Control de calidad de la materia prima

For Configuration (B) the single most important question to ask is whether or not any alternatives for action were made available. It soon became apparent that, although schools were encouraged to adapt and modify, if they wished, the project materials introduced into the school, no alter­ native methodology or materials were actually made available. It has to be assumed therefore that the procedures of Configuration (B) were not undertaken. The materials were introduced as the materials of the project.

Configuration (C) raises questions related to the resources which were made available and the evaluation of outcomes in termB of both costs and benefits.

Evidence on these points has been examined and is discussed in the chapter that follows.

d) D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g

Within any of the process included in the procedural configuration decisions are required. However it is impossible, logically, to deduce a theory which will arrive at a solution from a definition of a problem. One can only imagine possible solutions and possible means of achieving them and see if they fit the requirements. In other words one may imagine oneself doing certain things, carrying out certain actions and working out the likely consequences to see if they are satisfactory. A relevant example is available in the literature. To determine how well individual teachers thought a given solution fitted with the requirements of teaching science, Kelly (Harding, 1978) proposed the use of four dimensions. The dimensions which Kelly gave were:

(i) dissatisfaction with present practice. (ii) acceptability.

(iii) relevance, and feasibility.

The extent to which these dimensions were evident in the reappraisal pro­ gramme have therefore been assessed.

Galbraith (19T3X c o n t r a s t , presented an analysis of the factors involved in group-decision making. H e listed a number of factors likely to affect the effectiveness of the process. If his hypotheses are to be accepted then the following questions must be answered:

(i) What is the perceived reward/benefit of participation, how important is it and how is it to be evaluated?

(ii) Ho w is the assignment presented to the group and by whom?

(iii) To what extent do the participants have/receive information relevant to the decision they are required to make?

(iv) Who is envolved in making the decision?

(v) To what extent are decisions made in the programme likely to under­ mine the normal decision-making procedures in the school? Are they therefore threatening?

(vi) To what extent is possible conflict over the decisions resolved? (vii) To what extent is consensus reached on the decisions?

(viii) By what means are decisions in the reappraisal programme influenced?

Questions such as these were important in the investigation of the

initiation and implementation of the reappraisal programme in the phase 2

case study school.

e) The Optimisation of Systems and Strategies

The model developed here for the reappraisal programme has four major components namely infrastructure, authority, consensus and resources. These overlap and are therefore not exclusive; nor are they likely to be exhaustive. The model is represented diagrammatically on the following page. Each of the four factors was investigated in the reappraisal pro­ gramme, principally through analysis of interview transcripts. In all cases the convergence or divergence of comments from various sources was carefully examined, and opinions gathered from teachers, LEA advisory staff and HMI are compared and contrasted in the study which follows.

One factor does not appear on the diagram. This is the scale of the pro­ ject. Again returning to Havelock and Huberman, it would appear from their evidence that if the relationship between the Beale or ambition of a project and the ability of the procedural configuration to comply with

Fig. 3-4

Model of Innovative System

A. Infrastructure B. Author!tv i leadership

— ■' (. control ensures processes

efficiently ^

carried out s'

people who make sure ^ processes occur N. Definition of needs ^ Analysis ~ o f problem Processes ' A p p l i c a t i o n ^ \ of solution 'Y Choice of solution --- , ,, *--- C. Resources

_{A .}

agreement with goals and means

the demands outlined above is a factor in determining the type of implementation undertaken, then that must also affect the eventual out­ come of the project. The scale of a particular project they relate to two factors.

Firstly, there is the physical size of the project in terms of the number of people involved, the allocation of resources, and the 'linkage1

mechanisms, i.e., the co-ordinating arrangements, plans, committees, com­ munication routes, etc., which are set up. Secondly, there is the extent

to which a change in role or behaviour is required. Radical change, even if only a few people are involved, might constitute a major innovation if it became established but in general major projects are generally assumed to be those in which both elements are significant. Both have been assessed in the reappraisal programme.

The manner in which a proposed project is introduced would also appear to be significant, and raises the following questions:

1. Is there powerful pressure from outside?