begun in l a t e 1977, th e SFRP i s b e in g co n d u cted by t h e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n o f th e M ichigan Departm ent o f N a tu r a l R eso u rces (DNR). F i n a n c i a l and T e c h n ic a l A s s i s ta n c e t o th e p l a n h as been p ro v id e d by th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e . Through a c o o p e r a t i v e agreem ent w ith M ichi­ gan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y s u b s t a n t i a l a s s i s t a n c e from members o f th e MSU F o r e s t r y D epartm ent was p ro v id e d to th e DNR f o r th e SFRP p r o j e c t . The two m ajor documents p roduced in t h e SFRP a r e an a s se s sm e n t o f M ic h ig a n 's f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s and a recommended program f o r f o r e s t r e s o u r c e management in t h e s t a t e . M ic h ig a n 's F o r e s t R eso u rces 1979—An A sse ssm e n t, p u b lis h e d in 1979, i s t h e f i r s t in a s e r i e s o f a s s e s s m e n ts p lan n ed to be r e p e a t e d 5 6 a t 1 0 -y e a r i n t e r v a l s . The A ssessm ent examines M ic h ig a n 's f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s ( w i l d l i f e , t i m b e r , f i s h , w a t e r , and o u td o o r r e c r e a t i o n ) . For each r e s o u r c e , d e s c r i p t i o n s and d a t a a r e p ro v id e d on what i s known abo u t th e su p p ly (o r c o n d i t i o n ) o f t h e r e s o u r c e and t h e demand f o r (or u se o f) t h e r e s o u r c e . M ic h ig a n 's F o r e s t R e s o u rc e s —A Recommended Program (D ra ft F eb ru ary 1981) when co m p leted , w i l l be th e f i r s t i n a s e r i e s o f program documents t o be r e p e a t e d a t f i v e - y e a r i n t e r v a l s . T h is d r a f t program d i s c u s s e s f i v e m ajor f o r e s t r e s o u r c e i s s u e s , summarizes th e use and c o n d i t i o n o f t h e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s t i m b e r , w i l d l i f e , f i s h and r e c r e a t i o n , a n a ly z e s th e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e s e r e s o u r c e s and t h e i s s u e s a n d , b ased upon t h i s a n a l y s i s , recommends f o r e s t p o l i c y d i r e c t i o n and c o u r s e s of a c tio n . in s c o p e . Like t h e A sse ssm e n t, t h e Recommended Program i s s ta t e w id e The i s s u e s i t i d e n t i f i e s — economic d evelop m ent, e n e r g y , n o n i n d u s t r i a l p r i v a t e f o r e s t s , u rb a n f o r e s t r y , and p u b l i c f o r e s t s — a r e r e l e v a n t t o t h e e n t i r e s t a t e a n d , t o g e t h e r , th e y span a l l f o r e s t o w n e rsh ip s . The recommended p o l i c y d i r e c t i o n i s in te n d e d to g iv e a common s e n s e o f d i r e c t i o n t o a l l th o s e in v o lv e d in f o r e s t management in M ichigan. The recommended c o u r s e s o f a c t i o n , o r g o a l s and s t r a t e g i e s , which f o llo w from t h i s p o l i c y d i r e c t i o n a r e meant t o more s p e c i f i c a l l y gu ide f o r e s t management s t a t e w i d e . By d e s i g n , M ic h ig a n 's SFRP u s e s p u b l i c and o t h e r agency p a r t i c i ­ p a tio n in clu d in g th a t o f : Management D i v i s i o n , (1) DNR d i v i s i o n s o t h e r th a n th e F o r e s t (2) o t h e r p u b l i c a g e n c i e s , g r o u p s , (4) f o r e s t i n d u s t r i e s , (6) u n i v e r s i t i e s . (3) p u b l i c i n t e r e s t (5) p r i v a t e f o r e s t la n d o w n e rs, and These i n d i v i d u a l s and g ro u p s review ed s e v e r a l d r a f t s o f t h e Assessm ent and th e d r a f t Recommended Program , p a r t i c i p a t e d in workshops* recommended and ran ked i s s u e s , and in some c a s e s p ro v id e d te c h n ic a l in fo rm a tio n . In a d d i t i o n , t h e s t a t e ' s N a tu r a l R esources Commission, a g o v ern o r a p p o in te d p o l i c y making body, w i l l be asked t o approve t h e Recommended Program p r e s e n te d to them by th e DNR. P r e - P la n n in g In th e p r e - p l a n n i n g phase o f th e SFRP d e c i s i o n s were made on how s u p p o rt f o r t h e SFRP p r o c e s s would be d e v e lo p e d , how work on th e SFRP would be s t r u c t u r e d , and what t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e would be r e q u i r e d . These s t e p s a r e summarized in F ig u re 2 .1 u n d er th e h e a d in g o f p r e ­ p lan n in g . At l e a s t a s e a r l y a s 1977, F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n C h ie f Webster had d e c id e d t h a t t h e D iv i s i o n sh o u ld d ev elo p a s t a t e w i d e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p la n . In l a t e 1977, th e D i v i s i o n com piled a " F o r e s t G oals and I s s u e s S ta te m e n t" a s p a r t o f M ic h ig a n 's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r­ v i c e ' s 1980 RPA A ssessm en t. D iv is i o n C h ie f W ebster a l s o announced t h a t th e D i v is i o n would u se t h i s i n f o r m a ti o n in th e p r e p a r a t i o n o f i t s S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P l a n . The p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f 26 r e p r e s e n ­ t a t i v e a g e n c i e s , o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i n d i v i d u a l s I n t e r e s t e d in f o r e s t management in th e s t a t e was used by th e D iv i s io n to d r a f t th e s t a t e m e n t . T h is group o f p a r t i c i p a n t s formed t h e b a s e upon which much o f t h e l a t e r SFRP p u b l i c in vo lvem ent was b u i l t . A lthough t h e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n was to d ev elo p th e p l a n , t h e c o o p e r a t i o n and s u p p o rt o f o t h e r d i v i s i o n s i n th e DNR was n e c e s s a r y f o r th e SFRP t o be co m p reh en siv e. h ig h l e v e l s o f t h e DNR. Support was, t h u s , a l s o sought from By a rra n g e m e n t, in March o f 1978 Howard T an ner, D i r e c t o r o f th e Departm ent o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , announced t h a t 4 -rs 3-Tt DATES: to to •-7S 12-TS ANALYSIS OF PHASE PRE-PLANNING ) > MICHIGAN'S FORESTS AND THE FUTURE WORKSHOPS ACTIVITIES DNR FOREST GOALS AND ISSUES / DECISIONS ON SFRP STRUCTURE PROCE­ DURES. STAFFING RPA AND THE STATES WORKSHOP NATURAL RESOURCES DAYS PUBLIC FORUM DNR. TA. USFS. PAG REVIEWS Figure 2.1 ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS ASSESSMENT > MANAGE­ MENT TEAM REVIEW ADVI­ SORY PANEL REVIEW ALTER NATIVE OIREC TIONS DRAFTED (35 DIREC TIONS RELATION SH IPS DEVELOPED M ichigan's Statewide Forest Resources Plan Process, December, 1977 to March 4-74 1-ao 10 3-40 10 3-M 1J-79 to 4-40 IS8U C S . POLICY O P T IO N S AND PROGRAM D IRECTIO N S NALYSIS OF LTERNATIVE program s TECH­ MANAGE­ MENT TEAM REVIEW ADVI­ SORY PANEL REVIEW NICAL AD VISO RS REVIEW NATURAL R E SO U R C ES DAYS PUBLIC FORUM REVI SIO N S RECO M MENDEO PROGRAM W O R K SH O P TECH­ NICAL ADVISORS REVIEW R ECOM ­ M ENDED PROGRAM DRAFT i&SuK-" DIREC­ TIONS RELATION­ SHIPS DEVELOPED to >41 DNR PROGRAM S ANALYZED D N R -U SFS TARGET SETTIN G KEY: n □ L * o o 1977 to H arch, 1981. DOCUMENTS, MAJOR STEPS PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AND FORUMS AUXILLIARY ACTIVITIES, PUBLIC WORKSHOPS FORMAL REVIEWS PREPARATION 9 p r e p a r a t i o n of a S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso urces P la n f o r M ichigan had begun. He a l s o a p p o in te d M. L. P e to s k y , A s s i s t a n t C hief of th e DNR's Bureau of Renewable Resource Management, to be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o o r d in ­ a t i n g th e p la n ( r e f e r t o F ig u re 2 .2 f o r th e D i v i s i o n ' s in c lu d e d on th e B u r e a u ) . D i r e c t o r Tanner a l s o announced t h e e s ta b l i s h m e n t of a c o o p e r a ti v e agreem ent betw een th e DNR and th e F o r e s t r y Departm ent of M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rsity . Through t h i s agreem ent Dr. R obert Manthy of M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y was to work w ith th e F o r e s t Management D iv is io n in th e developm ent o f th e SFRP. D i r e c t o r Tanner i n v i t e d Manthy*s p a r t i c i ­ p a t i o n b ecau se o f th e l a t t e r ' s e x p e r ie n c e w ith th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e 's RPA p l a n n i n g . S h o r tl y t h e r e a f t e r , th e s t r u c t u r e o f th e SFRP work was d e te rm in e d . A team which would in c lu d e members from th e D i v i s i o n ' s P la n n in g U nit ( r e f e r to F ig u re 2 .3 ) and t h e MSU F o r e s t r y Departm ent was t o be th e p rim ary work g ro u p . Under th e l e a d e r s h i p of C hief W eb ster, G erald Rose, th e n P la n n in g U nit Leader in th e D iv i s i o n was to c o - d i r e c t th e SFRP w ith P r o f e s s o r Manthy. They were to g uid e th e p r o g r e s s of th e SFRP and have p rim a ry r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i t s develo pm en t. Jim O lm stead, P la n n in g A n a ly s t in th e D i v i s i o n ; and th e a u t h o r o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , th e n s p e c i a l i s t in r e s o u r c e a sse s sm e n t a t MSU's F o r e s t r y D epartm ent, were to c o o r d i n a t e th e day t o day a c t i v i t i e s of th e SFRP. G erald T h ie d e , F o r e s t Resource A n a ly s t in th e p l a n n in g u n i t was t o g iv e t e c h ­ n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e to th e team a s n eed ed . T h is f i v e p e rso n team w i l l be r e f e r e d to a s t h e "management team" (see T ab le 2 . 1 ) . 10 T a b le 2.1 1. S ta te w id e F o r e s t R e s o u rc e s P la n P a r t i c i p a n t s by Group DNR F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n a. D iv isio n C h ief. . . P r o j e c t C h ie f Management Team Members b. P la n n in g U n it L e ad er (1978) . . . P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r (became A s s i s t a n t C h i e f , R eso u rce Development and P la n n in g in 1980) c. P la n n in g A n a l y s t , P la n n in g U n it . . . P r o j e c t C o o rd in ato r d. F o r e s t R eso urce A n a l y s t , P la n n in g U n it (became P la n n in g U n it L e ad er in 1980) O th e r Team Member e. 2. C o o p e r a tiv e F o r e s t Management S e c t i o n L eader M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F o r e s t r y D epartm ent Management Team Members: a. P r o f e s s o r , R eso urce Econom ics. . . P ro je c t D irecto r b. S p e c i a l i s t , R esou rce A ssessm ent . . . P r o j e c t Coor­ d i n a t o r ( l a t e r R e s e a rc h A s s i s t a n t ) O th er Team Members c. 3. P ro s e m in a r p a r t i c i p a n t s C o n s u l t a n t s f o r Program A n a ly s is Management Team Members a. Program A n a l y s is D i r e c t o r (same a s 2a) b. Program A n a l y s i s L eader (same a s 2b) O th er Team Members c. R eso urce A n a l y s ts d. R eso u rce S p e c i a l i s t s . . . P ro je c t D ire c to r . . . P r o j e c t C o o r d in a to r 11 T able 2.1 ( c o n t 'd . ) 4. DNR T e c h n ic a l A d v iso rs R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from t h e : * a . W i l d l i f e D iv is io n * b . F i s h e r i e s D iv is io n * c . R e c r e a tio n S e r v ic e s D iv is io n d. Land R esource Programs D iv is i o n e . P ark s D iv is io n f . Lands D iv is io n g. Waterways D iv is io n h. G e o lo g ic a l Survey D iv is io n i. Water Management D iv is io n J. Water Q u a lity D i v is io n *k. 5. 6. O f f ic e o f Surveys and S t a t i s t i c s P u b lic A dv iso ry Group a. r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from p u b l ic a g e n c ie s b. r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from f o r e s t r e s o u r c e u s e r groups c. r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from f o r e s t trie s r e s o u r c e r e l a t e d in d u s ­ d. r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from e n v iro n m e n ta l and o t h e r i n t e r e s t g roups A dvisory P an el a. r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y F o r e s t r y Department b. r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from U n i v e r s i t y o f M ichigan School o f N a t u r a l R esou rces * t h e s e d i v i s i o n s p la y e d a more a c t i v e r o l e in p r o v id i n g a s s i s t a n c e to th e SFRP p r o j e c t . 12 c. r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from M ichigan T e c h n o lo g ic a l U n iv e r­ s i t y , School o f F o r e s t r y and Wood P r o d u c ts d. r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from t h e F o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s C o u n cil e. r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from t h e Upper P e n i n s u l a Environmen­ t a l C o u n cil NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MACKINAC WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION REGIONAL DIRECTORS REGION I REGION II REGIONS III BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION WATERWAYS COMMISSION DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTORS BUREAU OF LAND AND WATER DIVISION BUREAU OF RENEWABLE RESOURCE BUREAU O f SERVICES land r e so u r c e LAW EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT p r o g r a m s d iv is io n FOREST MANAGEMENT CHVISION GEOLOGY DIVISION WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION PARKS DIVISION WATERWAYS DIVISION WILDLIFE DIVISION MACKMAC ISLAND STATE PARKS DIVISION F ig u re 2 .2 M ichigan Department o f N a t u r a l R esources O r g a n i z a t io n a l C h a rt. C H IE F SECRETARY V RESOURCE PROTECTION AND FIELD SERVICES ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT RESOURCE PROTECTION PROGRAM BUDGETING FOREST CULTIVATION AND STATE FOREST MANAGEMENT FOREST RECREATION FOREST RESOURCE PLANNING EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES TRAINING AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT NURSERY OPERATIONS OFFICE MANAGEMENT F ig u re 2 .3 F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n O r g a n i z a t io n a l C h a r t, 1978. COOPERATIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT CHIEF ASSISTANT CHIEF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING PLANNING COOPERATIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT RESOURCE PROTECTION FOREST RECREATION ASSISTANT CHIEF ADMINISTRATION FOREST CULTIVATION ANO STATE FOREST MANAGEMENT NURSERY ADMINISTRATION TRAINING AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES F ig u re 2 .4 F o r e s t Hanagement D iv is io n O r g a n iz a tio n a l C h a rt, 1980. REGIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVES (3 POSITIONS) FIELD ORGANIZATION 16 I t was d e c id e d t h a t a d d i t i o n a l t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e and work f o r c e was to be r e q u i r e d f o r t h e f i r s t phase o f th e SFRP— th e a s se s sm e n t phase. The a s s i s t a n c e o f Dr. R ic h a rd A l s to n , v i s i t i n g P r o f e s s o r a t M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , and r e s o u r c e econom ics d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t s in h i s p ro se m ln a r c o u rs e was e n l i s t e d f o r t h i s p u r p o s e . These p ro se m in a r c o u r s e s , o f f e r e d in th e F o r e s t r y D epartm ent a r e d e s ig n e d t o g iv e s t u d e n t s h and s-o n e x p e r ie n c e w ith a r e s o u r c e economics problem w h ile a s s i s t i n g th e c o o p e r a t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n . The management team and th e MSU p ro se m ln a r p a r t i c i p a n t s formed what w i l l be r e f e r e d to a s th e "SFRP team" in th e a s s e s s m e n t p h a s e . T able 2.1 which l i s t s t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s in th e SFRP p r o c e s s , and T able 2 .2 which I n d i c a t e s SFRP p a r t i c i p a n t s by a c t i v i t y , summarize th e work arra n g e m e n ts d e v e lo p e d d u r in g t h i s p r e - p l a n n i n g p h a s e . One o f th e f i r s t a c t i v i t i e s o f th e management team and th e MSU p ro se m in a r members was p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a week lo n g workshop on com­ p r e h e n s iv e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p l a n n i n g . The workshop, "Comprehensive S t a t e F o r e s t P la n n in g and th e RPA" was sp on sored by t h e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , N o r t h e a s t e r n S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y bran ch and th e M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y F o r e s t r y D epartm ent. I t was d e s ig n e d to f a m i l i a r i z e s t a t e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p l a n n e r s w ith th e U .S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e RPA p r o c e s s , w ith s t a t e l e v e l com prehensive f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p l a n n i n g , and w ith th e l i n k s between them. O ther p a r t i c i p a n t s in t h e workshop in c lu d e d f o r e s t r y p e r s o n n e l from most o f t h e n o r t h e a s t e r n s t a t e s ; and U .S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e , S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y Branch s t a f f . Workshop t o p i c s i n c lu d e d an o verview o f RPA and com prehensive f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p l a n n i n g , t h e i r p u rp o se s and o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r t h e i r u s e , problem s t h a t m ight be encoun­ t e r e d and p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s , and methods f o r r e s o u r c e a s se s sm e n t and Table 2 .2 . S tatew id e F o r e s t Resources P a r t i c i p a n t s by A c t i v i t y . A c tiv ity P rin c ip a l P a rtic ip a n ts Pub1ic DNR O utside Involvement Aid (group code) _____________________________________________ (group and p r o j e c t t i t l e code from Table 2.1 )_____(from Table 2 .1 ) P rep la n n in g D ir e c tio n C o o rd in a tio n o f A c t i v i t i e s P u b lic In fo rm atio n l a , lb lc l a , lb 2a 2b 2a l a , lb lc l c , lb l c , lb la -d ,4 2a 2b 2b, 2c 2b, 2a 2 a , 2b Assessment D irectio n C o o rd in a tio n o f A c t i v i t i e s Data Com pilation E d itin g and P ro d u c tio n Reviews A n a ly s is of A l t e r n a t i v e Programs D i r e c t io n C o o rd in a tio n of A c t i v i t i e s A n a ly sis E d it i n g and P ro d u c tio n Reviews lc la-d »4 3a 3b 3b, 3c 3b 3a T able 2.2 ( c o n t 'd . ) D r a f t A l t e r n a t i v e Programs D irectio n C o o rd in a tio n o f A c t i v i t i e s C o m p ilatio n E d i t i n g and P r o d u c tio n Reviews l a , lb lc lc ,4 lc , la , lb , 4 2a 2b 2b 2b 2a 5 ,6 I s s u e s , O ptio ns and P o li c y D i r e c t i o n s D irectio n C o o rd in a tio n of A c t i v i t i e s Development E d i t i n g and P r o d u c tio n Reviews la l b , lc la-3 lc la-c 2a, 2b 5 ,6 Recommended Program D irectio n C o o rd in a tio n o f A c t i v i t i e s C o m pilatio n E d i t i n g and P r o d u c tio n Reviews l a , lb lc l c , Id , le lc la -d , 4 2a 2b 2b 2b 2a, 2b 5 ,6 |— oo 19 program develo pm en t. Workshop s p e a k e rs were r e c r u i t e d f o r t h e i r e x p e r i ­ ence in RPA o r s t a t e p la n n in g and e x p e r t i s e i n p l a n n in g m ethods. Two p u b l i c workshops were a l s o h e l d o v e r th e n e x t s e v e r a l months to in t r o d u c e th e SFRP t o i n t e r e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l s and g ro u p s. E n title d " M ic h ig a n 's F o r e s t s and th e F u tu re " t h e s e forums in tr o d u c e d th e SFRP p r o c e s s to i n t e r e s t e d members of th e p u b l i c and were sp o n so red by t h e West M ichigan E n v iro n m en tal A ctio n C o a l i t i o n . The workshops in c lu d e d p r e s e n t a t i o n s and group d i s c u s s i o n s on f o r e s t r e s o u r c e i s s u e s , f o r e s t management p r a c t i c e s , and p l a n s f o r M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esources P lan . P a r t i c i p a n t s in t h e s e w orkshops, a s w e ll a s p a r t i c i p a n t s in th e "G oals and I s s u e s S ta te m e n t" developm ent were k e p t on f i l e f o r r e f e r e n c e f o r f u t u r e p u b l i c in v o lv e m e n t. The Assessm ent The f i r s t phase in M ic h ig a n 's SFRP p r o c e s s , th e p r o d u c tio n of an a s se s sm e n t o f c u r r e n t and l i k e l y f u t u r e c o n d i t i o n s and u s e s o f M ichi­ g a n 's f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s , began in th e s p r i n g o f 1978. The s t r u c t u r e o f t h e asse ssm e n t was t o be s i m i l a r to t h a t used by th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e in t h e i r RPA a s s e s s m e n ts . The s i z e , c o n d i t i o n and e x t e n t o f each m ajor f o r e s t r e s o u r c e in M ichigan: t i m b e r , w i l d l i f e , f i s h , and o u td o o r r e c r e a t i o n was to be d e te r m in e d . An ov erview of th e s i z e , g e o g ra p h ic d i s t r i b u t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n o f M ic h ig a n 's f o r e s t la n d s and w a t e r s was I n c lu d e d . The s t e p s fo llo w e d i n th e a s se s sm e n t phase a r e i l l u s t r a t e d in F ig u re 2.1 u n d er th e h e a d in g "A ssessm ent." T a b le s 2.1 and 2 .2 i d e n t i f y th e p a r t i c i p a n t s and t h e i r r o l e s in t h i s p h a s e . Each p ro se m in a r s tu d e n t was a s s i g n e d one o f t h e r e s o u r c e c a t e g o r ­ i e s to r e s e a r c h . F ollow ing r e s e a r c h p r o c e d u re s o u t l i n e d by th e MSU SFRP 20 P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r , team members f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d and c o n t a c t e d r e s o u r c e s p e c i a l i s t s in th e DNR and th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . The s p e c i a l i s t s i d e n t i f i e d s o u rc e s of seco n d ary d a t a on M ic h ig a n 's f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s an d, in some c a s e s , s e rv e d a s d i r e c t s o u rc e s of i n f o r m a tio n th e m s e lv e s . The DNR s p e c i a l i s t s in w i l d l i f e , r e c r e a t i o n , f i s h e r i e s , g eo lo g y , and w aterways a l s o s e rv e d a s t e c h n i c a l r e v ie w e r s of th e r e s e a r c h p r e p a re d by th e p ro sem in ar s t u d e n t s . " T e c h n ic a l A d v is o r s " . T h is group w i l l be r e f e r e d t o a s th e Although no p rim ary d a ta was c o l l e c t e d f o r th e A sse ssm e n t, much of th e se c o n d a ry d a t a and in f o r m a tio n had to be s p e c i a l l y com piled by SFRP team members. The c o o p e r a t i o n and s u p p o rt o f th e s p e c i a l i s t s was, t h u s , c r u c i a l . I t was d e te rm in e d t h a t th e a s s e s s m e n t p hase must a l s o be used to in fo rm p e o p le and o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n t e r e s t e d in f o r e s t management in M ichigan o f th e SFRP and to in v o lv e them where a p p r o p r i a t e . At t h e same tim e DNR s p e c i a l i s t s were b e in g c o n t a c te d f o r t e c h n i c a l a s s i s ­ ta n c e w ith th e A sse ssm e n t, c o n t a c t s were b e in g e s t a b l i s h e d w ith a d m in is­ t r a t o r s in th e DNR and U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e . A m eetin g in e a r l y May 1978 was h e l d w ith r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from o t h e r DNR d i v i s i o n s to inform them of p l a n s f o r th e SFRP, work b e in g done on th e A sse s sm e n t, and to a sk f o r t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n . —^ U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e r e g i o n a l and M ichigan N a tio n a l F o r e s t p la n n e r s were v i s i t e d by th e a u t h o r d u r in g t h e s p r i n g and e a r l y summer o f 1978. These v i s i t s were used t o in fo rm U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e p l a n n e r s o f M ichi­ g a n 's SFRP e f f o r t s , to c o o r d i n a t e t h e s e w ith th e F o r e s t S e r v i c e 's RPA — ^These divisions are listed under Group 4 in Table 2.1. 21 p r o c e s s , and to g a t h e r in fo r m a tio n f o r th e A sse ssm e n t. L a te r t h a t summer th e a u t h o r v i s i t e d th e o f f i c e s o f th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e , N o r t h e a s t e r n S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y Branch and S o u th e a s te r n S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y Branch to g a t h e r in f o r m a tio n on t h e i r s t a t e p l a n ­ n in g a c t i v i t i e s and to r e p o r t on t h e p r o g r e s s o f th e SFRP. The co­ d i r e c t o r s of th e p r o g r e s s of th e SFRP h e ld i n f o r m a t i o n a l m eetin g s w ith th e r e g i o n a l s t a f f s o f th e DNR d u rin g t h i s same p e r i o d . O ther p u b l i c a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s , and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s were a l s o in v o lv e d e a r l y in th e a s se s sm e n t p h a s e . While in fo r m a tio n on M ic h ig a n 's f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s was b e in g c o l l e c t e d , a p r o ­ posed o u t l i n e f o r th e A ssessm ent was d r a f t e d f o r re v ie w . F o r ty p e o p le , in c l u d in g DNR s t a f f , p u b l i c i n t e r e s t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s who had been i n ­ v olv ed in d e v e lo p in g th e "Goals and I s s u e s S t a te m e n t ," and members o f a d d i t i o n a l p u b l ic i n t e r e s t g ro up s and p u b li c a g e n c ie s were s e n t th e pro p o sed o u t l i n e f o r th e A s se s sm e n t. At t h i s tim e th e y were asked to s e rv e a s members of a " P u b lic A dvisory Group" to th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso urces P l a n . —^ As t h e i r f i r s t a c t th e y were asked to comment on th e p ro p o sed o u t l i n e , ju d g in g th e r e l e v a n c e o f what was t o be c o n ta in e d in th e Assessm ent and to recommend any a d d i t i o n s o r d e l e t i o n s . A fin a l Assessm ent o u t l i n e was composed b ased upon t h e comments r e c e i v e d from th e re v ie w . The comments th em selv es were a l s o com piled and s e n t back to th e P u b l i c A dvisory Group f o r t h e i r in f o r m a tio n and a s r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s . D uring th e summer of 1978 th e r e s e a r c h s u b m itte d by th e p ro sem ln ar — ^These representatives are listed under Group 5 in Table 2.1. 22 s t u d e n t s underw ent i n t e n s i v e re v ie w by th e DNR r e s o u r c e s p e c i a l i s t s . A s e r i e s of r e v i s i o n s were made in th e a s s e s s m e n t in f o r m a tio n b ased upon t h e s e t e c h n i c a l re v ie w s . C o n s id e ra b le e d i t o r i a l work was a l s o done by th e management team to b u i l d a c o n s i s t e n t and com prehensive document from t h i s r e s e a r c h . of The management team d ev o ted th e rem aind er 1978 to p r e p a r i n g a d r a f t Assessm ent f o r p u b l i c re v ie w . ta n c e of The impor­ m a i n t a i n i n g c o n t a c t w ith SFRP c o o p e r a t o r s d u r in g t h i s p e r io d was r e c o g n i z e d . C o n tin u in g p r o g r e s s r e p o r t s to DNR a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s , and to U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e p e r s o n n e l w ere, t h e r e f o r e , made d u r in g t h i s p e r i o d . A f t e r rev iew by D iv is i o n a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and a su b se q u e n t r e v i s i o n , th e d r a f t A ssessm ent was r e l e a s e d f o r p u b l i c rev iew in March o f 1979. As w e ll a s b e in g made a v a i l a b l e to th e p u b l i c th e d r a f t , M ic h ig a n 's F o r e s t R e so u rc e s— An A ssessm ent, 1979 was s e n t t o : 1. DNR dep artm en t and b u re a u l e v e l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 2. DNR d i v i s i o n l e v e l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s 3. FMD d i v i s i o n s t a f f 4. U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y , N o r t h e a s t e r n and S o u th e a s te r n b ra n c h e s 5. U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e N a tio n a l F o r e s t s t a f f in M ichigan 6. U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e W ashington O f f i c e S t a f f 7. th e " P u b lic A dvisory Group" 8. v a r i o u s o t h e r p u b l ic a g e n c i e s in M ichigan A p u b l i c forum on th e d r a f t A ssessm ent was th e n h e ld d u r in g N a tu r a l R e s o u rc e s Days a t M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . —^ " M ic h ig a n ’s F o r e s t R e s o u rc e s P l a n : The forum, e n t i t l e d A S ta tu s R e p o rt", in clu d ed : (1) a k e y n o te a d d r e s s by R u p ert C u t l e r , t h e n A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y o f A g r i ­ c u ltu re ; (3) (2) r e p o r t s from t h e A ssessm ent on M ic h i g a n 's f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s and a forum on c o n c e r n s a b o u t th e f u t u r e o f t h e s e r e s o u r c e s . forum had s e v e r a l p u r p o s e s . T h is The f i r s t was t o i n v i t e p u b l i c comment on t h e d r a f t A ssessm en t and t o d i s t r i b u t e i t t o a d d i t i o n a l i n t e r e s t e d p u b lic s. J u s t a s I m p o r t a n t , t h e forum info rm ed t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s o f th e DNR’ s p l a n s f o r t h e second p h ase o f t h e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R e so u rc e s P l a n , t h e "recommended p rogram p h a s e , " and i n v i t e d t h e i r e x p r e s s i o n o f what t h e y th o u g h t f o r e s t management i n M ichigan sh o u ld be co n c e rn e d a b o u t in t h e f u t u r e . To e n s u r e b ro a d p u b l i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a t th e forum , a l l th o s e who had been s e n t d r a f t s o f t h e A ssessm en t were i n v i t e d t o a t t e n d t h e forum . Members o f many o f t h e s e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t g ro u p s and o t h e r o rg an i z a t i o n s p a r t i c i p a t e d in th e program and s e v e r a l were j o i n t s p o n s o r s o f th e forum. The d r a f t A ssessm ent was r e v i s e d b a s e d upon t h i s p u b l i c r e v ie w . A f i n a l v e r s i o n o f M ic h i g a n 's F o r e s t R e s o u rc e s 1979—An A ssessm ent was p u b l i s h e d and d i s t r i b u t e d t h e summer o f 1979. — S ponsored by t h e C o lle g e o f A g r i c u l t u r e and N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , N a t u r a l R e s o u rc e s Days i s p a r t o f M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ' s F a r m e r 's Week e v e n t w hich b r i n g s p e o p le from a l l o v e r t h e s t a t e t o program s and e x h i b i t s on a g r i c u l t u r e and n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s . The M ic h ig a n 's F o r e s t R e s o u rc e s P la n program was j o i n t l y s p o n s o re d by th e M ichigan A s s o c i a t i o n o f Timbermen, M ichigan U n ite d C o n s e r v a tio n C lu b s , M ichigan F o r e s t A s s o c i a t i o n , and t h e S o c i e t y o f American F o r e s t e r s , Lower M ich i­ gan C h a p te r . 24 The Recommended Program Work began on th e recomnended program ph ase of M ic h ig a n 's SFRP in e a r l y 1979. Two m ajor e f f o r t s were i d e n t i f i e d a s b e in g n e c e s s a r y to dev elo p a recommended program . These w ere: (1) an a n a l y s i s of f o r e s t r e s o u r c e i s s u e s in M ichigan, and (2) a q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s of a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s program s in M ichigan. The s te p s fo llo w e d d u r in g t h e "program " phase a r e i l l u s t r a t e d in F ig u re 2.1 under th e h e a d in g s " A n a ly s is of A l t e r n a t i v e P rogram s; D r a f t A l t e r n a t i v e P ro ­ gram s; I s s u e s , P o li c y O ption s and Program D i r e c t i o n s , and Recommended P ro g ra m ." As w ith th e A ssessm en t, a team ap p roach was used in d e v e lo p in g th e Recommended P rogram . G erald Rose, Jim 01mstead and G erald Thiede of t h e F o r e s t Management D iv i s io n of t h e DNR, and R ob ert Manthy and Karen Olson a s o u t s i d e c o o p e r a t o r s , a g a in formed th e management team. D iv is i o n C hief W ebster a g a in s e rv e d as P r o j e c t C h ie f . Three c o n s u lt i n g r e s o u r c e a n a l y s t s were r e c r u i t e d to work on th e q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s . Two r e s o u r c e s p e c i a l i s t s from M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , a s p e c i a l i s t in w i l d l i f e and f i s h e r i e s and a s p e c i a l i s t in o u td o o r r e c r e a t i o n , were added a s a d v i s o r s to th e SFRP team f o r th e program p h a s e . The working s t r u c t u r e o f t h i s phase i s summarized in T a b le s 2,1 and 2 .2 . The team began by c o n c e n t r a t i n g on i d e n t i f y i n g and exam ining major a r e a s of c o n c e rn , o r i s s u e s , t h a t sh o u ld be a d d re s s e d by th e program . S e v e ra l s o u rc e s o f i n fo r m a tio n were used in t h i s s t e p . The "Goals and I s s u e s S ta te m e n t" p r e p a re d by t h e D iv is io n in 1977, comments r e c e iv e d from rev iew s of th e A ssessm en t, and r e s u l t s of th e N a t u r a l R esou rces Days forum p ro v id e d much o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . I t was d e c id e d t h a t more in fo r m a tio n on f o r e s t r e s o u r c e i s s u e s from o t h e r DNR d i v i s i o n s 25 d i v i s i o n s would a l s o be h e l p f u l . A group m eetin g w ith th e DNR T e c h n ic a l A d v iso rs was fo llo w e d by d i s c u s s i o n s betw een i n d i v i d u a l a d v i s o r s and v a r i o u s team members. A lso , m a t e r i a l s from o t h e r d i v i s i o n s , s t a t e p o l i c y making b o d i e s , t h e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e and o t h e r s were review ed f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a tio n on f o r e s t r e s o u r c e i s s u e s r e l e v a n t t o M ichi­ gan. S h o r t l y a f t e r b e g in n in g work on th e program , t h e management team asked f i v e members o f t h e f o r e s t r y community to s e r v e on an "A dvisory P a n e l" to t h e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esou rces P l a n . —^ The p a n e l was asked t o f u n c t i o n a s th e f i r s t l i n e o f r e v ie w e rs f o r i n t e r i m and f i n a l r e s u l t s in th e developm ent o f th e Recommended P ro gram . The p a n e l w as, t h u s , t o h e lp th e management team e n s u re t h a t as th e recommended program d ev elo p ed i t was r e a s o n a b l e and f e a s i b l e . The f i r s t t a s k o f t h e A dvisory P an el was t o rev iew th e r e s u l t s of th e SFRP t e a m 's a n a l y s i s o f f o r e s t r e s o u r c e i s s u e s . The p a n e l was g iv e n a p a p e r d e s c r i b i n g th e r o l e t h e I s s u e s would have in th e d e v e lo p ­ ment of t h e Recommended Program and th e m ajor i s s u e s t h a t ap peared to be o f c o n cern t o th e f o r e s t r y community. were: These f i v e m ajor I s s u e s (1) e n erg y c o s t , p r o d u c tio n and c o n s e r v a t i o n , (2) economic s t a ­ b i l i t y , gro w th, and d evelo pm en t, (3) th e r o l e o f th e p u b l i c s e c t o r , (4) p r o v i s i o n o f m arket v e r s u s nonmarket goods and s e r v i c e s , and (5) e n v iro n m e n ta l q u a l i t y . The A dvisory P an el e x p r e s s e d g e n e r a l agreem ent w ith t h e s e r e s u l t s . The management team n e x t d ev o ted t h e i r e f f o r t s to d e v e lo p in g and — ^The panel composition is listed in Table 2.1 under Group 6. 26 a n a l y z in g a l t e r n a t i v e p ro g ra m s.—^ To b e g in t h i s p r o c e s s , f i v e g e n e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e d i r e c t i o n s f o r f o r e s t r e s o u r c e program s t o t a k e were chosen for a n a ly s is . below . These d i r e c t i o n s a r e b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e d in F ig u re 2 .5 The c r i t e r i a used in th e s e l e c t i o n o f t h e s e d i r e c t i o n s were t h e i r r e le v a n c e t o t h e m ajor i s s u e s , t h e i r d e s i r a b i l i t y t o one o r more i n t e r e s t g r o u p s , t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a rang e o f o p t i o n s , and t h e i r p h y s i c a l and p o l i t i c a l f e a s i b i l i t y . The A dvisory P a n e l a l s o review ed th e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t e p . The management team d eterm in e d t h a t th e developm ent of a l t e r n a t i v e program s from t h e s e g e n e r a l d i r e c t i o n s would r e q u i r e s e v e r a l s t e p s . F i r s t was th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a l l c u r r e n t program s which c o n t r i b u t e d to th e p r o d u c tio n of f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s in M ichigan and th e do cu m en tatio n o f th e c o s t s and b e n e f i t s o f t h e s e p ro gram s. The second s te p would need to be th e developm ent o f i n f o r m a tio n on what DNR program s and a c t i v i t i e s would be r e q u i r e d to produce a ra n g e o f h ig h e r o r lower l e v e l s of f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s , a s i n d i c a t e d by t h e a l t e r n a t i v e d i r e c t i o n s , and th e c o s t s and b e n e f i t s o f t h e s e s e t s o f p ro g ram s. T h ir d , th e r e l a ­ t i o n s h i p of th e a l t e r n a t i v e d i r e c t i o n s to th e m ajor i s s u e s would need t o be d ete rm in e d and th e im pacts o f th e a l t e r n a t i v e d i r e c t i o n s , i f fo llo w e d , would need t o be e s t i m a t e d . F o u r th , m easures o f th e im pacts o f f o llo w in g t h e a l t e r n a t i v e d i r e c t i o n s upon th e i s s u e s would need to be in c lu d e d in th e a n a l y s i s . The o u t s i d e c o n s u l t a n t s on th e team , Group 3 i n T able 2 . 1 , p e r ­ formed t h i s f o u r - s t e p a n a l y s i s o v e r th e n e x t s e v e r a l m onths. T h is — An a l t e r n a t i v e program i s a s e t o f i n f o r m a tio n which I n c lu d e s a g e n e r a l d i r e c t i o n f o r f o r e s t management, th e a c t i v i t i e s needed t o fo llo w th e d i r e c t i o n , and t h e r e s u l t i n g o u t p u t s and im p a c ts. 27 A. T h is a l t e r n a t i v e would m o d e ra te ly i n c r e a s e a l l f o r e s t o u t p u t s in th e S t a t e . The r e l a t i v e mix o f o u tp u t s would rem ain a t c u r r e n t p ro p o rtio n s. B. T h is a l t e r n a t i v e would m a in ta in f o r e s t o u tp u t s a t c u r r e n t l e v e l s w ith no programmed i n c r e a s e s . The l i m i t i n g o f p u b l i c programs would be em phasized. C. T h is a l t e r n a t i v e would s i g n i f i c a n t l y in c r e a s e ti m b e r , m o to rized and d ev elo p ed r e c r e a t i o n , h u n tin g and f i s h i n g o u t p u t s . F o r e s t r e s o u r c e developm ent would be em phasized w h ile m a in ta in in g c u r r e n t l e v e l s o f e n v iro n m e n ta l q u a l i t y . D. T h is a l t e r n a t i v e would m o d e ra te ly i n c r e a s e w i l d e r n e s s , v i s u a l q u a l i t y , t h r e a t e n e d and end an gered s p e c i e s and d i s p e r s e d r e c r e ­ a t i o n o u t p u t s . Emphasis would be p la c e d on nondevelopment w ith t i m b e r , dev elo p ed r e c r e a t i o n , h u n tin g and f i s h i n g o u t p u t s to rem ain a t c u r r e n t (1978-79) l e v e l s . E. T h is a l t e r n a t i v e would s l i g h t l y d e c r e a s e a l l f o r e s t o u t p u t s from p u b l i c la n d s and program s. The r e l a t i v e em phasis on f o r e s t o u t ­ p u t s would rem ain a s i t i s c u r r e n t l y . F ig u re 2 .5 D r a f t A l t e r n a t i v e D i r e c t i o n s , August 1979. 28 a n a l y s i s i s l a b e l e d " A n a ly s is of A l t e r n a t i v e Program s" in F ig u re 2 .1 . The c o n tin u o u s c o o p e r a ti o n of th e DNR T e c h n ic a l A d viso rs was used th ro u g h o u t th e a n a l y s i s . The management team e s t a b l i s h e d p ro c e d u re s to e n s u re t h a t t h i s c o o p e r a ti v e r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith o t h e r d i v i s i o n s was m a in ta in e d and t h a t new c o n t a c t s w i t h i n th e DNR were made a s n e c e s s a r y . P e r i o d i c c o n s u l t a t i o n s w ith th e w i l d l i f e , r e c r e a t i o n and t e c h n i c a l s p e c i a l i s t s were made to e n s u re t h a t th e a n a l y s t s ' r e s u l t s were r e a s o n ­ a b l e and co m p lete. In th e f a l l o f 1979 a rev iew d r a f t which documented th e a n a l y s i s was produced by t h e c o n s u l t a n t s f o r in -h o u s e u se by th e management team and th e D i v is i o n C h ie f . on: The document c o n ta in e d m ajor s e c t i o n s (1) c u r r e n t DNR and U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e programs which in f lu e n c e d f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p r o d u c tio n and u se in M ichigan; (2) d e s c r i p t i o n of f i v e a l t e r n a t i v e program s; (3) r e s o u r c e o u tp u t t a r g e t s under th e s e a l t e r n a t i v e p rog ram s; (4) a c t i v i t i e s , c o s t s and b e n e f i t s of DNR programs un der each a l t e r n a t i v e program ; and (5) th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a l t e r ­ n a t i v e program s and th e i s s u e s . Based upon rev iew s by th e D iv is io n C h ie f , th e management team and th e s p e c i a l i s t a d v i s o r s , t h i s d r a f t was r e v i s e d and produced a s a working document e n t i t l e d " A n a ly sis o f A l t e r n a t i v e F o r e s t R esource Programs f o r M ic h ig a n ." The n e x t t a s k o f th e management team was t o develo p com prehensive a l t e r n a t i v e program packages o r " p o li c y o p t i o n s : from th e in fo r m a tio n c o n ta in e d in th e A n a l y s is . Program s" in F ig u re 2 .1 . T his s t e p i s l a b e l e d " D r a ft a l t e r n a t i v e Recommendations o f th e D iv i s i o n C h ie f , th e DNR T e c h n ic a l A d v is o rs , and th e A dvisory P an el were sought o v er th e n e x t s e v e r a l m onths. These recom mendations i n d i c a t e d t h a t a s tr o n g e r em phasis on f o r e s t r e s o u r c e I s s u e s was needed and t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e 29 program s sh o u ld encompass a c t i v i t i e s by th e p r i v a t e s e c t o r a s w e ll a s DNR and U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e a c t i v i t i e s . In March o f 1980 t h e DNR p r e s e n te d a d r a f t o f A l t e r n a t i v e F o r e s t R esource Programs f o r p u b l i c re v ie w a t a forum d u r in g N a t u r a l R eso u rces Days a t M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . P lan : E n t i t l e d " M ic h ig a n 's F o r e s t R esou rces A P u b l ic R eview ," th e forum in c lu d e d a k ey n o te speech by DNR D i r e c t o r Howard Tanner and p r e s e n t a t i o n s by p u b l i c and p r i v a t e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e m an ag ers. A p r o g r e s s r e p o r t and a p r e s e n t a t i o n o f th e d r a f t a l t e r n a t i v e program s were th e n p r e s e n te d f o r p u b l i c comment. As w ith p r e v i o u s p u b l i c r e v ie w s , members o f th e P u b l ic A dvisory Group were s e n t i n v i t a t i o n s to th e forum and advance c o p ie s of t h e rev iew d r a f t . A ll d r a f t s t h a t were m ailed o r t h a t were d i s t r i b u t e d d u r in g th e forum In c lu d e d a r e v ie w e r r e s p o n s e s h e e t to be m ailed to th e D i v i s i o n w ith w r i t t e n comments. T h is re v ie w d r a f t was a l s o made a v a i l a b l e to th e p u b l i c . The comments r e c e iv e d from t h e s e re v ie w s i n d i c a t e d t h a t most r e ­ v ie w e rs p r e f e r r e d a " b a la n c e d " f o r e s t r e s o u r c e program f o r M ichigan. Review ers w ere, how ever, d i s s a t i s f i e d w ith th e c o n c e n t r a t i o n on num eri­ c a l p r e s e n t a t i o n o f th e a l t e r n a t i v e pro gram s. Some r e v ie w e rs I n d i c a t e d t h a t th e t i e s between th e a l t e r n a t i v e program s and th e i s s u e s were n o t c l e a r o r s t r o n g enough. The co n s e n su s o f t h e r e v ie w e rs ap p e a re d t o be t h a t th e y needed a n o th e r way t o ju d g e th e m e r i t s o f an a l t e r n a ­ t i v e program in a d d i t i o n to th e d e t a i l i n g o f a c t i v i t i e s , c o s t s and o u tp u t s t h a t would r e s u l t from an a l t e r n a t i v e program . As a r e s u l t o f t h e s e r e v ie w s , th e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n d e ­ c id e d t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l y more e f f o r t sh o u ld be d ev o ted to developm ent o f th e I s s u e s . I t was a l s o d e c id e d t h a t a b e t t e r form at f o r p r e s e n t i n g 30 a l t e r n a t i v e program s and a d d i t i o n a l In fo r m a tio n In some program a r e a s were n eed ed . two t a s k s . The management team s p e n t th e summer o f 1980 on t h e s e A group o f F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n s t a f f members d i r e c t e d by th e D i v is io n C hief d r a f t e d d i s c u s s i o n p a p e r s on each o f t h e s e I s s u e s . T h is s t e p i s l a b e l e d " I s s u e s , P o li c y O ptions and Program D i r e c t i o n s " in F ig u re 2 . 1 . These p a p e r s in c lu d e d th e r e l a t i o n s h i p of f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s and f o r e s t management program s in M ichigan to t h e i s s u e s , —^ and c o n c lu ­ s i o n s a s to how f o r e s t management program s s h o u ld resp on d t o t h e s e I s s u e s in th e f u t u r e . Members o f t h e management team d ev elo p ed a new form at f o r p r e s e n ­ t a t i o n o f a l t e r n a t i v e program s which in c lu d e d a d d i t i o n a l d i s c u s s i o n o f th e i s s u e s and which i n d i c a t e d how management a c t i v i t i e s d i r e c t l y in f l u e n c e d o r were i n f l u e n c e d by th e I s s u e s . A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f th e W i l d l i f e D i v i s i o n was added to th e management team l a t e in th e summer of 1980 to p a r t i c i p a t e in a l l p h ases o f th e t e a m 's a c t i v i t i e s . In th e f a l l o f 1980 th e D iv is i o n p r e s e n t e d a working d r a f t of a p a p e r e n t i t l e d " M ic h ig a n 's F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n : Overview of I s s u e s and P o l i c y O p tio n s " to t h e M ichigan F o r e s t r y P la n n in g and Development Committee. The p a p e r d i s c u s s e d t h e f i v e m ajor I s s u e s , i n d i c a t e d s e v e r a l p o l i c y o p ti o n s a s p o s s i b l e r e s p o n s e s to each i s s u e , recommended one o f th e s e p o l i c y o p t i o n s f o r each i s s u e , and d i s c u s s e d t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e , o v e r a ll, p o lic y d ir e c tio n s . Upon th e a p p r o v a l o f t h e p ap er by th e Committee, a r e v i s e d and expanded v e r s i o n o f t h e p a p e r , " M ic h ig a n 's — The i s s u e s by t h i s tim e had changed somewhat from th e o r i g i n a l f i v e and w ere: (1) economic d ev elo p m en t, (2) p u b l i c f o r e s t s , (3) non­ i n d u s t r i a l p r i v a t e f o r e s t s , (4) en erg y c o n s e r v a t i o n and developm ent, and (3) u rb an f o r e s t r y . 31 F o r e s t R eso u rces P l a n : I s s u e s , P o l i c y O p tio n s , and Recommended O v e r a ll Program D i r e c t i o n " was d i s t r i b u t e d f o r p u b l i c re v ie w . ed: R eview ers i n c l u d ­ (1) th e M ichigan F o r e s t r y P la n n in g and Development Committee, (2) th e P u b li c A dvisory Group, (3) th e A dvisory P a n e l , (4) o t h e r DNR d i v i s i o n c h i e f s , and (5) th e N o r th e a s t e r n S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y b ran ch o f t h e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e . T h is rev iew d r a f t went one s t e p f u r t h e r th a n th e w orking d r a f t had , in t h a t i t recommended one o f th e o v e r a ll p o lic y d ir e c tio n s fo r ad o p tio n . T h is recommended p o l i c y d i r e c ­ t i o n was to " fo c u s on a m ajor e f f o r t to c a r e f u l l y manage and u se f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s f o r th e purp ose o f r e g i o n a l economic d e v e l o p m e n t / d i v e r s i f i c a ­ tio n ." As w e ll a s p u r s u in g economic developm ent f o r M ichigan and th e Lake S t a t e s , t h e g o a ls o f t h e recommended p o l i c y d i r e c t i o n would in c lu d e a "modest i n c r e a s e in th e o v e r a l l i n t e n s i t y o f p u b l i c la n d management, . . . a s u b s t a n t i a l s t r e n g t h e n i n g o f program s f o r n o n i n d u s t r i a l p r i v a t e f o r e s t s , . . . and th e p u r s u i t of a c o n s t r u c t i v e e f f e c t on b o th en erg y demand and s u p p ly ." R esponses to th e re v ie w d r a f t were v e ry f a v o r a b l e , and s u p p o rte d t h e recommended p o l i c y d i r e c t i o n . The n e x t s t e p was t o develop a r e c ­ ommended program f o r f o r e s t management s t a t e w i d e , b ased upon t h i s r e c ­ ommended p o l i c y d i r e c t i o n . The management team p ro ceed ed by s e t t i n g a recommended, no n nu m erical g o a l f o r each i s s u e . These g o a l s s t a t e d what f o r e s t management in M ichigan sh o u ld do abo ut t h e i s s u e s , giv en th e recommended p o l i c y d i r e c t i o n . S e ts o f s t r a t e g i e s ( p a r t i c u l a r a c t i ­ v i t i e s ) which c o u ld be used to re a c h t h e s e g o a ls were th e n dev elo p ed w i th th e a s s i s t a n c e o f o t h e r DNR team members. These s t r a t e g i e s were ta k e n from comments r e c e iv e d from p u b l i c inv olv em en t th ro u g h o u t th e SFRP p r o c e s s , from recom mendations o f v a r i o u s r e c e n t r e p o r t s on 32 M ic h ig a n 's f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s and from recom m endations o f r e s o u r c e s p e c i a ­ l i s t s i n th e DNR. Using th e " A n a ly sis o f F o r e s t R esource Programs f o r M ichigan" and t h e c o o p e r a ti o n o f N a t io n a l F o r e s t s u p e r v i s o r s and p l a n n e r s in M ichigan, t h e team d ev elo p ed f o r e s t r e s o u r c e o u tp u t t a r g e t s f o r each f o r e s t r e s o u r c e , s t a t e w i d e and by landowner o r p r o v id e r c l a s s . These t a r g e t s were d e te rm in e d to be d e s i r a b l e in l i g h t o f t h e recommended g o a ls f o r th e I s s u e s . They were a l s o d eterm in e d to be f e a s i b l e based upon th e p r o d u c t io n c a p a b i l i t i e s o f th e landowner o r p r o v i d e r . Inform a­ t i o n from th e " A n a ly s is " a s to s p e c i f i c DNR p ro g ram s, program a c t i v i t i e s , and c o s t s which would be r e q u i r e d to re a c h th e recommended t a r g e t s was th e n co m p iled . In F e b ru a ry o f 1981 M ic h ig a n 's F o r e s t R e s o u rc e s —A Recommended Program , D r a f t was produced f o r p u b l i c re v ie w . t h r e e m ajor s e c t i o n s : T h is d r a f t c o n ta in e d (1) o v e r a l l program d i r e c t i o n , i s s u e s , and (3) f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s . (2) f o r e s t r e s o u r c e The s e c t i o n on f o r e s t r e s o u r c e i s s u e s d is c u s s e d each i s s u e , and th e p o l i c y o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e in re sp o n s e to th e i s s u e . I t a l s o recommended one o f t h e p o l i c y o p t i o n s , th e man­ agement g o a ls t h a t i n d i c a t e d how to c a r r y o u t t h i s p o l i c y and th e s t r a ­ t e g i e s r e q u i r e d to meet th e g o a l s . The s e c t i o n on f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s d i s c u s s e d th e su p p ly and demand f o r each r e s o u r c e , how th e i s s u e s i n f l u ­ ence th e r e s o u r c e s and how th e r e s o u r c e s i n f l u e n c e , o r co u ld i n f l u e n c e , th e Iss u e s. S ta te w id e o u tp u t t a r g e t s and landowner o r p r o v id e r o u tp u t t a r g e t s were a l s o recommended f o r each r e s o u r c e . T h is document s e rv e d a s a b a s i s f o r an i n t e n s i v e p u b l i c review o f th e Recommended Program a t a workshop sp o n so re d by th e F o r e s t Manage­ ment D i v i s i o n . Members o f th e P u b li c A dv isory Group, N a tio n a l F o r e s t 33 s t a f f , r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from o t h e r f o r e s t r e s o u r c e management a g e n c ie s in th e s t a t e , and DNR t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s were p a r t i c i p a n t s in th e work­ shop. As w e ll a s r e v ie w in g and commenting on th e o v e r a l l program con­ t e n t s and d i r e c t i o n , th e 23 a t t e n d e e s met in s m a ll workgroups to d i s c u s s th e i s s u e s , g o a ls and s t r a t e g i e s . Led by management team members and * o t h e r DNR team members, th e workgroups made s i g n i f i c a n t r e v i s i o n s in t h e g o a l s ta t e m e n t s and th e s t r a t e g i e s . The a u t h o r ' s involvem ent w ith th e SFRP ended s h o r t l y a f t e r t h i s workshop. T h is c a s e s tu d y , o f n e c e s s i t y , ends a t t h i s p o i n t . P rep ara­ t i o n of th e f i n a l Recommended P rogram , to be p r e s e n t e d t o th e N a tu r a l R eso u rces Commission, was done s o l e l y by F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n , P la n n in g U n it s t a f f . CHAPTER III INNOVATION IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT In tro d u c tio n T h is c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s a t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r a n a l y z i n g th e i n t r o d u c t i o n , a c c e p ta n c e and u s e o f an in n o v a t i o n in an o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h is framework draws on what i s g e n e r a l l y c a l l e d " d i f f u s i o n o f in n o v a­ t i o n t h e o r y . " —^ D i f f u s i o n o f in n o v a ti o n t h e o r y h a s had m u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y o r i g i n s i n r u r a l s o c io l o g y , com m unications, g eo g rap h y , m a r k e tin g , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l b e h a v io r and management. F or t h i s r e a s o n a v a r i e t y o f l a b e l s a r e giv en th e t h e o r y and i t s com ponents. The t h e o r y h a s a l s o been r e s e a r c h e d in a v a r i e t y o f a p p l i c a t i o n s and r e s e a r c h a r e a s (Orr and W olfe, 1979; Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). Much o f t h e d i f f u s i o n o f in n o v a tio n r e ­ s e a r c h h a s been done on th e d i f f u s i o n o f a new te c h n o lo g y in l e s s e r d ev elo p ed c o u n t r i e s . M ark etin g s c i e n t i s t s have s t u d i e d t h e d i f f u s i o n of new consumer p r o d u c t s . Management s c ie n c e r e s e a r c h h a s fo cu sed on th e d i f f u s i o n o f te c h n o lo g y in an o r g a n i z a t i o n and on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l ch an g e. A lthough th e r e s e a r c h em phasis h a s been on t h e d i f f u s i o n o f new te c h n o lo g y , th e t h e o r y a l s o encom passes th e d i f f u s i o n o f new i d e a s . — D i f f u s i o n o f i n n o v a t io n t h e o r y i s encompassed by what h a s been l a b e l e d th e t h e o r y o f p la n n e d ch an g e. The l a t t e r t h e o r y i s more g e n e r a l i n t h a t change may o r may n o t in v o lv e in n o v a t i o n , som ething new, w h ile i n n o v a tio n alw ays i n v o lv e s change. 34 35 I t i s th e d i f f u s i o n o f new id e a s o r c o n c e p ts t h a t w i l l be th e fo cu s here. D i f f u s i o n o f i n n o v a tio n t h e o r y i s a c o n tin g e n c y th e o r y . I t pro­ p o s e s t h a t i f th e g o a l o f th e i n d i v i d u a l o r o r g a n i z a t i o n i s to im p le­ ment an in n o v a tio n and i f a c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s w i t h i n t h e e n v ir o n ­ ment o r o r g a n i z a t i o n , th e n c e r t a i n a c t i o n s a r e more e f f e c t i v e th a n o th e rs. E f f e c t i v e a c t i o n s a r e th o s e which speed t h e a d o p tio n o f th e in n o v a t i o n , b roaden i t s a d o p tio n o r b o t h . p r e s e n t e d below h a s t h r e e m ajor com ponents. The t h e o r e t i c a l framework F i r s t i s th e e x a m in a tio n of f a c t o r s i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n which can i n f l u e n c e t h e a c c e p ­ ta n c e and u se o f an in n o v a t io n . Second i s th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a v a r i e t y o f ty p e s o f a c t i o n s , o r " s t r a t e g i e s , " which can be used t o in d ro d u c e and implement an i n n o v a tio n in an o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h ird i s th e p r e s e n ta tio n of g u id e lin e s fo r s tr a g e g ie s th a t are a p p ro p ria te to th e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n , i . e . t h a t a r e most e f f e c t i v e . F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g I n n o v a tio n in an O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n in which one a t t e m p t s t o implement an i n n o v a tio n a f f e c t s b o th th e l e n g t h o f tim e i t t a k e s to have th e in n o v a tio n a c c e p te d and u s e d , i . e . , th e r a t e o f a d o p t i o n ; and th e number o f p eo p le a c c e p t i n g and u s in g th e in n o v a t i o n , i . e . , th e a d o p tio n success. I n n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n th e o r y h as i d e n t i f i e d s e v e r a l f a c t o r s f o r u se in a n a ly z i n g any s i t u a t i o n i n th e c o n t e x t o f d i f f u s i n g an i n n o v a t i o n . These f a c t o r s a r e : so lv e , (1) t h e n a t u r e o f th e problem t h e i n n o v a tio n i s to (2) t h e key a c t o r s a v a i l a b l e to i n t r o d u c e and implement th e in n o v a tio n , (3) t h e p h y s ic a l and s o c i a l environm ent o f th e o r g a n i z a t i o n , (4) t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i n n o v a tio n i t s e l f , and (5) th e s ta g e s 36 o f a d o p tio n from i n t r o d u c t i o n to u s e . N ature o f t h e Problem An o r g a n i z a t i o n p ro p o se s th e a d o p tio n o f an in n o v a ti o n ; e . g . , a new machine o r new management sy ste m , b ecau se someone i n th e o r g a n i z a ­ t i o n , e x p l i c i t l y o r i m p l i c i t l y , r e c o g n iz e d a problem . have been l a b e l e d perfo rm ance gaps (Downs, 1967). These problems A p erform an ce gap e x i s t s when t h e r e i s a p e r c e i v e d d i f f e r e n c e betw een how o r a t what l e v e l th e o r g a n i z a t i o n i s p e rfo rm in g in some a r e a and how o r a t what l e v e l th e o r g a n i z a t i o n sh o u ld be p e rfo rm in g (Z altm an, Duncan and H olbeck, 1973; B en n is, 1966). A c h an g e, in t h i s c a s e s p e c i f i c a l l y an in n o v a ti o n , i s proposed to c l o s e t h i s perfo rm an ce g ap . For th e in n o v a tio n to a c t u ­ a l l y c l o s e th e gap and s o lv e th e prob lem , th e problem must be an aly zed and d e f in e d c o r r e c t l y . There a r e to o many b a r r i e r s to c o r r e c t problem d e f i n i t i o n t o g iv e an e x h a u s t iv e l i s t h e r e . tio n . S e v e r a l , how ever, a r e w orthy o f s p e c i a l men­ " T e c h n o lo g ic a l b i a s " (B en n is, 1966) i s a b a r r i e r w hich i s th o u g h t t o be common enough t o d e s e rv e a l a b e l . T e c h n o lo g ic a l b i a s o c c u r s when a p a r t i c u l a r t e c h n o l o g i c a l s o l u t i o n i s p roposed r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e s i t u a t i o n o r problem (Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). A seco n d , r e l a t e d , b a r r i e r i s th e f a i l u r e t o examine a problem from more t h a n one p e r s p e c ­ tiv e . In t h i s c a s e one p e rso n a t t e m p t s to d e f i n e and s o lv e a problem from h e r o r h i s p e r s p e c t i v e a l o n e . T h is can le a d t o f a i l u r e to p e r c e i v e th e o t h e r symptoms o f t h e problem and i t s r o o t s . Zaltman and Duncan (1977) p ro p o se t h a t by making t h e p r o c e s s of problem d e f i n i t i o n more e x p l i c i t and l e s s i n t u i t i v e , i n c o r r e c t problem d e f i n i t i o n can be a v o id e d . A lthough t h e i r model may seem ob vious to 37 p h y s i c a l s c i e n t i s t s , th e a u t h o r s s t a t e t h a t t h i s s y s t e m a t i c , m ech an ical p r o c e s s o f problem d e f i n i t i o n i s n e g l e c t e d in a p p l i e d s o c i a l r e s e a r c h . The a u t h o r s d e s c r i b e t h e i r s y s t e m a ti c ap p roach a s a m e ta th e o ry p ersp e c tiv e . I t in v o lv e s fo u r b a s i c s t e p s . problem a r e f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d and s t a t e d . The symptom(s) o f t h e These symptoms s h o u ld be m easu rab le I n d i c a t o r s o f w h eth er an o r g a n i z a t i o n o r system i s moving c l o s e r o r f a r t h e r away from th e r e l e v a n t g o a l . o f th e problem a r e d e te r m in e d . N ex t, th e c a u s a l f a c t o r s C au sal f a c t o r s a r e v a r i a b l e s ; such a s p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n n e l , e q u ip m en t, o r work a rra n g e m e n ts in th e c a s e o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n ; whose i n t e r a c t i o n and f u n c t i o n i n g a r e a c t u a l l y th e s o u rc e o f th e problem . In th e t h i r d s t e p t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n o f th e c a u s a l f a c t o r s i s a n a ly z e d and o u t l i n e d . I n th e f i n a l s t e p th e r e a s o n s why th e c a u s a l f a c t o r s I n t e r a c t t h e way t h e y do i s d e te r m in e d . Those f a c t o r s w hich can be in f l u e n c e d by th e o r g a n i z a t i o n and th o s e which can n o t a r e a l s o i d e n t i f i e d . T h is s y ste m l e a d s t h e problem s o l v e r to lo o k beyond th e symptoms o f a problem so t h a t t h e c a u s e s may be t r e a t e d , and so t h a t e f f o r t s a r e d ev o ted o n ly t o c a u s e s t h a t th e o r g a n i z a t i o n can c o n t r o l . S im i l a r a p p ro a c h e s have a l s o been develo ped in what i s known a s s t r u c t u r a l f u n c t i o n a l i s m a s i l l u s t r a t e d by Korzenny (1978) and in th e system s ap p ro ach t y p i f i e d by Churchman (19 6 8). Key P a r t i c i p a n t s D i f f u s i o n o f in n o v a tio n t h e o r y d i s t i n g u i s h e s s e v e r a l m ajor s e t s of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e p r o c e s s o f b r in g i n g an in n o v a tio n i n t o a system or o rg a n iz a tio n . The l a b e l "change a g e n t s " i s g iv e n to t h a t p e rso n o r group o f p e o p le which a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r im plem enting t h e in n o v a t i o n . 38 Change a g e n ts i n c lu d e t h e i n i t i a l a d v o c a te s of th e in n o v a tio n and th o s e who c a r r y o u t t h e m echanics of im p le m e n ta tio n . Those p e o p le who a r e t h e o b j e c t s of th e chan ge, who a r e I n tro d u c e d t o th e i n n o v a t i o n , an d , i t i s h o p ed , w i l l a c c e p t i t and use i t , a r e l a b e l e d "change t a r g e t s . " Change a g e n t s may be e x t e r n a l o r i n t e r n a l t o th e system (B en n is, 1966). Not a l l members of an o r g a n i z a t i o n o r sy stem ad o p t an in n o v a tio n a t t h e same tim e , and t h e r e f o r e , n o t a l l change t a r g e t s w i l l ad op t a t th e same tim e . R esearch summarized by Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) i n d i c a t e s t h a t th e d i s t r i b u t i o n of a d o p tio n by members of a system i s b e l l shaped and a p p ro a c h e s n o r m a l i t y . V ario u s c a t e g o r i e s o f a d o p t e r s have been l a b e l e d and s tu d i e d b ased upon t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n . The most w id ely used c l a s s i f i c a t i o n u s e s f i v e c a t e g o r i e s o f a d o p t e r s in o r d e r of e a r l i n e s s of ad o p tio n : e a rly m ajo rity , (1) i n n o v a t o r s , (2) e a r l y a d o p t e r s , (3) (A) l a t e m a j o r i t y and (5) l a g g a r d s . Again by re v ie w in g and summ arizing r e s e a r c h in in n o v a t i o n d i f f u s i o n , Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) have com piled a le n g th y l i s t o f c h a r a c t e r ­ i s t i c s of t h e s e f i v e c a t e g o r i e s . These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s can be summar­ iz e d by com paring e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s t o l a t e r a d o p t e r s . In term s o f socioeconom ic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s do have more y e a r s o f e d u c a t io n and h i g h e r s o c i a l s t a t u s th a n l a t e r a d o p t e r s . In t h e i r communication b e h a v i o r , e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s p a r t i c i p a t e more in s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s , have a b r o a d e r s o c i a l r e f e r e n c e g ro u p , g r e a t e r ex p o su re to mass media and g r e a t e r I n t e r p e r s o n a l com m unication. As would be e x p e c te d , e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s th u s have g r e a t e r knowledge o f in n o v a tio n s and g r e a t e r c o n t a c t w ith change a g e n t s . E a r l ie r ad o p ters a lso e x h ib it a h i g h e r d e g r e e o f o p in io n l e a d e r s h i p th a n do l a t e r a d o p t e r s . "O pin ion l e a d e r s " a r e key members of an o r g a n i z a t i o n o r s o c i a l 39 system . Communication r e s e a r c h h a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s a r e " a b l e to i n f l u e n c e in f o r m a l ly o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s ’ a t t i t u d e s o r o v e r t b e h a v io r in a d e s i r e d way w ith r e l a t i v e f re q u e n c y " (Rogers w ith Shoe­ m aker, 1971). These o p in io n l e a d e r s s e rv e a s g a te k e e p e r s of i n fo r m a tio n f o r t h e i r f o ll o w e r s and as s o u r c e s o f o p i n i o n s . As su c h , o p in io n l e a d e r s a f f e c t th e a d o p tio n of an in n o v a tio n by i n f l u e n c i n g aw aren ess o f , know­ le d g e ab ou t t h e a t t i t u d e s toward an i n n o v a t io n . I t i s im p o rta n t to n o te t h a t o p in io n l e a d e r s a r e more in n o v a tiv e th a n t h e i r f o llo w e r s b u t t h e y a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y th e most in n o v a t iv e members o f a system . The key c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f o p in io n l e a d e r s i s t h a t th e y conform more c l o s e l y t o t h e norms of a system th a n do t h e i r f o l l o w e r s . Thus, i f th e norms o f a system f a v o r m ain ten an ce o f t h e s t a t u s quo so w i l l th e o p in io n l e a d e r . I f th e s y s t e m 's norms f a v o r change o p in io n l e a d e r s w i l l be more i n n o v a t i v e . O pinion l e a d e r s a l s o e x h i b i t th e c h a r a c t e r i s ­ t i c s of e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s d e s c r i b e d above (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). I t sh o u ld be a p p a r e n t t h a t change a g en t c o n t a c t w ith and u se of o p in io n l e a d e r s i s c r u c i a l . Communications r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t mass media may in f l u e n c e what i s s u e s p e o p le t h i n k a r e im p o rta n t b u t o n ly i n t e r p e r s o n a l com m unications i n f l u e n c e p e o p l e s ' a t t i t u d e toward an i s s u e (R o b erts and R o b e r ts , 1977). O pinion l e a d e r s a r e , t h u s , th e change a g e n t s ' p rim ary avenue to inform and i n f l u e n c e th e m a j o r i t y o f th e t a r g e t s o f ch an g e. Success in h a v in g an in n o v a tio n ad o p ted i s much more l i k e l y , c e t e r i s p a r i b u s , i f t h e o p in io n l e a d e r ( s ) in a system a r e f a v o r a b l e tow ard i t and a r e k e p t in fo rm ed . 40 S ta g e s In th e Adoption of an I n n o v a tio n The a d o p tio n o f an in n o v a tio n in an o r g a n i z a t i o n o r system does n o t o c c u r i n s t a n t a n e o u s l y w ith i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n . The in n o v a tio n w i l l be ad o p ted q u i c k l y by some i n d i v i d u a l s , more slo w ly by some, and n o t a t a l l by o t h e r s . U n d e rsta n d in g t h i s p r o c e s s i s n e c e s s a r y to a c t i n g a p p r o p r i a t e l y in b r i n g i n g th e i n n o v a tio n to an o r g a n i z a t i o n . One way to a r r i v e a t t h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s to examine how i n d i v i d u a l s d e c id e w h eth er o r n o t to ado p t an i n n o v a tio n and how th e i n t e r a c t i o n o f t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s i n f l u e n c e s th e a d o p tio n on th e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e v e l . V ario us models f o r th e d i f f u s i o n o f i n n o v a t io n s have been proposed in th e l i t e r a t u r e . These in c lu d e th o s e s p e c i f i c to a p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t a r e a (Alves and M o r r i l l , 1975), th o s e s p e c i f i c to o r g a n i z a t i o n s (K n ig h t, 1967; W ilson , 1966) and g e n e r a l models (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971; H a s s in g e r , 1959; Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). The g e n e r a l models a r e s i m i l a r and have been found to be a p p r o p r i a t e in a v a r i e t y o f c a s e s (T ay lo r and M i l l e r , 1978; Teece, 1980). Rogers and Shoemaker p r e s e n t m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e i r model f o r v a r i o u s ty p e s o f d e c i s i o n s : d u al, (2) c o l l e c t i v e o r (3) a u t h o r i t a t i v e . (1) i n d i v i ­ T h e ir m odel, t h u s , a p p e a rs to be most u s e f u l f o r th e p u rp o s e s of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n . The model of t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s i s p r e s e n te d below , follo w ed by a d i s c u s s i o n o f th e a u t h o r i t a t i v e in n o v a tio n d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . I n d i v i d u a l s go th ro u g h a fo u r phased p r o c e s s in d e c id i n g w h ether o r n o t to ado pt an in n o v a tio n (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). f o u r s t a g e s have been l a b e l e d : (1) knowledge, These (2) p e r s u a s i o n , (3) d e c i s i o n and (4) c o n f i r m a t i o n . Knowledge s t a g e . In th e knowledge s ta g e t h e i n d i v i d u a l becomes aware o f th e in n o v a tio n and l e a r n s som ething about i t . For an i n d i v i d u a l 41 t o become aware o f and l e a r n ab ou t an I n n o v a tio n in f o r m a tio n abo ut th e in n o v a tio n must be a v a i l a b l e to him o r h e r . A v a ila b ility of in fo r­ m a tio n , how ever, i s n o t enough to e n s u re t h a t someone w i l l r e a d o r l i s t e n t o , i . e . , expose th e m se lv e s t o , t h a t in f o r m a ti o n . The te n d e n ­ c i e s o f I n d i v i d u a l s to s e l e c t i v e l y expose th e m se lv e s t o messages and s e l e c t i v e l y p e r c e i v e m essages a c t so as to l i m i t what th e i n d i v i d u a l hears or reads. The term s e l e c t i v e ex po sure h a s t r a d i t i o n a l l y been used to r e f e r to th e tend en cy f o r i n d i v i d u a l s to expose th e m se lv e s o n ly to m essages which a r e c o n s i s t e n t w ith t h e i r own a t t i t u d e s and b e l i e f s . how ever, i s n o t w e ll s u p p o r te d . T h is p a t t e r n , There i s s u p p o rt f o r th e i n f lu e n c e o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s e d u c a t i o n , t h e i r e x p e r ie n c e in p a s t ex p o su re on a s u b j e c t and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f th e u s e f u l n e s s o f th e in f o r m a tio n on what m essages th e y p r e f e r t o expose th e m se lv e s to and how o f te n ( S e a rs and Freedman, 1977). Thus, i n d i v i d u a l ' s ex p o su re to i n fo r m a tio n does te n d to f o llo w c e r t a i n p a t t e r n s . The f i r s t two d e t e r m in a n ts , e d u c a tio n and p a s t e x p o s u re , can no t be i n f l u e n c e d . An i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n of t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f a c e r t a i n m essage, how ever, can be in flu e n c e d . As i s d i s c u s s e d below in t h i s c h a p t e r , t h i s becomes impor­ t a n t i n d e v e lo p in g in n o v a t i o n d i f f u s i o n s t r a t e g i e s . S e l e c t i v e p e r c e p t i o n i s th e tend en cy of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e r p r e t a ­ t i o n o f m essages o r i n fo r m a tio n t o be i n f l u e n c e d by h i s o r h e r b e l i e f s and a t t i t u d e s . K lap per (1960) r e p o r t s t h a t p r o c e s s e s o f s e l e c t i v e p e r c e p t i o n have been d e t a i l e d in i n t e r p e r s o n a l and mass communication s t u d i e s . He n o t e s , how ever, t h a t in many o f t h e s e s t u d i e s s e l e c t i v e r e t e n t i o n o f i n fo r m a tio n may a l s o be in v o lv e d . S in ce s u b j e c t s a r e ask ed t o r e p o r t t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f an e v e n t o r m essage, i t i s d i f f i c u l t 42 t o s e p a r a t e th e e f f e c t s o f s e l e c t i v e p e r c e p t i o n from t h a t o f s e l e c t i v e r e t e n t i o n and from t h a t of t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n . Rogers and S hoem aker's s t u d i e s I n d i c a t e t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s who know ab o u t an in n o v a tio n e a r l i e r t h a n o t h e r members o f a sy stem have c e r t a i n c h a ra c te ris tic s. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e s i m i l a r to th o s e o f th e in n o v a to r c l a s s o f a d o p t e r s d e s c r i b e d abo ve. Those who know o f an in n o v a tio n e a r l y g e n e r a l l y a r e more e d u c a te d , have a h i g h e r s o c i a l s t a t u s , have more ex p osu re to mass and i n t e r p e r s o n a l communication and have more s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n th a n do th o s e who l a t e r know of an i n n o v a t i o n . P e r s u a s io n Stage I t i s in t h i s s ta g e t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l forms an o p in io n abo u t th e i n n o v a ti o n . Once he o r she i s aware o f th e in n o ­ v a t i o n th ey seek enough in fo r m a tio n to form a f a v o r a b l e o r u n f a v o ra b le a t t i t u d e toward th e i n n o v a t i o n . S e l e c t i v e ex po sure and p e r c e p t i o n of m essages i s j u s t a s , i f n o t more, im p o rta n t in t h i s s t a g e th a n in th e knowledge s t a g e . These te n d e n c i e s w i l l in f l u e n c e how much i n f o r ­ m ation i s s o u g h t, from where i t i s sou gh t and how i t i s i n t e r p r e t e d (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). How an i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e i v e s th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f an in n o v a tio n i s d e te rm in e d in t h i s s t a g e a s w e l l . The s e v e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an in n o v a tio n which have been d e te rm in e d t o be i n f l u e n t i a l in i t s adop­ t i o n a r e d i s c u s s e d below in a l a t e r s e c t i o n of t h i s c h a p t e r . — P e r s u a s io n h e r e does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y imply an i n t e n t by some s o u rc e t o induce an i n d i v i d u a l to form some o p in io n b u t r a t h e r t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s form ing an a t t i t u d e tow ard th e in n o v a tio n in t h i s sta g e . 43 I t i s a l s o th o u g h t t h a t in th e p e r s u a s i o n s t a g e th e i n d i v i d u a l m e n ta lly t r i e s th e i n n o v a t i o n . That i s , he o r she s p e c u l a t e s a s t o how i t would a f f e c t h i s o r h e r p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n f a v o r a b l y o r u n f a v o r ­ a b ly (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). With some i n d i v i d u a l s t h i s may ta k e a more form al form o f t r i a l such a s a b e n e f i t - c o s t a n a l y s i s . I n t e r p e r s o n a l communication i s e s p e c i a l l y im p o rta n t in u h is s ta g e a s th e i n d i v i d u a l s e e k s in f o r m a tio n to c o n firm o r deny h i s o r h e r e a r l y a t t i t u d e s (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). I t i s l i k e l y t h a t th e i n d i v i ­ d u a l s e e k s t h i s I n fo r m a tio n from o t h e r s s i m i l a r to h i s o r h e r s e l f and from o p in io n l e a d e r s . Communication r e s e a r c h s u p p o r t s t h i s p a t t e r n o f what i s c a l l e d "hom ophilous c o m m u n icatio n ," Communication between i n d i v i d u a l s i s l i k e l y to be l e s s d i s t o r t e d and more e n jo y a b le when th o s e in v o lv e d a r e s i m i l a r in b e l i e f s , v a l u e s , e d u c a t io n and s o c i a l sta tu s . Homophilous comm unication i s more e f f e c t i v e th a n communication between d i s s i m i l a r i n d i v i d u a l s (Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). In d iv id u a ls do seek in f o r m a tio n from o p in io n l e a d e r s who, a s d is c u s s e d ab ov e, a r e d i f f e r e n t from t h e i r f o l l o w e r s in many c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The p a t t e r n t h a t h a s been found to e x i s t , how ever, i s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s choose o p in ­ ion l e a d e r s th e y p e r c e i v e a s b e i n g more, b u t n o t to o much more, com petent th a n th e m se lv e s in a c e r t a i n a r e a —^ (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). Too much d i f f e r e n c e i s a b a r r i e r t o i n t e r a c t i o n and com m unication. — T h is phenomenon h a s been found in modern s o c i a l s y ste m s. In t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i a l system s f o ll o w e r s s e e k o p in io n l e a d e r s who a r e p e r ­ c e iv e d as l e s s o r no more com petent t h a n th e m s e lv e s . 44 D e c is io n s t a g e . In th e d e c i s i o n s ta g e th e i n d i v i d u a l d e c id e s t o e i t h e r ad o p t o r r e j e c t th e i n n o v a t io n . I f th e i n n o v a tio n can be a d o p ted on a t r i a l b a s i s and th e i n d i v i d u a l ' s a t t i t u d e toward i t i s f a v o r a b l e , a s m a ll s c a l e t r i a l may be p a r t o f t h i s d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . I n n o v a tio n s which can be sampled o r ex p erim en ted w ith w ith o u t much r i s k a r e g e n e r a l l y ad o p ted more r a p i d l y th a n th o s e which c a n n o t. If t h e in n o v a tio n a p p e a r s to be even s l i g h t l y b e t t e r th a n th e p r e s e n t p r a c t i s e o r s i t u a t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l s d e c id e to ado pt i t a f t e r a t r i a l (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). C o n firm a tio n s t a g e . tio n d e c is io n p ro c e ss. The d e c i s i o n s t a g e does n o t end th e innova­ J u s t a s an in n o v a tio n may have been r e j e c t e d in any o f th e p r e v io u s s t a g e s , an i n n o v a tio n may be r e j e c t e d a f t e r an i n d i v i d u a l h as made th e d e c i s i o n to adopt i t . In th e c o n f irm a tio n s t a g e , th e i n d i v i d u a l seek s i n fo r m a tio n to r e i n f o r c e h i s o r h e r d e c i s i o n to ad op t o r r e j e c t and may r e v e r s e h i s o r h e r d e c i s i o n . The c o n f i r m a t i o n s t a g e may c o n tin u e i n d e f i n i t e l y a s th e i n d i v i d u a l t r i e s to a v o id what i s l a b e l e d d is s o n a n c e (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). D isson an ce o c c u r s when an i n d i v i d u a l ' s a t t i t u d e s and a c t i o n s a r e n o t i n a c c o rd w ith each o t h e r . I f th e d is s o n a n c e i s s t r o n g enough an i n d i ­ v i d u a l may seek to change h i s o r h e r knowledge, a t t i t u d e s o r a c t i o n , to red u ce th e d i s s o n a n c e . In t h e c a se o f d is s o n a n c e in r e g a r d to an i n n o v a tio n d e c i s i o n , new i n f o r m a tio n may cau se an i n d i v i d u a l t o d is c o n ­ t i n u e th e use of th e in n o v a tio n o r t o ado pt i t when i t had been p r e v i ­ o u s ly r e j e c t e d . I f th e p r e v io u s d e c i s i o n i s d i f f i c u l t o r Im p o ssib le to r e v e r s e th e i n d i v i d u a l may s e l e c t i v e l y seek In fo r m a tio n which w i l l o n ly s u p p o rt h i s o r h e r d e c i s i o n . R a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of th e d i f f e r e n c e 45 b etw een t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s a t t i t u d e s and h i s o r h e r b e h a v i o r i s a n o t h e r way t h a t d is s o n a n c e i s r e d u c e d . S in ce d i s s o n a n c e r e g a r d i n g th e d e c i s i o n to a d o p t an in n o v a t i o n can o c c u r a t any ti m e , so can i t s d i s c o n t i n u a n c e . I t , t h e r e f o r e , can n o t be assumed t h a t once an i n n o v a t io n h as been ad o p te d i t s u se w i l l con­ tin u e in d e f in ite ly . L ength o f t h e I n n o v a tio n d e c i s i o n p e r i o d . The l e n g t h o f tim e r e q u i r e d f o r an i n d i v i d u a l to p a s s th ro u g h t h e f o u r s t a g e s in th e d e c i ­ sio n p erio d v a r i e s . S t u d i e s o f in n o v a t i o n a d o p ti o n i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e r a t e a t which i n d i v i d u a l s p a s s th ro u g h v a r i o u s s t a g e s does f o ll o w a p a t t e r n . S -sh ap ed c u r v e . I t i s th o u g h t t h a t t h e e n t i r e p r o c e s s f o llo w s an The r a t e o f t h e knowledge s ta g e a l s o f o llo w s an S shaped c u rv e b u t i t s r a t e i s more r a p i d th a n th e r a t e a t which th e i n n o v a ti o n i s a d o p te d . As m ight be e x p e c t e d , e a r l i e r a d o p t e r s ta k e a s h o r t e r p e r i o d of tim e to go th ro u g h t h e p r o c e s s th a n do l a t e r a d o p t e r s . E a r l i e r adop­ t e r s a r e e a r l i e s t t o a d o p t an i n n o v a t i o n n o t o n ly b e c a u s e th e y become aware o f an i n n o v a ti o n so o n e r th a n o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s b u t a l s o b e c a u s e th e y f i n i s h t h e i n n o v a t i o n - d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s so o n e r (Rogers w ith Shoe­ m aker, 1971). Type o f I n n o v a t io n D e c is io n The d e c i s i o n to a d o p t o r r e j e c t an i n n o v a t i o n i s n o t alw ay s up to th e in d iv id u a l a lo n e . These d e c i s i o n s may be made c o m p le te ly by t h e i n d i v i d u a l ; a s p a r t o f a g ro u p , i . e . , c o l l e c t i v e l y ; o r be f o r c e d upon t h e i n d i v i d u a l by an a u t h o r i t y . The a d o p tio n o f an i n n o v a t i o n 46 may in v o lv e a c o m b in atio n o f ty p e s o f d e c i s i o n s a s in t h e c a s e t o be s tu d i e d in C h ap ter 4 where b o th i n d i v i d u a l and a u t h o r i t y in n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n s a r e in v o lv e d . A lthough th e model d is c u s s e d above i s th e most g e n e r a l , t h e i n n o v a t i o n - d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s e s do d i f f e r somewhat by th e ty p e o f d e c i s i o n . Some d i s c u s s i o n o f how t h e a u t h o r i t y - d e c i - s i o n p r o c e s s v a r i e s from t h i s model i s , t h e r e f o r e , n e c e s s a r y ( th e c o l ­ l e c t i v e - d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s n o t b e in g o f i n t e r e s t f o r th e p u rpo se h e r e ) . The in n o v a tio n d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s model f o r a u t h o r i t y d e c i s i o n s has fiv e s ta g e s : (1) know ledge, (2) p e r s u a s i o n , (3) d e c i s i o n , (4) com m unication and (5) a c t i o n (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). These s t e p s a r e s i m i l a r to th o s e in th e i n d i v i d u a l in n o v a tio n d e c i s i o n m odel. The p r o c e s s , how ever, i s more complex f o r a u t h o r i t y d e c i s i o n s . The comm unication s t e p i s added s i n c e i n s t e a d o f o n ly one i n d i v i d u a l making t h e d e c i s i o n , th e d e c i s i o n must in v o lv e com munication betw een th o s e who have t h e a u t h o r i t y to d e c id e th e o r g a n i z a t i o n sh o u ld ad op t th e in n o v a tio n and th o s e who must a c c e p t t h i s d e c i s i o n . I n th e knowledge s t a g e th o s e in a u t h o r i t y , th e " d e c i s i o n u n i t " g e n e r a l l y become aware o f t h e i n n o v a tio n f i r s t and become know ledgeable ab o u t i t . T h is knowledge i s used to make th e t a r g e t group o f s u b o r d in ­ a t e s aware o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n . There i s a l s o some s u p p o rt f o r th e r e ­ v e r s e c a s e where s u b o r d i n a t e s p a s s knowledge a b o u t an I n n o v a tio n upward to t h e i r s u p e r i o r s in an o r g a n i z a t i o n (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). C u r r e n t r e s e a r c h on in n o v a tio n in o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n d i c a t e s t h a t th e most im p o rta n t s o u rc e s o f i n f o r m a tio n ab o u t i n n o v a tio n s a r e th o s e o u t ­ s i d e th e o r g a n i z a t i o n (Zaltm an and Duncan, 1977; U t t e r b a c k , 1971; Cor­ w in, 1972). T h is would i n d i c a t e t h a t th o s e w ith g r e a t e r mass media exp osu re 47 and s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n a r e l i k e l y to l e a r n o f i n n o v a tio n s e a r l i e r and s e r v e a s s o u rc e s i n s i d e th e o r g a n i z a t i o n (W ilson, 1966). com m unication, how ever, i s h in d e r e d Upward u n l e s s th e o r g a n i z a t i o n f o s t e r s an environm ent o f t r u s t and open e f f e c t i v e com munication (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). In o r g a n i z a t i o n s w ith a u t h o r i t a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s th e in f o r m a tio n t h a t flow s upward i s s e l e c t i v e l y f i l t e r e d to a v o id p a s s in g on n e g a t i v e in f o r m a tio n c o n c e rn in g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l perfo rm an ce (Katz and Kahn, 1966; L i k e r t , 1961). P e rso n s in p o s i t i o n s o f low power in an o r g a n i z a t i o n w i l l a l s o f i l t e r o u t t h i s ty p e of in f o r m a tio n to h i g h e r l e v e l s o f th e o r g a n i z a t i o n ( P o r t e r and R o b e r t s , 1976). The d e c i s i o n u n i t w e ig h ts th e m e r i t s o f th e in n o v a tio n in th e p ersu asio n s ta g e . In do ing t h i s , more i n f o r m a tio n on th e in n o v a tio n i s so ug ht and e v a l u a t e d . T h is s te p may in c lu d e f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d i e s or b e n e fit co st a n a ly s is . In th e d e c i s i o n s t a g e th e d e c i s i o n u n i t d e c id e s to ado pt o r r e j e c t th e i n n o v a t i o n . The p a r t i c i p a t i o n of th e t a r g e t group in t h i s d e c i s i o n i s th o u g h t to be im p o rta n t in l a t e r a c c e p ta n c e of th e in n o v a tio n . Based upon e v id e n c e from sm a ll group and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t u d i e s , Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) p ro p o se t h a t an o r g a n i z a t i o n member's a c c e p ta n c e of and s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith an in n o v a tio n i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to h i s o r h e r involvem ent in th e in n o v a tio n d e c i s i o n . An i n d i v i d u a l ' s a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e in n o v a tio n a r e l i k e l y to d e te rm in e w hether th e in n o v a tio n i s a c t i v e ­ ly s u p p o rte d and used o r m erely o u tw a rd ly a c c e p te d b u t c o v e r t l y f o u g h t. The s u c c e s s o f t h e im p lem en tatio n of an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l change (Huse, 1975) o r in n o v a tio n ( C a r t w r i g h t , 1980) w i l l depend upon w hether o r n o t th e t a r g e t group s h a r e s th e p e r c e p t i o n t h a t t h e r e i s a need f o r chan ge. Huse a l s o p ro p o se s t h a t p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e p la n s f o r and 48 th e co nsequences o f change must a l s o be s h a r e d . P a r t i c i p a t i o n by the t a r g e t group in th e e a r l y s t a g e s of th e d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s can h e lp c r e a t e t h e s e s h a re d p e r c e p t i o n s and i s , t h u s , . im p o rta n t in th e s u c c e s s f u l im p lem en tatio n o f th e i n n o v a t i o n . In fo rm a tio n ab ou t th e a d o p tio n o r r e j e c t i o n of t h e in n o v a tio n i s communicated from th e d e c i s i o n u n i t to th e t a r g e t group in th e commun­ ic a tio n s ta g e . How e f f e c t i v e l y t h i s in f o r m a tio n i s communicated and how i t i s a c c e p te d w i l l depend upon th e o r g a n i z a t i o n . The more homo­ p h i l o u s th e i n d i v i d u a l s communicating a r e , th e more open th e communi­ c a t i o n (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). I t h a s a l s o been proposed t h a t messages from s u p e r i o r s w i l l be viewed w ith s u s p i c i o n by s u b o r d in a t e s in o r g a n i z a t i o n s which o p e r a t e a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y ( L i k e r t , 1961). S u b o rd in ­ a t e s in o r g a n i z a t i o n s in which t h e r e i s more p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c i s i o n making a r e more a c c e p t i n g o f m essages from s u p e r i o r s . I f th e d e c i s i o n i s made to a d o p t, th e in n o v a tio n i s implemented in th e a c t i o n s t a g e . I t i s in t h i s s ta g e t h a t th e a t t i t u d e s of th e o r g a n i z a t i o n 's members toward th e in n o v a tio n a r e l i k e l y to become mani­ f e s t (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). As in th e i n d i v i d u a l in n o v a tio n d e c i s i o n model, i n d i v i d u a l s may e x p e r ie n c e in n o v a tio n d is s o n a n c e i f th e a c t i o n s th ey a r e r e q u i r e d to ta k e d i f f e r from t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward it. The i n d i v i d u a l may change h i s o r h e r a t t i t u d e so t h a t i t m atches h is or h e r b eh av io r. Given an a u t h o r i t y d e c i s i o n , however, th e i n d i v i ­ d u a l may n o t have th e o p t i o n of changing b e h a v io r i f th e change would mean n o t com plying w ith th e d e c i s i o n . In t h i s c a s e th e i n d i v i d u a l com p lies w ith th e d e c i s i o n o v e r t l y b u t r e j e c t s th e in n o v a tio n a t t i t u d i n a l l y and c o n t i n u i n g s u p e r v i s i o n w i l l be r e q u i r e d to i n s u r e c o n ti n u i n g com pliance (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). 49 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Environment The env iron m en t in which an o r g a n i z a t i o n o p e r a t e s w i l l i n f l u e n c e w h eth er o r n o t an o r g a n i z a t i o n a d o p ts an i n n o v a t i o n , th e r a t e o f adop­ t i o n , and how in n o v a tio n d e c i s i o n s a r e made. In t h e i r s tu d y o f innova­ t i o n i n th e p u b l i c s e c t o r F e l l e r and Menzel (1977) i d e n t i f y e i g h t f a c t o r s in th e o r g a n i z a t i o n 's en viron m en t which i n f l u e n c e t h e d i f f u s i o n of in n o v atio n s. These a r e : (1) t h e n a t u r e o f th e p e r c e iv e d perform ance g ap, (2) th e su p p ly o f in n o v a t i o n s , (3) th e r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een th e agency and t h e e x e c u t iv e b r a n c h , (4) t h e m a rk e tin g a c t i v i t i e s o f th e s u p p l i e r s o f I n n o v a t io n s , (5) t h e r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o th e agency , (6) th e knowledge i n f r a s t r u c t u r e in th e ag en cy , (7) t h e i n f l u e n c e s of o t h e r go vern m en tal b o d ie s and (8) t h e demands o f c i t i z e n s . These f a c t o r s a r e n o t m u tu a lly e x c l u s i v e . R a t h e r , t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n i s an a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r in th e o r g a n i z a t i o n 's e n v iro n m e n t. N a tu re o f t h e p e r c e iv e d perform ance g a p . There i s l i t t l e in fo rm a­ t i o n ab o u t how p erform an ce gaps a r e i d e n t i f i e d in p u b l i c a g e n c ie s (Roess n e r , 1974; F e l l e r and M enzel, 1977). Indeed th e n a t u r e o f p u b l i c a g e n c ie s may p r e c lu d e t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f many perform ance g ap s. The l a c k o f knowledge ab o u t agency program s and t h e i r p erform an ce and a la c k o f program c o n t r o l s , r e p o r t i n g and e v a l u a t i o n i s a problem in many a g e n c ie s (Hayes, 1972). W ithout in f o r m a tio n t o d evelop m easures o f program p erfo rm a n c e , managers can n o t i d e n t i f y d i f f e r e n c e s between how a program i s p e rfo rm in g and how i t sh o u ld be p e r fo r m in g . This s i t u a t i o n r e s u l t s in l e s s p r e s s u r e to become and rem ain e f f i c i e n t th an would be a p p l i e d t o p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Lack o f in f o r m a tio n about agency p erfo rm ance among th e p u b l i c i t s e r v e s d e c r e a s e s p o t e n t i a l 50 p r e s s u r e from o u t s i d e th e agency as w e ll ( F e l l e r and M enzel, 1977). S e v e r a l methods o f i d e n t i f y i n g p erfo rm ance gaps a r e a v a i l a b l e t o p u b l i c a g e n c ie s ( F e l l e r and M enzel, 1977). The agency m ight com pile s t a t i s t i c s on th e m agnitude o f an u n d e s i r a b l e s i t u a t i o n o r t h e freq u en cy o f an u n d e s i r a b l e e v e n t a s a measure o f a problem . For exam ple, f i r e management a g e n c ie s would count number o f a c r e s on which f i r e o c c u r r e d . Some measure o f agency a c t i v i t y c o u ld be com piled and compared to some benchm ark. These benchmarks co u ld be e s t a b l i s h e d by h a v in g m anagers, members o f t h e p u b l i c o r some o t h e r r e l e v a n t group e x p l i c i t l y s e t t i n g a d e s i r e d p erform an ce l e v e l , o r by u s in g t h e perform ance l e v e l o f an agency w ith s i m i l a r prog ram s. F u tu re p erform an ce c o u ld a l s o be judged by s e t t i n g t h e l e v e l p r e s e n t perfo rm an ce m easures a s a benchmark. Supply o f i n n o v a t i o n s . New te c h n iq u e s a r e o f t e n ad o p ted becau se th e y a r e c l e a r l y an improvement ov er p r e v io u s te c h n iq u e s ( F e l l e r and Menzel, 1977). Not o n ly must new t e c h n iq u e s o r p r o d u c ts be developed \rtiich s o lv e a problem o r improve p r o d u c t io n b u t o r g a n i z a t i o n s must be lo o k in g f o r t h e s e s o l u t i o n s and Improvements. R e l a t i o n s h i p between th e agency and th e e x e c u t i v e b r a n c h . One f a c t o r t h a t may l e a d th e o r g a n i z a t i o n to s e a r c h f o r i n n o v a tio n s i s p r e s s u r e from th e e x e c u ti v e b ran ch which i t i s u n d e r . These p r e s s u r e s o f t e n a r i s e a s a r e s u l t o f i n c r e a s e d demands upon t h e agency f o r s e r ­ v i c e s o r from I n c r e a s e s in th e c o s t s of p r o v id in g s e r v i c e s when i t s b u dg et i s c o n s t r a i n e d . p ro d u c tiv ity . P r e s s u r e s may be p u t on th e agency t o I n c r e a s e P r e s s u r e t o I n c r e a s e p r o d u c t i v i t y may a l s o be th e r e s u l t o f rew ard s th e o r g a n i z a t i o n g iv e s e x e c u t i v e s who show p r o d u c t i v i t y 51 improvements in th e program s th ey o v e r s e e . F e l l e r and Menzel (1977) a l s o found a ten d en cy in m u n ic ip a l governm ents f o r e x e c u t i v e s to p r e s ­ s u r e a g e n c ie s to ad op t a s p e c i f i c in n o v a t io n . The a u t h o r s propose t h a t e x e c u t i v e s view t h i s a s n e c e s s a r y in overcom ing th e t r a d i t i o n a l c o n s e r v a tis m of th e a g e n c i e s . A c t i v i t i e s of s u p p l i e r s . A lthough i t h a s r e c e i v e d l i t t l e s tu d y , i t i s th o u g h t t h a t th e a c t i v i t i e s of s u p p l i e r s i n f l u e n c e s t h e d i f f u s i o n o f s p e c i f i c in n o v a tio n s and which o r g a n i z a t i o n s adopt an in n o v a tio n ( F e l l e r and M enzel, 1977). How i n t e n s i v e l y and e x t e n s i v e l y a s u p p l i e r m a rk e ts an in n o v a tio n i n f l u e n c e s how many and which p o t e n t i a l u s e r s l e a r n of an in n o v a tio n and c o n s id e r a d o p tin g i t . o f i n n o v a tio n s t h e r e a r e i s a l s o a f a c t o r . How many s u p p l i e r s The e x i s t e n c e of many sup­ p l i e r s i n c r e a s e s th e chan ges t h a t an o r g a n i z a t i o n w i l l l e a r n of in no va­ tio n s. Where t h e r e a r e to o many s u p p l i e r s , how ever, th e agency may n o t be a b l e to become know ledgeable abo ut a l l th e i n n o v a t io n s a v a i l a b l e to i t . R esource a v a i l a b i l i t y . The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f s l a c k r e s o u r c e s w i t h i n an agency i s c i t e d a s a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on agency in n o v a t iv e n e s s (Hayes, 1972). The f r e q u e n t l a c k o f t h e s e r e s o u r c e s i s th o u g h t to be a p a r t i c u l a r b a r r i e r to in n o v a tio n in b u r e a u c r a c i e s (Hoffman and A r c h ib a ld , 1968). The in n o v a t i v e n e s s o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n h a s been shown to be p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w ith s i z e , w e a lth o r a v a i l a b i l i t y o f r e ­ s o u rc e s (Mohr, 1969) and w ith a s s e t s i z e (Becker and S t a f f o r d , 1967). New i d e a s a r e th o u g h t to move slo w ly th ro u g h an o r g a n i z a t i o n when s t a f f , in f o r m a tio n and o t h e r r e s o u r c e s a r e u n a v a i l a b l e e x c e p t t o m a in ta in 52 c u rren t o p era tio n s. The r e l a t i v e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f r e s o u r c e s in one s t a t e v e r s u s a n o th e r h a s been found to c o r r e l a t e w ith i n n o v a t i v e n e s s (Gray, 1973). S ta te s t h a t ran k ed h ig h in a m easure o f i n n o v a t i v e n e s s in th e a d o p tio n of e d u c a t i o n , c i v i l r i g h t s , and w e l f a r e laws a l s o ran ked h i g h e s t in r e l a ­ tiv e w ealth . Knowledge i n f r a s t r u c t u r e . The d i f f u s i o n o f an in n o v a tio n w i th i n an agency r e q u i r e s t h a t a s u f f i c i e n t knowledge b a s e e x i s t s w i t h i n th e agency and t h a t a comm unication netw ork e x i s t s t o s p re a d in fo r m a tio n and i n s u r e i t s e f f e c t i v e u se ( F e l l e r and M enzel, 1977). In f i e l d s where many p r i v a t e and p u b l i c a s s o c i a t i o n s a r e a c t i v e , i n n o v a tio n d i f ­ f u s i o n i s a id e d ( F e l l e r and M enzel, 1977; Rowe and B o is e , 1974). F e lle r and Menzel (1977) p ro p o se t h a t t h e s e a s s o c i a t i o n s s e r v e a s means f o r agency members t o g a in in f o r m a ti o n needed to e v a l u a t e i n n o v a t io n s . C o r r e l a t i o n s have been found between th e p e r c e n ta g e of p r o f e s s i o n a l s in an o r g a n i z a t i o n and i t s i n n o v a t iv e n e s s (W ilson, 1966) and th e o u t ­ s i d e p r o f e s s i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s o f s c i e n t i s t s and t h e i r r e s e a r c h and d e v e l ­ opment p erfo rm an ce ( P e lz and Andrews, 1976). F i e l d s i n which t h e r e i s a h i g h l y d ev elo p ed knowledge i n f r a s t r u c ­ t u r e w i l l a l s o te n d to have p erfo rm an ce s t a n d a r d s e s t a b l i s h e d a t th e n atio n a l le v e l. The e x i s t e n c e o f t h e s e n a t i o n a l l y s e t s ta n d a r d s d e ­ c r e a s e s t h e e f f o r t s s u p p l i e r s must make in c o n t a c t i n g i n d i v i d u a l p o te n ­ t i a l u s e r s and d e c r e a s e s th e Im p ortan ce o f th e r o l e o f o p in io n l e a d e r s and o f i n t e r a c t i o n among a d o p t e r s and p o t e n t i a l a d o p te r s ( F e l l e r and M enzel, 1977). L a t e r a l t i e s to o t h e r d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n a r e a l s o 53 p roposed a s im p o rta n t in s u c c e s s f u l developm ent and im p lem en tatio n o f in n o v a t i o n s ( S a y le s , 1974). T h is a llo w s f o r d i v e r g e n t views and s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a tio n on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l problem s t o be s h a r e d . Know­ le d g e must a l s o be s h a re d betw een th e p o t e n t i a l u s e r s o f th e I n n o v a tio n and th e d e v e l o p e r s o f t h e i n n o v a tio n th ro u g h o u t th e p r o c e s s . I n f l u e n c e o f o t h e r go vern m en tal b o d i e s . The a c t i o n s of o t h e r gov ern m ental b o d i e s may i n f l u e n c e th e a d o p tio n o f an i n n o v a tio n by an agency d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y . S t a t e o r n a t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n may s e t new r e q u ir e m e n ts th e agency must meet o r may a l l o c a t e new funds in a s p e c i f i c program a r e a . F e l l e r and Menzel (1977) found t h a t f e d e r ­ a l p r e s s u r e s on s t a t e a g e n c ie s accompanied by f e d e r a l funds i s a m ajor i n f l u e n c e on agency i n n o v a t i o n . These f e d e r a l fun ds can c r e a t e th e s l a c k r e s o u r c e s c i t e d e a r l i e r a s an im p o rta n t f a c t o r in i n n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n i n an a g en cy . In a s tu d y o f s t a t e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , L ig h t (1978) found a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e s t a t e a g e n c y 's depen­ dence on f e d e r a l fu n d s and a h ig h r a n k in g o f f e d e r a l government a s an im p o rta n t s o u rc e o f in n o v a t io n s t o th e a g en cy . In n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e a g e n c ie s o t h e r s t a t e s were ranked h i g h e s t a s a s o u rc e o f i n n o v a t i o n s . Whether c e r t a i n s t a t e s o r r e g i o n s a r e in n o v a ti v e a c r o s s a v a r i e t y o f p o l i c y a r e a s h a s been argu ed e x t e n s i v e l y in t h e l i t e r a t u r e (Walker, 1969; Rose, 1973; G ray, 1973; Menzel and F e l l e r , 1977; Savage, 1978; F o s t e r , 1978; L i g h t , 1978). T h is d i s c u s s i o n a l s o d i s a g r e e s on th e r e l a t i v e i n f l u e n c e o f th e s t a t e i t s e l f v e r s u s th e m u l t i - s t a t e r e g io n on s t a t e i n n o v a t i v e n e s s . Weimer (1980) h a s s t u d i e d th e d i s f u n c t i o n a l a s p e c t s o f f e d e r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n in in n o v a t i o n in p u b l i c a g e n c i e s . F e d e r a l su p p ly o f 54 knowledge, t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e and funds may r e s t r u c t u r e th e a g e n c i e s ' in c e n tiv e s. F e d e r a l s o u rc e s o f knowledge may be b i a s e d toward th e b e n e f i t s of a p a r t i c u l a r i n n o v a t i o n , w h ile n e g l e c t i n g c o s t in f o r m a tio n . T e c h n ic a l a s s i s t a n t s to p u b l i c a g e n c ie s may te n d to be o v e r l y o p t i m i s ­ t i c abo ut an in n o v a tio n w ith o u t f u l l y c o n s i d e r i n g i t s a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r ag en cy . F e d e r a l fu n d in g o f in n o v a tio n s may skew a b e n e f i t / c o s t a n a l y s i s o f th e i n n o v a t i o n , s in c e i t s t o t a l s o c i a l c o s t s a r e n o t born e by th e p u b l i c agency and may n o t be a c c o u n te d f o r in th e a n a l y s i s . F e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e in p u b l i c agency i n n o v a tio n may, t h u s , le a d to i n e f f i c i e n t agency b e h a v io r . Demands o f c i t i z e n s . The demands of c i t i z e n s have l i t t l e on in n o v a tio n in s t a t e a g e n c ie s ( F e l l e r and M enzel, 1977). in flu en c e T h is h as been a t t r i b u t e d to th e d i f f i c u l t y o f a s s e s s i n g agency p erform an ce by citiz e n s. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , c i t i z e n s may jud ge t h a t th e c o s t s o f a c q u i r i n g th e n e c e s s a r y in fo r m a tio n and u s in g t h e i r v o ic e may o u tw e ig h t any ben e­ f i t s th e y would r e c e i v e from t h e i r e f f o r t s (McKean, 1972). C itizen involvem ent d o e s , however, a p p e a r to a c t to impede change i f th e agency a n t ic ip a te s a n eg ativ e r e a tio n . The e x c l u s i v e a l l i a n c e o f a p u b li c agency w ith a p a r t i c u l a r c l i e n t e l e o r p u b l ic i n t e r e s t group may l i m i t in n o v a tio n w i t h i n bounds d i c t a t e d by th e c l i e n t e l e (Diamant, 1967). The i n f l u e n c e o f c i t i z e n s on b ud get a l l o c a t i o n s may i n d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e in n o v a tio n ( F e l l e r and M enzel, 1977). As seen above, a g e n c ie s which a r e r e l a t i v e l y more a f f l u e n t w i l l a l s o be r e l a t i v e l y more in n o ­ v a tiv e . 55 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e I n n o v a tio n How an in n o v a tio n i s p e r c e iv e d by p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r s h as been found to be a p r e d i c t o r of th e r a t e o f a d o p tio n of th e in n o v a tio n (Evan and B la c k , 1967; R ogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971; Zaltm an and L in , 1971; Wasson, 1960; O s tlu n d , 1974). S e v e r a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of th e c h a r a c ­ t e r i s t i c s of in n o v a tio n s have been s u g g e s te d in th e l i t e r a t u r e (Z alt­ man, Duncan, and H olbeck, 1973; Zaltm an and L in , 1966; Zaltman and Duncan, 1977; Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n su g ­ g e s te d by Rogers and Shoemaker i s s u p p o rte d by t h e i r su rv ey of e m p iri­ c a l in n o v a tio n r e s e a r c h , a s w e ll as b e in g th e most s u c c i n c t c l a s s i f i c a ­ tio n . T h e ir c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f th e r e l e v a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f inn ov a­ tio n s c o n s is ts o f: (1) r e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e , (2) c o m p a t a b i l i t y , (3) c o m p le x ity , (4) t r i a l a b i l i t y , (5) o b s e r v a b i l i t y . These f i v e c h a r a c t e r ­ i s t i c s have been d e te rm in e d to e x p l a i n from 49 to 87 p e r c e n t o f th e v a r i a n c e in th e r a t e o f a d o p tio n o f th e i n n o v a t i o n s r e s e a r c h e d and su rveyed (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). R e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e . The p e r c e iv e d r e l a t i v e ad v an tag e o f an in n o ­ v a t i o n i s th e d e g re e t o which a p o t e n t i a l a d o p te r t h i n k s t h e in n o v a tio n w i l l be an Improvement o v er th e c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n o r p r a c t i c e . The p o t e n t i a l a d o p te r may ju d g e t h i s improvement a s an I n c r e a s e in m onetary b e n e f i t s , a r e d u c t i o n in c o s t s , a r e d u c t i o n i n th e d i f f i c u l t y o f p e r ­ fo rm ing a j o b , o r a s an i n c r e a s e in some o t h e r m easure o f th e q u a l i t y of h is or her l i f e . Zaltm an and Lin (1966) s u g g e s t t h a t i n i t i a l and c o n t i n u i n g c o s t , r e t u r n on In v e stm e n t and r i s k and u n c e r t a i n t y a r e r e l e v a n t m e a s u re s . They found t h a t h ig h i n i t i a l c o s t was h i g h l y p o s ­ i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w ith th e a d o p tio n o f an i n n o v a ti o n . High i n i t i a l 56 c o s t may be a s s o c i a t e d w ith h ig h q u a l i t y in th e p e r c e p t i o n o f th e p o te n ­ t i a l ad o p ter. As m ight be e x p e c te d , Rogers and Shoem aker's (1971) su rv ey shows t h a t a p e r c e p t i o n o f th e r e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e o f an in n o v a tio n i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to i t s r a t e o f a d o p t i o n . Compatib11i t y . The d e g ree to which an in n o v a tio n i s p e r c e iv e d to be c o n s i s t e n t w ith c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f t h e p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r s ' s o c i a l system i s l a b e l e d c o m p a t i b i l i t y . How w e ll an in n o v a tio n i s p e r c e iv e d to f i t w ith th e norms and v a l u e s o f th e s o c i a l sy stem , w ith th e needs o f p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r s and w ith t h e i r p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s c o n t r i b u t e to c o m p a tib ility . The p e r c e iv e d c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f an in n o v a tio n i s p o s i ­ t i v e l y r e l a t e d to i t s r a t e o f a d o p tio n (T hio, 1971; I d e , 1969; S c h i f f , 1966). istic s I t , how ever, i s l e s s im p o rta n t a p r e d i c t o r th a n o t h e r c h a r a c t e r ­ (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). C o m p le x ity . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of co m p le x ity i s used to d e s c r i b e th e p e r c e p t i o n o f how d i f f i c u l t an i n n o v a tio n i s to u n d e r s ta n d and to u s e . I n n o v a tio n s whose meanings a r e d i f f i c u l t t o convey o r which r e q u i r e many o r d i f f i c u l t i n s t r u c t i o n s t o l e a r n how to u se a r e l i k e l y to be p e r c e iv e d a s complex. P e r c e iv e d co m p le x ity i s n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to th e a d o p tio n o f an in n o v a tio n (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). T ria la b ility . The d eg ree to which an i n n o v a tio n can be t r i e d on a l i m i t e d o r e x p e r im e n ta l b a s i s i s l a b e l e d t r i a l a b i l i t y . I n n o v a tio n s which a r e h i g h e r in t r i a l a b i l i t y a r e th o s e which th e p o t e n t i a l a d o p te r can m e n ta lly t r y , can u se a sample o f o r can u se f o r a s h o r t tim e and d i s c o n t i n u e use w ith l i t t l e c o s t . A lthough th e im p o rtan ce o f 57 t r i a l a b i l i t y i s l e s s s u p p o rte d th a n t h a t o f o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t h e r e i s e v id e n c e t h a t p e r c e iv e d t r i a l a b i l i t y i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to th e r a t e o f a d o p tio n o f an in n o v a tio n (Rothman e t . a l . , 1973). The i n a b i l i t y t o t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n n o v a t i o n s on a t r i a l b a s i s may h in d e r t h e i r a d o p tio n (T eece, 1980). O b se rv a b ility . O b s e r v a b i l i t y i s used to d e s c r i b e how v i s i b l e t h e r e s u l t s o f an i n n o v a tio n a r e t o p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r s . I n n o v a tio n s t h a t can be r e a d i l y d e m o n stra te d o r f o r which p i l o t o p e r a t i o n s a r e e s t a b l i s h e d a r e g e n e r a l l y more o b s e r v a b l e . I t h a s been s u g g e s te d t h a t id e a s t h a t a r e e a s i e r to communicate w i l l be a d o p te d more r e a d i l y (Men­ z e l , 1960) and t h a t m a t e r i a l in n o v a tio n s a r e more o b s e r v a b l e , and th u s more r e a d i l y a d o p te d , th a n a r e n o n m a te r ia l i n n o v a tio n s (Roger w ith Shoemaker, 1971). E m p ir ic a l i n n o v a tio n r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t p e r ­ c e iv e d o b s e r v a b i l i t y i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to th e r a t e o f a d o p tio n o f an in n o v a tio n (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971; R osn er, 1968; Menzel, 1960). S t r a t e g i e s f o r Im plem enting an I n n o v a tio n in an O r g a n iz a tio n The above d i s c u s s i o n d e s c r i b e d th e t h e o r y o f t h e d i f f u s i o n o f in n o v a tio n s and th e v a r i o u s f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e th e d i f f u s i o n o f an in n o v a tio n in a s o c i a l system o r o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h is s e c t i o n w i l l d e s c r i b e th e b a s i c s t r a t e g i e s used t o d i f f u s e i n n o v a ti o n s and d i s c u s s how t h e s e s t r a t e g i e s sh o u ld be used and a d a p te d to a p a r t i c u l a r in n o­ v a t i o n d i f f u s i o n problem . I n n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n s t r a t e g i e s sh o u ld depend upon t h e ty p e o f In n o v a tio n d e c i s i o n b e in g made, th e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l en v iro n m e n t, t h e 58 s t a g e in th e i n n o v a tio n d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s and th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of th e i n n o v a t i o n . S t r a t e g i e s sh o u ld v a ry a s to t y p e , th e r o l e s o f key p a r t i c i p a n t s and th e ty p e s and l e v e l s o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n a c c o r d in g to these f a c to r s . I t i s l i k e l y t h a t no s i n g l e s t r a t e g y w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e e n t i r e in n o v a tio n p r o c e s s . S t r a t e g i e s , r a t h e r , sh o u ld be f l e x ­ i b l e and change a s th e in n o v a tio n s i t u a t i o n ch a n g e s . Types o f S t r a t e g i e s S e v e ra l t y p o l o g i e s o f change s t r a t e g i e s o r program s have been s u g g e s te d i n th e l i t e r a t u r e (B e n n is, 1966; Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). Zaltm an and D un can 's c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i s much more s u c c i n c t th a n i s Ben­ n is. While B ennis i d e n t i f i e s ty p e s o f change pro gram s, he does l i t t l e t o d ev elo p a s y s t e m a t i c d i s c u s s i o n of t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o r e f f e c t i v e ­ n e s s o f v a r i o u s s t r a t e g i e s in d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s . c a n ' s f o u r b a s i c ty p e s o f s t r a t e g i e s f o r change a r e : (2) r e e d u c a t i v e , (3) p e r s u a s i v e , (4) power. Zaltman and Dun­ (1) f a c i l i t a t i v e , S ince I n n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n i s a s p e c i a l k in d o f change th e s e s t r a t e g i e s a l s o a p p ly to in n o v a tio n d iffu s io n cases. T h e ir ap pro ach assum es t h a t change w i l l be r e s i s t e d due to c u l t u r a l , s o c i a l , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l o r p s y c h o lo g i c a l b a r r i e r s . In d e e d , i f change o r in n o v a tio n was n o t r e s i s t e d t h e r e would be no r a t i o n a l e f o r s t r a t e g i e s s i n c e i n n o v a tio n s would be a c c e p te d a s soon a s th e y were known a b o u t . F a c ilita tiv e s tra te g ie s . F a c i l i t a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s a r e th o s e which a r e used to make i t e a s i e r f o r th e t a r g e t group t o a d o p t an i n n o v a t i o n . The su p p ly o f s p e c i a l s k i l l s and s t a f f , l e g a l o r t e c h n i c a l a i d , admin­ i s t r a t i v e a s s i s t a n c e , and fu n d in g a r e exam ples o f t h i s ty p e o f s t r a t e g y . 59 For f a c i l i t a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s t o be e f f e c t i v e th e t a r g e t group must a l r e a d y have r e c o g n iz e d a problem , d ecid ed t h a t i t sh o u ld be so lv ed and be open to o u t s i d e h e l p . The more agreem ent t h e r e i s among th e t a r g e t group a s to th e problem , i t s s o l u t i o n and th e means tow ard p r o b ­ lem s o l u t i o n ; t h e more e f f e c t i v e w i l l be f a c i l i t a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . F a c i l i t a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s a r e e f f e c t i v e i f th e t a r g e t group does n o t have s u f f i c i e n t r e s o u r c e s t o implement an in n o v a tio n b u t th e y a r e a v a i l a b l e th ro u g h th e change a g e n t . These r e s o u r c e s must be a v a i l a b l e f o r a long enough p e r io d t h a t th e t a r g e t group can d ev elop i t s own r e s o u r c e s to s u s t a i n th e i n n o v a t i o n . Change a g e n t s sh o u ld en co u rag e t h e developm ent o f t h i s c a p a c i t y f o r th e t a r g e t group to s u s t a i n th e I n n o v a tio n . T h is ty p e of s t r a t e g y i s n o t a p p r o p r i a t e u n l e s s th e system i s v e ry open to change o r tim e i s n o t c r u c i a l . When th e in n o v a tio n would c a u s e l a r g e changes in th e o r g a n i z a t i o n o r s o c i a l sy stem , f a c i l i t a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s a r e e s p e c i a l l y i m p o r ta n t. F a c i l i t a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s , f o r exam ple, would make an in n o v a tio n e a s i e r to t r y o r d e c r e a s e t h e r i s k to th e i n d i v i d u a l in u s in g i t . S im p lify in g a complex in n o v a tio n i s a l s o an example o f a f a c i l i t a t i v e s t r a t e g y . I f t h e r e i s s t r o n g r e s i s t a n c e o r low m o tiv a tio n t o ch an g e, how ever, f a c i l i t a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s a lo n e w i l l be I n e f f e c t i v e . R e e d u c a tiv e s t r a t e g i e s . R e e d u c a tiv e s t r a t e g i e s a r e d e s ig n e d to b r i n g ab o u t change th ro u g h th e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f in f o r m a tio n t o t h e t a r ­ g e t g ro u p . The i n f o r m a tio n i s in te n d e d to be o b j e c t i v e and u n b ia s e d . I t i s assumed t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s , b e in g r a t i o n a l , w i l l a c t a p p r o p r i a t e l y b ased upon th e p r o v i s i o n of t h i s i n f o r m a t io n . Examples o f r e e d u c a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s in c lu d e p u b l i c forums on p a r t i c u l a r p ro b le m s, in f o r m a t i o n a l 60 m a ilin g s * and mass media p r e s e n t a t i o n s . These s t r a t e g i e s a r e n o t meant t o p e rsu a d e th e t a r g e t group to ad op t a p a r t i c u l a r s o l u t i o n to a p ro b ­ lem. R a th e r th e y a r e in te n d e d to e d u c a te th e t a r g e t group a b o u t a problem and open communication ab ou t i t so t h a t th e group can a r r i v e a t i t s own s o l u t i o n . R e e d u c a tiv e s t r a t e g i e s a r e e f f e c t i v e when l i t t l e commitment i s r e q u i r e d of th e t a r g e t group t o Implement a change o r i n n o v a tio n and t h e r e i s a low p e r c e iv e d need f o r chan ge. These s t r a t e g i e s can c r e a t e an aw aren ess o f a problem and may h e lp e s t a b l i s h a l o n g -te r m commitment t o th e change. When t h e I n n o v a tio n o r change r e q u i r e s s p e c i a l knowledge o r s k i l l s t o ad op t r e e d u c a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s a r e r e q u i r e d . These s t r a t e g i e s , how­ e v e r , work slo w ly and o f t e n r e q u i r e th e change a g e n t s t o commit t h e i r r e s o u r c e s f o r lo n g p e r i o d s . R e e d u c a tiv e s t r a t e g i e s a r e a l s o e s p e c i a l l y e f f e c t i v e when th e in n o v a ti o n i s b e in g r e s i s t e d b e c a u s e th e i n d i v i d u ­ a l s a r e m isin form ed a b o u t i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , when th e I n n o v a tio n would be a r a d i c a l change from p r e s e n t p r a c t i c e s o r from th e p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n , o r where t h e r e i s a g r e a t d e a l o f u n c e r t a i n t y a b o u t th e co m p le x ity o r r e l a t i v e ad v an tag e o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n . P ersu asiv e s t r a t e g i e s . P e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s u se b i a s e d means t o b r i n g ab o u t change o r i n n o v a t i o n . The c o n t e n t o f what i s p r e s e n t e d t o th e t a r g e t group and th e manner in which i t i s p r e s e n t e d a r e d e s ig n e d to e l i c i t a s p e c i f i c r e s p o n s e from th e g ro up . These s t r a t e g i e s may I n c lu d e a p p e a l s in which a h i g h l y c r e d i b l e s o u rc e a d v o c a te s th e change, t h r e a t s o f l o s s o f som ething o f v a l u e to th e t a r g e t group i f i t does n o t ch an g e, o r p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e p r o s and cons o f th e change w ith 61 an a p p e a l to " r a t i o n a l i t y " , th e " r a t i o n a l c h o ic e " b e in g th e change a d v o cated . P e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s have th e p o t e n t i a l to c r e a t e c o n f l i c t i f th e t a r g e t group i s aware o f th e s t r a t e g y . I f a p p l i e d in a manner t h a t i s n o t o b v io u s , how ever, th e s e s t r a t e g i e s can c r e a t e an openness to c h a n g e . When t h e r e i s l i t t l e commitment to o r p e r c e iv e d need f o r chan ge, p ersu asiv e s tr a t e g i e s are e f f e c tiv e . By s t r e s s i n g th e b e n e f i t s of an in n o v a tio n o r th e c o s t s of th e c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n , p e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e ­ g i e s can c r e a t e r e c o g n i t i o n o f a problem and commitment to change among th e t a r g e t g ro up . The use o f p e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s i s n o t e f f e c t i v e i f th e t a r g e t group does n o t have th e r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e to ad op t th e in n o v a t i o n . The t a r g e t group may, how ever, be p e rsu a d e d t o r e a l l o c a t e r e s o u r c e s to ad op t t h e in n o v a tio n i f th e y a r e persu ad ed t h a t th e need i s g r e a t enough. P e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s a r e a l s o e f f e c t i v e i n c o n v in c in g th e t a r g e t group t o a l l o c a t e r e s o u r c e s to c o n tin u e th e use o f th e innova­ tio n . When th e change a g e n t h a s r e l a t i v e l y few r e s o u r c e s and th e tim e allow ed f o r a d o p tio n i s r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t , p e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s a r e ap p ro p ria te . P e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s produce r e s u l t s in r e l a t i v e l y l e s s tim e th a n do f a c i l i t a t i v e o r r e e d u c a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . The l a r g e r th e ch an g e, th e more complex and In c o m p a tib le th e inn o­ v a t i o n , t h e l e s s r e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e i t o f f e r s , t h e l e s s t r l a l a b l e th e i n n o v a t i o n , th e more p e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s may be n eed ed . P ersu asiv e s t r a t e g i e s can be used t o s t r e s s th e b e n e f i t s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n o r to o f f e r i n c e n t i v e s f o r i t s a d o p tio n d e s p i t e th e r i s k s in v o lv e d to 62 th e u s e r . M i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of th e in n o v a tio n c a n , however, le a d to l a t e r d is c o n t i n u a n c e when th e a d o p te r d i s c o v e r s t h a t h i s or h e r e a r l y p e r c e p t i o n s of th e in n o v a tio n were f a u l t y . Power s t r a t e g i e s . Power s t r a t e g i e s use c o e r c io n to f o r c e th e t a r g e t group to change o r ado pt th e i n n o v a t i o n . The change a g en t has power over th e t a r g e t group in a s much as th e t a r g e t group i s dependent upon th e change a g e n t f o r some r e l e v a n t rew ard o r th e av o id an ce of p u n ish m en t. The change ag en t w i l l in c u r c o s t s in u s in g h i s o r h e r power th ro u g h d i s p e n s i n g th e rew ard o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g th e punishm ent. I f th e change a g e n t i s a l s o dependent upon th e t a r g e t g ro u p , e . g . , f o r rew ards to be g o t t e n i f th e group a d o p ts t h e i n n o v a t i o n , t h e t a r g e t group h a s some amount o f power which may be used a g a i n s t th e change ag en t. T h is power may be used t o c o u n te r t h e change a g e n t ' s u se o f power, making th e a g e n t in c u r f u r t h e r c o s t s . Power s t r a t e g i e s a r e t y p i c a l l y used where th e t a r g e t group i s n o t v e ry committed to th e change, and th e p e r c e iv e d need f o r i t i s low. I f power s t r a t e g i e s a lo n e a r e used th e t a r g e t group may comply b u t th e change w i l l n o t be s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g . S u f f i c i e n t r e s o u r c e s to implement th e in n o v a tio n must be a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n th e t a r g e t group o r from th e change a g e n t f o r power s t r a t e g i e s t o be e f f e c t i v e . These s t r a t e g i e s may be used to f o r c e th e t a r g e t group to a l l o c a t e r e s o u r c e s to th e change. In a d d i t i o n , change a g e n t s must have s u f f i c i e n t r e s o u r c e s t o a llo w them to rew ard o r p u n ish th e t a r g e t group. The l a r g e r th e change r e q u i r e d of th e t a r g e t group th e g r e a t e r th e d e g re e of power th e change a g e n t must have i f t h i s typ e of s t r a t e g y 63 is used. In t h e lo n g r u n i t i s l i k e l y t h a t i f m ajo r change i s r e q u i r e d r e e d u c a t i v e and p e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s w i l l be more s u c c e s s f u l . The l a r g e r t h e ch a n g e , t h e g r e a t e r t h e r e s i s t a n c e t o i t t h a t can be e x p e c te d . Power s t r a t e g i e s can be u sed t o q u i c k l y s u p p r e s s r e s i s t a n c e and in du ce change. The change w i l l be i n t h e b e h a v i o r of t h e t a r g e t g r o u p , b u t n o t n e c e s s a r i l y in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s to w ard t h e c h an g e. Power s t r a t e g i e s a r e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r i n n o v a t i o n s which a r e t r i a l a b l e and f o r which t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e t r i a l would be r e a d i l y o b s e r v a b l e . The s t r a t e g y i s u sed t o f o r c e t h e i n i t i a l t r i a l o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n so t h a t i t s r e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e can be s e e n by t h e t a r g e t g ro u p . B e h a v io r a l change a s a r e s u l t o f power s t r a t e g i e s h ap p en s q u i c k l y . Because a t t i t u d e s a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y changed and commitment to change c r e a t e d , p r e s s u r e on th e t a r g e t g rou p to c o n t i n u e t h e new b e h a v io r must be a p p l i e d a s lo n g a s t h e change i s d e s i r e d . S t r a t e g i e s f o r t h e I n n o v a tio n D e c is io n S ta g e s The s t r a t e g i e s u sed to d i f f u s e an i n n o v a t i o n s h o u ld be v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s t a g e i n th e i n n o v a t i o n p r o c e s s . S urv ey s o f in n o v a ­ t i o n s in o r g a n i z a t i o n s and s o c i a l sy stem s i n d i c a t e t h a t v a r i o u s c h a r ­ a c t e r i s t i c s o f i n n o v a t i o n s a r e more im p o rta n t th a n o t h e r s in d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s (R ogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971) and t h a t some t y p e s o f s t r a t e g i e s may be more e f f e c t i v e th a n o t h e r s in d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s (Z altm an , Duncan and H o lbeck, 1973; Zaltm an and Duncan, 1 977). S t u d i e s o f in n o v a t i o n i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t s t r a t e g i e s s h o u ld v a r y a s t o how b ro ad t h e in v o lv em en t in th e p r o c e s s i s , how f l e x i b l e t h e a p p ro a c h i s and how complex t h e in v o lv em en t i s d e p e n d in g upon t h e s t a g e in th e in n o v a­ t i o n p r o c e s s (Z altm an , Duncan and H olbeck , 1973). 64 Knowledge s t a g e . How e a sy th e I n n o v a tio n i s to communicate i s im p o rta n t in th e knowledge s t a g e (Z altm an, Duncan and H olbeck, 1973). T h is i s r e l a t e d to R o g e rs ' and Shoem aker's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f c o m p le x ity . The more d i f f i c u l t an in n o v a tio n i s t o u n d e r s ta n d (and to u s e ) th e more d i f f i c u l t i t w i l l be t o communicate in f o r m a tio n ab o u t i t and th e l e s s l i k e l y a r e i n d i v i d u a l s to become aware o r kn ow led geab le about t h e in n o v a t i o n . R e e d u c a tio n a l s t r a t e g i e s a r e o f t e n a p p r o p r i a t e in t h i s s ta g e to c r e a t e aw aren ess o f a problem and to d i f f u s e i n f o r m a tio n ab ou t p o s s i b l e s o lu tio n s . P e r s u a s io n s t a g e . In t h e p e r s u a s i o n s t a g e t h e c o m p a t i b i l i t y and c o m p le x ity o f t h e in n o v a tio n a r e im p o rta n t (Zaltm an, Duncan and Holbeck, 1973). I f t h e in n o v a tio n i s v e r y in c o m p a tib le w ith t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s v a l u e s , p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s and n e e d s , i t i s th o u g h t t h a t th e in n o v a tio n w i l l be r e j e c t e d a t t h i s p o i n t . The co m p le x ity o f th e i n n o v a tio n w i l l d e te rm in e how e a s i l y an i n d i v i d u a l can m e n ta lly t r y t h e i n n o v a tio n and weigh i t s c o s t s and b e n e f i t s . I t i s l i k e l y to be more d i f f i c u l t f o r an i n d i v i d u a l to form a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e tow ard t h e in n o v a tio n i f i t i s to o complex to a n a l y z e . The p e r c e iv e d r e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e and th e o b s e r v a b i l i t y o f th e r e s u l t s o f th e i n n o v a tio n a r e most im p o rta n t in t h i s s t a g e (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971) a s t h e i n d i v i d u a l weighs and e v a l u a t e s t h e pos­ s i b l e r e s u l t s of a d o p tio n . P e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s a r e e f f e c t i v e in t h i s s t a g e in I n f l u e n c i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l s in t h e t a r g e t group to form a f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e tow ard a p a r t i c u l a r s o l u t i o n to a problem (Zaltm an and Duncan, 1977), i . e . , 65 toward a p a r t i c u l a r i n n o v a t i o n . P e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s in t h i s s ta g e might d e l i b e r a t e l y s t r e s s th e p o s i t i v e a s p e c t s and r e l a t i v e ad v an tag e o f th e in n o v a tio n . D e c is io n s t a g e . The t r i a l a b i l i t y of an in n o v a tio n i s im p o rta n t in th e d e c i s i o n s t a g e s i n c e a l i m i t e d t r i a l o f an I n n o v a tio n i s o f t e n p a r t o f th e d e c i s i o n to a d o p t th e i n n o v a tio n (Rogers w ith Shoemaker, 1971). F a c i l i t a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s a r e o f t e n used in th e d e c i s i o n s t a g e to e n a b le th e t a r g e t group to ado pt th e in n o v a tio n o r to p erfo rm a t r i a l ru n . C o n firm a tio n s t a g e . A ll th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of th e in n o v a tio n a r e im p o rta n t in th e c o n f i r m a t i o n s t a g e a s th e i n d i v i d u a l s se e k i n f o r ­ m ation to r e i n f o r c e t h e i r d e c i s i o n s . I f i n d i v i d u a l s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of th e in n o v a tio n a f t e r a d o p tio n d i f f e r g r e a t l y from t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s in th e p r e v i o u s s t a g e s th e y may r e v e r s e t h e i r a d o p tio n o r r e j e c t i o n d e c isio n . D issonance betw een p e r c e p t i o n s p r i o r to a d o p tio n and th o s e a f t e r a d o p tio n may a l s o cause i n d i v i d u a l s to f i l t e r o u t o r r a t i o n a l i z e in fo r m a tio n which i s c a u s in g th e d is s o n a n c e . E i t h e r r e e d u c a t i v e o r p e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s c o u ld be u sed to r e i n ­ f o r c e a d o p t e r s ' d e c i s i o n s in t h i s s t a g e . Power s t r a t e g i e s may be used to r e v e r s e i n d i v i d u a l s ' d e c i s i o n s t o r e j e c t th e in n o v a tio n i f e a r l i e r r e e d u c a t i v e and p e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s f a i l e d (Zaltm an and Duncan, 1977). 66 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s In th e I n n o v a tio n P ro c e s s O rg an izatio n al s t r u c t u r e . Management and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s c i e n t i s t s have s t u d i e d th e o p tim a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e f o r and approach to i n n o v a t i o n . The flow s o f i n f o r m a tio n and p e o p le a c r o s s o r g a n i z a t i o n ­ a l b o u n d a r ie s a r e th o u g h t to i n f l u e n c e th e in n o v a t i v e n e s s o f an o rg a n ­ i z a t i o n ( U tte r b a c k , 1971; E t t l i e , 1980). Systems which a r e open to th e e x t e r n a l environm ent ( G r i f f i t h s , 1964), which a r e o r g a n ic (Burns and S t a l k e r , 1961) and u se f l e x i b l e developm ent p r o c e s s e s ( S a y le s , 1974) a r e more l i k e l y to be i n n o v a t i v e , e s p e c i a l l y in a chang in g e n v i r o n ­ m ent, t h a n a r e more c l o s e d , m e c h a n is tic and r i g i d s y s te m s . The o p tim a l s t r u c t u r e , how ever, w i l l depend upon th e r e q u ir e m e n ts p la c e d upon th e o r g a n i z a t i o n by th e en viro nm en t and sh o u ld n o t be so open a s to d i s r u p t t h e f u n c t i o n s o f th e o r g a n i z a t i o n . The i n f l u e n c e o f d i v e r s i t y , f o r m a l i z a t i o n and d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l I n n o v a tiv e n e s s h a s a l s o been s t u d i e d . o f p e o p le and s p e c i a l t y The d iv e rsity a r e a s in v o lv e d in th e in n o v a tio n p r o c e s s i s pro p o sed t o p o s i t i v e l y I n f l u e n c e in n o v a tio n (Katz and Kahn, 1966; G olem biew ski, 1964). D e c e n t r a l i z e d s t r u c t u r e s a r e a l s o th o u g h t to f o s t e r i n n o v a tio n by a llo w in g f r e e r i n f o r m a tio n flow s ( P o r t e r and R o b e r ts , 1976). The d e g ree o f s p e c i f i c a t i o n of th e a c t i v i t i e s o f th e members o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , o r th e f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f p r o c e d u r e s , h a s been found to n e g a tiv e ly in flu e n c e i n n o v a tio n (R o sn er, 1968). O th er r e s e a r c h a r g u e s t h a t t h e a f f e c t o f d i v e r s i t y (W ilson, 1966; S ap o lsk y , 1967) and t h e a f f e c t s o f d i v e r s i t y , c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and fo rm a l­ i z a t i o n (S hepard, 1967; Hage and A iken, 1967; S ap o lsk y , 1967; Rowe and B o is e , 1974; Zaltm an and Duncan, 1977) w i l l v a ry w ith th e s t a g e s In th e I n n o v a tio n p r o c e s s . 67 In t h e e a r l y s t a g e s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s th e h ig h d e g re e o f u n c e r t a i n t y and l a c k o f i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e i n n o v a tio n in d ic a te s t h a t th e in fo rm atio n g a th e rin g c a p a c ity of th e o rg a n iz a tio n sh o u ld be i n c r e a s e d (Zaltm an and Duncan, 1 977). The o r g a n i z a t i o n s h o u ld , in t h e i n i t i a l s t a g e s , u se a r e l a t i v e l y more complex and l e s s fo rm a l and c e n t r a l i z e d p r o c e s s . I n c r e a s i n g t h e d i v e r s i t y o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n by i n v o l v i n g a g r e a t e r number o f p e o p l e , d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n a l a r e a s , and o c c u p a t i o n s i n c r e a s e s th e in fo rm a tio n a v a ila b l e to th e o r g a n iz a tio n . D iv e rsity has a lso been found t o b e a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on t h e number o f i n n o v a t i v e p r o ­ p o s a l s made by members o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n (S a p o ls k y , 1967). D e c r e a s in g t h e f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n by rem oving con­ s t r a i n t s on t h e p r o c e s s and r e l a x i n g o r d e c r e a s i n g th e number o f r u l e s and p r o c e d u r e s a l lo w s t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n to be more f l e x i b l e and open to more i n f o r m a t i o n and a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s . B ro ad er p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s i s t h e im p o rta n t f a c t o r in d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n (Hage and A ik e n , 1 967). T h is may be r e l a t e d to th e p o s i t i v e r o l e t h a t t h e c r e a t i o n o f s h a re d p e r s p e c t i v e s on th e need f o r , p l a n s f o r and c o n se q u e n c e s o f change p l a y s in i n n o v a t i o n a d o p tio n . A u t h o r i t a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i l l t e n d t o h av e r e s t r i c t e d upward i n f o r m a t i o n flo w s (Katz and Kahn, 1966). C en tralized s tr u c tu r e s te n d t o c a u s e n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t io n a b o u t j o b s and n eed s f o r change t o be s u p p r e s s e d by low er l e v e l members ( L i k e r t , 1 9 61 ). The more cen ­ t r a l i z e d an o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e more c h a n n e ls th ro u g h which an id e a must c h a n n e l and t h e more l i k e l y i t i s to be s c r e e n e d o u t (Z altm an , Duncan, and H olb eck , 1973). These same factors are reversed in the implementation stage. The 68 l e s s co m p lex ity * t h e more f o r m a l i z a t i o n and c e n t r a l i z a t i o n th e more im p le m e n ta tio n i s f a c i l i t a t e d (Hage and A iken , 1 9 6 7). A larg e d iv e r s ity o f p e o p le in v o lv e d in im p lem en tin g an i n n o v a t i o n p o t e n t i a l l y c r e a t e s more c o n f l i c t s ( S a p o ls k y , 1967). S p e c i f i c p r o c e d u r e s a r e a l s o needed t o s u c c e s s f u l l y implement th e In n o v a tio n . F o r m a l i z a t i o n i s p ro p o sed t o re d u c e a m b ig u ity s u r r o u n d ­ in g th e i n n o v a t i o n and i t s u se and t o f a c i l i t a t e com m unication o f s p e c i ­ f i c i n f o r m a t io n needed t o u s e t h e i n n o v a t i o n . T here i s l e s s s u p p o r t f o r t h e need f o r c e n t r a l i z a t i o n i n th e im p le­ m e n ta tio n s t a g e (Zaltm an and Duncan, 1977). C e n t r a l i z a t i o n i n im p le­ m en tin g t h e i n n o v a t i o n i s l i k e l y t o make com m unication a b o u t th e chan ges t h a t w i l l o c c u r more c l e a r a n d , a s w i t h f o r m a l i z a t i o n , re d u c e a m b ig u ity and u n c e r t a i n t y a s t o t h e r e s u l t s o f th e ch a n g e . C e n tra liz a tio n also i s th o u g h t t o make i t p o s s i b l e f o r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n t o g a t h e r enough i n f l u e n c e o v e r i t s members t o implement th e i n n o v a t i o n and t o d e c r e a s e th e e x t e n t o f d is a g r e e m e n t a b o u t im p le m e n ta tio n a c t i o n s (W ilson , 1 966). O rg a n iz a tio n a l s u p p o rt. Zaltm an and D u n can 's (1977) su rv e y o f I n n o v a t io n r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t s u p p o r t f o r change among t h e to p l e v e l s o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n i s a s t r o n g p r e d i c t o r of t h e s u c c e s s f u l im p le ­ m e n ta tio n o f c h a n g e . In a d d i t i o n to h a v i n g th e fo rm a l power to im p le­ ment ch a n g e , to p l e v e l members may b e a b l e t o s u p p o r t change and in n o ­ v a t i o n w i t h o u t b e i n g p e r c e i v e d a s d e v i a t i n g from t h e norms o f th e o r ­ g a n i z a t i o n o r s y s te m . T h is to p l e v e l s u p p o r t i s l i k e l y t o m o t iv a t e o t h e r members t o c h a n g e . W hile to p l e v e l s u p p o r t may be n e c e s s a r y t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n n o v a t i o n i t i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t (S h e p a rd , 1967). Top l e v e l c o n t r o l o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n may a l s o be im p o rta n t and th e l a c k 69 o f i t h a s been c i t e d a s a p o s s i b l e b a r r i e r to i n n o v a tio n s in b u r e a u c r a ­ c i e s (R o e s sn e r, 1977). S e v e r a l o t h e r ty p e s o f s u p p o rt have been shown to i n f l u e n c e th e a d o p tio n o f i n n o v a t i o n s . S tro n g p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s h i p f o r th e innova­ t i o n , a d v o c a te s o f t h e in n o v a tio n w i t h i n th e o r g a n i z a t i o n and o r g a n i z a ­ t i o n a l members i n t e r e s t e d in th e c o n tin u o u s r e fin e m e n t and im plem enta­ t i o n o f th e i n n o v a tio n may be c r i t i c a l in i t s s u c c e s s f u l a d o p tio n (Pack and P ack, 1977). Use o f an in n o v a tio n team The u se o f a team (Zaltman and Duncan, 1977; A l d e r f e r , 1976) o r c o o r d i n a t i n g group (Hayes, 1972) h a s been a d v o c a te d a s an e f f e c t i v e means t o d i f f u s e an in n o v a tio n in an o r g a n i ­ za tio n . Teams which a r e b u i l t w ith a v a r i e t y of ty p e s and l e v e l s members a r e n a t u r a l l y d i v e r s e , n o n fo rm a liz e d and d e c e n t r a l i z e d . The team, t h u s , h as an o p tim a l s t r u c t u r e f o r t h e e a r l y p h a s e s of th e in n o v a tio n process. As t h e team works t o g e t h e r i t b e g in s to s h a re common p e r s p e c ­ t i v e s and u n d e r s t a n d i n g s , d e v e lo p s r u l e s f o r i t s a c t i v i t i e s , and a commitment to team g o a l s . T h is d e c r e a s e in d i v e r s i t y and d e c e n t r a l i z a ­ t i o n and i n c r e a s e in f o r m a l i z a t i o n i s o p tim a l f o r th e l a t e r s t a g e s o f th e I n n o v a tio n p r o c e s s (Zaltman and Dunca, 1977). I n n o v a tio n s which in v o lv e more th a n one u n i t o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n may r e q u i r e a team o r c o o r d i n a t io n group t o e n s u re t h a t th e r e q u i r e d a c t i v i t i e s o f a l l th e u n i t s a r e perform ed (Hayes, 1972). O u ts id e a i d . The u s e o f an in n o v a tio n team i s a l s o a means to b r i n g o u t s i d e e x p e r t i s e to th e o r g a n i z a t i o n . A team which I n c lu d e s members o u t s i d e t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a llo w s more e f f e c t i v e flo w s of 70 i n f o r m a tio n to and from th e o r g a n i z a t i o n ( A l d e r f e r , 1976). O u ts id e r s a l s o b r i n g n e e d e d , f r e s h p e r s p e c t i v e s to b e a r on th e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n and en v iro n m e n t. O u t s id e r s combined w ith o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members i n s i d e knowledge o f and empathy f o r th e o r g a n i z a t i o n form an e f f e c t i v e means f o r I n n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n . O u ts id e a i d a l s o h e l p s r e ­ l i e v e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n s t r a i n t s on p ro c e d u re s and s t a f f which may h i n d e r in n o v a tio n (Hayes, 1972). CHAPTER IV THE DIFFUSION OF MICHIGAN'S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN In tro d u c tio n The developm ent and im p le m e n ta tio n o f M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esources P la n w i l l be d e s c r i b e d and c r i t i q u e d in t h i s c h a p t e r . The framework d ev elo p ed in C h ap ter 3 i s used to s t r u c t u r e t h i s d i s c u s s i o n . Three methods were u sed to d ev elo p t h e in f o r m a tio n needed f o r th i s d isc u ssio n . P e r s o n a l lo g s k e p t from A p r il 1978 to March 1981 were used to r e c o r d p r o g r e s s on th e SFRP and s p e c i f i c e v e n t s and t a s k s r e l a t e d to th e p r o c e s s . I n te r v ie w s were co n d u cted w ith f i v e of th e p r i n c i p a l s o f th e SFRP: th e DNR F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n ' s P r o j e c t C h ie f , P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r , P r o j e c t C o o r d in a t o r , and P la n n in g U nit Leader ( P r o j e c t A d v iso r) and th e P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r from th e F o r e s t r y D epartm ent, M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . These i n t e r v i e w s covered th e p e r c e iv e d need s f o r t h e SFRP, th e im p o rtan ce o f ty p e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l s u p p o rt r e c e i v e d , th e in f l u e n c e o f th e work s t r u c t u r e s u sed in th e p r o c e s s , th e im portance o f any s p e c i f i c e v e n t s in developm ent of th e Assessm ent o r th e Recommended P rog ram , and th e r o l e o f p u b l i c involvem ent in th e process. The r e s u l t s o f th e i n t e r v i e w s a r e used to d e s c r i b e t h e p e r ­ c e iv e d p erform ance gap and th e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l en viro nm en t s e c t i o n s of t h i s c h a p t e r . A 100 p e r c e n t su rv ey o f Departm ent o f N a tu r a l Re­ s o u rc e s p e r s o n n e l who had been d i r e c t l y in v o lv e d in th e SFRP, th e 71 72 c o n s u l t a n t s t o t h e SFRP and t h e t h r e e U .S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e N a t i o n a l F o r e s t P l a n n e r s i s u sed t o o b j e c t i v e l y d e s c r i b e th e p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r ­ i s t i c s o f t h e SFRP a s an i n n o v a t i o n ^ . D e s c r i p t i o n s and r e s u l t s o f t h e s u rv e y and I n t e r v i e w s a r e c o n t a i n e d in A ppendices B and G, r e s p e c ­ tiv e ly . F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g I n n o v a t io n i n t h e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n N a tu re o f th e Problem The p erfo rm a n c e g a p . The id e a o f co m p reh en siv e p l a n n i n g f o r f o r e s t r e s o u r c e management i n M ich ig an , s p e c i f i c a l l y a s t a t e w i d e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p l a n , a r o s e a s a p ro p o se d s o l u t i o n t o a p e r c e i v e d gap betw een d e s i r e d p e rfo rm a n c e o f th e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n and t h e l e v e l o f p e r f o r ­ mance t h a t e x i s t e d . The s p e c i f i c n a t u r e o f t h i s gap was t h e s u b j e c t of th e f i r s t i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n a s k e d o f t h e SFRP p r i n c i p a l s . As m ight be e x p e c t e d , t h e r e was some agreem en t a s to p e r c e i v e d need f o r th e SFRP a l th o u g h t h e r e was a v a r i e t y o f r e s p o n s e s . Four o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s c i t e d t h e need f o r c o o r d i n a t i o n o f th e o u tp u ts of th e S ta te F o rest System o r th e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n . T h is c o o r d i n a t i o n needed t o c o n s i d e r th e t o t a l demands f o r a l l f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s , s t a t e w i d e , and t h e r o l e s o f t h e v a r i o u s f o r e s t management a g e n c i e s and f o r e s t la n d o w n e rs. The need f o r an o v e r a l l s e n s e o f d i r e c ­ t i o n f o r t h e D i v i s i o n was a l s o c i t e d in two o f t h e s e i n t e r v i e w s . J u s t a s f r e q u e n t l y m entio ned was t h e n eed t o d e v e lo p b u d g e ta r y —^The a u t h o r , a l t h o u g h a p r i n c i p a l in t h e SFRP, d i d n o t answ er t h e i n t e r v i e w s o r s u r v e y , t o a v o id i n t r o d u c i n g b i a s i n t o th e c r i t i q u e . 73 s u p p o rt f o r f o r e s t r y an d, s p e c i f i c a l l y , F o r e s t Management D iv is io n pro gram s. A f t e r th e p a s sa g e o f th e R eso u rces P la n n in g Act o f 1976 (PL93-378) t h e r e was an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t a l l f e d e r a l fu n d in g o f f o r e s t r y program s would be t i e d to th e RPA p r o c e s s and p o s s i b l y to s t a t e compre­ h e n s iv e f o r e s t r y p l a n s . The need to develo p p u b l i c s u p p o rt a s a means to develo p b u d g e ta r y s u p p o rt f o r f o r e s t r y program s was a l s o c i t e d . Three o f th e i n t e r v i e w s m entioned th e need f o r a common o r u n i f i e d se n se o f d i r e c t i o n f o r a l l f o r e s t r y programs in M ichigan. Two of th e s e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h i s d i r e c t i o n sh o u ld s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e t o economic developm ent and d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n . I t i s th o u g h t t h a t f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s can make a c o n t r i b u t i o n t o th e s t r e n g t h e n i n g o f M ic h ig a n 's economy. The F o r e s t Management D i v is io n was m entioned a s n eed in g to develop t h i s s t a t e w i d e d i r e c t i o n in i t s r o l e a s th e le a d agency in f o r e s t manage­ ment i n th e s t a t e . Goals o f t h e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso urces P l a n . As eviden ced by th e v a r i e t y o f need s p e r c e iv e d f o r th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P l a n , i t would be e x p e c te d t h a t th e g o a l s o f th e SFRP would v a ry depending upon whose p e r s p e c t i v e i s t a k e n . The e x p l i c i t g o a l of th e SFRP, a l s o ev o lv ed somewhat o v e r tim e a s i n d i c a t e d in th e sam ples below : The " S ta te w id e F o r e s t P la n ( w i l l ) p e r i o d i c a l l y a s s e s s a l l f a c t o r s which in f l u e n c e th e use and c o n d i t i o n of M ic h ig a n 's f o r e s t s . . . a n t i c i p a t e p r o b a b le f u t u r e demands f o r t h e f o r e s t and i t s v a r io u s o u t p u t s . . . (and) recommend f o r e s t p o l i c y f o r M ichigan and d i r e c t i o n f o r p u b l i c f o r e s t r y p ro g ra m s ." F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n Program D e s c r i p t i o n 12/77 " . . . t h e m ajor g o a l (of t h e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso urces P la n i s ) t o e s t a b l i s h a common sen se o f d i r e c t i o n among c i t i z e n s and o rg a n ­ i z a t i o n s f o r th e p r o t e c t i o n , management, and use o f i t s f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s , b o th p u b l i c and p r i v a t e . " M ic h ig a n 's F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n : Overview of I s s u e s and P o l i c y O p tio n s 9/80 74 The a u d ie n c e s to which each o f t h e s e s ta te m e n ts were a d d r e s s e d a r e d iffe re n t. These s ta t e m e n t s a r e , how ever, i n d i c a t i v e of th e change in em phasis from more n a rro w ly s p e c i f i e d g o a ls f o r th e a sse ssm e n t of M ic h ig a n 's f o r e s t s and f o r e s t p o l i c y recom m endations f o r M ichigan to b road d i r e c t i o n s e t t i n g f o r f o r e s t r y in M ichigan. A lthough n o t e x p l i c i t in th e above q u o te , t h i s d i r e c t i o n was to be v ery much i n f lu e n c e d by s t a t e l e v e l i s s u e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y s p e c i f i c to f o r e s t r y . Key P a r t i c i p a n t s Three m ajor groups were i d e n t i f i e d a s t a r g e t s f o r a d o p tio n of th e SFRP: (1) th e DNR F o r e s t Management D iv i s i o n p e r s o n n e l , (2) o t h e r DNR and o t h e r p u b l i c f o r e s t r y r e s o u r c e management a g e n c ie s and (3) f o r e s t r e s o u r c e u s e r s and i n t e r e s t e d p u b l i c s . The f i r s t group d i r e c t l y p a r t i c i p a t e d in and h e lp e d p r e p a r e th e SFRP. O ther a g e n c i e s , th e second g ro u p , p a r t i c i p a t e d in th e c o o p e r a t i v e s e t t i n g o f program g o a l s and s u p p lie d d a t a f o r program develo pm ent. The f o r e s t r e s o u r c e u s e r s or p u b l i c s p a r t i c i p a t e d in d e v e lo p in g f o r e s t r e s o u r c e i s s u e s to be a d d r e s s e d by th e SFRP, and in d e v e lo p in g and s e l e c t i n g a program to be recommended t o th e N a t u r a l R eso u rces Commission. P rim ary change a g e n t s f o r th e SFRP have been th e C h ief F o r e s t e r ( P r o j e c t C h i e f ) , th e A s s i s t a n t C h ief f o r N a t u r a l R eso urces Development ( P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r ) , and th e P la n n in g A n a ly s t ( P r o j e c t C o o rd in a to r) and t h e P la n n in g U n it L eader from th e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n ; and P r o f e s s o r o f F o r e s t Economics ( P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r ) and g r a d u a te a s s i s t a n t ( P r o j e c t C o o r d in a to r ) from th e M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y of F o r e s t r y D epartm ent. In a d d i t i o n , a p r i v a t e c o n s u l t a n t in p u b li c involvem ent a s s i s t e d in th e SFRP d u rin g 1980 and p a r t o f 1981. 75 Type o f I n n o v a tio n D e c is io n The in n o v a tio n d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s f o r th e SFRP i s n o t e n t i r e l y a u t h o r ­ ita tiv e . The C h ief F o r e s t e r a n d , to some e x t e n t , th e DNR D i r e c t o r made a u t h o r i t a t i v e d e c i s i o n s t o ado pt th e SFRP p r o c e s s . F u l l a d o p t io n , however, i s c o n t i n g e n t upon i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n s which a r e somewhat o p tio n a l. The C h ief F o r e s t e r does have th e power to f o r c e I n d i v i d u a l a d o p tio n b u t t h i s would i n s u r e o n ly b e h a v i o r a l , and n o t a t t i t u d i n a l , a d o p tio n . In a d d i t i o n , f u l l a d o p tio n o f th e SFRP i s d ep endent on i n d i ­ v i d u a l a d o p tio n to be f u l l y co m p reh en siv e. The Environment of th e F o r e s t Management D iv i s i o n As d is c u s s e d in C h ap ter 3, v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of an a g e n c y 's e n v ir o n ­ ment i n f l u e n c e i t s a d o p tio n o f an i n n o v a t i o n . The env iro nm ent of th e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n i s d i s c u s s e d below i n l i g h t o f th e s e f a c t o r s . N atu re of th e p e r c e iv e d p erfo rm an ce gap. F e l l e r and Menzel (1977) n o te t h a t in s t a t e and l o c a l a g e n c ie s th e s o u r c e s o f th e perform ance gaps a r e r a r e l y d e s c r i b e d . P u b lic a g e n c ie s may be i n s u l a t e d from demands f o r e f f i c i e n c y , and c i t i z e n s and agency p e r s o n n e l th e m se lv e s have th e in fo r m a tio n t o ju d g e e f f i c i e n c y . mayn o t I t i s th e e x i s t e n c e o f t h i s s i t u a t i o n t h a t h as been i d e n t i f i e d by th e M ichigan DNR, F o r e s t Manage­ ment D i v is i o n a s one need f o r a s t a t e w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p l a n . N e ith e r t h e agency nor t h e p u b l i c had a mechanism t o m easure agency p e rfo rm a n c e , b u t th e agency p e r c e iv e d a need f o r one. Responses t o th e i n t e r v i e w s i n d i c a t e t h a t th e p rim ary perform ance m easure was t h a t r e l e v a n t to m a n a g e r ia l o b j e c t i v e s . The p o t e n t i a l p erform ance gaps w ith r e s p e c t to s e c u r i n g fu n d in g o f D iv i s i o n program s 76 and s e r v i n g as l e a d e r s o f f o r e s t r y p o l i c y in th e s t a t e would be narrowed w ith a s t a t e w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p la n . Supply o f i n n o v a t i o n s . The s u p p ly o f a l t e r n a t i v e s to e x i s t i n g agency p r a c t i c e s was f a i r l y l a r g e . In th e p a s t decade sy stem s such a s Program P la n n in g and B udgeting (PPB) and Zero Based B ud geting (ZBB) had been dev elop ed and ad o p ted in many f e d e r a l and some s t a t e a g e n c i e s . These s erv ed a s e a r l y m odels o f com prehensive program e v a l u a t i o n . Most n o t a b l y , th e f e d e r a l r e s o u r c e s P la n n in g Act p r o c e s s was i n i t i a t e d in th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e i n 1974. The RPA a s a p la n n in g model had been a v a i l a b l e to f o r e s t r e s o u r c e managers s i n c e t h a t tim e . I t s b a s i c com­ p o n e n ts of an a s se s sm e n t o f a l l f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s and a program which s e t g o a ls f o r th e p r o v i s i o n of t h e s e r e s o u r c e s formed a b a s i s f o r th e SFRP. M ichigan a l s o fo llo w e d th e RPA p r o c e s s in i n c o r p o r a t i n g e x t e n s iv e p u b l i c involvem ent in d e t e r m in in g d e s i r a b l e p ack ag es o f agency program s and th e i s s u e s t h a t sh o u ld be c o n s id e r e d by th e p r o c e s s . Two of th e r e s p o n s e s to th e i n t e r v i e w s of SFRP p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e p a s ­ sag e o f th e R eso u rces P la n n in g Act was an im p o rta n t e x t e r n a l i n f l u e n c e on t h e developm ent of th e SFRP. A g e n c y -e x e c u tiv e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . P r e s s u r e from th e e x e c u t iv e b ran ch o f t h e agency t o re d u c e c o s t s and Improve p r o d u c t i v i t y may p r o v id e an i n c e n t i v e f o r t h e agency to s e a r c h f o r i n n o v a t i o n s . P r e s s u r e from th e Departm ent o f N a t u r a l R esou rces D i r e c t o r ' s O f f i c e was n o t m entioned in th e i n t e r v i e w s a s p r e s e n t i n g a need f o r a s t a t e w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p lan . DNR D i r e c t o r T a n n e r 's l e t t e r ^ i n t r o d u c i n g th e SFRP t o DNR Bureau —^March 8, 1978 Memo from Howard A. Tanner t o A ll DNR Bureau and D i v is io n C h i e f s . 77 and D iv i s i o n C h ie f s d i d , however, c i t e th e need f o r n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e program s to d e m o n s tra te c o s t e f f e c t i v e n e s s f o r f e d e r a l - s t a t e c o s t s h a r ­ in g f u n d in g . While p r e s s u r e from th e D i r e c t o r ' s o f f i c e may h o t have been an i n f l u e n c e on t h e i n c e p t i o n o f th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P l a n , D i r e c t o r T a n n e r 's s u p p o rt o f t h e p la n was m entioned in one i n t e r ­ view a s b e in g v e ry im p o r t a n t. A c tiv itie s of s u p p lie r s . One o f t h e m is s io n s o f th e S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y Branch o f th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e i s t o su p p ly s t a t e f o r e s t management a g e n c ie s w ith t e c h n i c a l and f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . As p a r t o f t h i s m is s io n S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y h a s been a c t i v e in prom o ting s t a t e w i d e p l a n n i n g . As w e ll a s s u p p ly in g in fo r m a tio n on t h i s in n o v a tio n th ro u g h r e g i o n a l w orkshops, such a s th e one h e ld a t M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y in A p r i l , 1978, S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y h a s been p r o v id in g g r a n t s and p e r s o n a l t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e to s t a t e s engaged in s t a t e w i d e p l a n n i n g . In t h i s r o l e t h e y have been i n t e n s i v e m a r k e te rs o f th e in n o v a t i o n , which h a s l i k e l y had an i n f l u e n c e on th e s p e c i f i c t e c h n iq u e s of s ta t e w id e p l a n n in g a d o p te d , as w e ll a s th e e x t e n t of ad o p tio n . The s u p p o rt o f t h e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e s N o r th e a s t e r n S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y Branch was c i t e d a s b e in g im p o rta n t in f o u r o f th e i n t e r v i e w s . The amount and ty p e o f a s s i s t a n c e th e U .S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e s u p p li e d was n o t t h e same th ro u g h o u t t h e SFRP p r o c e s s . S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y s u p p li e d more t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e and d i r e c t i o n in t h e Assessm ent p hase th a n in th e Program p hase due t o t h e i r h a v in g r e l a t i v e l y more e x p e r ie n c e w ith a sse ssm e n t developm ent th a n program develo pm en t. The I n f lu e n c e o f t h e S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y Branch on th e Program phase 78 was a l s o red u ced by th e a c q u i s i t i o n of a d d i t i o n a l SFRP fu n d in g from th e W ashington O f f ic e of th e U .S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e . I t became a p p a re n t t o th e SFRP P r o j e c t C h ief and D i r e c t o r s t h a t t h e a s s i s t a n c e a v a i l a b l e from S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y would n o t be s u f f i c i e n t to s u p p o rt th e l e v e l and ty p e o f a n a l y s i s t h a t M ichigan r e q u i r e d in i t s program phase. The SFRP P r o j e c t C h ief and D i r e c t o r s , t h u s , s e n t a p r o p o s a l to th e W ashington O f f i c e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e Area P la n n in g s t a f f f o r a d d i t i o n a l f u n d in g . The p r o p o s a l was a c c e p te d . T h is a d d i t i o n a l fund­ in g allo w ed th e SFRP team to u se more a n a l y t i c a l e x p e r t i s e i n d e v e lo p ­ ment o f th e Recommended Program and i t redu ced p r e s s u r e from th e S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y Branch which had been recommending a l e s s r i g o r o u s a n a ly sis. R eso u rces a v a i l a b l e . As m entioned above th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e 's , S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y Branch and th e W ashington O f f ic e gave f i n a n ­ c i a l a s s i s t a n c e to th e DNR's F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n f o r s ta te w id e f o r e s t re so u rc e s p lan n in g . T h is a s s i s t a n c e p ro v id e d f o r some o f th e a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e D i v i s i o n ' s p la n n in g s t a f f a s w e ll as a llo w in g th e D i v is io n to c o n t r a c t f o r th e s t a f f o f o u t s i d e a n a l y s t s and c o n s u l t a n t s . The number o f c o n t r a c t e d s t a f f ran g ed from one to f i v e p e o p le , depending upon t h e needs d u r in g v a r i o u s s t a g e s o f t h e p r o c e s s . A ll f i v e i n t e r ­ view s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h i s o u t s i d e s t a f f was c r i t i c a l i n d e v e lo p in g th e P l a n . The D i v i s i o n s t a f f would n o t have been a d e q u a te due t o con­ s t r a i n t s on t h e i r tim e and t h e i r commitments t o o t h e r D i v i s i o n f u n c t i o n s . In as much a s U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e fu n d in g made p o s s i b l e th e c o n t r a c t i n g f o r o u t s i d e s t a f f , th e n t h e i r r e s o u r c e s were a l s o c r i t i c a l in th e p r o ­ cess . 79 There h as a l s o been a c o r r e l a t i o n n o te d between th e r e l a t i v e a f f l u ­ ence o f th e agency ( F e l l e r and M enzel, 1977) o r o f t h e s t a t e 1973) and in n o v a tio n a d o p tio n . (Gray, Gray n o t e s t h a t M ichigan ran ked n i n t h among a l l s t a t e s on a s c a l e o f " i n n o v a t i v e n e s s " w ith r e s p e c t to th e a d o p tio n o f e d u c a t i o n , c i v i l r i g h t s , and w e l f a r e law s. t h a t t h i s c o r r e l a t e s w ith M ic h ig a n 's r e l a t i v e w e a lth . She i n d i c a t e s As d is c u s s e d in C h apter 3 t h e r e i s d is a g re e m e n t over th e im po rtan ce o f r e g i o n a l , s t a t e o r p o l i c y a r e a i n f l u e n c e on th e i n n o v a t i v e n e s s o f a s t a t e ag en cy . The Upper Midwest, how ever, h a s been found to be p a r t i c u l a r l y i n n o v a tiv e ( F o s t e r , 1978) and M ichig an, in p a r t i c u l a r , h a s been found to be con­ s i s t e n t l y in n o v a tiv e over tim e (Savage, 1978). In a s tu d y o f s t a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s by p o l i c y a r e a , M ichigan was rank ed second o f a l l s t a t e s in o u t s t a n d i n g programs in th e a r e a of la n d r e s o u r c e s . T h e re , t h e r e ­ f o r e , seems to be some e v id e n c e t h a t th e f a c t t h a t th e p r o c e s s was t a k i n g p l a c e in M ichigan was i n f l u e n t i a l in d e v e lo p in g and im plem enting t h i s n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s in n o v a tio n . Knowledge i n f r a s t r u c t u r e . The elem en t of knowledge i n f r a s t r u c t u r e In c lu d e s b o th th e knowledge b a s e and th e netw ork f o r in fo r m a tio n d i s ­ s e m in a tio n . The e x i s t e n c e o f many p r i v a t e and p u b l i c a s s o c i a t i o n s i s c o n d u c tiv e t o r a p i d d i f f u s i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s . I t i s l i k e l y t h a t F o r e s t Management D iv i s io n p e r s o n n e l 's a c t i v e t i e s w ith th e S o c ie ty o f American F o r e s t e r s , th e A s s o c i a t i o n o f S t a t e F o r e s t e r s , and w ith t h e M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , U n i v e r s i t y o f M ichi­ gan and M ichigan T e c h n o lo g ic a l U n i v e r s i t y com m unities were and a r e co nducive to th e d i f f u s i o n of SFRP in M ichigan. The im p ortan ce o f th e D i v i s i o n ' s t i e s to th e academic community was m entioned in fo u r of 80 th e i n t e r v i e w s w ith th e p r i n c i p a l s in v o lv e d i n t h e P l a n . The knowledge i n f r a s t r u c t u r e e x i s t i n g in t h e p u b l i c en v iro n m en t i s l e s s d e v e lo p e d . S e v e r a l p u b l i c i n t e r e s t g r o u p s , most p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e M ichigan U n ite d C o n s e r v a tio n C lu b s , do s e r v e a s s o u r c e s o f in fo rm a ­ t i o n t o i n d i v i d u a l s I n t e r e s t e d i n n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e management in M ic h i­ gan. E a r l y i n t h e SFRP p r o c e s s t h e West M ichigan E n v iro n m e n ta l A c tio n C o a l i t i o n was a c t i v e i n d i s s e m i n a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R e s o u rc e s P l a n . Due t o c o n d i t i o n s i n t e r n a l t o t h e C o a l i t i o n , h ow ever, t h e i r a c t i v i t y in t h i s a r e a ended l a t e i n 1978. Where th e knowledge i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i s l e s s d e v e lo p e d , t h e r o l e o f o p i n i o n l e a d e r s i s t h a t much more im p o r ta n t ( F e l l e r and M enzel, 1977). What h a s been l a b e l e d " l o c a l m e d ia ," i . e . , sp eak ers a t lo c a l p o l i ­ t i c a l and s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t group m e e tin g s a r e a l s o a p o w e rfu l s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n on i n n o v a t i o n s f o r members o f t h e p u b l i c (L in and B u r t , 1975). I n te r g o v e r n m e n t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . O th er g o v e rn m e n ta l a g e n c i e s may i n f l u e n c e a d o p t io n th ro u g h p a s s i n g l e g i s l a t i o n r e q u i r i n g p erfo rm a n c e s t a n d a r d s o r th ro u g h a l l o c a t i n g fu n d s to a g e n c i e s f o r s p e c i f i c p ro g ram s. As m en tion ed e a r l i e r , t h e a d o p t i o n o f th e RPA p r o c e s s by t h e f e d e r a l governm ent d i d l e a d t o fu n d in g f o r s t a t e ag en cy p l a n n i n g . In fo rm a lly , t h e U .S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e a l s o p r o v id e s l e a d e r s h i p f o r o t h e r f o r e s t r e ­ s o u rc e management a g e n c i e s . The need t o c o o r d i n a t e i n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l f o r e s t r e s o u r c e a c t i v i ­ t i e s was c i t e d a s a p e r c e i v e d need f o r t h e SFRP i n t h r e e o f t h e i n t e r ­ v ie w s . I t was a l s o m en tio n ed t h a t o t h e r a g e n c i e s i n t h e S t a t e had e x p r e s s e d a need f o r t h i s c o o r d i n a t i o n . 81 C i t i z e n demands. F e l l e r and M e n z e l's (1977) c o n c lu s io n t h a t p u b li c u s e r s of agency goods and s e r v i c e s a r e seldom d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n t i a l i n th e a d o p tio n o f in n o v a t io n s by s t a t e a g e n c ie s i s b o rn e o u t by t h e i n t e r v i e w s of SFRP p r i n c i p a l s . No i n t e r v i e w d i r e c t l y m entioned p u b l i c p r e s s u r e f o r com prehensive f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p la n n in g i n t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e need f o r a s ta t e w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p l a n . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c o m p le x ity , r e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e , t r i a l a b i l i t y , o b s e r v a b i l i t y and c o n fo rm ity were d ete rm in e d from a s u rv ey of a l l mem­ b e r s o f t h e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n and th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s in M ichigan who had b een in v o lv e d in th e SFRP to d a t e . For th e p u rp o s e s o f b r e v i t y , t h i s group w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s th e "agency t a r g e t group" in t h e d i s c u s s i o n f o llo w i n g . T h is group was q u e s tio n e d a s to t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e SFRP and t h e i r o p in io n s a s t o th e o p in io n s of how members o f th e p u b l i c p e r c e iv e d t h e s e same c h a r a c ­ te ris tic s. The su rv ey methods and r e s u l t s a r e d e t a i l e d in Appendix B. R e la tiv e a d v an tag e. The SFRP i s c l e a r l y p e r c e iv e d a s o f f e r i n g a r e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e o v e r c u r r e n t a g e n c y ( ie s ) p r o c e d u re s by t h e agency t a r g e t g ro u p . N i n e t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f th e group th o u g h t t h e i r r e s o u r c e management jo b would be b e t t e r w ith a SFRP. T h is s u g g e s ts t h a t e f f o r t s t o prom ote SFRP a s an improvement f o r agency p e r s o n n e l a s w e ll a s f o r t h e p u b l i c have been s u c c e s s f u l . F u tu re d i f f u s i o n s t r a t e g i e s sh o u ld ta k e a d v a n ta g e o f t h i s p e r c e p t i o n . The SFRP i s a l s o th o u g h t t o be p e r c e iv e d by th e p u b l i c as 82 ad v an tag eo u s to f o r e s t management, a lth o u g h n o t as s t r o n g l y as i s p e r ­ c e iv e d by th e agency g ro u p . S t r a t e g i e s aimed a t th e p u b l i c t a r g e t group m ig h t, t h e r e f o r e , be d e s ig n e d to s t r e n g t h e n and improve th e p u b l i c ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f r e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e . C o n fo rm ity . The c o m p a t i b i l i t y of th e SFRP w ith th e norms and v a l u e s o f f o r e s t r e s o u r c e management was ranked v e ry h ig h by th e agency t a r g e t g ro u p . T h is i s somewhat s u r p r i s i n g in l i g h t o f r e s e a r c h done on th e in n o v a t i v e n e s s of th e f o r e s t r y p r o f e s s i o n . From h i s s tu d y of f o r e s t r y r e s e a r c h and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n in th e U n ited S t a t e s S c h i f f (1966) c o n c lu d e s t h a t f o r e s t e r s ' v a lu e o r i e n t a t i o n toward change was t h a t i t sh o u ld be g r a d u a l and n o t u p s e t th e c o n t i n u i t y o r b a la n c e o f a sy stem . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t th e agency p e r s o n n e l surveyed d id n o t p e r c e i v e th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esources P la n as p ro d u c in g m ajor changes in t h e i r o rg a n iz a tio n or t h e i r jo b s. Whether o r n o t t h i s m ajor change w i l l o c c u r as a r e s u l t of t h e SFRP can n o t y e t be d e te r m in e d . I f m ajor change does r e s u l t , how ever, t h e r e i s l i k e l y to be a c o n f l i c t between p e r c e p t i o n s b e f o r e and a f t e r im p le m e n ta tio n of th e P la n . T h is would be a s i g n i f i ­ c a n t s o u rce o f r e s i s t a n c e in im p lem en tatio n o f th e P la n . The r e s p o n d e n ts d id t h i n k , however, t h a t th e p u b l i c might p e r c e iv e th e SFRP a s conform ing l e s s to i t s v a l u e s of f o r e s t management. It was n o te d t h a t t h i s m ight be due to a p e r c e p t i o n on th e p a r t o f some of th e p u b l i c t h a t th e SFRP was to o " b ig governm ent" o r i n t r u s i v e in p riv a te in te r e s ts . I t may n o t be p o s s i b l e to r e s o l v e t h i s t r a d e - o f f between p e r c e iv e d improvement in f o r e s t management th ro u g h compre­ h e n s iv e p l a n n in g f o r a l l a g e n c ie s and o w nersh ips v e r s u s p e r c e iv e d i n t r u s i o n in p r i v a t e a f f a i r s . D i f f u s i o n s t r a t e g i e s s h o u ld , however, 83 s t r i v e to c l a r i f y th e impact o f th e SFRP on p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s and th e r o l e o f p r i v a t e o w n ersh ip s in th e SFRP p r o c e s s . D i s p e l l i n g some u n c e r ­ t a i n t y a s to t h e i n t r u s i v e n e s s of t h e SFRP m ight improve some p u b l i c ' s p e r c e p t i o n of i t s c o m p a t i b i l i t y . C o m p lex ity . The SFRP i s p e r c e iv e d a s v a r y in g from v e ry e a s y to somewhat d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e r s ta n d and u s e by t h e agency t a r g e t g rou p. Many o f th e group p e r c e iv e d t h e SFRP a s somewhat complex, i . e . , d i f f i ­ c u l t t o u se and u n d e r s t a n d , a lth o u g h j u s t a s many p e r c e iv e d i t a s v e ry o r somewhat easy t o u se and u n d e r s t a n d . T h is s u g g e s t s t h a t no s i n g l e ap p ro ach can be u sed in th e d i f f u s i o n s t r a t e g y aimed a t t h e agency g ro u p . The SFRP i s , how ever, th o u g h t to be d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e p u b l i c to u n d e r s ta n d and to p a r t i c i p a t e i n . T his o p in io n of th e SFRP agency p a r t i c i p a n t s s u g g e s ts t h a t a d i f f u s i o n s t r a t e g y f o r th e p u b l i c t a r g e t group be d e s ig n e d to overcome t h i s b a r r i e r . T ria la b ility . Most o f t h e agency t a r g e t group th o u g h t i t would be somewhat d i f f i c u l t to implement th e SFRP on a t r i a l b a s i s . They th o u g h t t h a t th e p u b l i c p e r c e i v e s t h a t i t would be s l i g h t l y e a s i e r , but s t i l l d i f f i c u l t . Because o f th e com prehensive n a t u r e o f th e SFRP, i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t th e SFRP c o u ld be implemented on a t r i a l b a s i s o r a s a p i l o t program in M ichigan. Comprehensive f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p l a n ­ n in g (RPA) h a s been implemented a t th e f e d e r a l l e v e l and i s b e in g im ple­ mented in o t h e r s t a t e s . The SFRP co n cep t i s th u s u n d e rg o in g s e v e r a l tria ls. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t th o s e in v o lv e d in th e s e e f f o r t s can l e a r n from 84 each o t h e r , th o s e f a r t h e r in th e p r o c e s s s e r v i n g a s d e m o n s tr a tio n p r o ­ je c ts fo r o th e rs. In t h i s r e s p e c t M ichigan i s a t a d is a d v a n ta g e s in c e i t i s one o f th e e a r l i e s t s t a t e s to adopt s ta t e w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p la n n i n g . The RPA p r o c e s s was a l s o l i m i t e d a s a d e m o n s tr a tio n f o r M ichigan due t o th e manner in which i t was d e v e lo p e d . The RPA's 1975 Assessm ent and 1975 Program were done s im u lta n e o u s ly and by s e p a r a t e s ta ffs. M ichigan d e s i r e d to com pile i t s A ssessm ent f i r s t such t h a t t h i s i n f o r m a tio n c o u ld be u sed in th e Recommended Program . M ichigan a l s o re c o g n iz e d th e b e n e f i t s o f u s in g th e same c o re of s t a f f th ro u g h ­ o u t th e p r o c e s s to g iv e th e SFRP c o n t i n u i t y and c o n s i s t e n c y (which was somewhat l a c k in g in th e 1975 RPA). O b se rv a b ility . The r e s u l t s o f th e SFRP a r e a n t i c i p a t e d to be somewhat d i f f i c u l t t o see in th e s h o r t term by th e agency group and in t h e i r o p in io n o f th e p u b l i c ' s p e r c e p t i o n . Although t h e n a t u r e of th e SFRP d i c t a t e s t h a t many o f i t s r e s u l t s w i l l be r a t h e r lo ng term in n a t u r e , t h e r e a r e s h o r t - t e r m r e s u l t s which c o u ld be s t r e s s e d . A d i f f u s i o n s t r a t e g y f o r th e SFRP co u ld in c lu d e some em phasis on th e s h o r t r u n b e n e f i t s o f a lm o st im m ediate in c r e a s e d F o r e s t Management D i v i ­ s io n i n t e r a c t i o n w ith o t h e r a g e n c ie s and th e p u b li c a s w e ll a s e a r l y , l a r g e g a in s in th e i n f o r m a t io n a v a i l a b l e to a g e n c ie s and th e p u b l i c ab ou t M ic h ig a n 's f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s and F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n ' s r o l e in p r o v id in g them. 85 C r i t i q u e o f th e S t r a t e g i e s Used in th e D i f f u s i o n o f M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esou rces P lan Approach D i f f u s i o n s t r a t e g i e s f o r th e SFRP based upon th e s t a g e s o f th e i n n o v a tio n d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s , th e a d o p te r environm ent and c h a r a c t e r i s ­ t i c s , th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e i n n o v a t i o n , and th e n a t u r e o f th e d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d in t h i s s e c t i o n . T h is d i s c u s s i o n w i l l r e l y on g e n e r a l t h e o r i e s of i n n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n and on f i n d i n g s from r e s e a r c h on in n o v a tio n s in p u b l i c b u r e a u c r a c i e s d i s c u s s e d in C hapter 3. D i s c u s s io n of s t r a t e g i e s f o r each s t a g e w i l l c r i t i q u e work a l r e a d y done in th e SFRP p r o c e s s and s u g g e s t s t r a t e g i e s f o r f u t u r e work. T a b le s in Appendix D o u t l i n e s p e c i f i c com munication s t r a t e g i e s t h a t would be e f f e c t i v e f o r each s t a g e in th e in n o v a tio n p r o c e s s . Also c o n ta in e d in Appendix A i s an o u t l i n e of SFRP p u b l ic in v o lv em en t. O v e r a ll D i f f u s i o n S t r a t e g y Throughout th e p r o c e s s o f d e v e lo p in g th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esou rces P la n , a f a c i l i t a t i v e s t r a t e g y in co m b in atio n w ith o t h e r s t r a t e g i e s was used to d i f f u s e th e in n o v a tio n w i t h i n th e D i v i s i o n . As i n d i c a t e d by t h e i n t e r v i e w s , th e f o u r p r i n c i p a l s in t h e D i v is i o n p e r c e iv e d a need f o r th e in n o v a tio n and had a s t r o n g commitment to i t s a d o p tio n . The D i v i s i o n , however, d id n o t have s u f f i c i e n t r e s o u r c e s n o r some of th e t e c h n i c a l s k i l l s r e q u i r e d to ad o p t th e i n n o v a t i o n . A fa c ilita tiv e s t r a t e g y was, t h u s , v e ry a p p r o p r i a t e f o r work w i t h i n th e D i v i s i o n . No power s t r a t e g i e s h a d , o f t h i s w r i t i n g , been used in th e d i f f u ­ s io n of th e SFRP. Power s t r a t e g i e s were i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r th e p u b l i c change t a r g e t group s i n c e l i t t l e power i s a v a i l a b l e to b r i n g to b e a r on t h i s t a r g e t . Power s t r a t e g i e s were a l s o n o t l i k e l y t o be n e c e s s a r y 86 w ith t h e D i v i s i o n group s in c e t h e r e was some commitment to and p e r c e iv e d need f o r t h e i n n o v a t i o n , tim e r e q u i r e m e n ts a r e n o t s h o r t te rm , and th e o b je c tiv e s of t h e i n n o v a t i o n were f o r more th a n s im p ly b e h a v i o r ch a n g e . DNR D i r e c t o r Tanner f o r m a l ly r e q u e s t e d t h e c o o p e r a t i o n A lthough o f o t h e r d i v i s i o n s , t h e r e was no p r e s s u r e from t h a t o f f i c e t o e n s u r e co m p lia n c e w ith h i s r e q u e s t . A member o f h i s o f f i c e was g iv e n r e s p o n s i ­ b i l i t y f o r c o o r d i n a t i n g th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n of th e DNR d i v i s i o n s in th e SFRP. T h is f o r m a l , e x e c u t i v e , l e v e l s u p e r v i s i o n ended e a r l y i n th e SFRP p r o c e s s , how ever, upon th e r e s i g n a t i o n o f th e s t a f f member from t h e DNR. Because o f t h e SFRP t e a m 's need f o r d e t a i l e d in f o r m a t i o n in c o m p i l a t i o n o f t h e A s s e s s m e n t, and l a t e r th e Recommended P ro gram , power s t r a t e g i e s used in c o n n e c tio n w ith o t h e r d i v i s i o n s would n o t have been a p p r o p r i a t e . Power s t r a t e g i e s would p o t e n t i a l l y have c r e a t e d to o much c o n f l i c t and h in d e r e d t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f i n f o r m a t io n flo w s betw een t h e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n and t h e c o o p e r a t i n g d i v i s i o n s . S t r a t e g i e s f o r t h e I n n o v a t io n D e c is io n S ta g e s I t i s im p o r ta n t t o u se d i f f u s i o n t h e s t a g e s i n th e s t r a t e g i e s which a r e s u i t e d to i n n o v a t io n d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . R e s i s t a n c e to any in n o ­ v a t i o n by some o r a l l o f th e members o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n s h o u ld be a n t i ­ c i p a t e d i n each s t a g e . The s t r a t e g i e s which w i l l b e s t overcome t h i s r e s i s t a n c e in any p a r t i c u l a r s t a g e a r e th o s e which a r e b a s e d upon (1) an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l en v iro n m e n t a t t h e same tim e , (2) t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n most im p o r ta n t to p o t e n t i a l u s e r s in t h a t s t a g e and (3) t h e r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e i n n o v a t io n team . The S t a t e w i d e F o r e s t R e s o u rc e s P la n i s an i n n o v a t i o n t h a t d e v e lo p e d a s i t was b e i n g im plem ented . The s t a g e s i n i t s i n n o v a t i o n d e c i s i o n 87 p r o c e s s a r e , t h u s , n o t d i s c r e t e b u t can be i d e n t i f i e d a s c o v e rin g ap p ro x ­ im ate p e r i o d s o f tim e . Knowledge S tage The knowledge s ta g e o f th e SFRP began when members o f th e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n and th e MSU F o r e s t r y Departm ent f i r s t became aware o f s t a t e w i d e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p la n n in g sometime p r i o r to l a t e 1977. T h is s t a g e was c o n c e n t r a te d in th e p r e - p l a n n i n g and e a r l y assessm en t p h a s e s o f t h e SFRP, a p p ro x im a te ly from J a n u a ry 1978 to mid 1978 ( r e f e r to F ig u re 2.1 and T able 2 . 2 ) . During t h i s p e r io d th e SFRP was a c t i v e l y in fo rm in g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members, o t h e r a g e n c ie s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and th e p u b l i c o f i t s p l a n s to d ev elo p M ic h ig a n ’s S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n . Because in t h e knowledge s t a g e p eo p le a r e b e in g In tro d u c e d to th e i n n o v a t i o n , how e a sy i t i s to communicate ab o u t th e in n o v a tio n w i l l be i n f l u e n t i a l . Two key a s p e c t s o f t h i s a r e t h e co m m u n icab ility o f th e in n o v a tio n and th e com munication o r knowledge i n f r a s t r u c t u r e o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and i t s e x t e r n a l en v iro n m e n t. O pinion l e a d e r s a s a c h an n el f o r i n f o r m a tio n a r e im p o rta n t i f t h e knowledge i n f r a s ­ t r u c t u r e i s p o o r ly d e v e lo p e d . The t a s k o f s p re a d in g knowledge o f an in n o v a t i o n , t h u s , sh o u ld b e g in w ith i d e n t i f y i n g th e communication i n ­ f r a s t r u c t u r e a n d , where n e c e s s a r y , th e o p in io n l e a d e r s in a system . Agency t a r g e t g r o u p . Members o f t h e Departm ent of N a tu r a l R esources were n o t i f i e d o f th e b e g in n in g o f th e SFRP p r o c e s s th ro u g h form al chan­ n e ls. D i r e c t o r Tanner n o t i f i e d DNR Bureau and D iv i s io n C h ie f s v i a a memo which a l s o asked f o r t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n in th e SFRP. A m eeting 88 of a l l DNR D i v i s i o n C h ie fs was th e n h e ld in A p r i l of 1978 to d i s c u s s p l a n s f o r th e SFRP. In a d d i t i o n to t h e s e form al com m unications, members o f th e SFRP team met w ith members o f each D i v is i o n which had been i d e n t i f i e d as b e in g n e c e s s a r y s o u r c e s o f in fo r m a tio n f o r c o m p ila tio n o f th e A s se s s ­ ment . In a d d i t i o n to d e v e lo p in g c o n t a c t s f o r i n f o r m a tio n to th e SFRP team , t h e s e in fo rm a l m e e tin g s a l s o s erv ed to d i s s e m in a t e knowledge ab o u t th e SFRP in o t h e r d i v i s i o n s . T h is s e t of c o n t a c t s was used th ro u g h ­ o u t th e Assessm ent ph ase o f th e SFRP and became known a s th e "T echn i­ c a l A d viso ry Group" (Group 4, T able 2 . 1 ) . In most c a s e s , t h e d i v i s i o n s s e l e c t e d who in t h e i r s t a f f would be c o n t a c t s f o r th e SFRP. These c o n t a c t s s e rv e d a s o p in io n l e a d e r s f o r th e SFRP in t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e d i v i s i o n s . The s e l f - a p p o i n t i n g of th e s e c o n t a c t s was p r o b a b ly a b e t t e r s t r a t e g y t h a n i f th e SFRP team had s e l e c t e d c o n t a c t s b ased s o l e l y on t h e i r ju d g m en t. O pinion l e a d e r s a r e n o t alw ays th o s e who h o ld p o s i t i o n s of a u t h o r i t y o r who c o n t r o l t h e form al com m unications o f a system . The SFRP team used a co m b in atio n of f a c i l i t a t i v e and r e e d u c a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s in t h i s p h a s e . The form er was a p p r o p r i a t e f o r work w i t h in th e D i v i s i o n g iv e n t h a t t h e r e was some p e r c e iv e d need f o r and commit­ ment to th e in n o v a tio n w it h in th e D i v i s i o n e s p e c i a l l y s in c e th e D iv is io n C h ie f was v e ry s t r o n g l y and v i s i b l y s u p p o r ti n g th e SFRP. There was, however, a low p e r c e iv e d need f o r and commitment to th e in n o v a tio n w i t h i n th e o t h e r D i v i s i o n s . In a d d i t i o n , th e r e l a t i v e l y long tim e p e r i o d , two y e a r s , allo w ed f o r co m p le tio n of th e p la n i n d i c a t e s t h a t p e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s were n o t i n i t i a l l y needed. P u b lic t a r g e t g r o u p . In d i f f u s i n g knowledge ab o u t th e SFRP to th e p u b l i c , th e team d id i d e n t i f y o p in io n l e a d e r s a s t a r g e t s of th e e a r l i e s t in f o r m a tio n d i s s e m i n a t i o n p h a s e s . A lthough n o t l a b e l e d " o p in ­ ion l e a d e r s , " key p e o p le w i t h i n o t h e r p u b l i c a g e n c ie s and in p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and u s e r groups were i d e n t i f i e d . Members o f t h i s " P u b lic A dvisory Group" (Group 6, T able 2 .1 ) were s e n t i n fo r m a tio n on th e SFRP and were ask ed f o r t h e i r c o n t i n u i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e p r o c e s s . The group was a l s o p e r i o d i c a l l y g iv e n feed b ack and p r o g r e s s r e p o r t s . T h is s t r a t e g y was sound b u t was l a c k in g in one r e s p e c t . It is p o s s i b l e t h a t v a lu a b l e o p in io n l e a d e r s in th e p u b li c t a r g e t group were m issed s i n c e th e SFRP team i d e n t i f i e d th e o p in io n l e a d e r s based on th e ir c o lle c tiv e p ercep tio n . C r e a ti n g th e o p p o r tu n i t y f o r o t h e r o p in io n l e a d e r s to i d e n t i f y th em selv es would a l s o have been u s e f u l . An a d d i ­ t i o n a l s t r a t e g y which used mass media might have re a c h e d th e s e a d d i t i o n ­ a l o p in io n l e a d e r s . Use o f th e I n fo r m a tio n and E d u c a tio n D iv is io n o f th e DNR to d is s e m in a te announcem ents to th e g e n e r a l and s p e c i a l i z e d n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s p r e s s would have been e f f e c t i v e . The s o u rce of th e s e m essages co u ld have been th e same as t h a t f o r th e p e r s o n a l com m unications i . e . , th e C h ief F o r e s t e r and th e DNR D i r e c t o r . R e s u l t s o f t h e i n t e r v i e w s i n d i c a t e d t h a t none o f th e p r i n c i p a l s th o u g h t t h a t th e p u b l i c involvem ent done e a r l y in th e p r o c e s s , d u rin g th e a s s e s s m e n t p h a s e , was c r u c i a l in i t s develo pm en t. One p r i n c i p a l d id t h i n k th e p u b li c involvem ent was h e l p f u l in t h i s s t a g e . The d e v e l ­ opment o f an a s s e s s m e n t of M ic h ig a n 's f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s was, however, used to c r e a t e an aw aren ess among some o f th e p u b l i c s of th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P l a n . Because t h e A ssessm ent was l i k e l y t o be of i n t e r e s t to many p u b l i c groups and i n d i v i d u a l s th e p u b l i c i t y g e n e r a te d 90 by th e team c o n c e rn in g th e development and p u b l i c a t i o n of th e A s s e s s ­ ment was an e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g y to c r e a t e aw areness and knowledge o f t h e SFRP. P e r s u a s io n Stage The p e r s u a s io n s ta g e in th e SFRP began toward th e e a r l y p a r t of t h e a s se s sm e n t p h a s e , m id - 1978, and c o n tin u e d th ro u g h th e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f " D r a ft A l t e r n a t i v e P ro g ra m s ," e a r l y 1980 ( r e f e r to F ig u re 2,1 and T able 2 , 2 ) . Those who were asked to p a r t i c i p a t e in th e SFRP were form ing t h e i r a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e SFRP a s th e y review ed e a r l y p r o d u c ts of th e A sse ssm e n t, such a s th e " D r a ft O u t l i n e , " and in th e c a s e o f th e T e c h n ic a l A d v is o r s , a s th e y worked w ith team members in c o m p ilin g d a ta f o r th e A s se s sm e n t. Because th e Assessm ent was a r e l a t i v e l y i n c o n t r o ­ v e r t i b l e p a r t o f th e SFRP, p a r t i c i p a n t s were s t i l l l i k e l y to be form ing o p in io n s of t h e SFRP w e ll i n t o th e c o n t r o v e r s i a l program p h a s e . » I n t e r p e r s o n a l com m unication i s th o u g h t t o be most im p o rta n t in t h e fo rm a tio n of o p in io n s toward an i n n o v a t i o n . The use o f mass media i s , t h u s , r e l a t i v e l y i n e f f e c t i v e a s a s t r a t e g y in th e p e r s u a s io n s t a g e . O pinion l e a d e r s , on th e o t h e r hand, can be v e ry i n f l u e n t i a l and u s e f u l i n d i f f u s i o n s t r a t e g i e s in t h i s s t a g e . The p e r c e iv e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e i n n o v a tio n a r e a l s o v e ry im p o rta n t in th e p e r s u a s i o n s t a g e . As a p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r forms an o p in io n of t h e i n n o v a tio n he o r she " t r i e s on f o r s i z e " th e in n o v a ti o n . How f a v o r a b ly th e i n n o v a t i o n 's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e p e r c e iv e d d u r in g t h i s t r i a l w i l l i n f l u e n c e th e p o t e n t i a l a d o p t e r 's o p i n i o n . 91 Agency t a r g e t g r o u p . Survey r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t agency members had g e n e r a l l y f a v o r a b l e p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e a t t r i b u t e s o f c o m p a t i b i l i t y and r e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e . T h e ir somewhat u n f a v o r a b le p e r c e p t i o n s o f c o m p le x ity , o b s e r v a b i l i t y and t r i a l i b i l l t y s u g g e s t s t h a t e a r l y work in t h e knowledge s t a g e and in th e p e r s u a s i o n s t a g e might have fo cu sed on making t h e SFRP l e s s d i f f i c u l t to u n d e r s ta n d and to p a r t i c i p a t e in . S e v e r a l r e s p o n d e n ts a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e lo n g - te r m n a t u r e o f t h e r e s u l t s o f th e SFRP s h o u ld have been s t r e s s e d s i n c e s h o r t - t e r m r e s u l t s were p e r c e i v e d a s b e in g d i f f i c u l t t o o b s e rv e . D i v i s i o n and agency o p in io n l e a d e r s c o u ld have co n d u cted p e rso n t o p e rs o n c o n t a c t s w ith t h e i r " f o l l o w e r s " to r e l a t e t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s , u n d e r s ta n d in g o f , and a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e SFRP. M eeting s between t h e SFRP team and th e T e c h n ic a l A d v iso rs a s a group d id o ccu r r e l a t i v e l y f r e q u e n t l y e a r l y i n th e p r o c e s s . The SFRP team , how ever, had l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e on what t h e t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s communicated to t h e i r D i v i s i o n s . The M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t s (Group 2 c, T ab le 2 .1 ) who com piled in f o r m a tio n f o r t h e Assessm ent had f r e q u e n t c o n t a c t s w ith t h e T e c h n ic a l A d v is o r s . T h e ir r o l e In d i f f u s i n g i n f o r m a tio n about t h e SFRP w as, t h e r e f o r e , a l a r g e o n e. a t l e a s t one i n s t a n c e . T his had a n e g a t i v e e f f e c t in The W i l d l i f e D i v i s i o n e x p r e s s e d t h e i r d i s s a t ­ i s f a c t i o n w ith s t u d e n t s p e r s e p a r t i c i p a t i n g in th e A s se s sm e n t. Any d i s t i n c t i o n betw een u n d e r g r a d u a te s and d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t s d id n o t ap p ear to be m e a n in g fu l t o W i l d l i f e D i v i s i o n t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s . More e a r l y p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t betw een t h e SFRP team d i r e c t o r s and T e c h n ic a l A d v is o r s , u s in g a more p e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g y m ight have a l e v i a t e d t h i s s itu a tio n . One s o u rc e o f i n f l u e n c e w i t h i n th e D i v i s i o n , u n f o r t u n a t e l y , co u ld 92 n o t be used in th e d i f f u s i o n o f th e SFRP. The A s s i s t a n t D iv is io n C h ief f o r A d m i n i s t r a ti o n was n o t a s u p p o r t e r of th e SFRP t e a m 's e f f o r t s . From p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n , t h i s s t a f f member i s a s tr o n g o p in io n l e a d e r w i t h i n th e D i v i s i o n , f o r b o th s t a f f and f i e l d p e r s o n n e l . A lthough th e A s s i s t a n t C h ief f o r A d m i n i s t r a ti o n had no form al a u t h o r i t y over th e te a m 's a c t i v i t i e s h i s s u p p o rt o f th e p r o c e s s would l i k e l y have been e f f e c t i v e in c r e a t i n g p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward and commitment to th e SFRP among o t h e r members of th e D i v i s i o n . P u b lic t a r g e t g r o u p . used i n t h i s s t a g e . R e - e d u c a tiv e s t r a t e g i e s were a p p r o p r i a t e l y One p u b l i c s e c t o r o p in io n l e a d e r , th e West M ichi­ gan E nv iron m ental A c tio n C o a l i t i o n , i n i t i a l l y s e rv e d a s a s o u rc e f o r i n t e r p e r s o n a l com m unication f o r th e p u b l ic change t a r g e t g ro u p . In th e p r e - p l a n n i n g p h a s e , two workshops were h e ld on f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p la n n i n g , i n c l u d i n g SFRP, w ith p lann ed sm all group and p e r s o n - t o - p e r s o n i n t e r a c t i o n (se e F ig u re 2 . 1 ) . An e x t e n s i o n o f t h i s c h an n el u s in g o t h e r , s i m i l a r , s o u rc e s would a l s o have been u s e f u l . Members o f th e s e groups can s e r v e a s l o c a l m edia, more e f f e c t i v e l y g a i n i n g s u p p o rt f o r an in n o v a tio n th a n can agency members. E d u c a tiv e workshops h e ld by o p in io n l e a d e r s a l s o meet r e q u ire m e n ts n o te d by o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s . R eg io nal workshops i n c r e a s e th e a s s e s s a - b i l i t y o f th e in n o v a tio n and red u ce th e o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t s of l e a r n i n g abo u t and u s in g i t ( K o tle r and Zaltm an, 1971). The u se o f d i f f e r e n t o p in io n l e a d e r s a s workshop l e a d e r s f o r segmented p u b l i c s i s a l s o recommended. I t i s n o t a b l e t h a t s e v e r a l su rv e y r e s p o n d e n ts remarked t h a t th e y re c o g n iz e d a segmented m arket f o r th e i n n o v a t io n . The p u b l i c i s n o t a s i n g l e body b u t c o n s i s t s o f v a r i o u s p u b l i c s , each o f which 93 may have d i f f e r i n g p e r c e p t i o n s of th e i n n o v a ti o n . These workshops might a l s o c r e a t e im p o rta n t s h a re d p e r c e p t i o n s c o n c e rn in g th e need f o r chan ge, th e p l a n s f o r change and th e con seq uen ces o f change. The F o r e s t Management D iv is io n used p u b l i c u s e r and i n t e r e s t groups l a t e r in th e p r o c e s s in th e developm ent of f o r e s t r e s o u r c e i s s u e s . These i s s u e s w i l l be a major fo cu s o f th e Recommended P rogram . The i s s u e s form at c o u ld have been used e a r l i e r in s t r e s s i n g th e r e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e o f th e SFRP and in im proving p e r c e p t i o n s of o b s e r v a b i l i t y and c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f th e SFRP. T h is r e e d u c a t i v e s t r a t e g y would use i s s u e development a s a way to d i s c u s s , in more d e p th th a n was done, SFRP's a d v a n ta g e s in h e l p i n g s t a t e w id e f o r e s t management a d d r e s s i s s u e s and i t s c o m p a t i b i l i t y w ith th e v a lu e s of f o r e s t r e s o u r c e management. The lo n g -te r m n a t u r e o f th e r e s u l t s of SFRP sh o u ld a l s o have been s t r e s s e d , so a s n o t to c r e a t e u n w arran ted e x p e c t a t i o n s o f o b s e rv a b le sh o rt-te rm r e s u l t s . A renewed e f f o r t in th e developm ent of th e i s s u e s which to o k p l a c e in th e f a l l o f 1980 i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h i s i s an e f f e c ­ t i v e s t r a t e g y in a r o u s i n g i n t e r e s t in and s u p p o rt f o r t h e SFRP p r o ­ cess . D e c is io n Stage In th e d e c i s i o n s ta g e a p o t e n t i a l a d o p te r d e c id e s w h ether o r n o t to u s e , in t h i s ca se a c c e p t and s u p p o r t , an i n n o v a t io n . In th e in n o ­ v a t i o n d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s f o r th e SFRP some p o t e n t i a l u s e r s d e c id e d very e a r l y in th e p r o c e s s t h a t th ey would o r would n o t s u p p o rt th e SFRP. I t i s l i k e l y t h a t many p o t e n t i a l a d o p te r s w a ite d to make a d e c i s io n u n t i l some o f th e r e s u l t s of th e program phase were a v a i l a b l e ( e a r l y 1980, see F ig u re 2 . 1 ) . A c t u a l l y th e e n t i r e SFRP i t s e l f cannot 94 be a c c e p te d o r r e j e c t e d u n t i l th e f i n a l Recommended Program i s p r e s e n t e d . There w i l l be some p e o p l e , however, who made t h e i r d e c i s i o n s b e f o r e th e SFRP was com p leted . The p e r c e p t i o n s of and th e a c t u a l t r i a l a b i l i t y of an in n o v a tio n a r e t h e most im p o rta n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in t h i s s t a g e . The a b i l i t y and o p p o r t u n i t y to u se an in n o v a tio n on a t r i a l b a s i s r e d u c e s th e u n c e r t a i n t y of r i s k s and c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w ith a d o p tio n o f th e in n o v a­ t i o n by g i v i n g th e p o t e n t i a l a d o p te r in f o r m a tio n a s to t h e l i k e l y outcome o f t h e i r a d o p t i o n . S t r a t e g i e s which c o n c e n t r a t e on making th e r e s u l t s o f a d o p tin g an in n o v a tio n c l e a r t o th e p o t e n t i a l a d o p te r a r e v e ry u s e f u l in th e d e c i s i o n s t a g e . The p e r c e i v e d d i f f i c u l t y , a s i n d i c a t e d by su rv ey r e s u l t s , o f im plem enting th e SFRP on a t r i a l b a s i s i s l i k e l y t o be a b a r r i e r to a d o p tio n by b o th t a r g e t g ro u p s. Agency t a r g e t g r o u p . A form o f v i c a r i o u s t r i a l o f t h e SFRP was a v a i l a b l e th ro u g h o b s e r v in g o t h e r com prehensive f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p l a n s a t th e f e d e r a l l e v e l and in o t h e r s t a t e s . s e v e r a l members o f th e SFRP team. T h is in f a c t was done by M eetings o f s t a t e f o r e s t management p l a n n e r s sp o n so red by th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , S t a t e and P r i v a t e For­ e s t r y p r o b a b ly se rv e d t h i s f u n c t i o n f o r some o f th e agency t a r g e t groups (See F ig u re 2 . 1 , P r e - P l a n n i n g ) . Mechanisms f o r t r i a l ru n s f o r most o f th e agency t a r g e t group a r e , how ever, l i m i t e d . V ariou s I n d i v i d u a l s have e x p r e s s e d a l a r g e l y unmet need t o see what th e SFRP would " lo o k l i k e . " Because t h i s was new p r o c e s s and e x p e r ie n c e f o r a l l in v o lv e d , what th e SFRP w i l l " lo o k l i k e " i s r e l a t i v e l y i n d e te r m in ­ a t e u n t i l th e p r o c e s s h a s been c o m p le te ly im plem ented. In d ic a tin g 95 th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e 's RPA p r o c e s s o r o t h e r s t a t e s ' p r o c e s s e s a s models o f what th e SFRP would lo o k l i k e would r e s t r i c t th e f l e x i b i l i t y o f th e SFRP p r o c e s s . M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n ev o lv ed a s i t was b e in g im plem ented. e a r l y 1978. The b a s i c model f o r th e p l a n was dev elo p ed in The s t r u c t u r e o f th e p la n and th e s t e p s c o n s id e re d n e c e s ­ s a r y f o r i t s im p le m e n ta tio n changed o v er th e t h r e e - y e a r p r o c e s s . T h is f l e x i b i l i t y was im p o rta n t to th e D iv i s i o n and in f a c t was a c t i v e l y d efended a g a i n s t p r e s s u r e s from th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e , N o r t h e a s t e r n S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y Branch. The c o n t i n u i n g e v o l u t i o n o f th e SFRP, however, made i t d i f f i c u l t t o communicate what t h e p r o c e s s was and what would com prise th e Program p hase o f th e P la n . T h is became a m ajor problem when a p u b l i c rev iew of " D r a f t Program A l t e r n a t i v e s " was co n d u cted in March o f 1980 ( r e f e r t o F ig u re 2.1 " D r a ft A l t e r n a t i v e P ro g ra m s "). C r itic is m receiv ed as a r e s u l t o f t h i s re v ie w was one r e a s o n p l a n s f o r th e Recommended Program were e s s e n t i a l l y p o stp o n ed a y e a r . The D iv i s i o n d e c id e d to c o n c e n t r a t e e f f o r t s on th e d i s c u s s i o n o f f o r e s t r e s o u r c e i s s u e s and p o l i c y o p tio n s i n re s p o n s e to th e i s s u e s d u r in g th e rem a in d e r o f 1980. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h i s problem need n o t have become a s g r e a t as i t d id . From p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n , t h e r e was a r e l u c t a n c e o f th e D i v i s i o n ' s c h i e f and p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r o f th e SFRP t o s p e c i f y th e s t r u c ­ t u r e and c o n t e n t s o f t h e P rogram . T h is was accompanied by th e a t t e m p t s o f o t h e r SFRP team members t o p e r i o d i c a l l y d e f i n e and r e d e f i n e th e s e same a s p e c t s . Some r e lin q u i s h m e n t o f f l e x i b i l i t y f o r p r o c e s s d e f i n i ­ t i o n m ight have been d e s i r a b l e in t h i s c a s e . The SFRP was t r i a l a b l e in a tem p o ra l s e n s e . Change t a r g e t s were 96 in t r o d u c e d to th e i n n o v a t io n in a g r a d u a l f a s h i o n . T h e ir p a r t i c i p a ­ t i o n i n t h e p r o c e s s was f i r s t i n v i t e d th ro u g h t h e c o m p i l a t i o n and d i s ­ t r i b u t i o n o f t h e F o r e s t R e so u rc e s A s s e s s m e n t. The a s s e s s m e n t phase of t h e SFRP was p r o b a b ly much e a s i e r t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n , s i n c e i t was b e tte r d efin e d , th a n was th e s u b s e q u e n t program p h a s e . I f th e t a r g e t 's e x p e r i e n c e w ith th e A ssessm ent was a f a v o r a b l e o n e , i t c o u ld s e r v e a s a u s e f u l t r i a l o r p r e - t e s t o f th e SFRP p r o c e s s a s a w ho le. The a s s e s s m e n t phase t h u s s e rv e d a s an a p p r o p r i a t e r e - e d u c a t i v e s t r a t e g y tow ard l a t e r a d o p t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e SFRP p r o c e s s . P u b li c t a r g e t g ro u p . The d i f f i c u l t y o f com m unicating th e SFRP m entioned above p r o b a b ly a l s o i n f l u e n c e d i n d i v i d u a l members o f t h e p u b l i c in t h e i r d e c i s i o n w h eth er o r n o t S ta te w id e F o r e s t R e s o u rc e s P la n n in g p r o c e s s . t o s u p p o r t , i . e . , a d o p t th e Some i n d i v i d u a l s d id have knowledge o f t h e f e d e r a l RPA p r o c e s s and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s tow ard i t were l i k e l y t o have i n f l u e n c e d t h e i r d e c i s i o n a b o u t t h e SFRP. One p o s s i b l e means o f g i v i n g t h e change t a r g e t s a view o f what SFRP would mean r e c e n t l y became a v a i l a b l e . The f i l m , " C h o i c e s ," p r o ­ duced by t h e N a tu re C onservancy f o r th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , shows s e v e r a l view s o f co m p reh en siv e p l a n n in g and o f v a r i o u s p l a n s o r p r o c e s s e s in th e U.S.A. Showing o f t h i s f i l m c o u ld a t l e a s t g iv e members o f th e p u b lic a concept of s im ila r p lan n in g p ro c e s s e s . D e m o n s tra tio n s o f t h i s ty p e m ight s u b s t i t u t e f o r an a c t u a l t r i a l r u n o f th e SFRP. As w ith t h e agency g ro u p , e x p e r i e n c e s in th e a s s e s s m e n t p h ase formed a b a s i s f o r members o f th e p u b l i c ' s a t t i t u d e tow ard t h e p la n a s a w h o le. 97 Communication S tage When an i n n o v a tio n i s d ecid ed to be ad op ted a s a r e s u l t o f an a u t h o r i t y d e c i s i o n , t h i s d e c i s i o n must be communicated to th e r e s t o f th e o r g a n i z a t i o n . Because th e SFRP was an in n o v a tio n t h a t dev elo ped a s i t was im plem ented, th e com m unication s t a g e a s such was n o t p r e s e n t . As p h a s e s o f th e in n o v a tio n d ev elo p ed and were com pleted t h e r e was communication w i t h i n th e DNR (agency t a r g e t g r o u p ) , and w ith m ajor d ev elo p m en ts, w ith th e p u b l i c ( t a r g e t g r o u p ). The i n t e r v i e w s of th e SFRP p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d t h a t p u b l ic in v o lv e ­ m ent, which i n c lu d e s involvem ent w ith o t h e r d i v i s i o n s and a g e n c i e s , was i n f l u e n t i a l in th e program phase o f t h e p r o c e s s . Communications between th e SFRP team and th e t a r g e t g roups in f l u e n c e d th e s t r u c t u r e , c o n t e n t and em phasis o f th e Recommended Program p r e s e n t e d in l a t e 1980 (See F ig u re 2 . 1 ) , "Recommended P ro g ram "). The r e s u l t s o f th e p u b l i c rev iew o f " A l t e r n a t i v e Program s" in March, 1980, which l e d to th e p r o ­ d u c t i o n of a r e p o r t on i s s u e s and p o l i c y o p t i o n s , and of th e p u b l i c workshop on th e d r a f t Recommended Program in F e b r u a ry , 1981, which recommended a d d i t i o n s to and r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f th e document, were major i n f l u e n c e s on th e form and s t r u c t u r e of th e i n n o v a t i o n . C o n firm a tio n S tage In th e c o n f i r m a t io n s t a g e , an a d o p te r goes th ro u g h a p r o c e s s of r e c o n c i l i n g h i s o r h e r p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e i n n o v a tio n w ith m essages from v a r i o u s s o u rc e s a b o u t th e in n o v a t i o n . I f th e a d o p t e r s ' p e r c e p ­ t i o n s d i f f e r s u f f i c i e n t l y from t h e s o u r c e ' s m essag es, c o g n i t i v e d i s s o n ­ ance o c c u r s . To remove t h i s d i s s o n a n c e , th e a d o p te r w i l l e i t h e r d is c o n ­ t i n u e u se of th e i n n o v a t i o n , o r f i l t e r o u t o r r a t i o n a l i z e c o n f l i c t i n g 98 m essages o r b o t h . I t I s , t h e r e f o r e , im p o rta n t t h a t a d o p t e r s ' p e rc e p ­ t i o n s of th e in n o v a tio n a r e s u p p o rte d in t h i s s t a g e . S t r a t e g i e s f o r b o th t a r g e t groups sh o u ld be e s s e n t i a l l y th e same in t h i s s t a g e . P r e v e n tio n of m is c o n c e p tio n s develop ed in e a r l i e r s ta g e s i s one s t r a t e g y which a v e r t s d i s c o n t i n u a n c e . S t r e s s i n g th e p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s o f th e i n n o v a t i o n , such a s improvement in goods and s e r v i c e s s u p p l i e d , i s a l s o an e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g y in th e c o n f ir m a tio n s t a g e . There m ight be a ten d en cy w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n to d e c r e a s e d i f ­ f u s i o n e f f o r t s once th e SFRP i s e s s e n t i a l l y c o m p le te , I . e . , when th e Recommended Program h as been p r e s e n t e d to th e p u b l i c and th e N a tu r a l R eso urces Commission. I t i s im p o r t a n t , however, to a c t i v e l y f o s t e r any s u p p o rt o f and p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward th e SFRP g e n e r a te d in e a r l i e r phases. S tro n g a d v o c a te s o f t h e in n o v a tio n agency and in th e p u b l i c s can s e r v e th e p u rp o se of c o n t i n u i n g r e in f o r c e m e n t of th e adop­ tio n d e c isio n . C o n tin u in g p r o g r e s s r e p o r t s and news r e l e a s e s can s e rv e a s i m i l a r f u n c t i o n t o remind a d o p t e r s o f th e b e n e f i t s o f th e SFRP and to m a in ta in th e v i s i b i l i t y of th e r e s u l t s o f t h e i r e f f o r t s in p a r t i ­ c i p a t i o n in th e i n n o v a t i o n . T h is c o n t i n u i n g i n fo r m a tio n feedb ack of p erform ance to th e t a r g e t g rou ps I s e s p e c i a l l y b e n e f i c i a l (Huse, 1975). F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n p l a n s f o r SFRP news r e l e a s e s sh o u ld n o t be n e g l e c t e d a t t h i s s t a g e . I f e f f o r t s in p r e v i o u s s t a g e s dev elop ed commitment to th e innova­ t i o n , and th e r e s o u r c e s needed to s u s t a i n th e i n n o v a t i o n , th e change a g e n t s ' e f f o r t s a t t h i s s ta g e can be l a r g e l y f a c i l i t a t i v e . P e r s u a s iv e s t r a t e g i e s a r e a p p r o p r i a t e i f t h e r e a r e i n d i v i d u a l s whose s u p p o rt i s e s s e n t i a l b u t who a r e r e s i s t i n g th e in n o v a ti o n . Power s t r a t e g i e s can a l s o be used to overcome r e s i s t a n c e in t h i s s t a g e . P r e s s u r e on th e 99 individual or group to support the innovation must* however, continue as long as their support is required. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s in th e D i f f u s i o n o f M ic h ig a n ’ s S ta te w id e F o r e s t R e s o u rc e s P la n O rg an izatio n al S tru c tu re The F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n i s a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e b u r e a u c r a c y . As o f t h i s w r i t i n g t h e D i v i s i o n had t e n s t a f f s e c t i o n s , each s u p e r v is e d by a s e c t i o n l e a d e r and one o f t h e two A s s i s t a n t C h ie f F o r e s t e r s . F ie ld p e r s o n n e l c o n s i s t e d o f t h r e e r e g i o n a l m anagers who s u p e r v i s e d th e p e r ­ s o n n e l on t h e s i x s t a t e f o r e s t s in th e n o r t h e r n t w o - t h i r d s o f Michigan* and t h e D i v i s i o n ' s f i e l d a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e s o u th e r n o n e - t h i r d o f th e s ta te ( r e f e r to F ig u r e 2 . 4 ) . The d e s ig n o f i n n o v a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s f o r p u b l i c b u r e a u c r a c i e s must r e c o g n i z e t h e p a r t i c u l a r b a r r i e r s to change t h a t e x i s t in such o r g a n i ­ z a tio n s. B u r e a u c r a c i e s have been a c c u s e d o f b e in g l e s s i n n o v a ti v e th an p r iv a te o r g a n iz a tio n s . The e m p i r i c a l e v id e n c e com paring in n o v a ­ t i v e n e s s i n p u b l i c v e r s u s p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s , how ever, i n c o n c l u ­ s i v e (R o e s s n e r, 1977). As d i s c u s s e d in C h a p te r 3, t h e r i g i d i t y o f th e o p e r a t i o n s , conform ­ i t y to fo rm al r u l e s and p r o c e d u r e s and l a c k o f s u r p l u s r e s o u r c e s a r e c i t e d a s b a r r i e r s t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l I n n o v a t io n . T h is i s th o u g h t to be e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n b u r e a u c r a c i e s (Hoffman and A r c h i b a l d , 1968; H ayes, 1 9 7 2). The d i s c u s s i o n which f o llo w s d e s c r i b e s th e u s e o f t h r e e s t r a t e g i e s by th e SFRP team which o t h e r r e s e a r c h h a s been shown t o be e f f e c t i v e in p u b l i c b u r e a u c r a c i e s . 100 Top L e v el S upport The p r e s e n c e o f s t r o n g a d v o c a te s o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n in t h e b u r e a u c ­ r a c y may be a d e te r m in i n g f a c t o r in th e a d o p tio n o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n . T h is adv ocacy i s e s p e c i a l l y i m p o rta n t i f i t s s o u rc e i s t h e c h i e f e x e c u ­ t i v e of th e agency. The C h ie f o f t h e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n was a s tr o n g a d v o c a te o f t h e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R e s o u rc e s P l a n . He was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r b r i n g i n g t h e i d e a s o f a SFRP t o th e ag en cy and f o r s e c u r i n g t h e ag re e m e n ts n e c e s ­ s a r y f o r i t s d e v e lo p m e n t. In a d d i t i o n , th r o u g h o u t t h e SFRP p r o c e s s he spoke to p u b l i c and DNR g ro u p s c o n c e r n in g t h e need f o r t h e P la n and i t s m e r i t s . A l l i n t e r v i e w s o f t h e SFRP p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e D i v i s i o n C h i e f ' s s u p p o r t was e s p e c i a l l y i m p o r t a n t . The im p o rta n c e o f t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e e x e c u t i v e l e v e l o f t h e DNR and t h e W ashington o f f i c e o f th e U .S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e was a l s o c i t e d in t h e i n t e r v i e w s . T h is s u p p o r t was c u l t i v a t e d by th e e f f o r t s of t h e D i v i s i o n C h ie f and t h e P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r from M.S.U. They and t h e D i v i s i o n P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r were a l s o r e s p o n s i b l e f o r g a i n i n g t h e su p p o rt o f o th e r n a t u r a l re so u rc e a g e n c ie s , p r iv a te o r g a n iz a tio n s and t h e f o r e s t r y academ ic community. T h is e x t e r n a l s u p p o rt was th o u g h t t o be i n f l u e n t i a l by a l l o f th e p r i n c i p a l s i n t e r v i e w e d , a l t h o u g h n o t a l l m en tio n ed e a c h s o u r c e . The M.S.U. P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r ' s a c t i v e s u p p o r t o f and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e SFRP was i n d i c a t e d a s b e i n g im p o rta n t o r c r i t i c a l by t h r e e o f th e p r i n c i p a l s in te rv ie w e d . As w e l l a s h i s own e x p e r t i s e , h i s Inv olvem en t made p o s s i b l e t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f s t u d e n t s , s p e c i a l i s t s and e x p e r t s from M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and from c o n s u l t a n t s . 101 Use o f a S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esou rces P la n n in g Team From A p r i l 1978 to March 1981 th e F o r e s t Management D iv is io n used a SFRP team to d ev elo p th e p la n n in g p r o c e s s and prod uce th e A s s e s s ­ ment , t h e Recommended Program and i n t e r i m p r o d u c t s . As d i s c u s s e d in C h ap ter 3, a team ap p ro ach to in n o v a tio n i s th o u g h t to be e s p e c i a l l y e ffe c tiv e . I t combines a v a r i e t y of p e r s p e c t i v e s on p r o j e c t s and f o s t e r s exchange o f id e a s and com m unication in th e e a r l y in n o v a tio n s t a g e s where t h i s i s im p o r ta n t . The p r o c e s s of w orking t o g e t h e r as a team c a u s e s t h e s e p e r s p e c t i v e s e v e n t u a l l y to be s h a re d as w e ll a s c r e a t i n g common g o a ls f o r th e in n o v a tio n p r o c e s s . e n tia te th e ir stru c tu re . Teams, t h u s , d i f f e r ­ They a r e r e l a t i v e l y complex and in fo rm al in t h e i r e a r l y s t a g e s and s h a r e p e r s p e c t i v e s and become more form al in t h e i r l a t e r s t a g e s . Logs k e p t o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f th e SFRP team i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n d id o c c u r . In th e e a r l y s t a g e s of th e a sse s sm e n t phase and of th e program p h ase t h e r e was c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c u s s i o n of and d i s ­ agreem ent o v er ap p ro a c h e s to th e SFRP p r o c e s s . was b u i l t i n t o th e team . P a r t o f t h i s co m p lexity In th e i n i t i a l s t a g e s o f th e a s se s sm e n t phase and , l a t e r , th e program phase a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y s t s were added t o th e team. These a n a l y s t s w ere, how ever, n o t in v o lv ed in th e f i n a l s ta g e s o f d r a f t i n g and r e v i s i n g th e Assessm ent and th e Recommended Program . By exp an din g and c o n t r a c t i n g th e SFRP team th e p r o c e s s was allow ed t o be complex and in fo rm a l o r s i m p l i f i e d and form al where n e c e s s a r y . The c o n t i n u i t y of t h e e f f o r t s o f th e team were c o n t r o l l e d by th e p r o ­ j e c t d i r e c t o r s and th e p r o j e c t c o o r d i n a t o r s . 102 O u ts id e Aid The ab sen ce o f s l a c k r e s o u r c e s i s o f t e n a b a r r i e r to o r g a n i z a t i o n a l in n o v a t i o n . The im p ortance of th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e 's N o r t h e a s t e r n S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y Branch and W ashington O f f ic e i n p r o v id in g f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e f o r th e SFRP was c i t e d in f o u r o f th e i n t e r v i e w s . A l l f i v e o f th e i n t e r v i e w s s t a t e d t h a t t h e o u t s i d e t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e and e x p e r t i s e p ro v id e d by M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and p r i v a t e c o n s u l t a n t s was c r i t i c a l in th e developm ent of th e SFRP. The c o n s t r a i n t s o f tim e and la c k o f s p e c i f i c e x p e r t i s e were c i t e d in th e i n t e r v i e w s a s r e a s o n s o u t s i d e a i d was c r i t i c a l . One i n t e r v i e w a l s o m entioned t h a t p u b l i c a c c e p ta n c e o f th e SFRP might be in c r e a s e d as a r e s u l t o f t h i s o u t s i d e in v o lv em en t. O th er r e s e a r c h e r s m ention t h a t o u t s i d e c o n s u l t a n t s s e r v e to d e ­ c r e a s e th e p e r c e iv e d r i s k o f in n o v a tio n by agency members. O u tsid e a i d may r e s u l t in p e r c e p t i o n s o f s h a re d r i s k o r in c r e a s e d chances o f s u c c e s s g iv en th e a d d i t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s . P e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t , in a d d i t i o n , o u t s i d e team members may be more e f f e c t i v e in g a t h e r i n g in f o r m a tio n from o t h e r a g e n c i e s whose c o o p e r a ti o n w ith t h e s p o n s o r in g agency i s r e q u i r e d . T h is o u t s i d e member m ust, however, be p e r c e iv e d a s b e in g com petent and t r u s t w o r th y by th o s e c o n t a c t e d . The u se o f o u t s i d e a i d o r c o n s u l t a n t s i s a f r e q u e n t l y used f a c i l ita tiv e s tra te g y . I f , how ever, t h e a b i l i t y of t h e agency o r o r g a n i ­ z a t i o n to s u s t a i n th e i n n o v a tio n h a s n o t been d eveloped d u r in g th e p r o c e s s th e In n o v a tio n may be d is c o n t i n u e d when th e o u t s i d e a i d i s w ithdraw n. m al. As o f t h i s tim e , o u t s i d e a i d in th e SFRP p r o c e s s i s m in i­ The F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n i s d e v e lo p in g th e Recommended 103 Program to p r e s e n t to th e N a tu r a l R eso urces Commission, th e Michigan F o r e s t r y P la n n in g and Development Committee, and to th e p u b l i c . F u tu re developm ents a r e , t h e r e f o r e , r e q u i r e d t o .d e t e r m i n e w h ether o r n o t th e D iv is io n h a s d ev elo p ed th e c a p a c i t y to s u s t a i n th e use o f th e S t a t e ­ wide F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n . CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary The F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n of th e M ichigan Departm ent of N a tu r ­ a l R eso u rces h a s been im plem enting a s ta t e w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p la n s in c e e a r l y 1978. M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esources P lan (SFRP) i s s i m i l a r to th e RPA p r o c e s s used by th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e . The SFRP has two p h a s e s , an a s se s sm e n t of M ic h ig a n 's f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s and a program recommending d i r e c t i o n s f o r f o r e s t management in th e s t a t e . The SFRP d i f f e r s from th e RPA p l a n n in g in t h a t i t s a s se s sm e n t and p ro ­ gram were done s e q u e n t i a l l y and by th e same team o f p eo p le th r o u g h o u t. The SFRP a l s o g iv e s a l a r g e r r o l e to f o r e s t r e s o u r c e i s s u e s th a n d id th e 1975 o r 1980 RPA Program . The SFRP program , w h ile sp on so red by t h e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n , recommends p o l i c y d i r e c t i o n s f o r a l l f o r e s t management in th e s t a t e , p u b li c and p r i v a t e . M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esou rces P la n as a t h r e e y e a r ca se s tu d y o f in n o v a tio n in an o r g a n i z a t i o n was th e s u b j e c t o f t h i s d i s s e r ­ ta tio n . The g o a l s o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n w ere: (1) to p r o v id e a documented c a s e s tu d y o f a s t a t e w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p la n n in g p r o c e s s and (2) to i l l u s t r a t e th e u s e f u l n e s s o f I n n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n th e o ry a p p l i e d to t h i s p la n n i n g . The f i r s t g o a l was met by docum enting th e h i s t o r y o f M ic h ig a n 's 104 105 SFRP in C h ap ter Two. T his d o cu m en tatio n in c lu d e d a d e s c r i p t i o n of th e p la n o f work f o r th e SFRP p r o c e s s , th e key p a r t i c i p a n t s in the SFRP, and th e m ajor a c t i v i t i e s u n d e rta k e n in i t s developm ent and im ple­ m e n ta tio n . The h i s t o r y was w r i t t e n from lo g books k e p t by th e a u th o r from A p r i l 1978 to March 1981. The lo g s in c lu d e d i n t e r d e p a r t m e n t a l and i n t e r d i v i s i o n a l memoranda, m a t e r i a l s d i s t r i b u t e d to p a r t i c i p a n t s and p a r t i c i p a n t s ' re v ie w s of th e v a r i o u s p r o d u c ts o f th e p r o c e s s . The second g o a l was met th ro u g h th e developm ent o f a framework f o r th e a n a l y s i s of in n o v a tio n a d o p tio n in an o r g a n i z a t i o n in C hapter T h re e , and th e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s framework in an a n a l y s i s of th e SFRP p r o c e s s in C h ap ter F o ur. The framework f o r a n a l y s i s was based upon a l i t e r a t u r e rev iew o f e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s o f in n o v a tio n in o rg an ­ i z a t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y p u b l i c a g e n c i e s , and of th e t h e o r y o f i n n o v a tio n a d o p tio n . itio n , T h is rev iew i n d i c a t e d t h a t : (1) th e p r o c e s s o f problem d e f i n ­ (2) th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of th e key p a r t i c i p a n t s in i n n o v a tio n d iffu sio n , (3) th e s t a g e s in th e in n o v a tio n p r o c e s s th ro u g h which an i n d i v i d u a l o r o r g a n i z a t i o n goes and (A) th e ty p e o f in n o v a tio n d e c i s io n a r e im p o rta n t in a n a l y z in g th e a d o p tio n of an in n o v a tio n in an o r g a n i ­ z a tio n . The f a c t o r s in an o r g a n i z a t i o n 's env iro nm ent which in f l u e n c e w hether o r n o t an o r g a n i z a t i o n a d o p ts an in n o v a tio n and th e r a t e o f i t s a d o p tio n were a l s o examined in C hap ter T h re e . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e in n o ­ v a t i o n i t s e l f which a l s o i n f l u e n c e th e a d o p tio n d e c i s i o n and r a t e of a d o p tio n were d e s c r i b e d . C h ap ter T hree con clud ed w ith : (1) an i d e n t i ­ f i c a t i o n and d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e b a s i c ty p e s o f s t r a t e g i e s used in th e d iff u s io n of in n o v atio n s, (2) th e im p ortance o f u s in g s t r a t e g i e s which a r e a p p r o p r i a t e to each in n o v a tio n p r o c e s s s t a g e , and (3) some key 106 s t r a t e g i e s which have been found to be e f f e c t i v e in o r g a n i z a t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y p u b li c a g e n c i e s . P e r s o n a l l o g s , SFRP r e c o r d s , i n t e r v i e w s w ith th e f i v e o t h e r p r i n ­ c i p a l s in th e p r o c e s s , and a s u rv ey of DNR and U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e p a r t i c i p a n t s in th e SFRP were used a s m a t e r i a l f o r th e a n a l y s i s c o n t a i n ­ ed in C h ap ter F our. The n a t u r e o f th e problem , th e key p a r t i c i p a n t s in th e SFRP p r o c e s s and th e ty p e o f in n o v a tio n d e c i s i o n were d is c u s s e d in th e b e g in n in g s e c t i o n s o f th e c h a p t e r . T h is was follo w ed by d e s c r i p t i o n s of th e i n f l u e n t i a l f a c t o r s in th e environm ent of th e F o r e s t Management D i v i ­ s io n and t h e i r i n f l u e n c e on th e d i f f u s i o n of th e SFRP. The r e s u l t s o f a su rv ey of th e p e r c e iv e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e SFRP by th o s e d i r e c t l y in v o lv ed in th e p r o c e s s in th e DNR and th e U.S. F o r e s t S e rv ic e were th e n p r e s e n t e d . The f i n d i n g s of t h i s s tu d y a s to th e n a t u r e o f th e problem , th e key p a r t i c i p a n t s , th e ty p e o f i n n o v a tio n d e c i s i o n , th e environm ent o f th e D iv is i o n and th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e SFRP were th e n used to c r i t i q u e th e s t r a t e g i e s used to d i f f u s e t h e SFRP w i t h i n th e DNR and to a t t a i n p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e p r o c e s s . These f in d i n g s a l s o s u g g e s te d t h a t th e s e v e r a l key o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s found e f f e c t i v e in o t h e r p u b l i c a g e n c ie s were used in th e SFRP p r o c e s s . Chap­ t e r Four was co n clu d ed w ith a d i s c u s s i o n o f th e use o f t h e s e s t r a t e g i e s in th e SFRP p r o c e s s . 107 C o n clu sio n s The Environm ent of th e F o r e s t Management D iv is io n The environm ent o f th e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n was v ery condu­ c iv e to th e a d o p tio n o f th e SFRP ( r e f e r to T able 5 . 1 ) . A v a r i e t y of DNR and F o r e s t Management D iv is i o n S t a f f p e r c e iv e d t h a t t h e r e was a p erform ance gap between e x i s t i n g and d e s i r e d d i v i s i o n a l p erfo rm an ce. The SFRP was seen a s b e in g a b le to c l o s e t h e s e p erform an ce gaps and meet th e needs f o r program c o o r d i n a t io n and improved D iv i s i o n p e r f o r ­ mance . There were a l s o a c t i v e s u p p o r t e r s o f th e SFRP o u t s i d e th e o r g a n i ­ zatio n . The U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , N o r th e a s t e r n S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y Branch a c t e d a s a s u p p l i e r of th e in n o v a tio n in some r e s p e c t s . They p ro v id e d some t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e in s t a t e w i d e p la n n in g , a lth o u g h th e a s s i s t a n c e th e y c o u ld supply in th e l a t e r , program p h a s e , was lim ­ ite d . More im p o r ta n tly th e N o r t h e a s t e r n S t a t e and P r i v a t e F o r e s t r y Branch and th e W ashington O f f i c e , a r e a P la n n in g U n it p ro v id e d fu n d in g to g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e th e r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e to th e D i v i s i o n f o r th e SFRP. A lthough th e DNR e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e d id n o t o v e r t l y p r e s s u r e th e D iv i s io n to ado pt s ta t e w i d e p la n n i n g , th e y d id s u p p o rt th e i n n o v a t i o n . Members o f th e DNR s t a f f th ro u g h t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s had d ev elo p ed a knowledge i n f r a s t r u c t u r e w ith s t r o n g o u t s i d e communi­ catio n lin k s . T h is i n c r e a s e d th e amount o f in f o r m a tio n a v a i l a b l e to th e d i v i s i o n ab ou t s ta t e w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p la n n in g . D iv i s i o n members were a l s o aware o f o u t s i d e e x p e r t i s e and a s s i s t a n c e a v a i l a b l e to them in doing t h i s p l a n n in g . 108 Table 5.1. Summary of the Influences of the Environment of the For­ est Management Division on the Diffusion of the Statewide Forest Resources Plan. E n v iro n m en tal F a c to r I n f lu e n c e P e r c e iv e d p erfo rm ance gap p o s i t i v e , t h e r e was a p e r c e iv e d need f o r th e SFRP to f i l l a p e r ­ formance gap Supply o f in n o v a t io n s p o s i t i v e , th e RPA s e rv e d some­ what a s a model A g e n c y -e x e c u tiv e r e l a t i o n ­ s h ip s p o s i t i v e , e s p e c i a l l y e a r l y in th e p r o c e s s when th e DNR D ir e c ­ t o r ' s s u p p o rt was v o c a l A c t i v i t i e s of s u p p l i e r s p o s i t i v e , a l th o u g h t h e r e was g r e a t e r i n f l u e n c e by S&PF th ro u g h f i n a n c i a l , th a n t e c h n i c a l , a s s i s ­ ta n c e R eso urces a v a i l a b l e p o s i t i v e , th ro u g h USFS f i n a n ­ c i a l a s s i s t a n c e and th e o u t s i d e a i d t h e r e b y made a v a i l a b l e . I n te rg o v e r n m e n ta l r e l a t i o n ­ s h ip s p o s i t i v e , USFS p ro v id e d some le a d e rsh ip C i t i z e n s demands Not i n f l u e n t i a l 109 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso urces P lan Some o f th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso urces P la n were p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e s on i t s a d o p tio n w h ile o t h e r s p ro b a b ly h in d e r e d i t s a d o p tio n ( r e f e r t o T ab le 5 . 2 ) . The r e l a t i v e ad v an tag e and c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f th e SFRP were p e r c e iv e d f a v o r a b l y by th o s e d i r e c t l y in v o lv e d in th e P r o c e s s . The t r i a l a b i l i t y and o b s e r v a b i l i t y o f r e s u l t s w ere, however, g e n e r a l l y p e r c e iv e d u n f a v o r a b l y . P e r c e p t i o n s o f th e co m p le x ity of th e SFRP were m ixed, w ith s l i g h t l y more r e s p o n d e n ts p e rc e iv in g t h i s c h a r a c t e r is t i c fav o rab ly . R e l a t i v e l y lo n g - te r m r e s u l t s a r e i n h e r e n t in com prehensive p l a n n i n g , and th u s p e r c e p t i o n t h a t th e r e s u l t s o f t h e SFRP were d i f f i c u l t to see c o u ld p ro b a b ly n o t have been changed. More f a v o r a b l e p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e t r i a l a b i l i t y and c o m p le x ity of th e SFRP, however, c o u ld have been c r e a t e d . T h is c o u ld have been acco m p lish ed by a more c o n c r e t e and e a r l i e r d i f i n i t i o n of th e s t r u c t u r e and scope o f th e SFRP by th e p r i n c i p a l s in v o lv e d . A lthough a llo w in g t h e SFRP to e v o lv e ov er s e v e r a l y e a r s was p e r c e iv e d a s h a v in g a d v a n ta g e s , some o f th e c o s t s of t h i s ap pro ach may n o t have been r e c o g n iz e d . An in n o v a tio n which i s c o n t i n ­ u a l l y ch an gin g i s d i f f i c u l t to form a m en tal image o f d i f f i c u l t to e v a l u a t e o r m e n ta lly " t r y on f o r s i z e . " and i s , t h u s , Such an in n o v a tio n i s a l s o d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e r s t a n d , i . e . com plex, sim ply b ecau se i t i s not s t a t i c . Type o f S t r a t e g i e s Used The ty p e s o f s t r a t e g i e s u sed by t h e SFRP team to g a in p a r t i c i p a ­ t i o n in and s u p p o rt o f th e SFRP w ere, on th e w hole, a p p r o p r i a t e giv en th e i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l environm ent and th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of th e 110 Table 5.2 Summary of the Influences of the Characteristics of the Statewide Forest Resources Plan on Its Diffusion. C h a ra c te ristic s I n f lu e n c e R e l a t i v e ad v an tag e p o s i t i v e , t h e SFRP was p e r c e iv e d a s o f f e r i n g an ad v an tag e o v e r c u r r e n t p r o c e d u re s C onform ity p o s i t i v e , th e SFRP was p e r c e iv e d a s b e in g c o m p a tib le w ith th e norms and v a lu e s of f o r e s t management by agency p e r s o n n e l a lth o u g h t h e pub­ l i c ( s ) may n o t p e r c e i v e i t a s such Com plexity u n c e r t a i n , p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e com­ p l e x i t y of th e SFRP v a r i e d . The p u b l i c ( s ) may f i n d th e SFRP d i f f i ­ c u l t to u n d e r s ta n d and p a r t i c i p a t e in T ria la b ility n e g a t i v e , th e SFRP was p e r c e iv e d as b e in g d i f f i c u l t t o t r y on a t r i a l b a sis O b serv ab ility n e g a t i v e , th e r e s u l t s of th e SFRP were p e r c e iv e d a s b e in g d i f f i c u l t t o see e x c e p t in th e lon g run Ill SFRP ( r e f e r to T ab le 5 . 3 ) . The SFRP team a l s o used d i f f e r e n t ty p e s o f s t r a t e g i e s f o r d i f f e r e n t g ro up s o f SFRP p a r t i c i p a n t s a s i s recommend­ ed by i n n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n r e s e a r c h . T h is r e s e a r c h a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t s t r a t e g i e s sh o u ld be changed o r r e p l a c e d a s th e in n o v a tio n p r o c e s s p r o g r e s s e s o r when i n i t i a l s t r a t e g i e s f a i l . T h is changing o f s t r a t e ­ g i e s was a l s o done to some e x t e n t by t h e SFRP team. A c o m b in atio n o f f a c i l i t a t i v e and r e e d u c a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s were used th ro u g h o u t t h e SFRP p r o c e s s . S e v e r a l f a c t o r s w i t h i n th e F o r e s t Managerment D i v i s i o n i n d i c a t e t h a t f a c i l i t a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s were a p p r o ­ p r i a t e f o r work w i t h i n t h i s g ro u p . The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f th e D i v is i o n was comm itted to and p e r c e iv e d a need f o r th e SFRP. One o f th e i n t e r ­ view s w ith th e SFRP p r i n c i p a l s a l s o m entioned t h a t t h e r e was a p e r ­ c e iv e d need f o r com prehensive p la n n in g f o r t h e D i v i s i o n ' s programs among th e f i e l d s t a f f . The D i v i s i o n a l s o had r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e to s u s t a i n i t s o u t s i d e a s s i s t a n c e f o r a lo n g p e r io d and had a l l o c a t e d a lo n g p e r i o d f o r SFRP develop m ent. R e s i s t a n c e t o th e SFRP w i th i n th e D iv i s i o n a l s o a p p eared t o be low. The u se o f r e e d u c a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s in a d d i t i o n were a p p r o p r i a t e s i n c e i t i s l i k e l y t h a t some D i v i s i o n a l members were n o t committed to th e SFRP and m igh t be somewhat r e s i s t a n t to i t . The u se o f t h e A s s i s t a n t C h ie f f o r A d m i n i s t r a t io n as an o p in io n l e a d e r p r o b a b ly would have been a p o w erfu l s t r a t e g y i n g a in i n g s u p p o rt f o r t h e SFRP among t h e f i e l d s t a f f o f th e D i v i s i o n . U n fo rtu n ately , t h i s p a r tic u la r s t r a t e g y was n o t a v a i l a b l e to t h e SFRP team. The s i t u a t i o n in o t h e r DNR d i v i s i o n s I n d i c a t e s t h a t a c o m b in atio n o f r e e d u c a t i v e and p e r s u a s i v e s t r a g e g i e s was c a l l e d f o r i n w orking w ith t h i s g rou p. T h e ir commitment to and p e r c e iv e d need f o r th e SFRP 112 Table 5.3 Summar y of the Effectiveness of Stragegles Used in the Diffusion of Michigan's Statewide Forest Resources Plan. S tra te g y E ffectiv en ess F a c i l i t a t i o n of th e p ro cess th ro u g h funds and s t a f f a s s i g n ­ ments good Use o f o p in io n l e a d e r s w i t h i n t h e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n f a i r , an im p o rta n t o p in io n l e a d e r c o u ld n o t be used Use o f o p in io n l e a d e r s w i t h i n t h e D epartm ent o f N a tu r a l Re­ s o u r c e s (T e c h n ic a l A d v is o rs ) good, o p i n i o n l e a d e r s were s e l f a p p o in te d Use o f o p in io n l e a d e r s w ith th e p u b l i c s (P u b lic A dvisory Group) f a i r , p u b lic ad v iso ry re p ­ r e s e n t a t i v e s were s e l e c t e d , more sh o u ld have been a llo w ed to a p p o in t them­ s e lv e s No use o f mass media in b e g in n in g o f p r o c e s s p o o r, slow ed and r e s t r i c t e d knowledge o f t h e SFRP P e r i o d i c m a il and p e r s o n a l con­ t a c t s w ith T e c h n ic a l A d v is o r s , P u b l ic A dvisory Group, A dvisory P a n e l , U .S .F .S . and o t h e r s good, m a in ta in e d aw aren ess o f t h e SFRP M aintenance o f SFRP a s a f l e x i ­ b le process good, allo w ed th e SFRP t o e v o lv e to s u i t D i v i s i o n ' s need s p o o r, r e s u l t e d i n i n c o n s i s ­ t e n t m essages to o t h e r p a r tic ip a n ts Prom oting t h e SFRP i n c o n n e c tio n w ith s o l u t i o n s t o M ic h ig a n 's economic problem s good, i n c r e a s e d p e r c e iv e d r e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e and ob­ s e r v a b i l i t y of r e s u l t s of th e SFRP C u l t i v a t i o n and u se o f to p l e v e l s u p p o rt good, DNR D i r e c t o r , FMD C h ie f , MSU F o r e s t r y D e p a r t­ ment and G o v e rn o r's s u p p o rt were key 113 T a b le 5 .3 ( c o n t ’d . ) Use o f o u t s i d e a id good, p ro v id e d s l a c k r e ­ s o u rc e s, a d d itio n a l exper­ t i s e , c o n t i n u i t y and f r e s h p e rsp e c tiv e s p o o r, i n t h e c a s e o f t h e use o f s t u d e n t s in c o n t a c t w ith th e W i l d l i f e D i v i s i o n , which o b j e c t e d to th e u se o f s t u ­ d en ts Use o f a team good, p ro v id e d a s t r u c t u r e which c o u ld expand and con­ t r a c t a s needed and i n c r e a s e o r d e c r e a s e in d i v e r s i t y and f o r m a l i t y a s needed 11A ap p eared to be v ery low. S tro n g r e s i s t a n c e t o th e SFRP c o u ld a l s o be e x p e c te d s i n c e i t was an i n t r u s i o n by a n o th e r DNR d i v i s i o n . While t h e t e a m 's s t r a t e g i e s f o r SFRP a c t i v i t i e s w ith o t h e r d i v i s i o n s was o s t e n s i b l y r e e d u c a t i v e , some o f th e communication w as, d o u b tle ss, p ersu asiv e in n a tu re . I t was o b v io u s a t tim e s t h a t e f f o r t s a t p e r s u a d in g o t h e r d i v i s i o n s t o c o o p e r a te were n o t t o t a l l y s u c c e s s f u l a s t h e i r members p e r c e iv e d l i t t l e r e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e t o t h e i r d i v i s i o n s from a d o p tio n o f th e SFRP. I t i s w o rth n o t i n g t h a t in th e l a t e s t a g e s o f t h e developm ent o f t h e Recommended Program W i l d l i f e D i v i s i o n p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e SFRP became much more a c t i v e . The Governor had j u s t p r e v i o u s l y p u b l i c l y g iv e n h i s s u p p o rt to economic developm ent th ro u g h f o r e s t management and th e r o l e t h a t th e SFRP had i n s e t t i n g t h i s d i r e c t i o n . W i l d l i f e D i v i s i o n members e x p r e s s e d t h e i r s t r o n g d e s i r e t o have th e c u r r e n t and p o t e n t i a l economic b e n e f i t s o f W i l d l i f e In c lu d e d in th e P rogram . I t a p p e a r s t h a t th e G o v ern o r’ s s ta t e m e n t s changed t h e W i l d l i f e D i v i s i o n ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i v e ad v a n ta g e o f t h e SFRP t o them. S t r a t e g i e s to g a in a d o p tio n of t h e SFRP by v a r i o u s p u b l i c s were p rim a rily re e d u c a tiv e . These s t r a t e g i e s were a p p r o p r i a t e g iv e n most o f t h e p u b l i c ' s l a c k o f knowledge a b o u t s t a t e w i d e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e p la n n in g . I t i s a l s o l i k e l y t h a t few o f th e p u b l i c were committed t o o r p e r c e iv e d a need f o r t h e p r o c e s s . in f o r m a tio n ab o u t t h e SFRP was n o t u s e d . Mass media a s a c h a n n e l f o r The use o f mass media to c r e a t e i n i t i a l aw aren ess o f t h e SFRP would have been more e f f e c t i v e th a n was t h e u se o f m a i l i n g s t o s e l e c t e d i n d i v i d u a l s and g ro u p s. The p rim a ry ap p ro ach used by t h e SFRP f o r involvem ent o f t h e p u b l i c s was communication w it h o r g a n iz e d p u b l i c I n t e r e s t g ro u p s, p r i v a t e 115 o r g a n i z a t i o n s and o p in i o n l e a d e r s in f o r e s t management in t h e s t a t e . T h is was a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e l a t e r p a r t o f t h e p r o c e s s where mass media i s n o t i n f l u e n t i a l b u t i n t e r p e r s o n a l com m unications a r e v e r y e f f e c ­ tiv e . P l a n s f o r f u t u r e mass madia com m unications r e g a r d i n g th e 1977- 1981 SFRP a r e n o t l i k e l y t o g a in a d d i t i o n a l p u b l i c s u p p o r t o r i n v o l v e ­ m ent. D u rin g t h e program p h a se o f t h e SFRP, F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n team members i n c r e a s e d t h e i r a c t i v i t y i n p ro m o tin g t h e SFRP. T h e ir work in g a i n i n g t h e G o v e r n o r 's p u b l i c s u p p o r t o f t h e SFRP and i n g a i n ­ i n g s u p p o r t o f l e g i s l a t o r s and f o r e s t i n d u s t r y was a more p e r s u a s i v e a p p ro a c h t h a n had been used p r e v i o u s l y . T h is s u p p o r t was g a in e d by p ro m o tin g t h e SFRP a s b e in g a b l e t o c o n t r i b u t e t o th e s o l u t i o n of M ic h ig a n 's econom ic p ro b le m s . T h is was p ro b a b ly an e f f e c t i v e p e r s u a ­ s i v e s t r a t e g y , and a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e more c o n t r o v e r s i a l program p h a s e . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r a t e g i e s Used A l l t h e p r i n c i p a l s o f t h e SFRP i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e f a c t o r s of to p l e v e l s u p p o r t and o u t s i d e a i d f o r t h e SFRP were c r u c i a l i n i t s s u c c e s s f u l d e v e lo p m e n t. A lth o u g h t h e u se o f a team p e r s e was n o t c i t e d , t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f an SFRP team which expanded and c o n t r a c t e d a s n eed s a r o s e e n a b le d t h e u s e o f t h i s o u t s i d e a i d . s i o n r e s e a r c h s u p p o r t s t h e c o n c l u s io n s t h a t : I n n o v a t io n d i f f u ­ (1) to p l e v e l s u p p o r t , (2) o u t s i d e a i d and (3) t h e u s e o f a team a r e e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s i n th e d i f f u s i o n o f an I n n o v a tio n i n a n o r g a n i z a t i o n . 116 Top l e v e l s u p p o r t . The s tr o n g s u p p o rt o f th e SFRP by th e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n C h ie f and t h e M. S. U. P r o f e s s o r o f F o r e s t Eco­ nomics was v e r y i n f l u e n t i a l i n th e d i f f u s i o n o f th e SFRP. T h is l e v e l o f s u p p o rt i n d i c a t e d t o th e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n , th e DNR and th e f o r e s t management community t h a t t h e r e was a s t r o n g commitment to s t a t e w i d e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p la n n i n g . T h is was combined w ith th e s u p p o rt o f th e DNR D i r e c t o r and th e s u p p o rt o f o t h e r f o r e s t management a g e n c ie s and o t h e r p u b l i c and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s which th e D i v i s i o n C h ief and t h e P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r s were a b l e to g a i n . The D i v i s i o n C h ief and t h e M. S. U. P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r were a l s o a b le t o use t h e i r a u t h o r ­ i t y t o c h a n n e l r e s o u r c e s from th e D i v i s i o n and from M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , r e s p e c t i v e l y , to th e SFRP p r o j e c t . O u ts id e a i d . Aid to t h e SFRP from M. S. U. and p r i v a t e c o n s u l t ­ a n t s too k a v a r i e t y o f form s. The M. S. U. P r o f e s s o r o f F o r e s t Eco­ nomics c o - d l r e c t e d much o f th e SFRP p r o c e s s th r o u g h o u t . H is g r a d u a te a s s i s t a n t was a c t i v e l y in v o lv e d a s a c o - o r d i n a t o r o f th e SFRP a c t i v i ­ t i e s and a n a l y s t f o r t h r e e y e a r s . by r e s o u r c e a n a l y s t s ; ment s p e c i a l i s t s . P e r i o d i c a s s i s t a n c e was re n d e re d and r e c r e a t i o n , w i l d l i f e and p u b l i c in v o lv e ­ T h is p r o v i s i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l e x p e r t i s e and w o rk fo rce was c i t e d by a l l SFRP p r i n c i p a l s a s b e in g c r i t i c a l . The a d d i t i o n a l w o rk fo rce was a s l a c k r e s o u r c e t h a t c o u ld be c o n c e n t r a t e d on t h e SFRP, u n l i k e D i v i s i o n S t a f f which had o t h e r re sp o n s ib ilitie s . The D i v i s i o n was a l s o r e s t r i c t e d i n th e number and ty p e s o f r e s o u r c e a n a l y s t s a v a i l a b l e . The a d d i t i o n o f a n a l y s t s and s p e c i a l i s t s from o u t s i d e th e o r g a n i z a t i o n I n c re a s e d th e amount and d i v e r s i t y o f e x p e r t i s e t h a t was a p p l i e d t o th e SFRP. 117 As m entioned p r e v i o u s l y in C h ap ter 4, th e use o f o u t s i d e a id i s a p p r o p r i a t e i f th e o r g a n i z a t i o n d e v e lo p s th e r e s o u r c e s t o s u s t a i n th e in n o v a t i o n a f t e r th e o u t s i d e a i d i s w ithd raw n. Only a l a t e r e v a l u a t i o n o f th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n would a l l o w th e d e t e r m in a ti o n of t h e e x t e n t and s u c c e s s o f i t s a d o p t i o n . Use o f a te a m . The use o f an SFRP team to s t r u c t u r e t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f th e p r o c e s s a l s o was e f f e c t i v e . Because t h e team c o m p o sitio n was f l e x i b l e , a n a l y s t s and s p e c i a l i s t s co u ld be added o n ly when needed. The c o s t s o f t h i s e x p e r t i s e w ere, t h u s , l e s s th a n i f p e r s o n n e l were added t o th e D iv i s i o n i t s e l f . In t h e e a r l y s t a g e s o f t h e a s se s sm e n t p h ase and o f t h e program p h ase t h e team exp an ded, b u i l d i n g in th e Im p o rta n t f a c t o r s o f d i v e r s i t y and i n f o r m a l i t y . As each o f th e s e p h a s e s n e a r e d co m p le tio n t h e SFRP team was red u ced t o t h e s m a lle r management team o f t h e P r o j e c t D i r e c t o r s and P r o j e c t C o - o r d i n a t o r s . T h is management team had a l e s s d i v e r s e and more fo rm a l s t r u c t u r e , which was more a p p r o p r i a t e to t h e f i n a l s t a g e s o f each p h a s e . A chiev­ in g t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f t h e s t r u c t u r e o f th e u n i t d e v e lo p in g th e in n o v a t i o n would have been much more d i f f i c u l t i f a l l t h e members were perm anent D i v i s i o n s t a f f . E x te n t o f A doption o f t h e SFRP The e x t e n t o f th e a d o p tio n o f t h e SFRP w i t h i n th e DNR, th e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n and t h e v a r i o u s p h b l l c s can n o t a s y e t be ju d g e d . The a u t h o r ' s Involvem ent in th e p r o j e c t ended in e a r l y 1981 a s th e Recommended Program was b e g in n in g to be p r e p a r e d . T h is c a s e s tu d y and i t s c o n c lu s io n a r e , t h u s , r e l e v a n t o n ly up to t h a t p o i n t in th e 118 process. An e x a m in a tio n o f th e e x t e n t and l e v e l o f s u p p o rt f o r th e SFRP would be a u s e f u l s u b j e c t f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . APPENDICES APPENDIX A OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF MICHIGAN’S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN APPENDIX A OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF MICHIGAN'S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN P r e - P la n n in g 1977 Dec. 19 F o r e s t Goals and I s s u e s S tatem en t com piled by F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n f o r U.S. F o r e s t S e r­ v ice . 1978 Jan. P la n s f o r S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esource P la n d e v e lo p ­ ed and d e s c r i b e d by F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n . March 8 DNR D i r e c t o r Tanner announces b e g in n in g o f SFRP p r o c e s s , names M.L. P e to sk e y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o o r d i n a t in g i n t e r - d i v i s i o n c o o p e r a t i o n , announces R.S. M an thy 's agreem ent to a s s i s t in SFRP p r o c e s s . March 9 C o o p e ra tiv e Agreement between th e DNR and M ichi­ gan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a r r a n g e s f o r R .S . M anthy's a s s i s t a n c e , th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f R. A l s t o n 's r e s o u r c e economics p ro se m in a r c l a s s a t M.S.U. in th e A ssessm ent, and K. Olson as r e s o u r c e s p e c i ­ a l i s t and c o - c o r d i n a t o r o f A ssessm ent a c t i v i t i e s . A p r i l 21/22 " M ic h ig a n 's F o r e s t s and th e F u tu r e " sponsored by West M ichigan E nv iron m en tal A ctio n C o a l i t i o n . P a r t i c i p a n t s inform ed of p l a n s f o r th e SFRP. A p r i l 24/28 "Comprehensive S t a t e F o r e s t P la n n in g and th e RPA" program sp o n so red by U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e h e ld a t M.S.U. May 2 I n fo r m a tio n m eetin g on th e SFRP h e l d w ith Bureau and D iv i s i o n C h ie fs o r t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . May 26 I n f o r m a t i o n a l m eetin g on th e SFRP h e ld w ith th e Hiawatha N a t io n a l F o r e s t P l a n n e r . 119 120 1978 (c o n tin u e d ) May 27 I n f o r m a t i o n a l M eeting on th e SFRP h e ld w ith the USFS Region Nine P la n n e r and Huron M anistee N a tio n ­ a l F o r e s t S u p e r v is o r . A ssessm ent J u ly 20 D r a f t A ssessm ent o u t l i n e review ed by DNR T e ch n i­ c a l A d v is o r s , Bureau C h ie f , D i v i s i o n C h ie f , and P u b l ic A dvisory Group. August 4 I n f o r m a t i o n a l M eeting h e ld w ith Ottawa N a tio n a l F o rest P lan n er. August 10 In fo r m a tio n M eeting h e ld w ith Region I I I s t a f f . August 14 I n fo r m a tio n M eeting h e l d w ith Region I and I I s ta ff. August 22 I n f o r m a t i o n a l M eeting h e ld w ith U . S . F . S . , S&PF S o u th e a s te r n Area P la n n in g S t a f f . August 23 I n fo r m a tio n M eeting h e ld w ith U . S . F . S . , S&PF N o rth ­ e a s t e r n Area P la n n in g S t a f f . September 25 Summary o f r e s p o n s e s to th e d r a f t o u t l i n e s e n t to rev iew ers. September 28/29 Review of working d r a f t o f A ssessm ent by SFRP management team. O ctober 10 P r o g r e s s r e p o r t made to G o v e r n o r's O f f i c e . O ctober 12 P r o g r e s s r e p o r t made to D i r e c t o r Tanner and M.L. P eto sk y . O cto ber 20-21 " M ic h ig a n 's F o r e s t s and t h e F u tu r e " spo nsored by West M ichigan E n v iro n m en tal A c tio n C o a l i t i o n . P a r t i c i p a n t s inform ed of p r o g r e s s o f th e SFRP. 1978 O ct. 1 1979 March 1 D r a f t Assessm ent p r e p a r e d . March 14 D r a f t Assessm ent review ed by DNR, U . S . F . S . , S&PF p e r s o n n e l , and P u b l i c A dvisory Group. March 20 D r a f t Assessm ent rev iew ed by p u b l i c a t N a tu r a l R esou rces Days a t M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . March 30 I n t e n s i v e rev iew o f d r a f t Assessm ent by DNR t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s begun. 121 September 13 M ichigan*s F o r e s t R eso urces 1979—An Asses-sment p r i n t e d and d i s t r i b u t e d . 1979 A p ril Management team b e g in s p l a n s f o r t h e Program phase. A p r i l 20 M eeting h e l d w ith T e c h n ic a l A d v iso rs in DNR to d i s c u s s p l a n s f o r th e Program. May 8 Team members p a r t i c i p a t e d in F o r e s t R esou rces P la n n in g sem inar a t M ichigan T e c h n o lo g ic a l Uni­ v e rsity . May 29 A dvisory P an el o f l e a d e r s in f o r e s t r e s o u r c e management e s t a b l i s h . June 1 5 /S e p t. 1 Team p ro c e e d s w ith a n a l y s i s : — F ive a l t e r n a t i v e d i r e c t i o n s d r a f t e d —R e l a t i o n s h i p o f i s s u e s to d i r e c t i o n s d ev elo p ed — Program s, a c t i v i t i e s , o u tp u t l e v e l s and c o s t s a n a ly z e d f o r each a l t e r n a t i v e d i r e c t i o n . June 26 A dvisory P a n e l re v ie w s f o r e s t r e s o u r c e i s s u e s . August 17 A dvisory P a n e l re v ie w s a l t e r n a t i v e d i r e c t i o n s and t e n t a t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e r e s o u r c e o u tp u t t a r g e t s . September 1/ O ctober 30 A n a ly s is com p iled. November 20 D r a f t of a n a l y s i s review ed by SFRP p r i n c i p a l s . December 19 Working Document " A n a ly s is of A l t e r n a t i v e F o r e s t Resource Programs f o r M ichigan" p r e s e n t e d to F o r­ e s t Management D i v i s i o n by c o n s u l t a n t s . 1980 J a n u a ry 1 P r e p a r a t i o n of " M ic h ig a n 's F o r e s t R e s o u rc e s: A l t e r n a t i v e Program s" f o r p u b l i c re v ie w b e g i n s . F eb ruary 1 Review o f a n a l y s i s by T e c h n ic a l A d v iso rs c o m p le te . March 19 Review d r a f t p r e s e n t e d to p u b l i c a t N a t u r a l R eso u rces Days a t M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . March 15/ September 1 Team o f F o r e s t Management D iv i s i o n members d ev elo p d i s c u s s i o n s of i s s u e s and p o l i c y o p t i o n s . 122 1980 ( c o n tin u e d ) September 12 Working d r a f t " M ic h ig a n 's F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n : Overview of I s s u e s and P o lic y O p tio n s" p r e s e n t e d to th e M ichigan F o r e s t r y P la n n in g and Develop­ ment Committee f o r t h e i r re v ie w . O ctober 20 Review d r a f t " M ic h ig a n 's F o r e s t R eso urces P l a n : I s s u e s , P o li c y O p tio n s , and Recommended O v e r a ll Program D i r e c t i o n " s e n t to P u b lic A d viso ry Group f o r Review. December 11 SFRP m eets w ith U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e p e r s o n n e l in M ichigan to rev iew r e s o u r c e o u tp u t t a r g e t s and p u b l i c f o r e s t s r o l e . 1981 J a n u a ry 9 J a n u a ry 9 / F eb ru ary 1 F eb ru ary 20 F eb ru ary 2 0/ September P la n s begun f o r p u b l i c workshop f o r re v ie w of and comment on a d r a f t recommended program . Recommended Program d r a f t e d . M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esou rces P la n work­ shop h e l d , D r a f t Recommended Program d i s c u s s e d . R e v is io n o f Recoranended Program , p r e p a r a t i o n b r i e f A ssessm ent, f i n a l d r a f t o f M ichigan S t a t e ­ wide F o r e s t Resource P la n . APPENDIX B SURVEY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MICHIGAN'S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN APPENDIX B SURVEY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MICHIGAN'S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN O b jectiv es The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f c o m p le x ity , r e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e , t r i a l a b i l i t y , o b s e r v a b i l i t y , and c o m p a t i b i l i t y a r e th o u g h t t o be r e l a t e d to th e r a t e o f a d o p tio n of an i n n o v a t i o n . A q u e s t i o n n a i r e su rv ey was d e s ig n e d to d e te rm in e how t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were p e r c e iv e d by th o s e in th e M ichigan D epartm ent of N a tu r a l R eso u rces and th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e who had been in v o lv ed in th e developm ent and implemen­ t a t i o n of M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n . These same p eo p le were a l s o ask ed t h e i r o p in io n of how th e p u b li c p e r c e i v e s t h e s e c h a ra c te ris tic s . Methods The s u rv ey was d e s ig n e d to be r e l a t i v e l y s im p le , s t r a i g h t fo rw a rd , and s h o r t . T h is was b ecau se much o f th e i n t e r v i e w i n g was to be done by te le p h o n e and a l l was to be done d u r in g w orking h o u r s ^ . Ten q u e s ­ t i o n s were ask ed o f each p e rs o n in t e r v i e w e d — one q u e s t i o n on each o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from t h e i r p e r s p e c t i v e and one q u e s t i o n on —^Eight s u rv e y s were a d m i n i s t e r e d by t e le p h o n e , t h i r t e e n were a d m in i s t e r e d by i n t e r o f f i c e m a ll. 123 124 t h e i r o p in io n o f th e p u b l i c ' s p e r c e p t i o n of each o f th e f i v e c h a r a c t e r ­ istic s . The q u e s t i o n s and th e p o s s i b l e re s p o n s e s were worded s i m i l a r l y to f a c i l i t a t e t h e r e s p o n s e s and t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The re s p o n s e c a t e g o r i e s d id n o t a llo w f o r a "no o p in io n " answer b u t f o r c e d th e r e s p o n d e n t to make a judgm ent. There i s a p o s s i b i l i t y o f b i a s in th e w ording o f th e q u e s t i o n s , a lth o u g h th e y were w r i t t e n so a s to a v o id t h i s . Each q u e s ti o n and t h e r e s p o n s e s c o n t a i n n o rm a tiv e w ords—b e t t e r , w o rse, e a s y , d i f f i c u l t , c o m p a tib le and i n c o m p a tib le . I t was th o u g h t t h a t i f th e q u e s t i o n s were p h ra se d such a s "How d i f f i c u l t do you t h i n k . . . " t h a t t h i s might y i e l d a d i f f e r e n t re s p o n s e th a n "How e a sy do you t h i n k . . . " The q u e s ­ t i o n s w ere, t h e r e f o r e , worded "How e a sy o r d i f f i c u l t do you t h i n k . . . " The Survey Q u e s tio n s The q u e s t i o n s c o n c e rn in g t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were d ev elo p ed r e l a ­ tiv e ly d ire c tly . The S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n i s a new method of p la n n in g and d i r e c t i n g f o r e s t management in th e s t a t e . I t was t h o u g h t, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t r e s p o n d e n ts would be a b l e to make a judgment a s to how d i f f i c u l t th e SFRP i s to u n d e r s ta n d and t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n , c o m p le x ity ; to implement on a t r i a l b a s i s , t r i a l a b i l i t y ; o r to o b serv e th e r e s u l t s o f , o b s e r v a b i l i t y . I t was d i f f i c u l t to p h ra s e q u e s t i o n s c o n c e rn in g th e o t h e r two c h a ra c te ris tic s. th is case. R e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e can have s e v e r a l components in These a r e a d v a n ta g e in d e a l i n g w ith th e p u b l i c , ad v an tag e in p e rfo rm in g i n t e r n a l agency f u n c t i o n , o r b o t h . Since a m ajor o b je c ­ t i v e of th e SFRP i s to make th e perfo rm ance o f f o r e s t management 125 " b e t t e r " in th e s t a t e , r e s p o n d e n ts were ask ed how much b e t t e r o r worse th e y th o u g h t th e SFRP would make t h e i r jo b o f f o r e s t management and how much b e t t e r o r worse th e y th o u g h t th e p u b l i c t h i n k s f o r e s t manage­ ment w i l l be w ith a s t a t e w i d e p l a n . T h is was ju d g e d p r e f e r a b l e to g u e s s in g as to how r e s p o n d e n ts m ight p e r c e i v e what composes r e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e . Because c o m p a t i b i l i t y of an in n o v a tio n w ith o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and p e r s o n a l norms, v a l u e s and e x p e r i e n c e s would have been d i f f i c u l t to e x p l a i n in a s h o r t tim e p e r i o d , t h e q u e s ti o n d e a l i n g w ith c o m p a t i b i l i t y was a l s o d i f f i c u l t to p h r a s e . The p r o f e s s i o n s which p r a c t i c e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s management and members o f th e p u b l i c have norms c o n c e rn in g what i s p ro p e r f o r e s t r y , w i l d l i f e , o u td o o r r e c r e a t i o n , a n d /o r f i s h e r ­ i e s management. R espondents w ere, t h e r e f o r e , asked how c o m p a tib le th e y th o u g h t th e SFRP was w ith t h e v a lu e s of f o r e s t management. T h is was opposed to a s k in g r e s p o n d e n ts how c o m p a tib le th e y th o u g h t th e SFRP was w ith th e v a l u e s of th e DNR o r o f t h e i r community. R esu lts A t o t a l o f tw e n ty -o n e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were a d m i n i s t e r e d . Survey p a r t i c i p a n t s w ere: th e D i v i s i o n C h ie f ; th e A s s i s t a n t D i v i s i o n C h ie f f o r N a tu r a l R esource Development; U n it l e a d e r s o f t h e C o o p e ra tiv e F o r e s t Management, P la n n in g , and F o r e s t R e c r e a t i o n u n i t s ; th e P la n n in g A n a ly s t; t h r e e s t a f f members o f th e F o r e s t R e c r e a t i o n u n i t ; two s t a f f members o f t h e C o o p e r a tiv e F o r e s t Management u n i t , and f o u r F o r e s t P la n n e r s (two F o r e s t P la n n e r p o s i t i o n s a r e c u r r e n t l y v a c a n t ) ; o f th e F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n ; one t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r from th e W i l d l i f e D iv i s io n and one t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r from th e R e c r e a t i o n S e r v ic e s D iv is io n 126 o f t h e DNR; th e t h r e e N a t io n a l F o r e s t P l a n n e r s in M ichigan; and t h e p u b l i c involvem ent c o n s u l t a n t t o t h e F o r e s t Management D iv is io n f o r th e SFRP. The a u t h o r d id n o t respo nd to th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . As i n d i c a t e d i n t h e t a l l y s h e e t f o ll o w i n g , th e r e s p o n s e s d id f a l l i n t o c l u s t e r s f o r most q u e s t i o n s . —^ There was more agreem ent in r e s p o n s e s f o r th o s e q u e s t i o n s which asked f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s t h a n t h e r e was f o r th e r e s p o n s e s which asked f o r t h e i r o p in io n s o f th e p u b l i c ' s p e r c e p t i o n s . Complexity Most r e s p o n d e n ts th o u g h t t h e SFRP p r o c e s s i s somewhat d i f f i c u l t to u n d e r s ta n d and t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n , a lth o u g h j u s t a s many th o u g h t i t was somewhat o r v e ry e a s y . No p a t t e r n in t h e s e re s p o n s e s was found betw een L a n sin g o f f i c e p e r s o n n e l , th e F o r e s t P an n ers ( f i e l d p e r s o n n e l) o r t h e F o r e s t S e r v ic e P e r s o n n e l . One r e s p o n d e n t d id answer t h a t he th o u g h t th e SFRP i s v ery e a sy t o u n d e r s ta n d b u t somewhat d i f f i u c l t t o p a r t i c i p a t e in due to h i s d i s t a n c e from o t h e r s in v o lv e d in th e p r o c e s s . A l a r g e m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n ts th o u g h t t h a t th e p u b l i c f i n d s th e SFRP somewhat o r v e ry d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e r s ta n d and to p a r t ic ip a te in . One r e s p o n s e was s p l i t betw een v e ry e a s y , f o r o r g a n iz e d g r o u p s , v e r s u s v e r y d i f f i c u l t , f o r i n d i v i d u a l s . R e l a t i v e Advantage The l a r g e m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n ts th o u g h t t h a t t h e SFRP would make t h e i r j o b s somewhat o r much b e t t e r . Only one re s p o n s e o f somewhat —^Since t h i s was a 100 p e r c e n t s u rv e y o f th o s e who were d i r e c t l y In v o lv e d w ith t h e SFRP a t t h a t t i m e , so s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s was r e q u i r e d . 127 worse was g iv e n . A l a r g e m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n s e s a s to th e p u b l i c ' s p e r c e p t i o n s of th e r e l a t i v e a d v a n ta g e o f th e SFRP were in th e somewhat b e t t e r c a te g o r y . T ria la b ility Most r e s p o n d e n ts th o u g h t t h a t th e SFRP would be somewhat d i f f i ­ c u l t to implement on a t r i a l b a s i s . Responses f o r th e p u b l i c ' s o p in io n of t r i a l a b i l i t y , however, were s p l i t f a i r l y e v e n ly between th e somewhat e a s y , somewhat d i f f i c u l t and v ery d i f f i c u l t c a t e g o r i e s . O b se rv a b ility The re s p o n s e s t o t h e two q u e s ti o n s as to o b s e r v a b i l i t y of r e s u l t s o f th e SFRP were more s c a t t e r e d th a n f o r any o t h e r o f th e q u e s t i o n s . The re s p o n s e s f o r b o th q u e s t i o n s f o u r and n in e d id ten d to f a l l in t h e v e ry d i f f i c u l t o r somewhat d i f f i c u l t c a t e g o r i e s . Many r e s p o n d e n ts n o te d t h a t th ey p e r c e iv e d th e r e s u l t s , o r th o u g h t t h e p u b l ic would p e r c e i v e th e r e s u l t s , a s b e in g d i f f i c u l t to o b serv e b ecau se o f t h e i r lo n g -te rm n a t u r e . S ince s h o r t - t e r m r e s u l t s a r e more v i s i b l e , th e r e s u l t s o f th e SFRP a r e r e g a rd e d a s b e in g d i f f i c u l t to o b s e rv e o v e r a l l . C o m p a t ib i l it y Most r e s p o n d e n ts th o u g h t t h a t th e SFRP i s v e ry c o m p a tib le w ith th e v a l u e s o f f o r e s t r e s o u r c e management. t h e in c o m p a tib le c a t e g o r i e s . Two r e s p o n s e s f e l l i n t o O p in io n s o f th e p u b l i c ' s p e r c e p t i o n were v a r i e d from th e re s p o n s e t h a t t h e SFRP i s somewhat in c o m p a tib le t o t h a t i t i s v e ry c o m p a tib le . Reasons f o r th e somewhat in c o m p a tib le re sp o n s e were t h a t t h e SFRP might be viewed a s i n t r u s i v e in p r i v a t e 128 in te re sts. Comments T here were two u n in te n d e d r e s u l t s o f th e s u r v e y , b o th o f which y i e l d e d a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a tio n ab o u t th e SFRP p r o c e s s . F i r s t , th ere was a r e c o g n i t i o n by many o f th e r e s p o n d e n ts t h a t t h e " p u b l i c " i s a c t u a l l y many p u b l i c s , w ith p e r s p e c t i v e s on th e SFRP which may v a r y . T h is i s a good i n d i c a t i o n t h a t th e c o m p le x ity of th e SFRP p r o c e s s i s a l s o r e c o g n iz e d . S econdly, t h e r e was some m is p e r c e p tio n t h a t t h e Recommended Program o r t h e P la n document were to be th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P l a n . Many r e s p o n d e n ts d id p e r c e i v e t h a t th e SFRP was, r a t h e r , th e p r o c e s s which i n c o r p o r a t e s th e A sse ssm e n t, and Recom­ mended Program and a l l th e a c t i v i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w ith t h e p la n n i n g . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were a d m i n i s t e r e d , how ever, such t h a t th e m iscon­ c e p t i o n s t h a t d id e x i s t were c l a r i f i e d b e f o r e th e r e s p o n s e s were r e c o r d e d . A sample o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e w ith a t a l l y o f th e tw en ty -o n e r e s p o n s e s f o ll o w s . 129 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE T a ll y 1. How e a sy o r d i f f i c u l t do you t h i n k th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esources P la n i s t o u n d e r s ta n d and t o p a r t i c i p a t e in? v ery easy somewhat easy somewhat d iffic u lt 3 9 1, to u n d e r s ta n d 2. 3. much b e tte r somewhat b e tte r 9 11 somewhat worse 1 much worse 0 How e a sy o r d i f f i c u l t do you t h i n k th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esources P la n would be to implement on a t r i a l b a s i s ? somewhat easy 1 3 somewhat d iffic u lt 14 v ery d iffic u lt 3 How easy o r d i f f i c u l t do you t h i n k i t would be to see th e r e s u l t s o f th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P lan ? v e ry easy 3, in lo n g 5. 0 How much b e t t e r o r w orse do you t h i n k your f o r e s t r e s o u r c e manage­ ment jo b would be w ith a S ta te w id e F o r e s t Resource P lan ? v e ry easy 4. 8 1, t o p a r t i c i ­ p a t e in v ery d iffic u lt somewhat easy ru n 4 somewhat d iffic u lt 9 v ery d iffic u lt 5 How c o m p a tib le o r in c o m p a tib le do you t h i n k th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P la n i s w ith th e v a l u e s o f f o r e s t r e s o u r c e management? v e ry c o m p a tib le 13 somewhat c o m p a tib le 6 somewhat in c o m p a tib le 1 v ery in c o m p a tib le 1 130 6. How easy o r d i f f i c u l t do you th i n k th e p u b l i c f in d s th e S t a t e ­ wide F o r e s t R esources P lan to u n d e rsta n d and p a r t i c i p a t e in? very e asy 1 f o r groups 7. 8. 1 14 much b e tte r somewhat b e tte r 2 16 v ery d iffic u lt 14 1 fo r in ­ d iv id u als somewhat worse 1 much worse 1 How easy o r d i f f i c u l t do you t h i n k th e p u b l ic t h i n k s th e S tatew id e F o r e s t R esources P lan would be to implement on a t r i a l b a s i s ? 0 somewhat easy somewhat d iffic u lt very d iffic u lt 8 7 6 How easy o r d i f f i c u l t do you t h i n k th e p u b l i c t h i n k s th e r e s u l t s o f th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esources P lan w i l l be to see? very e a sy 3 10. somewhat d iffic u lt How much b e t t e r o r worse do you t h i n k th e p u b lic t h i n k s f o r e s t management w i l l be w ith a S tatew id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s plan ? v e ry e a sy 9. somewhat easy somewhat easy somewhat d iffic u lt very d iffic u lt 4 7 7 How co m patible o r in c o m p a tib le do you th i n k th e p u b lic t h i n k s the S tatew id e F o r e s t R esources P la n i s w ith th e v a lu e s o f f o r e s t manage­ ment? v e ry co m p a tib le 4 somewhat co m p atib le 12 somewhat in c o m p a tib le 5 very in c o m p a tib le 0 APPENDIX C INTERVIEWS OF THE PRINCIPALS OF MICHIGAN'S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN APPENDIX C INTERVIEWS OF THE PRINCIPALS OF MICHIGAN'S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN O b jectiv es The p e r c e iv e d need f o r an i n n o v a t io n , th e ty p e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s u p p o rt i t r e c e i v e s and th e methods used t o d i f f u s e i t in an o r g a n i z a ­ t i o n have been r e l a t e d to th e s u c c e s s o f an i n n o v a tio n in an o r g a n i z a ­ t i o n by v a r i o u s r e s e a r c h e r s . A s e t o f q u e s t i o n s were develo ped and used to i n t e r v i e w th e f i v e p r i n c i p a l s o f t h e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esources p l a n , e x c lu d in g th e a u t h o r , in o r d e r t o a n a ly z e t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s and o p in io n s of t h e s e f a c t o r s w ith r e g a r d to th e SFRP. Methods F ive q u e s t i o n s were used to s t r u c t u r e i n t e r v i e w s w ith F o r e s t Management D i v i s i o n C h ie f Henry W eb ster, A s s i s t a n t D iv is io n C hief G erald Rose, P la n n in g A n a ly s t Jim O lm stead, P la n n in g S e c tio n Leader G erald Theide and M.S.U. P r o f e s s o r R obert Manthy. view s were co n d u cted in p e r s o n . Two o f th e i n t e r ­ Three o f th e i n t e r v i e w s were conducted by m a il due to l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e p r i n c i p a l ' s tim e . No r e s t r i c t i o n s were p la c e d on th e l e n g t h o f each i n t e r v i e w , each re s p o n s e was a s long o r s h o r t a s th e p r i n c i p a l d e s i r e d . In a d d i t i o n , no prom pting from th e i n t e r v i e w e r was g iv e n d u r in g th e i n t e r v i e w i t s e l f . 131 132 The I n te r v i e w Q u e s tio n s The I n te r v i e w q u e s ti o n s were develo ped based upon a re v ie w of in n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n l i t e r a t u r e and upon d i s c u s s i o n s w ith s e v e r a l o f th e SFRP p r i n c i p a l s a s to q u e s t i o n s they d e s ir e d to have r e s e a r c h e d . A ll t h e q u e s t i o n s were worded in a g e n e r a l f a s h i o n so a s n o t t o s u g g e s t t h a t c e r t a i n r e s p o n s e s were e x p e c te d . A l i s t of t h e f i v e i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n s f o llo w s on F ig u re C . l . R esu lts The i n t e r v i e w s were a n a ly z e d f o r common and c o n s t r a s t i n g e le m e n ts . As r e s p o n s e s to th e q u e s t i o n s were s p e c i f i c in a lm o st a l l c a s e s , th e a n a l y s i s was n o t d i f f i c u l t . was made. A l i s t of a l l r e s p o n s e s to each q u e s ti o n L ike r e s p o n s e s were th e n g rouped. T able C .l which t a l l i e s th e number of i n t e r v i e w s c i t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r r e s p o n s e i s a summary of t h i s a n a ly s is . I t sh o u ld be n o te d t h a t th e r e s p o n s e s in th e c a s e s o f q u e s t i o n s o ne, two and f o u r need n o t be m u tu a lly e x c l u s i v e and th u s th e t o t a l number o f c i t a t i o n s under t h e s e q u e s t i o n s can be more th a n f i v e . In th e i n t e r e s t of space and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of th e p r i n c i ­ p a l s in v o lv e d th e t r a n s c r i p t s o f t h e i n t e r v i e w s a r e n o t p r e s e n t e d here. D is c u s s io n Q u e stio n 1. P e r c e iv e d need f o r a sta te w id e f o r e s t re so u rc e s p la n . P e r c e iv e d need s f o r a s ta t e w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p la n v a r i e d . The most conmon re s p o n s e was t h a t i n d i c a t i v e of a need to s e t g o a ls and d i r e c t i o n f o r t h e program s and th e a c t i v i t i e s o f th e F o r e s t Manage­ ment D i v i s i o n . I t was m entioned t h a t a s ta t e w id e p la n was needed 13 3 1. P e rc e iv e d n e e d : What need o r need s d id you p e r c e i v e f o r a s t a t e w id e f o r e s t r e ­ s o u rc e s p lan ? 2. I n s t i t u t i o n a l s u p p o r t: What s u p p o rt w i t h i n th e agency o r from o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s do you f e e l was e s p e c i a l l y im p o rta n t in d e v e lo p in g th e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P lan ? 3. P la n o f work: Do you f e e l t h a t th e c o o p e r a ti v e w orking a rra n g e m e n ts f o r o u t s i d e a i d in d e v e lo p in g t h e S ta te w id e F o r e s t R eso u rces P lan were c r i t i ­ c a l , h e l p f u l , o r n o t Im p o rtan t in d e v e lo p in g th e p la n ? 4. Assessm ent and Recommended Program dev elo pm en t: Are t h e r e any key e v e n t s e x t e r n a l to t h e F o r e s t Management D iv i­ s io n which you f e e l were e s p e c i a l l y im p o rta n t in d e v e lo p in g th e Assessm ent o r Recommended Program ? 5. P u b l ic in v o lv em en t: How im p o rta n t do you f e e l p u b l i c involvem ent was in d e v e lo p in g th e Assessm ent and Recommended Program ? How im p o rta n t do you f e e l p u b l i c Involvem ent was and w i l l be in a c h i e v i n g a c c e p ta n c e and s u p p o rt f o r th e Recommended Program ? F ig u re C . l . M ic h ig a n 's S ta te w id e F o r e s t R esou rces P lan I n te r v i e w Q u e s tio n s 134 T able C . l . I n te r v i e w R e s u l t s (number o f p eo p le c i t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r re sp o n s e ) 1. P e rc e iv e d Need Budget A c q u i s i t i o n / Support S et o f Goals o r O v e r a ll D ire c tio n fo r F orest Management D iv is io n 2. D i r e c t i o n f o r A ll F o r e s t Management in th e S t a t e Im p o rta n t I n s t i t u t i o n a l Support D iv is io n C hief Academic Community DNR D i r e c t o r o r DNR Bureau Level USFS S&PF O th er P u b lic Agencies o r P r i v a t e O rg an i­ zatio n s P lan o f Work O u tsid e Aid H e lp f u l O u ts id e Aid C ritic a l 4. A ssessm ent and Program Development: O u tsid e Aid Not im p o rta n t Im p o rta n t E x t e r n a l E vents RPA/NFMA M ic h ig a n 's Economic Problems 3 5. 2 P u b l i c Involvem ent In D evelo pin g Assessm ent C ru cial H e lp fu l 0 1 Not Im p o rta n t 4 In D eveloping Program C ru cial H e lp f u l 0 4 Not Im p o rtan t 0 In A ch iev in g Support o f Recommended Program C ru cial H e lp f u l Not Im p o rta n t Depends Upon B alance of Impact 4 0 0 1 135 such t h a t th e D i v i s i o n cou ld a s s e s s i t s r o l e in th e c o n t e x t o f f o r e s t management s t a t e w i d e . A p e r c e iv e d need f o r c r e a t i n g a common s e n se of d i r e c t i o n f o r f o r e s t management in M ichigan was m entioned in t h r e e o f th e i n t e r v i e w s . In two of t h e s e th e need f o r f o r e s t management to c o n t r i b u t e t o economic developm ent in th e s t a t e was s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e d to t h i s common s e n s e o f d i r e c t i o n . Three o f th e I n te r v ie w s c i t e d th e need to do s t a t e w id e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s p la n n in g to e n s u re f e d e r a l fu n d in g f o r f o r e s t management program s in th e s t a t e , o r to s e c u re o t h e r bu dget s u p p o r t. Q u e s tio n 2. Im p ortan ce o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l s u p p o r t . The i n t e r v i e w s c i t e d a v a r i e t y of s o u rc e s o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l s u p p o rt f e l t t o be i m p o r ta n t. A l l i n t e r v i e w s m entioned th e s e l f - g e n e r a t e d s u p p o rt o f th e D i v i s i o n C h ie f . The f o u r p r i n c i p a l s , o t h e r th a n th e D i v i s io n C h ie f c i t e d h i s s u p p o rt a s b e in g v e ry im p o r ta n t. Four o f th e i n t e r v i e w s c i t e d th e s u p p o rt o f th e academ ic community in M ichigan a s b e in g i m p o r ta n t. Two of t h e s e in t e r v i e w s m entioned th e s u p p o rt of P r o f e s s o r Manthy a s im p o rta n t in b r i n g i n g a d d i t i o n a l e x p e r t i s e to th e SFRP p r o c e s s and in f a c i l i t a t i n g g a in in g s u p p o rt from o t h e r s o u r c e s . The p a r t i a l fu n d in g o f th e SFRP and some t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e from t h e N o r th e a s t e r n S t a t e and p r i v a t e f o r e s t r y b ran ch o f th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e was c i t e d in t h r e e o f th e i n t e r v i e w s a s b e in g i m p o r ta n t. One a d d i t i o n a l p r i n c i p a l a l s o a s s e s s e d t h i s f a c t o r a s b e in g v e ry impor­ t a n t a f t e r b e in g asked a b o u t th e r o l e o f t h e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v ic e a f t e r th e s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w was co m p leted . Two i n t e r v i e w s m entioned DNR D i r e c t o r Tanner o r h i g h e r l e v e l s 136 of the DNR as important sources of support. A v a r i e t y of o t h e r s o u r c e s , p u b li c a g e n c i e s , o r p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s were c i t e d in th e i n t e r v i e w s . These w ere: g rass ro o ts s u p p o rt o f th e D iv i s i o n f i e l d s t a f f , M ichigan F o r e s t r y P la n n in g and Development Committee members, th e W ashington O f f ic e of th e U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , f o r e s t i n d u s t r y , a major e n v iro n m e n ta l o r g a n i z a t i o n in M ichi­ g an, th e C ouncil o f S t a t e Governments and th e M ichigan Department of A g ric u ltu re . These s o u rc e s were c i t e d in no more th a n one i n t e r ­ view e a c h . Q u e s tio n 3. P la n o f work. The c o o p e r a t i v e working a rra n g e m e n ts w ith th e SFRP p r i n c i p a l s from M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y were c i t e d a s b e in g c r i t i c a l in th e developm ent o f th e SFRP in a l l f i v e i n t e r v i e w s . The a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y ­ t i c t a l e n t , l e a d e r s h i p and p e r s p e c t i v e s t h i s arran g em en t p ro v id e d a s w e ll a s th e u s e f u l n e s s of p e r s o n n e l n o t c o n s t r a i n e d by o t h e r D iv i­ s i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were m entioned in t h e s e r e ­ sponses. Q u e s tio n 4. A ssessm ent and program d e v e lo p m e n t. Three o f th e i n t e r v i e w s i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e economic problems o f M ichigan were th e most i n f l u e n t i a l e x t e r n a l f a c t o r in th e d e v e lo p ­ ment o f th e SFRP. As w e ll a s sh ap in g th e d i r e c t i o n th e program to o k , t h e s t a t e ' s economic problem s c r e a t e d a c l i m a t e which was r e c e p t i v e t o new p l a n n in g methods and in which t h e r e was i n c r e a s e d i n t e r e s t in th e r o l e o f f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s in M ic h ig a n 's economy. The im po rtan ce o f t h e f e d e r a l RPA Assessm ent and Program and 137 th e P r o v i s i o n s f o r s t a t e f o r e s t r e s o u r c e program s in th e N a tio n a l F o r e s t Management Act were c i t e d in two of th e i n t e r v i e w s . Q u estio n 5. P u b l i c in v o lv e m e n t. There was agreem ent among th e p r i n c i p a l s t h a t p u b li c involvem ent was n o t v ery im p o rta n t in th e development of th e A ssessm en t, a lth o u g h i t d id s e r v e to keep p eo p le inform ed of th e p r o c e s s . Most of th e in t e r v i e w s i n d i c a t e d t h a t p u b l i c involvem ent was u s e f u l and had some s u b s t a n t i a l i n f l u e n c e s on th e Program. Two of th e p r i n c i p a l s i n te rv ie w e d d i s c u s s e d th e changes in th e program t h a t r e s u l t e d from th e p r e s e n t a t i o n of d r a f t a l t e r n a t i v e s a t N a tu r a l Re­ s o u rc e s Days in March 1980. Four o f th e p r i n c i p a l s f e l t t h a t p u b l i c involvem ent in t h e SFRP was c r u c i a l to d e v e lo p in g t h e needed common s e n s e of d i r e c t i o n f o r th e program and to g a in in g s u p p o rt f o r th e Recommended Program . In v o lv e ­ ment of th e p u b l i c from th e e a r l i e s t s t a g e s of th e SFRP p r o c e s s c r e a t e d f a m i l i a r i t y w ith a s p e c t s of t h e SFRP among some of th e p u b li c and was a l s o u s e f u l in d i s c u s s i n g th e Recommended Program w ith th e members of t h e N a tu r a l R esou rces Commission. One p r i n c i p a l r e p o r t e d t h a t some Commission members needed to f e e l c o n f i d e n t t h a t v a r i o u s p u b l i c s had been in v o lv ed in th e developm ent of th e program . A lso c i t e d in t h i s i n t e r v i e w was th e im p o rtan ce o f th e in v olvem ent o f th e s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e , which p a s se d a j o i n t r e s o l u t i o n r e c o g n i z i n g f o r e s t manage­ ment in th e s t a t e , and o f th e G o v e rn o r's o f f i c e , which re c o g n iz e d th e im po rtance o f th e SFRP a t a s t a t e th e S t a t e o f c o n fe re n c e on f o r e s t r y and th e S t a t e A ddress in th e f a l l o f 1980. in APPENDIX D RECOMMENDED DIFFUSION STRATEGIES FOR MICHIGAN’S STATEWIDE FOREST RESOURCES PLAN Table D.l. Recommended Diffusion Strategies for Michigan's Statewide Forest Resources Plan Agency Change Target Groups. Knowledge P e r s u a s io n S o urces: C hief F o r e s t e r D iv is io n D ir e c to r In n o v a tio n D ecisio n Stages__________________ D e c isio n C onfirm ation Opinion Leaders te c h n ic a l ad v iso rs p o ssib ly u n it leaders Opinion l e a d e r s P e r s o n a l, o p in io n l e a d ­ e r s , C hief F o r e s t e r , D iv is io n D ir e c to r Channels: I n t e r - and I n t r a ­ o ffic e I n te r p e r s o n a l In te rp e rso n a l In te rp e rso n a l In tra p e rso n a l Media: SFRP C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Sur­ v ey, sm all i n t e r d i v i s i o n a l im plem entation m eetin g s and in fo rm al com­ m u n ic a tio n s; i . e . , co ffee breaks, e tc . P r o f e s s i o n a l m eetin g s , p a r t i c i p a t i o n in workshops f o r publie ta rg e t. P a rtic i­ p a t i o n in SFRP Assessment P r o g re s s R e p o rts , Im plem entation work­ sh op s, p a r t i c i p a t i o n in p r e s e n t a t i o n s to p u b lic Sharing e x p e rie n c e s w i t h , p e r c e p t io n s and knowledge o f th e SFRP e s p e c i a l l y abo ut p o s i ­ t i v e a t t r i b u t e s o f SFRP and d e c re a s e com plexity F a c i l i t a t i v e of t r y ­ ing SFRP on f o r s i z e , s t r e s s i n g o th e r p l a n ­ n in g s u c c e ss e s A ssurances t h a t SFRP w i l l meet e x p e c t a t io n s by r e p o r t i n g accom plish ments Memoranda Messages: Announcement of i n s t i t u t i o n of SFRP, e x p la n a tio n o f SFRP p ro c e s s Table D.l (cont'd.) Feedback: I d e n t i f y FRM con­ t a c t p e rso n as s o u rc e f o r f u t u r e in fo r m a tio n and c la rific a tio n I d e n t i f y c o n t a c t p erso n i n each agency a s s o u rc e f o r in f o r m a tio n , Meet ing summar i e s , R e su lts of a t t r i b u t e survey Formal and in fo rm a l communication w ith c o n t a c t p erson P r o g r e s s r e p o r t s , Work­ shops to work through d iffic u ltie s Table D.2. Recommended Diffusion Strategies for Michigan's Statewide Forest Resources Plan Public Change Target Groups. Knowledge P e r s u a s io n I n n o v a tio n D e c isio n S tag es_________________ D e c is io n C o n firm atio n S o u rces: C hief F o r e s t e r D iv is io n D i r e c t o r O pinion l e a d e r s p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and u s e r group l e a d e r s O pinion l e a d e r s P e r s o n a l , o p in io n l e a d ­ e r s , C hief F o r e s t e r , D iv is io n D i r e c t o r Channels: Mass In te rp e rso n a l Mass and i n t e r ­ personal Mass and i n t e r p e r s o n a l Media: Radio and TV News n a tu r a l resource m agazines - s t a t e d istrib u tio n su ffic ie n t P erson to p e r s o n , th rou gh sm a ll workshops sponsored by p u b l i c g ro u p s, a l s o on an agenda of g e n e r a l meet­ in g s of groups "C hoices" f i l m t o group m eetin g s f o l ­ lowed by d i s c u s s i o n le a d by o p in io n lead er Radio and TV news r e le a s e s - pro g ress re p o rts , p re se n ta tio n of r e s u l t s t o g ro u p s, im p lem en tatio n work­ shops M essages: I n fo rm a tio n on i n s t i t u t i o n of SFRP, i t s b e n e f i t s to f o r e s t manage­ ment S t r e s s r e l a t i v e advan­ ta g e , co m p a ta b ility , o f SFRP, e x p l a in SFRP a s t o red u ce c o m p lex ity Try SFRP on f o r s i z e , o b serv e s u c c e s s e s of o t h e r p la n n in g e f f o r t s P ro g ress, r e s u l t s , s u c c e s s e s o f SFRP to d ate Table D.2 (cont'd.) F eed back : Id e n tify co n tact p e rso n s in FMD, e s ta b lis h l i s t of in te re ste d p a rtic ip a n ts M a ilin g s to p a r t i c i p a n t l i s t , r e q u e s t p e rc e p ­ t i o n s of i s s u e s in f o r e s t management in Michigan from groups and i n d i v i d u a l s M ail back r e s u l t s o f i s s u e s s u rv e y , encourage p u b l i c i n t e r e s t - u s e r groups d i s c u s s i o n s of i s s u e s and how SFRP w i l l d e a l w ith them Im plem en tatio n workshop form at to in c lu d e s h a r ­ in g of p e r c e p t i o n s , q u e stio n s LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES A l d e r f e r , C.P. 1976. Change p r o c e s s e s in o r g a n i z a t i o n . In Handbook o f i n d u s t r i a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p s y c h o lo g y , ed . M.D. D u n n e tte , pp. 1591-1638. C hicago: Rand McNally. A lv e s , W.R. and M o r r i l , R .L. 1975. Econ. Geog. 5 1 :2 9 0 -3 0 4 . D i f f u s i o n th e o ry and p l a n n i n g . B eck er, S.W. and S t a f f o r d , F. 1967. Some d e te r m in a n ts o f o r g a n i z a ­ t i o n a l s u c c e s s . J . o f Bus. 4 0 ( 4 ) :5 1 1-516. B e n n is , W.G. 1966. Book Co. Changing o r g a n i z a t i o n s . B urns, R. and S t a l k e r , G.M. London: T a v is t o c k . Cahn, R.W. 1970. 6 93:695. 1961. New York: McGraw-Hill The management of i n n o v a t i o n . Case h i s t o r i e s o f i n n o v a t i o n s . N atu re 22 5(F eb ): C a r t w r i g h t , D. 1980. A ch iev in g change in p e o p le : Some I m p l i c a t i o n s o f group dynam ics. In R ead in gs in m a n a g e r ia l p s y c h o lo g y , e d s . H .J. L e a v i t t , L.R. Pondy and D.M. B oje, pp. 184-196. C hicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s . Churchman, C.W. 1968. l i s h i n g Co. The system s a p p r o a c h . New York: D e l l Pub­ Corwin, R. 1972. S t r a t e g i e s f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l in n o v a t i o n : e m p i r i c a l co m p ariso n . Amer. Soc. Rev. 3 7 ( 4 ):4 4 1 -4 5 4 . An D iam ant, A. 1967. I n n o v a tio n i n b u r e a u c r a t i c i n s t i t u t i o n s . Admin. Rev. 2 7 ( 1 ) : 7 7 —87. P u b l. Downs, A. 1967. In sid e b u reau cracy . D u n n e tte , M .D ., e d . 1976. p s y c h o lo g y . C hicago: B o sto n : L i t t l e , Brown. Handbook o f i n d u s t r i a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l Rand McNally. E t t l i e , J . E . 1980. Manpower flow s and th e I n n o v a tio n p r o c e s s . M gt. S e t . 26 :1086-1094. Evan, W.M. and B la c k , G. 1967. I n n o v a tio n In b u s in e s s o r g a n i z a ­ t i o n s : Some f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d w ith s u c c e s s o r f a i l u r e o f s t a f f p r o p o s a l s . J . o f Bus. 4 0 ( 4 ) :519-530. 142 143 F e l l e r , I . and M enzel, D. 1977. D i f f u s i o n m i l i e u s a s a fo cu s of r e s e a r c h on i n n o v a tio n in th e p u b l i c s e c t o r . P o l i c y S c i . 8 :4 9 -6 8 . F o ste r, J.L . s ta te s . 1978. R e g io n a lis m and in n o v a tio n in th e American J . o f P o l i t i c s 40:1790187. G olem biew ski, R.T. 1964. I n n o v a tio n and o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e . P e r s o n n e l Admin. 2 7 ( S e p t . - O c t . ) : 3 - 4 , 17-21. G ray, V. 1973. I n n o v a tio n i n t h e s t a t e s : P o l . S c i . Rev. 67:11 74 -1 18 5. A d i f f u s i o n s tu d y . Amer. G r i f f i t h s , D.E. 1964. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e t h e o r y and change in o r g a n i z a ­ tio n s. In I n n o v a tio n in e d u c a t i o n , e d . MB. M il e s , pp. 425436. New York: T e a c h e rs C o lle g e Columbia U n i v e r s i t y . Hage, J . and A ik en, M. 1967. Program change and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s : A c o m p a ra tiv e a n a l y s i s . Amer. J . o f Soc. 7 2 (5 ): 503-519. H a s s in g e r , E. 1959. 2 4 :5 2 -5 3 . S ta g e s in th e a d o p tio n p r o c e s s . Rur. Soc. Hayes, F. O'R. 1972. I n n o v a tio n in s t a t e and l o c a l governm ent. In C e n te r f o r in n o v a t i o n in th e c i t i e s and s t a t e , e d s . F. O'R. Hayes and J . E . Rasmussen, pp. 1-20. San F r a n c i s c o : San F r a n c is c o P re s s , Inc. Hoffman, R. and A r c h i b a l d , R.W. 1968. I n t r o d u c i n g t e c h n o l o g i c a l change in a b u r e a u c r a t i c s t r u c t u r e : A c a s e s t u d y . Academy o f Management Annual M eeting P r o c e e d in g s , 1968, pp. 25-36. Huse, E .F . 1975. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l developm ent and c h a n g e . West P u b l i s h i n g Co. S t . P a u l: I d e , Y. 1969. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e re fo rm and i n n o v a t i o n : The J a p a n e se case. I n t e r n a t i o n a l S o c i a l S c i . J . 1 1 ( 1 ) :5 6 —67. K a tz , D. and Kahn, R.L. 1966. The s o c i a l p sy ch olo gy o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s . New York: John Wiley and Sons. K la p p e r , J . T . 1960. The e f f e c t s o f mass com m unication. 1 1 1 .: The F ree P r e s s . G lencoe, K n ig h t, K.E. 1967. A d e s c r i p t i v e model o f th e i n t r a - f i r m in n o v a tio n p r o c e s s . J . o f Bus. 4 0 ( 4 ) :4 78-496. Korzenny, F. 1978. A t h e o r y o f e l e c t r o n i c p r o p i n q u i t y : M edicated com m unication i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Communication R esearch 5 ( l ) : 3 - 2 4 . L i g h t , A.R. 1978. I n te r g o v e r n m e n ta l s o u r c e s o f i n n o v a tio n in s t a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Amer. P o l i t i c s Q. 6 ( 2 ) : 1 4 7 - 6 6 . 144 L i k e r t , R. 1961 New p a t t e r n s o f management. H i l l Book Co. New York: McGraw- L in , N. and B u r t, R .S. 1975. D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f in f o r m a tio n c h a n n e ls in th e p r o c e s s o f i n n o v a tio n d i f f u s i o n . Soc. F o rces 5 4 :2 5 6 -7 4 . McKean, R. 1972. P r o p e r t y r i g h t s w i t h i n governm ent, and d e v ic e s to i n c r e a s e gov ern m ental e f f i c i e n c y . S o u th ern Econ. J . 3 9 (2 ): 177-186. M enzel, D.C. and F e l l e r , I . 1977. L e a d e rs h ip and i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s in th e d i f f u s i o n of in n o v a t i o n s among t h e American s t a t e s . WeBtern P o l . Q. 3 0 :5 2 8 -3 6 . M enzel, H. 1960. I n n o v a tio n i n t e g r a t i o n and r a a r g i n a l i t y . Soc. R ev. 25 :7 0 4 -7 1 3 . Amer. Mohr, L. 1969. D e te rm in a n ts o f i n n o v a tio n i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . P o l . S c i . Rev. 6 3 ( 1 ):1 1 1 - 1 2 6 . Amer. O r r , J . F . and W olfe, J . L . 1979. Technology t r a n s f e r and th e d i f f u ­ s io n o f i n n o v a t i o n s . P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n S e r i e s B ib lio g r a p h y #P232. M o n t i c e l l o , 1 1 1 .: Vance B i b l i o g r a p h i e s . O s tlu n d , L .E . 1974. P e r c e iv e d i n n o v a tio n a t t r i b u t e s a s p r e d i c t o r s o f i n n o v a t i v e n e s s . J . o f Consumer R e se a rc h 1 :2 3 -2 9 . Pack, H. and P ack, J .R . 1977. Urban l a n d - u s e m odels: The d e t e r ­ m in a n ts o f a d o p ti o n and u s e . P o l i c y S c i . 8 :7 9 -1 0 1 . P e l z , D.C. and Andrews, F.M. 1976. S c i e n t i s t s in o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Ann A rb or: I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l R e s e a r c h , The U n v e r s ity o f M ich igan. P o r t e r , L.W. and R o b e r t, K.H. 1976. Communication i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . In Handbook o f i n d u s t r i a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p s y c h o lo g y , ed. M.D. D u n n e tte , pp. 1553-1589. C hicago: Rand McNally. R o e s s n e r, J . 1977. I n c e n t i v e s t o in n o v a te i n p u b l i c and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s (based on c o n f e re n c e p a p e r ) . Admin. and S o c ie ty 9 :3 4 1 -6 5 . R o g e rs , E,M. w ith Shoemaker, F .F . 1971. t i o n s . New York: The F ree P r e s s . Communication o f in n o v a - Rose, D.P. 1973. N a t i o n a l and l o c a l f o r c e s in s t a t e p o l i t i c s : i m p l i c a t i o n s o f m u l t i - l e v e l p o l i c y a n a l y s i s . Amer. P o l . S c i . Rev. 6 7 (Dec.) : 1 1 6 2 - 7 3 . R o sn er, M.M. 1968. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o n t r o l s and I n n o v a tio n . o ra lA c i. 1 3 (1 ):36-43. The B ehavi- 145 Rothraan, J . , E r l i c h , J . L . , and T e r e s a , J.G . 1973. P rom oting in no va­ t i o n and change i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s and co m m u n ities. New York: John W iley and Sons. Rowe, L. and B o is e , W. 1974. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n n o v a t i o n : C u rre n t r e s e a r c h and e v o lv in g c o n c e p ts . Pub. Admin. Rev. 3 4 ( 3 ) :3 8 4 293. S ap o lsk y , J.M. 1967. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e and in n o v a ti o n . J . o f B us. 4 0 ( 4 ):1 4 9 7 -5 1 0 . S avage, R.L. sta te s. 1978. P o li c y i n n o v a t i v e n e s s a s a t r a i t o f American J . of P o l i t i c s 4 0 :2 1 2 -2 4 . S a y l e s , L.R. 1974. The i n n o v a tio n p r o c e s s : An o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a n a l y ­ sis . J . o f Mgt. S tu d ie s 1 1 (3 ):1 9 0 -2 0 4 . S c h i f f , A.L. 1966. I n n o v a tio n and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n making: The c o n s e r v a t i o n o f la n d r e s o u r c e s . Admin. S c i . Q. l l ( l ) : l - 3 0 . Schoen, D.R. 1969. Managing t e c h n o l o g i c a l i n n o v a t i o n . Rev. 47 :1 5 6 -1 6 7 . H arvard B us. S h ep ard , J .A . 1967. I n n o v a t i o n - r e s i s t i n g and i n n o v a tio n p ro d u c in g o r g a n i z a t i o n s . J . o f B us. 4 0 ( 4 ) :47 0 -4 77 . T a y lo r , D.L. and M i l l e r , W.L. 1978. A doption p r o c e s s and e n v i r o n ­ m e n ta l i n n o v a t i o n s : A c a s e s tu d y o f a government p r o j e c t . Rur. S o c. 4 3 :6 3 4 -4 8 . T e ece, D .J . 1980. The d i f f u s i o n o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e in n o v a t i o n . Mgt. S c i . 2 6 ( 5 ):4 6 4 - 4 7 0 . T h io , A.O. 1971. A r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e co n cep t o f a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t i o n c o m p a t i b i l i t y in d i f f u s i o n r e s e a r c h . S o c i o l . Q. 12:5668. U t te r b a c k , J.M. 1971 The p r o c e s s o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l in n o v a tio n w i t h i n t h e f ir m . Academy of Mgt. J . 14(M arch):7 5 -8 8 . W alker, J .L . s ta te s . 1969. The d i f f u s i o n o f i n n o v a tio n among th e American Amer. P o l . S c i . Rev. 6 3 :8 8 0 -8 9 9 . Wasson, C.R. 1960. 2 5 :5 2 -5 6 . What i s new ab o u t a new p r o d u c t. J . o f Mktg. W einer, D.L. 1980. F e d e r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n i n th e p r o c e s s o f in n o v a tio n in l o c a l p u b l i c a g e n c i e s . P u b l. P o l i c y 2 8 ( 1 ) :930115, W ilso n , J .Q . 1966. I n n o v a tio n in o r g a n i z a t i o n . In Approaches t o o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e s i g n , e d . J .D . Thompson, pp. 193-218. P i t t s ­ b u rg : U n i v e r s i t y o f P i t t s b u r g P r e s s . 145 Zaltm an, G. and Duncan, R. 1977. S t r a t e g i e s f o r plan ned change. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Z altm an, G ,, Duncan, o rg a n lz a tio n s. R ., and H olbeck, J . 1973. I n n o v a tio n s and New York: John Wiley and Sons. Z altm an, G. and L in , N. 1971. On th e n a t u r e o f B e h a v io r a l S c i e n t i s t 1 4:651-673. i n n o v a t io n . Amer.