2631487.pdf

Uncertainty and Technical Communication PatternsAuthor(s): James W. Brown and James M. UtterbackSource: Management Science, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Mar., 1985), pp. 301-311Published by: INFORMSStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2631487 .Accessed: 08/12/2014 05:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

INFORMS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Management Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 103.4.92.53 on Mon, 8 Dec 2014 05:53:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE Vol. 31, No. 3, March 1985

Printed in U.S.A.

UNCERTAINTY AND TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION PATTERNS*

JAMES W. BROWN AND JAMES M. UTTERBACK School of Journalism, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202

School of Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

This paper examines the relationship between research and development peoples' perceptions of uncertainty in their firm's competitive environment and their patterns of technical communication. Measures of both these attributes of six R&D groups, two in each of three industries, are reported and analyzed here. Technical people who saw the world (competitors, suppliers, customers, technology and regulations) outside their firm as more uncertain also were found to seek greater contact with sources of information outside their firms. The gatekeeper phenomenon was found to be more pronounced, but less formal and less well defined in these firms. Gatekeepers in general were found to perceive a higher level of uncertainty than others in all six firms. (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION)

Introduction

This paper examines the relationship between research and development peoples' perceptions of uncertainty in their firm's competitive environment and their patterns of technical communication. While there are very good reasons to believe that as a firm's competitive context becomes less predictable and more complex, communication between its people and the world outside will increase, few studies have examined this issue directly. This is an important concern for a firm moving into new product areas and technologies, as well as for firms beset by rapid changes in technology, market demands, regulatory requirements, materials availability and rivalry on the part of competing firms. The findings of some related past research, a set of hypotheses derived from these, and the present study method, measurements and results will be presented here.

Persons who serve as "mediators" in communication of technical information between sources outside their organization and those inside have been shown to be critical in suggesting new ideas and in bringing relevant information to bear in technical problem solving (Allen 1970). Allen contends that while most of the information used by engineers in effective development efforts comes from colleagues within the organization, those highly chosen as sources of information are also the individuals who most often use external sources of information, such as journals and experts in their field. He has termed those occupying such informal roles "technical gatekeepers," because they open the "gate" or barrier raised by different terminology or "coding" (Katz and Kahn 1966) used inside and outside the organization. Allen (1970) has also shown that gatekeepers communicate frequently with one another, thus forming an efficient network for transmitting information within the organization. Gerstberger (1971) found that new-hires who joined groups fortunate enough to include a member of this network were rapidly linked into the organization's informal communication. Those who joined other groups were less aware of whom to seek out for technical assistance within the organization. Engineers appear to enter the gatekeeper role only after significant experience within the organization (Taylor 1972) and to cease this

*Accepted by Burton V. Dean; received January 17, 1983. This paper has been with the authors 5 months for 1 revision.

301 0025-1909/85/3 103/03101$0 .25

Copyright ? 1985, The Institute of Management Sciences


bbcHighlight

bbcHighlight

bbcHighlight

bbcHighlight

bbcHighlight

302 JAMES W. BROWN AND JAMES M. UTTERBACK

function once they are no longer directly involved in technical work. While a large proportion (40%o) of those identified as gatekeepers by Allen (1970) were also first-line supervisors, this does not appear to be a necessary condition. To be a gatekeeper according to Allen's findings it is sufficient to be highly chosen as a source of information and ideas by colleagues (a technical discussion "star") and also to have a high frequency of contact with external information sources (an external communication "star") (Allen and Cohen 1969, Taylor 1972).

The gatekeeper concept has appealing simplicity and "face validity," and the compelling initial evidence has resulted in much further empirical study. Current and future directions for work in this area include replication and generalization of the above findings (Frost and Whitley 1971, Tushman 1977, Walsh and Baker 1972), extension to include additional individual (Hall 1972) and organizational variables (Taylor 1972, Morrow 1981), and longitudinal studies (Callahan and Salipante 1979, Gerstberger 1971, Taylor and Utterback 1975). Allen (1977) has recently written a comprehensive summary of much of the research in this area. However, a more comprehensive statement of the conditions under which the gatekeeper phenomenon may arise and operate effectively seems to be required if these and other studies are not to produce confusing and contradictory results. Crane (1970) has posed an incisive challenge in her review. She contends that "(while) the methodological sophistication of the studies (of technical communication) has increased; theoretical issues appear to be more urgent." What revisions or extensions of theory might assist in the further examination of the process of technical communication across organization boundaries? This paper argues that perceived environmental uncertainty is a useful concept to explain some contradictions in the literature regarding the gatekeeper phenomenon, in differing organizational environments, and in making theoretical extension in the process of technical communication.

Uncertainty in organizations' environments has appeared in a number of investiga, tions to be a major contingency in explaining variations in effective structures. Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) describe firms in the less certain environments, defined as consisting of market, product and production technologies, as requiring a greater degree of use of integrating roles and departments for effective performance. Firms in more certain environments were able to rely on formal hierarchy and procedures. Burns and Stalker (1961) describe a firm in a rapidly changing environment as "organic" in structure in contrast to the "mechanistic" structure of a firm in a relatively stable commercial and technical environment. Galbraith (1973), from a comprehensive review of literature and case studies, concludes that the information processing capacity required of an organization for effective performance is a mono- tonic function of uncertainty in its environment, number of units, variables or clients, and complexity of interdependencies faced by the firm. As uncertainty, number and complexity increase, the reliance of the firm on interpersonal communication and interactive information systems must also increase.

Blandin and Brown have suggested that uncertainty motivates the information search process. They report data on use of formal and informal sources of information by 70 managers in eight firms as related to their individual perceptions of uncertainty. Managers in four electronics firms were seen to perceive their environments as much more uncertain than did managers of four wood products firms. Significant relationships were found to exist between managers' individual perceptions of uncertainty and their reliance on and use of outside sources of information (Blandin and Brown 1977). Tushman examined communication and task uncertainty for 62 project groups in one large firm. He found that high performing groups with uncertain tasks had a greater degree of outside communication than did others (Tushman 1976). (Both of these studies were conducted at the same time as the present research.)


UNCERTAINTY AND TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION PATTERNS 303

Tushman (1977) found that projects in a changing environment, with complex information requirements, had more boundary roles than other projects in stable environments with more simple information requirements. Research projects had more boundary roles than technical projects.

These statements and findings suggest that the greater the uncertainty in the organization's environment, the more likely one will find the technical gatekeeper phenomenon to be present. The greater the rate of change in the field the greater the need to use information from outside the organization, and unless continual adjust- ments are made by persons in the organization, the greater the potential difference in coding schemes between those in the organization and those outside.

Hypothesis 1. Research and development people in firms with higher levels of perceived environmental uncertainty will seek greater contact with sources of information outside their firms.

Hypothesis 2. A higher proportion of R&D people will be gatekeepers in firms with higher levels of perceived environmental uncertainty.

Thus, there would be a greater need for persons who occupy a mediating or boundary role (Leifer and Huber 1977, Organ and Greene 1972, Tushman 1977). The greater the uncertainty, the greater the extent to which interpersonal communication between outside sources of information and the organization will be required. Con- versely, the lower the uncertainty, the greater the use of those in roles designated by the formal organization, such as first-line supervisors, in mediating the flow of information into the organization.

Hypothesis 3. Gatekeepers will more often occupy formally defined roles, that is be supervisors or group leaders, in firms with lower levels of perceived environmental uncertainty.

Most of the research on technical communication mentioned above was done in aerospace and other rapidly changing fields. In cases where technical work is highly structured, and in cases where it is highly market oriented, one would find less external communication. The gatekeeper role will be less frequently developed, and the flow of communication will more likely be mediated by those in roles designated by the formal organization in more stable environments.

If gatekeepers act to simplify and order the flow of information between the firm and the environment, might they also act as a buffer when perceptions of uncertainty in the environment are involved? March and Simon (1958) suggest the people in contact with particular parts of an organization's environment tend to absorb uncertainty by summarizing and assessing their own direct perceptions and transmitting them to the rest of the organization. If so, we would expect gatekeepers to perceive a greater degree of uncertainty in the world outside than would others in the firms' R&D group.

Hypothesis 4. Gatekeepers in general will perceive a higher level of uncertainty than will others in their firms.

Uncertainty appears to be greater in more rapidly changing industries and technical fields (Duncan 1972). Uncertainty appears to be greater in environments which are more complex in terms of the numbers of factors or variables to be considered and in which solution requirements are less well defined. Finally, uncertainty appears to be greater in cases involving "state of the art" or relatively recent technology, and in which information is less well developed or less widely known.

Study Method Three industries which were expected to have widely varying degrees of uncertainty

(food products, paper and computer manufacturing) were selected for study, and two



firms in each agreed to cooperate in the research. All the firms were in the same large metropolitan area. Only individuals in the firms' R & D divisions were asked to participate in the study. The number of respondents was 124 in all, representing one R&D unit per firm. The research missions of the firms were as closely matched as possible within each industry. This was not possible with the two computer firms, one was focused upon hardware development and the other upon software development. Of course, the research missions across industries were not directly comparable.

In order to make the present results as comparable as possible with past work, it was decided to use existing, repeatedly tested research instruments. Allen's (1977) questionnaire was used to determine frequencies of communication with various external sources and to identify external and internal "discussion stars."' The individuals who qualified on both counts were identified as "gatekeepers." Similarly, Dun- can's (1972) questionnaire was used to measure uncertainty of different aspects of the firm's environment as will be discussed in the following section.2

Measurement of Uncertainty

Examination of organizational environments for signs of change is now common- place (Bright 1970, Utterback and Brown 1972). Utterback and Burack (1974) have suggested that the emergence of various methods to forecast technological change is a function of uncertainty in the environment and the salience of technology in an organization's strategy for growth.

Few attempts have been made to analyze the concept of uncertainty in a contingency theory. Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) developed a measure of environmental uncertainty which includes scores for three dimensions of the environment: clarity of information, uncertainty of cause and effect relationships, and time span of definitive feedback. They found a relationship between environmental uncertainty and organizational structure. Tosi, Aldag, and Storey (1973) found the Lawrence and Lorsch instrument did not correlate with volatility measures of the environment as ought to be the case in a contingency theory of organizations. That is, the degree of perceived uncertainty is a function of environmental characteristics. Downey and Slocum (1973) and Downey, Hellriegel, and Slocum (1975) suggested the uncertainty measured by the Tosi et al. volatility measures is more appropriate for the finance function of an organization, not sales, marketing, or R&D.

Leblebici and Salancik (1981) did not find volatility related to information routinely collected for decisions by loan departments of banks. However, the greater the diversity of a bank's environment, the greater the number of items requested on the loan application form. They argued that researchers have failed to be precise about uncertainty and its specific implications for an organization and that a limited, but precise, definition for uncertainty is obtained by combining dimensions of environmental uncertainty with the cause-effect dimension of the decision situation.

Gifford, Bobbitt and Slocum (1979), in a laboratory decision-making exercise, found that message characteristics including knowledge about states-of-nature, alternative courses of action and payoffs are associated in a predictable manner with uncertainty.

Downey and Slocum (1973) argued that uncertainty should be examined as a perceptual process. That is, organizational and individual environments do exist and have real attributes, but individual responses to environments and uncertainty should

' The authors wish to thank Thomas J. Allen who kindly gave his permission to use his research instrument. Criteria for selection of "Stars" were those used by Allen and his students.

2The authors wish to thank Robert Duncan who kindly gave his permission to use his research instrument. Procedures for computing component and total uncertainty scores were those devised by Duncan. A correction was made in Duncan's computational procedure as noted in Brown (1977).



be treated as perceptions. Duncan's (1972) uncertainty instrument is based on individual perception of the environment. It is theoretically well constructed, but few attempts have been made to validate the measure by other researchers.

Duncan (1972) has measured uncertainty in terms of complexity, dynamism and managers' perceptions. Duncan's measure included three dimensions: (1) lack of information regarding environmental factors associated with a given decision-making situation, (2) lack of knowledge about the outcome of a specific decision in terms of how much the organization would lose if the decision were incorrect, and (3) ability or inability to assign probabilities as to the effect of a given factor on the success or failure of a decision unit in performing its function. Downey, Hellriegel and Slocum (1975) found that the Duncan total uncertainty scale and two of its three subscales met accepted standards for reliability of research instruments. The present study sought to validate Duncan's measure in new environments.

Duncan (1972) defined an organization's environment as the totality of physical and social factors used in decision making. In this context, a number of factors within the boundaries of the organization should be considered as part of the total environment. Duncan's measure, then, considered relevant physical and social decision factors both internal and external to the organization that are taken into consideration in decision making. (Listings of these factors and procedures for calculating component uncertainties using Duncan's three dimensions are found in Brown 1977.)

Detailed and total uncertainty measures for the six R & D units of the firms studied are shown in Table 1. The two paper producers are quite similar in their peoples' perceptions of a relatively placid environment.

The two food products firms likewise report similar perceptions, surprisingly that

TABLE I Respondents' Perceptions of the Uncertainty of Various Components

of Their Firm's External and Internal Environments

Firms Ranked External Environmental Components by Total Socio-

Uncertainty Level Customer Suppliers Competitors Political Technological

High Food B 0.43 1.03 2.10 0.87 0.18 Food A 0.42 0.32 1.34 0.51 0.64

Computer A - 0.24 0.34 0.13 0.06 0.02 Computer B

Paper B - 0.06 0.03 -0.56 - 0.29 - 0.53 Low Paper A - 0.62 - 0.45 0.98 - 0.08 - 0.82

Firms Ranked Firms Roanke Internal Environmental Components by Total _________________

Uncertainty Level Personnel Staff Organizational TOTAL UNCERTAINTY

High Food B 0.13 0.37 0.45 1.032 Food A 0.82 1.06 0.43 0.797

Computer A 0.22 0.23 0.09 0.309 Computer B -0.13 - 0.22 0.23 - 0.181

Paper B -0.15 - 0.18 - 0.74 - 0.713 Low Paper A -0.86 - 1.07 - 0.78 - 1.228

Larger and positive numbers in the table indicate higher levels of uncertainty. The numbers are obtained by summing standardized scores from Duncan's three uncertainty dimensions. The range of total uncertainty was -6 to + 5.



theirs is the most turbulent environment of those studied. However, these firms had the highest amount of security in the research laboratories and those individuals who approved their firm's participation in the study carefully reviewed the study questions and did not approve any questions pertaining to brief descriptions of participants' work. The other four firms did not want to review the questionnaire. These measures suggest that the obtained rank ordering of firms on total perceived uncertainty was, indeed, appropriate. (The two food research units also experienced the greatest complexity and dynamism of the environment as measured by Duncan's instrument.)

The two computer firms are quite different in their reported views. One firm (B) which focused upon software development sees a placid world, while the other (A), focused upon hardware development, sees the world as complex and changing.

A firm's internal structure is expected to reflect the environment in which it competes. Measures of perceived rates of change in skill requirements, staff functions and organizational structure, objectives and goals are also given in Table 1 following Duncan. These can be seen to be highly correlated with perceptions of change in external environmental components as expected. (Only the two food producers are reversed in the ranking based on external and internal measures.) Total uncertainty scores, combining perceptions of internal and external factors are, of course, highly correlated with both. The firms studied are ranked from highest to lowest in Table 1 with respect to respondents' perceptions of uncertainty in their external environments, and of course in terms of perceptions of internal change and total uncertainty as well.

The external and internal environment components follow Duncan's measure. These eight component uncertainties might not be expected to have equal effects in forcing communication. For all six firms the highest component uncertainty was found in the external environment. This is an important observation which lends credibility to Duncan's (1972) instrument. It should be expected that uncertainty would be highest in those areas of an organization's domain where the least amount of control can be exercised. Organizations typically have minimum control over elements in their external environment.

The two food companies found their highest uncertainty in the competitor component. Environmental factors in this component involved competition for supplies and customers. The computer A firm found the highest uncertainty in the supplier component (this unit was developing equipment) and the computer B firm experienced the highest uncertainty in the customer component (this unit developed software). The supplier component was the highest level of uncertainty for the Paper B firm. Interestingly, the socio-political component was highest for the Paper A firm. This component is composed of factors such as government's regulatory control over the industry, public attitude toward industry and its particular product, and the relationship with trade unions with jurisdiction in the organization. The paper industry has to deal with a raw material, trees, about which public controversy is common. With the public's growing awareness of environmental issues in recent years, regulations have been passed that affect previously unchallenged management decisions. Environmen- tal impact statements must be prepared and approved, before logging can occur in certain areas. Thus, the socio-political component is a logical area of high uncertainty in the paper industry.

Reliability of the eight component uncertainties was assessed within the six firms. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.87 to 0.96; the component uncertainties are highly correlated. Of particular interest is the relationship between perceived uncertainty in the technical component and total perceived uncertainty. Technical uncertainty was measured using the following factors: (1) meeting new technological requirements of own industry and related industries in production of product or service, and (2) improving and developing new products by implementing new technological advances



in the industry. The data from all six firms show that perceived uncertainty in the technical environment is correlated with total perceived uncertainty at least at the p


TABLE 3 The Relationship Between Supervisor and Gatekeeper Status

and Level of Perceived Uncertainty in Firms

Firms Ranked Supervisor on Perceived Named a Uncertainty Gatekeeper Supervisor Gatekeeper

Yes No Yes No Yes No

High Food B 2 9 2 9 1 1 Food A 0 14 2 12 0 0 ComputerA 4 37 7 34 1 3 Computer B 0 30 4 26 0 0 Paper B 1 8 1 8 1 0

Low Paper A 3 16 3 16 2 1

as technical gatekeepers using Allen's strict criteria. Six of these were in the three "high uncertainty" firms and four in the three firms ranked lower. The firm with most (four) gatekeepers is in the high uncertainty category, but the second firm with three individuals named is the lowest on perceived uncertainty.

Gatekeepers were expected to more often be occupants of formally defined supervi- sory roles in the "low uncertainty" category of firms (H3). Five of the ten gatekeepers were supervisors, a finding consistent with all earlier research (Brown 1979). Three of the five supervisors named gatekeepers were in the low uncertainty firms while four of the five who were not supervisors were in the high uncertainty firms. A comparison of the proportion of nonsupervisory gatekeepers between the high and low uncertainty firms is interesting. The three high uncertainty firms have 3.5 times the proportion of nonsupervisory gatekeepers (7% versus 2%o). Thus, hypothesis (H3) is supported.

Still, these results were most disappointing. How could firms so different in perceived uncertainty be so similar in communication patterns? We suggested earlier that in less certain environments a large number of individuals would have a well- developed network of external contacts. Thus, the gatekeeper phenomenon would be less well defined, the volume of communication flowing across the organizational

TABLE 4 Comparison of Perceived Uncertainty with the Communication Roles

of External Communication Star and Technical Discussion Star

Firms Ranked on Perceived Uncertainty

External Low Uncertainty High Uncertainty Communication Paper Paper Computer Computer Food Food

Star A B B A A B

Yes 5 2 3 16 5 4 No 14 7 27 25 9 7

Chi Square Statistic = 6.49 (p < 0.01).

Firms Ranked on Perceived Uncertainty Technical Low Uncertainty High Uncertainty Discussion Paper Paper Computer Computer Food Food

Star A B B A A b

Yes 3 2 4 7 0 2 No 16 7 26 34 14 9

Chi Square Statistic = 0.0088 (n.s.).



boundary would be greater, and this flow would be only partly mediated by gatekeepers in uncertain environments. Looking at the data in more detail shows that this is indeed the fact of the matter. There are many more external discussion stars than internal discussion stars in the high uncertainty firms studied. This is in sharp contrast to the low uncertainty firms.

Table 4 shows clearly that a much higher proportion of all respondents (38%) in the three high uncertainty firms were classified as external discussion stars than was true (17%) of the low uncertainty firms. This difference is significant (p < 0.01).

The last hypothesis to be examined is that gatekeepers in general will perceive a higher level of uncertainty than will others in their firms (H4). No one to our knowledge has previously examined differences between gatekeepers and their colleages in terms of level of perceived uncertainty. With relatively little theoretical or empirical justification, we originally hypothesized that gatekeepers would have significantly lower levels of perceived uncertainty than their colleages. The reasoning was that gatekeepers, having many sources of information, would use these sources to reduce their own uncertainty. But the data showed that gatekeepers were significantly higher in uncertainty than their colleagues. Realizing that the sample of gatekeepers was relatively small, uncertainty levels of those in other communication roles were also compared with the uncertainty levels of their colleagues as shown in Table 5. This intriguing finding may be the most important of this study. The gatekeepers and the external communication stars had a higher level of perceived uncertainty than their internal discussion star colleagues. The individuals occupying the roles of gatekeeper and external discussion star are in a greater position to see and access the true complexity of the environment. Indeed, the high uncertainty firms in the study ranked highest on both complexity and dynamism measures used by Duncan. (The communication roles in Table 5 are not mutually exclusive. That is, gatekeepers are by definition both external communication and technical discussion stars, but the reverse is not necessarily true.)

Certainly some summarizing of information must take place when gatekeepers serve as interpreters of environmental stimuli in their discussion with colleagues. These individuals may serve as buffers, protecting colleagues from environmental turbulence (Tushman 1979). The data of this study suggest that those who occupy key communication roles tend to reduce or absorb uncertainty for those who ask them for advice. This finding adds a new dimension to the importance of gatekeepers in an organiza-

TABLE 5 Comparison of Gatekeepers, External Communication Stars, and Technical Discussion Stars

with Their Colleagues on Total Perceived Uncertainty

Communication Number Total Mean Standard Standard T One-Tailed Role of Cases Uncertainty Deviation Error Value Probability

Gatekeepers 10 0.7545 1.122 0.355 1.98 p < 0.05

Non-Gatekeepers 114 - 0.0662 2.269 0.213 External Communi-

cation Stars 35 1.0815 1.295 0.219 4.55 p < 0.001

Non-Stars 89 - 0.4523 2.348 0.249 Technical Dis-

cussion Stars 18 0.6307 1.329 0.313 1.91 p


tion. For many individuals, lower levels of uncertainty should improve the quality and quantity of work output. High levels of uncertainty regarding environmental stimuli pertinent to one's own research emphasis could impair quality. Weed and Mitchell (1980), in a laboratory setting, found that higher levels of environmental uncertainty led to more errors, lower accuracy and job satisfaction.

March and Simon (1958) caution, however, that through the process of uncertainty absorption the recipient of a communication is severely limited in his ability to judge its correctness. They contend that the recipient must repose his confidence in the editing process that has taken place, and, if he accepts the communication at all, accept it pretty much as its stands. His interpretation in the view of March and Simon (1958) must be based primarily on his confidence in the source and his knowledge of the biases to which the source is subject, rather than on direct examination of the evidence. Indeed, the uncertainty absorption may take the form of not passing information along to others within the firm (Boulton et al. 1978).

It is a fortunate and robust characteristic of organizations that relatively more individuals communicate intensively with outside sources when they perceive a high degree of uncertainty. While direct individual's performance measures were not obtained within the scope of this research, interviews with the various directors of research reinforced the importance to the firms of those identified as occupying key communication roles. Future research should directly measure individual performance in assessing effectiveness of communication roles.

Implications

As firms move into new product areas, changes in production technology, changes in regulatory requirements, or other areas of change, information from the technical environment becomes crucial to success and survival in competitive markets. An individual's perception of uncertainty in the environment is significantly associated with information acquisition from the environment. People in R&D units having higher levels of perceived uncertainty made significantly more use of external communication channels than did those in units having lower levels of perceived uncertainty.

Technical gatekeepers were found to perceive significantly higher levels of uncertainty than do those whom they influence. People in the two other communication roles of technical discussion star and external communication star also perceived significantly greater levels of uncertainty than others in their R & D units. This finding suggests that those occupying these key communication roles serve an important function in reducing the degree of uncertainty faced by others in their groups.3

3This article is based on a Ph.D. dissertation submitted to Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.

References ALLEN, T. J., "Communication Networks in R&D Laboratories," R & D Management, 1 (1970), 14-21.

,Managing the Flow of Technology, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1977. AND S. I. COHEN, "Information Flow in Two R&D Laboratories," Admin. Sci. Quart., 14 (1969),

12-19. BLANDIN, J. S. AND W. B. BROWN, "Uncertainty and Management's Search for Information," IEEE Trans.

Engineering Management, EM-24 (November 1977), 114-119. BOULTON, W. R., W. M. LINDSAY, S. G. FRANKLIN AND L. W. RUE, "Strategic Planning: Determining the

Impact of Environmental Characteristics and Uncertainty," Acad. Management J., 25 (1982), 500- 509.

BRIGHT, J. R., "Evaluating Signals of Technological Change," Harvard Business Rev., 48 (January 1970), 62-70.

BROWN, J. W., "Perceived Environmental Uncertainty and the Two-step Flow Process of Scientific and Technical Communication in Research and Development Laboratories," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1977.



, "The Technological Gatekeeper: Evidence in Three Industries," J. Technology Transfer, 3, 2 (1979), 23-36.

BURNS, T. AND G. M. STALKER, The Management of Innovation, Tavistock Publications, London, 1961. CALLAHAN, R. AND P. SALIPANTE, JR., "Boundary Spanning Units: Organizational Implications for the

Management of Innovation," Human Resource Management, 18 (Spring 1979), 26-31. CRANE, D., "Information Needs and Uses," in Annual Review of Information Sciences, 5, C. Cuadra (Ed.),

Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago, 1970, 3-39. DOWNEY, H. K., D. HELLRIEGEL AND J. W. SLOCUM, JR., "Environmental Uncertainty: The Construct and

Its Application," Admin. Sci. Quart., 20 (1975), 613-629. AND J. W. SLOCUM, "Uncertainty: Measures, Research and Sources of Variation," Acad. Manage-

ment J., 18 (March 1973), 27-36. DUNCAN, R. B., "Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncer-

tainty," Admin. Sci. Quart., 17 (1972), 313-327. FROST, P. AND R. WHITLEY, "Communication Patterns in a Research Laboratory," R& D Management, 1

(1971), 71-79. GALBRAITH, J. R., Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1973. GERSTBERGER, P. G., "The Preservation and Transfer of Technology in Research and Development

Organizations," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1971.

GIFFORD, W. E., H. RANDOLPH BOBBITT AND J. W. SLOCUM, JR., "Message Characteristics and Perceptions of Uncertainty by Organizational Decision Makers," Acad. Management J., 22 (September 1979), 458-481.

HALL, R. W., "Personal Effectiveness in Industrial Research," unpublished D.B.A. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1972.

KATZ, D. AND R. L. KAHN, The Social Psychology of Organizations, John Wiley, New York, 1966. LAWRENCE, P. R. AND J. W. LORSCH, Organization and Environment, Harvard University Graduate School of

Business, Division of Research, Boston, 1967. LEBLEBICI, H. AND G. R. SALANCIK, "Effects of Environmental Uncertainty on Information and Decision

Processes in Banks," Admin. Sci. Quart., 26 (1981), 578-596. LEIFER, R. AND G. P. HUBER, "Relations among Perceived Environmental Uncertainty, Organizational

Structure, and Boundary-Spanning Behavior," Admin. Sci. Quart., 22 (June 1977), 235-247. MARCH, J. G. AND H. A. SIMON, Organizations, John Wiley, New York, 1958. MORROW, P. C., "Work Related Communication, Environmental Uncertainty, and Subunit Effectiveness: A

Second Look at the Information Processing Approach to Subunit Communication," Acad. Manage- ment J., 24 (1981), 851-858.

ORGAN, D. W. AND C. N. GREENE, "The Boundary Relevance of the Project Manager's Job: Findings and Implications for R&D Management," R & D Management, 3 (1972), 7-12.

TAYLOR, R. L., "An Analysis of the Two-Step Flow Process of Scientific and Technical Communication in a Military Research and Development Laboratory," unpublished D.B.A. dissertation, Indiana Univer- sity, Bloomington, 1972.

AND J. M. UTTERBACK, "A Longitudinal Study of Communication in Research: Technical and Managerial Influences," IEEE Trans. Engineering Management, EM-22 (May 1975), 80-87.

TOSI, H., R. ALDAG AND R. STOREY, "An Assessment of the Lawrence and Torsch Environmental Uncertainty Subscale," Amer. Sociological Quart., 18 (March 1973), 27-36.

TUSHMAN, M. L., "Communication in Research and Development Organizations: An Information Process- ing Approach," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology, Cambridge, January 1976. ,"Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process," Admin. Sci. Quart., 22 (December 1977), 587-605.

"Impacts of Perceived Environmental Variability on Patterns of Work Related Communication," Acad. Management J., 22 (September 1979), 482-500.

UTTERBACK, J. M. AND J. W. BROWN, "Monitoring for Technological Opportunities," Business Horizons, (October 1972). AND E. H. BURACK, "Identification of Technological Threats and Opportunity by Firms," discussion

paper # 11, Indiana University School of Business, 1974. WALSH, V. M. AND A. G. BAKER, "Project Management and Communication Patterns in Industrial

Research," R & D Management, 2 (1972), 103-110. WEED, S. E. AND T. R. MITCHELL, "The Role of Environmental and Behavioral Uncertainty as a Mediator

of Situation-Performance Relationships," Acad. Management J., 23 (1980), 38-60.


Article Contentsp. 301p. 302p. 303p. 304p. 305p. 306p. 307p. 308p. 309p. 310p. 311

Issue Table of ContentsManagement Science, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Mar., 1985), pp. 249-379Front MatterApplication of Sequential Testing to Motor Vehicle Emission Certification [pp. 249 - 263]Successive Linear Programming at Exxon [pp. 264 - 274]NotesMulti-Activity Facility Design and Location Problems [pp. 275 - 283]

Analyzing Personnel Rotation in the Navy [pp. 284 - 292]Employing Financial Futures to Increase the Return on near Cash (Treasury Bill) Investments [pp. 293 - 300]Uncertainty and Technical Communication Patterns [pp. 301 - 311]Innovation in a Newly Industrializing Country: A Multiple Discriminant Analysis [pp. 312 - 322]The Managerial Economics of Civil Litigation [pp. 323 - 342]M-Labeled Digraphs: An Aid to the Use of Structural and Simulation Models [pp. 343 - 357]On Competition to Join a Simple Queueing System before the Facility Opens [pp. 358 - 368]NotesA Dynamic Programming Algorithm for Joint Replenishment under General Order Cost Functions [pp. 369 - 373]Response to "Equilibrium Strategies for Final-Offer Arbitration: There Is No Median Convergence [pp. 374 - 375]Response to Rabow [pp. 375 - 376]A Note on Optimal and near Optimal Price and Advertising Strategies [pp. 376 - 377]

Back Matter [pp. 378 - 379]

2631487.pdf

Documents

Transcript of 2631487.pdf