General observations
Case exercise: The cocoa research institute of Savana
The Cocoa Research Institute of Savana (CRIS) case can be handled as an exercise to expose participants both to the institute evaluation process and to the instruments used in measuring the performance of various components and activities of a research organization.
Using the Reading note, participants should be able to develop a framework for organizational evaluation. Because of the limited availability of information, they will probably be able to develop only a framework, and then only for some components. As suggested earlier, participants should try to develop this framework individually, and then improve it during small-group discussions.
During the case briefing, assessment areas can be specified so that participants develop their framework to include those areas. It may be desirable to divide participants into groups and assign to each group a particular assessment area on which to work. In this way the coverage should be comprehensive. The groups could present their framework during the plenary session, and discussion could be organized around these presentations. Alternatively, the resource person could lead the discussion and seek inputs from various groups at appropriate times. From the guidelines given below, the resource person can provide additional information as required. The overall effect of the plenary session should be to simulate the organizational evaluation process.
The resource person is advised not to discuss the Reading note as such in a separate session. The note should serve as a useful guideline for participants to develop the evaluation framework and for their discussions in the small-group and plenary sessions.
Depending upon the availability of time, some general remarks on institute evaluation might be made at the beginning. Alternatively, the resource person might wish to proceed directly to the case, since the observations made in the reading note would be repeated during the discussion.
A framework for assessing organizational performance
Question areas for the assessment exercise
Assessment information from records and documents
Ask participants why anybody should want to assess the performance of a research institute. One of the reasons may be that an international agency is considering providing or extending financial support to strengthen the activities of the institute. In that case, it will be an external review. This is the case with CRIS. The institute could also undertake an internal review exercise as part of its strategic planning process.
Show EXHIBIT 1, and discuss various steps involved in assessing the organization. While it would be ideal to discuss the case following these steps, that may not be possible because of limited time and incomplete information about the organization.
Ask participants what CRIS's mission is. In considering the background of the institute, a statement of the mission should be written out so that the responsibilities and activities of the institute can be identified.
Next discuss the objectives of an assessment exercise. It may be to overcome deficiencies recognized in the working of the institute. For example, the research programme may not be sufficiently responsive to the immediate problems of the clients, particularly the farmer-users. The laboratories, equipment and other facilities may be in poor condition. Linkage with extension workers and farmers may be inadequate. The management system may be poor and administrative systems weak. Against these known deficiencies in the working of the institute or other objectives specified, terms of reference for the review can be specified. It is important to spell out clearly the duties of the review mission so that the report meets the expectations.
The assessment exercise may call for an impartial review of scientific and technological content of the approved research programme, the quality of its implementation, its relevance to farmers and to industry problems, and the soundness of results. In this context, the assessment exercise may review the entire research programme.
The discussion could be confined to evaluation of:
· the scientific programme;
· equipment; and
· assets and human resources.
Next discuss the composition of the review team. This would depend upon the objectives of the assessment exercise. An external management review team would include experts in institute management, various scientific disciplines and other areas under review. An internal review team should consist of experts who have experience in the working of other research institutions.
The review team should set its working framework in the context of the relevance of the institute in the national agricultural research system. Thus CRIS focuses on cocoa, which is the main cash crop exported. Therefore the review team should consider biological and socio-economic constraints to the Savana cocoa industry, and then assess the importance of the research work carried out by the institute.
Begin with an overall assessment of the current research programme and its priorities. List priority research projects by each division to get a feel for the institute's research programme. This review should allow comments to be made on the overall programme of the institute and its priorities.
Next, the existing research programme has to be reviewed in detail by division. This analysis will help in:
· commenting on research programmes of specific divisions;
· identifying future research priorities; and
· working out requirements for strengthening the research divisions to fulfil their agenda.
Ongoing research projects; should be reviewed, taking into consideration:
· approach;
· relevance;
· ultimate utility; and
· current status.
Apart from recommendations on specific projects, the review team might question whether the approach adopted in a particular research project will lead to recommendations acceptable to farmers. In the case of Savana, given high pressure on land, the luxury of fallowing land is no longer an option, because it requires inputs and is non-productive in terms of food crops and income. Further thought should be given to any work proposed along the line of alternatives to fallowing.
The review team may make recommendations concerning adding, collaborating in, abandoning or transferring a particular research activity. For example, one of the projects in CRIS focuses on value addition to the cocoa crop by making use of pod husks and discarded beans, it is no doubt a valuable piece of work, but CRIS is not the institute best suited to do it. This should be done by some other institution. At best, CRIS could provide the raw material required. This would enable CRIS to transfer available resources to research in subject areas of greater priority.
The adequacy, suitability and operational status of equipment available in the scientific divisions will have to be assessed to find out whether the lack or availability of laboratory equipment facilitates or impedes progress in research work.
List the laboratory equipment and assess whether:
· the available equipment is sufficiently sophisticated to support the ongoing research programme;· the main equipment is operational, in need of repair or even of replacement;
· any new equipment is required, and list the requirements in terms of capital equipment, minor equipment, consumables and other component parts;
· available equipment can be used better. For example, a computer could be better utilized with the addition of graphics software and a word processing package;
· facilities such as cold rooms or controlled-temperature areas are available and operational, and if there is a need to create new facilities or strengthen the available facilities;
· there is need for training or broadening the experience of technical officers in a particular field;
· whether the layout of the division is satisfactory and provides safe, easy access and adequate working space; and
· the laboratory needs refurbishment (renewing bench surface material, fume cupboards and fume extensions, etc.).
Evaluation of supporting divisions - such as those for plant physiology and biochemistry -should include additional dimensions pertaining to the effectiveness of mechanisms for coordination and collaboration with the main scientific divisions. Incidentally, the organization of CRIS has, over time, absorbed these divisions into the main scientific divisions. Ask participants whether that was desirable and whether it has improved the efficiency and increased the outputs of these divisions.
Equipment is essential for all scientific work and has to be appropriately assessed to find out whether there is a need to reorganize, upgrade or re-equip the division concerned. Points to be considered include:
· Has equipment been installed satisfactorily? Have suppliers met their obligations fully?· Is the new equipment compatible with the existing equipment?
· Is any equipment currently out of commission? If broken down, is it serviceable and is there any impediment to its servicing, such as availability of spare parts or funds?
· Are procedures for repairs clear and effective, or do they need to be reviewed?
· Does the division responsible for maintaining and repairing equipment have essential tools and test instruments?
· Are servicing and testing manuals available in the maintenance division, making tracing of faults easy? Is the procedure for obtaining spare parts efficient and quick?
· Do equipment servicing and equipment have a high priority for funds?
· Is it possible to get older items serviced?
· Is the servicing problem aggravated because of different makes and countries of origin?
· Can alternative facilities be used? Do such arrangements exist? What would be the cost? How would that affect scientific work?
· Has poor maintenance of equipment: demoralized the technical staff; led to diversion of work in other directions, say to field work rather than work being done in the laboratories; impeded the eagerness to repair the equipment; led to loss of competence to use equipment through lack of practice; and led to lack of confidence at the technical officer level?
· Is there need to remove old and unworkable equipment from the working area?
· Is the centralized service system working as required for maintenance of certain equipment?
· Is the electricity supply reliable, continuous and with a stable voltage?
· Are central services and electricity supply emergency back-up equipment working?
· Is the head of the service division in a sufficiently senior position to command respect from the administrative hierarchy of the institution?
In the case of technical staff, important issues to examine are whether:
· there is a gap between the extremely high academic and professional qualifications of the research officers and the level of training of technical grade staff;· the technical staff can provide support to the research staff; and
· training in the use of modern analytical instruments, routine analysis procedures and other areas would help raise the level of ability and confidence of the technical staff.
In the case of information services, factors to be assessed include:
· Is the library properly funded and up to date?· What is the range of books and journals on display?
· What deficiencies, if any, are there in library services, and what measures would help to overcome them?
· Is the reproduction section properly equipped? Is the equipment in good working order, or does it need repair or even replacement?
· Does the photographer have adequately sophisticated equipment to do the advanced work for which she or he is trained?
Assessment of assets and human resources requires evaluation of the Works and Estate Division (WED) to ensure that support is available for research. Aspects to be assessed should include:
· the current state of workshops, transport and equipment, and need for rehabilitation;· the extent to which WED is capable of providing support to the research divisions;
· whether WED is structured optimally or poorly; is it over-centralized or over-fragmented;
· whether lines of responsibility are clearly defined;
· whether some of the responsibilities which should logically be part of WED are outside its jurisdiction, creating difficulty in coordination;
· how well WED is managed;
· the extent of cooperation between WED and the scientific divisions;
· whether information is transferred freely across divisions and units, or whether each department acts independently;
· whether supervision is adequate and efficient;
· whether the stores unit tries to forward purchase, acts only in response to direct requests for parts or materials, or waits until equipment is totally non-operational before taking any action;
· the skills, work experience, mechanical knowledge and managerial skills of staff at various levels in the division, and hence related departmental training needs;
· whether utilities like water and electricity are available adequately and reliably, or if problems are common;
· whether regular investment has been made to replace capital equipment;
· whether transport resources are adequate and operational;
· whether preventive maintenance of transport and other equipment is carried out on a regular basis;
· whether the replacement policy is clearly formulated, or ad hoc and the source of confusion and problems;
· whether farm machinery is adequate in number and type;
· whether the standards of operation required are clear and known to all operators;
· whether safety procedures are enforced to ensure the safety of operators and others.
After evaluating WED, the review team might wish to suggest a rehabilitation programme, which could cover:
· organization of the division;
· basic requirements for upgrading facilities;
· staff training;
· new investment;
· standardization of makes and models;
· maintenance programmes;
· technical assistance; and
· rehabilitation costs.
Apart from recommendations specific to individual scientific and other divisions, the review team must look into two crucial issues in the context of CRIS, namely:
· comments should be made on whether the institute should continue to focus on the main cash crop (cocoa) or include other crops, like coffee and shea nuts. If the recommendation is to include other crops, then a mechanism should be evolved to maintain a correct balance of effort and resources. Resources must not be diverted or increased at the expense of cocoa; and· although the CRIS management claims that a strong interdisciplinary approach prevails in the institute, it has to be appropriately evaluated. The existing priorities have also to be evaluated against client needs.
The assessment exercise could reveal either that an interdisciplinary approach is lacking or weak, or that the existing priorities neither conform to client requirements nor make the best use of the available resources. In either case, the review team could advocate the adoption of a new interdisciplinary approach to address the major areas of research identified. Even while adopting such an approach (which follows the model developed by the International Potato Centre (CIP) and other IARCs of the CGIAR system), CRIS should maintain its scientific divisions for administrative, career development and resource allocation purposes, while continuing supportive component research, to be conducted as deemed appropriate by division heads and as approved by CRIS management. In general, linkages between CRIS and other organizations, both in and outside Savana, will be best fostered within such a divisional structure.
The concept of interdisciplinary thrust is based on research management by objectives. Each thrust established should call on a multidisciplinary team charged with tackling an identified, practical problem area and addressing agreed objectives. Each thrust (often containing subsidiary programmes and their respective aims) should be implemented by a team led by a person drawn from the most appropriate division, but not necessarily the divisional head, and comprise scientists drawn from appropriate divisions within the institution. To be effective, it will be necessary to have a strong research management directive, operating at Deputy Executive Director level, through the Cocoa Research Committee.
The review team might put forward some suggestions for the initial thrusts, which should tackle the perceived constraints in cocoa production. These could be:
· genetic improvement;
· cocoa establishment;
· cocoa management;
· cocoa swollen shoot virus;
· cocoa black pod disease;
· capsid damage and its control; and
· environmental protection.
The review team should assess CRIS's linkage with other organization. The need for such linkage arises because:
· it is neither economical nor practical for CRIS to attempt to develop expertise in all the disciplines and technologies needed to support its research programme;· the institute should concentrate its research on developing only particular (in-house) expertise; and
· other sources of expertise could be exploited through such linkages. Linkage with other institutions will expand research potential by making use of complementary expertise and facilities.
If existing linkages with related organizations inside and outside the country are weak or absent, the review team could make suggestions for establishing or strengthening such linkages.
The review team will also have to examine any possible need for additional units that might help better achieve the institute's objectives. For example, even though CRIS management claims linkages with extension, its organizational structure does not indicate any formal mechanism for that purpose. Therefore it might be necessary to have a farming system unit so as to create or strengthen such an important linkage. In recommending an additional - or major modifications to any - unit, it is necessary to provide justification and indicate probable functions, support required, human resources needs and possible approaches to be adopted.
Given the size of the organization and that its work should be directly transferable to user farmers, there should be a mechanism for transfer of technology and dissemination of information. The organization could require a scientific information officer, a communication consultant and extension professionals.
Human resources requirements should be projected on a division and unit basis. Any comments on a perceived need to add, reduce or transfer staff should be justified on the basis of changing needs, and the relative urgency of any changes should be noted. Any modifications to the staffing structure; should be placed in a proper perspective, bearing in mind the contributions made by the permanent staff, technical cooperation staff (expatriate appointments, i.e., professional and technical staff seconded from or financed by external agencies) and short-term consultants. Recommendations should specify needs foreseen in terms of work-months per year.
A need for additional review could be suggested as follow-up to the main assessment exercise, pertaining to, say, a particular division or unit.
Before concluding the discussion, the resource person should clarify that, while the discussion may not have been well structured, the assessment report has to present observations and analysis in an organized and integrated manner. The report could be presented along the lines of the report whose outline contents are shown in EXHIBIT 2.
Time permitting, the resource person may wish to conceptualize the theoretical basis of organizational assessment by presenting the framework for assessing organizational performance (EXHIBIT 3). This framework is ordered by different units in the organization, each having a different focus and coverage. Important areas for investigation can be broadly identified, but they will have to be addressed to the individual role holders within the organizational (EXHIBIT 4). While these individuals should be able to furnish a great deal of the information required for the evaluation exercise, additional information will have to be generated from other sources. EXHIBIT 5 should help identify information requirements and sources whence this information could be derived within the organization. Of course, there is a simpler presentation possible of the concepts contained in this exhibit, as discussed during the case discussion.
|
STEPS IN ORGANIZATION ASSESSMENT |
1. Objectives of the assessment exercise
2. Size and nature of the organization
3. Areas to be covered during the assessment exercise
4. Potentials users of the assessment results and recommendations
5. Organizational model on which the assessment methodology is to be based
6. Framework for conducting the assessment exercise
7. Evaluation of data
8. Methods of collecting data
9. Methodology for conducting the assessment exercise
10. Results, analysis and recommendations
|
CONTENTS OF AN EXAMPLE OF AN ASSESSMENT REPORT |
1. Background
2. Terms of reference
3. Composition of the review team
4. Biological and socio-economic constraints in the Savana cocoa industry
5. CRIS current research priorities
6. CRIS infrastructure and human resources
7. Review of the current research programme
· Agronomy, including soil science and biometrics
· Plant breeding
· Phytopathology
· Plant virology
· Plant mycology and nematology
· Entomology
· Plant physiology and biochemistry
8. Proposed interdisciplinary approach
9. The proposed farming systems unit
10. Linkages
11. Recommended inputs
· Staffing
· Equipment
12. Independent review body and monitoring procedures
13. Conclusions
14. Recommendations
15. Acknowledgements
|
ASPECT (FOCUS) |
DIMENSIONS AND COVERAGE (ILLUSTRATIVE) | |
|
1. Overall organizational analysis | ||
|
Macro-organizational context |
Demographic aspects | |
|
|
Organizations's strategies | |
|
|
Projected demand and supply | |
|
Macro-organizational design |
Forms of departmentation | |
|
|
|
· Functional |
|
|
|
· Programmatical |
|
|
|
· Geographical |
|
Macro-organizational performance |
Overall performance of the organization | |
|
|
|
· Attainment of goals |
|
|
|
· Acceptance and adoption of research findings |
|
2. Organizational unit analysis | ||
|
Organizational element and department context(assessing functional contribution of unit to the organization) |
Institutional | |
|
|
· Managerial and technical variables | |
|
|
· Vertical and horizontal location of the element in the organizational set-up | |
|
|
· Nature of work performed by the unit; difficulty and variability of tasks | |
|
|
· Size of unit and staff complement | |
|
Design of organizational element |
Specialization | |
|
|
|
· Different tasks assigned to a unit, and the various job titles in the unit |
|
|
|
· Staff composition |
|
|
|
· Heterogeneity of personnel |
|
|
|
· Interchangeability of roles |
|
|
Standardization | |
|
|
|
· Automation of work methods |
|
|
|
· Details of unit rules and procedures |
|
|
Decision making | |
|
|
· Centralization of decisions in the unit head | |
|
|
· Decision strategies | |
|
|
- computational | |
|
|
- judgemental | |
|
|
- bargaining | |
|
|
- juristic | |
|
|
· Performance norms; standards of audit; emphases on quality or quantity control | |
|
|
· Incentives | |
|
|
- at group level | |
|
|
- at individual level | |
|
Organizational element performance (assess effectiveness of the unit or department) |
· Share of unit in the attainment of organizational goals | |
|
|
· Quality and quantity of department performance | |
|
|
· Department efficiency (cost per unit output) | |
|
|
· Unit morale | |
|
|
|
- work group cohesiveness |
|
|
|
- staff turnover rate |
|
|
· Adaptability to changing demands | |
|
3. Individual job analysis | ||
|
Individual job context |
· Functional role | |
|
|
· Contribution of job to unit and organization | |
|
|
· Characteristics of person in the job | |
|
|
|
- education |
|
|
|
- job-related skills |
|
|
|
- tenure |
|
|
|
- career history |
|
|
|
- strength of growth need |
|
Design of individual job |
Job specialization | |
|
|
|
- variety of tasks performed |
|
|
|
- scope of tasks performed |
|
|
Job expertise | |
|
|
|
- education |
|
|
|
- length of job-entry orientation |
|
|
|
- training time on-the-job |
|
|
Job standardization | |
|
|
|
- details of job discretion |
|
|
|
- freedom in making job-related decisions |
|
|
|
- closeness of supervisor |
|
|
|
- job incentives |
|
|
|
- job-contingent rewards and sanctions |
|
|
|
- feedback from work, managers and peers |
|
Individual job performance |
Value judgements on the criteria used to evaluate effectiveness of individual jobs | |
|
|
|
- percentage of job performance in attaining organizational goals |
|
|
|
- quality and quantity of individual performance |
|
|
|
- job satisfaction work motivation |
|
4. Intra- and inter-unit relations |
|
Resource flow |
· Work | |
|
|
· Personnel | |
|
|
· Money | |
|
|
· Resource dependence pattern | |
|
|
|
- directions and amounts of resource flows among organizational units, levels and positions |
|
|
|
- routinization of resource flows |
|
|
|
- perceived dependence among organizational units, levels and positions |
|
| ||
|
Information flows |
· Communication mechanisms | |
|
|
|
- impersonal |
|
|
|
- personal |
|
|
|
- group |
|
|
· Integration pattern | |
|
|
· Direction and frequency of information flows among organizational units, levels and positions | |
|
|
· Distribution of influence | |
|
|
· conflicts, and models of its resolution | |
|
|
· Quality of communication | |
|
Coordination and control outcomes/ |
· Value judgements on criteria used to evaluate effectiveness of coordination and control among organizational units, levels and positions | |
|
|
· Perceived effectiveness of interpersonal relations and interpositional levels | |
|
|
· Degree of sub-optimization and competition among organizational units at inter-unit level | |
|
|
· Cost of marginal transactions across intra-organizational units compared to inter-organization or the market at macro-organizational level | |
Based on: Van de Ven, A.H., & Ferry, D.L. 1980. A revised framework for organizational assessment, pp. 221-223 in: Lawler, E.E., III, Nadler, D.A., & Cammann, C. (eds) Organizational Assessment. New York, NY: John Wiley.
1. Adapted from: Quinquennial Report of the National Dairy Research Institute. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, 1987.
Subject areas for questions for the assessment exercise at various levels should cover the following:
1. AT DIRECTOR OR HEAD OF INSTITUTE LEVEL
· Objectives of the institute.· Responsibilities of the director.
· Information about management committees, if any.
· Organization of the institute's activities: by product or by discipline.
· Information about the various substations of the institute.
· Information about coordination of the institute's activities and research programmes with other agricultural institutes, both national and international.
· Information regarding teaching and extension programmes of the institute, and also on how they are integrated.
· Coordination of research programmes.
· Information about budgetary allocations to different areas, including teaching, research, extension and administration.
· Information about research programmes of the institute, such as who decides, approves, monitors and evaluates research projects, both ongoing and completed.
· Information regarding the reward system of the institute.
· Information regarding interdisciplinary research programmes, and also about basic and applied research in the institute.
· Information about transfer of technology and extension programmes, and how technology is transferred to the ultimate users.
· Information about the most important research projects and research achievements of the institute in the last five to ten years.
· Research gaps, if any, and how these could be bridged
2. AT HEAD OF DIVISION LEVEL
· Information about the head of the division, including qualifications, professional society memberships, experience, job description, time devoted to research, teaching, extension and administration, etc.· Details about authority, responsibility shared by sub-units, and also of flexibility in organizational functioning.
· Research Advisory Committee activities at divisional level and its role and functioning.
· Divisional activities and frequency.
· Research outputs and publications of the division.
· Constraints faced in maximizing divisional efficiency: constraints could be related to physical facilities, skills and human relations.
· Relationships and coordination with other agricultural institutes in the country.
· Likely future programmes of the division in research, teaching, extension, etc.
· Detailed and separate information about the division's functioning arid involvement in the areas of research, teaching, administration and personnel.
3. AT SCIENTIST LEVEL
· Information about educational and professional particulars of the scientist, her or his discipline and previous experience.· Job description, clearly indicating duties and responsibilities.
· Proportion of time spent on research, training and extension activities.
· What was the source of the idea and who was responsible for proposing the research project taken up by the scientist?
· Criteria considered for selecting a research project. These criteria might be:
- urgency of research;
- compatibility with the institute's goals;
- contribution to the knowledge base;
- cost of adoption by farmers;
- resource availability; or
- potential economic benefits.· Authority responsible for approving and evaluating the research proposal.
· Who would benefit from the research outputs: farmers, research division, self, policy-makers, institute, students, extension worker or general public?
· Any limitations or hindrances faced in efficiency and effectiveness.
· Seminars, conferences or workshops attended or any advanced study during last five years.
· Information about research projects in which the scientist is involved.
· Scientist's recently completed research projects and his or her most important findings in last five years.
· Publications and other research material developed by the scientist.
· Information about authority, responsibility and autonomy of the scientist in research.
· Conflict, if any, between the research priorities of the scientist and those of the institute.
· Scientist's opinion about facilities available.
· Scientist's opinion about the institute's reward and motivation system.
· Scientist's opinion about resource allocation.
1. Based on: Mirvis, P. 1980. Assessing physical evidence, documents and records in organizations, pp. 424-425 in: Lawler, E.E., III, Nadler, D.A., & Cammann, C. (eds) Organizational Assessment. New York, NY: John Wiley.
1. For individual staff members
Physical evidence:
· Office or work station, spatial arrangements, decoration, size and location; organizational status, responsibilities, interpersonal relations and accessibility.· Personal artifacts; personal habits and interests.
· Physical count of performance outputs.
Documents:
· Application form and resume: age, sex, race, marital status, work history, education, tenure and past and current addresses.· Deduction forms: number of dependents.
· Personnel file: employment interview, career advancement and counselling, performance evaluation, written reprimands and commendations, and exit interview.
· Files: communications, work relations and authority.
· Calendar: work schedule, meetings and social life.
Records:
· Payroll records: wages, benefits and position.· Performance records: quantity and quality of output.
· Medical records: health, somatic complaints, accidents, illnesses and visits to the dispensary.
· Time cards: work hours, absences and lateness.
· Telephone records.
· Travel records.
· Accounting records: investment in hiring, training and development.
2. Technology
Physical evidence:
· Work areas, machinery, layout: modernity of equipment, interdependencies and job characteristics.· Safety and health: safety equipment, noise and air quality, and smells
· Physical count: inventory, buffer stocks, finished goods, product rejects and returns, scrap and spoilage, and materials and supplies.
Documents:
· Job descriptions.· Technical drawings, specifications and work orders.
· Process flow charts: core and supportive technology, production gaps and interdependencies.
· Customer letters.
· Inspection tags.
Records:
· Accounting records: capital investment, depreciation, replacement costs and learning-curve costs.· Work schedules.
· Performance records: inventory, buffer stocks, finished goods, product rejects and returns, scrap and spoilage, materials and supplies, downtime and machine repair, and shipping.
· Performance standards: engineered and historical standards, and budgeted objectives and variances.
3. Groups
Physical evidence:
· Work areas: organizational function and status, intra- and inter-group relations, cliques, interdependence, roles and cohesiveness.· Non-work areas: social norms and intra- and inter-group relations.
Document:
· Identifying characteristics: bulletin boards, slogans, signs and demarcations.
Records:
· Personnel records: group homogeneity or heterogeneity.· Performance records: group cooperation and production norms.
4. Organization
Physical evidence:
· Building: age, size, number of offices, status of departments and functions.· Geography: location, landscape, fences and security.
· Facilities: offices and work areas, lunchrooms, vending machines, water fountains, parking lots and washrooms.
· Amenities: carpets, artwork, library, rest and recreation areas and equipment, refrigerators and liquor cabinets.
· Security personnel and facilities.
Documents:
· Charter: mission goals.· Organization chart: division of authority and responsibility, lines of communication, levels, size, line and staff functions, supervisor to subordinate ratios, and centralization.
· Union relations: contract and union constitution and bylaws.
· Internal communications: memos, speeches, company newsletter, suggestion boxes, films, orientation and training materials, files, trash and policy manuals.
· External communication: advertising, speeches, annual report, public relations releases, periodicals, publications and films.
· Reports: staff studies, audits and consulting studies.
· Law suits and legal briefs.
Records:
· Accounting records: sales, assets, liabilities, profit, return on investment, goodwill, stock price, dividends, earnings per share, business cycles, products and services.· Personnel records: internal stability, promotions, minority and female employment, national targets and compliance and affirmative-action policies.
· Union relations: grievances, work stoppages, strikes and lockouts.
· Payroll records: salary structure and bonus policy.
· Information systems: budgets, standards, historical performance and operational goals.
· Insurance records: plant and equipment, worker's compensation and safety.
