The theories which have been sought may be grouped into five themes: a) systems and change
b) intervention and innovation c) procedural configurations d) decision-making
e) optimisation of systems and strategies
a) Systems and Change
The background theory for this theme comes principally from two sources : Havelock and Huberman (1979) and Hutton (I969). These authors have been
chosen because of the very extensive nature of their investigations plus their detailed analysis.
The basic premise of both is that humanity is always organising and re organising itself into systems and subsystems. The elements of a system always have some degree of unity, but this is flexible. Essentially a system involves a process, a route by which inputs may be absorbed and outputs generated. The system may be open or closed in that it may o r may not accept inputs of energy or resources from its environment.
The ease with which systems can be changed or made to grow depends on the extent of their openness which in turn allows the rearrangement of internal elements, together with the easy and rapid flow of personnel and
information. An incomplete system is indicated by disarray, confusion and conflict and demonstrated by the problems, needs and deprivation of a system. It may occur if certain elements are lacking, the system is too large or the elements are independant.
Several factors likely to induce a system to change are listed by Havelock and Huberman. Amongst them are new inputs from outsiders, failure to achieve equilibrium of the system, a change in process or configuration within the system, fusion with other systems, and innovation. Innovation implies a deliberate attempt towards improvement of the system. Thus change and innovation are regarded an different processes. Innovations initiated externally are denoted in this thesis as interventions.
These authors suggest that the process of innovation has certain requirement which must be met if it is to be successful. There has to be a sequence
of events which starts with recognition of need and leads eventually to installation of a change. At the practical level there has therefore to be a group or set of people tied together by the innovation and a
transformation of their ideas into resources, practices and institutions. This process also requires a problem solving sequence in which, firstly, needs are recognised and defined as problems, secondly, solutions are found and applied and, thirdly, needs are then satisfied. An innovation may therefore be itself regarded as a temporary system having both input and output. Although a system itself, an innovation is however always created within another system which produces inputs in terms of needs, objectives, personnel and resources and which absorbs the outputs of the innovation.
Since an innovation in this context is regarded as a system, it implies the existence of an organisation. An innovation therefore has a con figuration which may be visualised as:
People resources
Connections Output
Fig. 3.1. The Process of Innovation - inputs and outputs
The processes involved are those which control the transactions of the system with elements from the environment, e.g. external values, pressures and resources, those which facilitate the achievement of goals, and those which maintain the system, such a.s the means of securing resources and accessing information (Hutton, I969).
The conditions which are likely to lead to attempts to create a new system and hence to innovation have been analysed by Havelock and Huberman (1977 }. 3uch action may, they say, be brought about because of a breakdown in
existing systems or because of dissatisfaction with them. However they stress that actions depends on the mobilisation of a concerned subgroup and the emergence of a leader from that subgroup. Leadership therefore becomes an area, for investigation in this thesis.
The input-out configuration of a system may be visualised by aid of a diagram:
remote environment
r
inputs/ —Fig. 3.2. The Input - Output Configuration of a System
f-ince inputs c a n come from many sources and be of many kinds, some element of input management is necessary. Firstly inputs have to be consistent with the needs of the system and therefore careful searching and scanning
outnuts
for appropriate inputs is required. Inputs also need screening and critical evaluation, for they may have to he regulated and directed a.nd, in several cases, adapted to fit the system's needs. mirthermore, they have to be co-ordinated with the existing system -i.e. the regular and routine life of the'host'. It is observed by Havelock and Huberman that it is at this stage of integration that the most serious failings in
innovations frequently occur. This finding is also verified by Gross et al. (1971) who cite the incompatibility of organisational arrangements as one of the moot likely barriers to implementation of a project.
Since inputs come from other systems Havelock and Huberman point out that the entries of these have to be timed, co-ordinated and matched with one another, a process entailing some negotiation. Extended negotiations, they say, may be good up to a point but can eventually indicate stalling or reluctance. The value of negotiations therefore depends on the quality of the input dialogue.
An innovation may be set up to achieve specified goals but that, they say, is a limited concept. The value of an innovatory system can only really be assessed by analysing the benefits and costs to all those concerned and these are not always easy things to measure. The difficulties point to the need to establish output dialogue, just as much as input dialogue. Only then is it likely that potential users and decision-makers will
become aware of the more subtle implications of implementing the innovation.
The analysis based on the work of Havelock and Huberman also leads to the suggestion that there are certain key variables which are likely to be significant in determining the success or otherwise of implementing
oduc.itional innovations. Many of those key variables were investigated by Havelock and Hubcrman in their extensive survey of the literature on the implementation of educational change and innovation. From their model they were then able to explain why many problems occurred in implementing
innovations, i.e. they were able to derive a theory of action. At the same time by using Lheir model in conjunction with empirical evidence they were able to provide many recommend a t i ons for those whose task it is to implement innovations i.e. they also derived a theory for action. Many of the key variables which they identified as significant in determining the eventual outcome of an Innovation are included amongst those I investigated during the reappraisal programme. These are reported in the following chapter of • this thesis.
In summary, questions generated from the application of systems theory to the process of reappraisal includes