The National Research Council

Overview of Appreciative Inquiry

Organizational Profile

Analysis Methodology

Results

Discussion and Interpretations

Implications

Possibilities

Possibility Propositions

Conclusions

Surprises and Special Learning

More Questions: A Theoretical Bent

Appendix A - Consent Form / Questionnaire

Appendix B - Electronic Responses

Appendix C - Selected Bibliography

Appendix D - Memo from General Counsel

Appreciative inquiry is a philosophy for change. It assumes that within every organization, something works. By identifying what works, change can be managed more easily through these areas that work. Rather than the traditional theory of "Change Management," that looks at/for the problem in an organization and focusing on what’s wrong or broken, appreciative inquiry looks at what is right in the organization. What works is key to appreciative inquiry. The methodology for AI is simple. Through a collective gathering of employees/people, moments of success are shared and discussed, creating positive energy. Taking that positive energy and turning it into a "living process" is how AI works. Since the statements are from real people and are real experiences, the success can be repeated. This approach is used by organizations to discover, understand, and foster positive innovations in organizational processes. To apply AI the following six steps of are followed:

These six steps are a small part of the AI process. Ideally throughout the process appreciation, focus, envisioning, open dialogue and innovation are all occurring. What an organization focuses on becomes reality.

Consistent with my intention to focus on computer-related interactions between technical support people and end-users (as people who actually use computers are so labeled), some steps will be modified and the use of the terms Life Giving Forces (LGF) and core values will be substituted with the term Characteristics, to denote desirable characteristics of a technical help-related interchange from the end-user perspective.

The National Academy of Sciences is a non-profit organization chartered by the Congress of the United States in 1863, by order of the President, Abraham Lincoln. The charter requires the Academy to provide the US Government with Scientific advice. Thus the current nickname; Advisers to the Nation. Since the original charter, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council have joined the NAS to form what is now known as The Academy Complex. The National Research Council constitutes the operating arm of the Academies, and is staffed by more than 1,200 employees who provide support to the research of the Academy member’s and other scholars who participate in the work of the Academy. The organization structure of the Academy is fairly complex, and organization charts depicting the Program Organization and the Administrative Organization are attached for reference. Also, you may click on the links and view the charts directly from the NAS website. Other charts depicting various organizational structures may also be viewed via links from the pages referenced above.

The President of the National Academy of Sciences also serves as Chairman of the National Research Council, and various Executive Offices serve to support the staff and program functions of the NRC. These offices include the President’s Office; NRC Executive Officer; NAS Executive Officer; Office of General Counsel; Office of Congressional and Government Affairs; Office Public Understanding of Science; Office of News and Public Information. It is among these offices, along with one program unit – the Commission on Physical Sciences and Mathematics Applications - that this research was conducted.

Another fascinating element of the Academy is its academic, collegial environment, seemingly mixed with a government agency "feel" to it. Eighty percent of the studies and reports generated by this non-profit organization of scholars in the medical, engineering, and natural sciences are requested by United States government agencies. As a result, the perception is that this organization is characterized by many qualities unique to both academic institutions and government agencies alike.

The Office of Information and Technology Services (ITS) provides such services to the entire institution. One characteristic of this is that the program and administrative units of the NRC pay a tech rate for such services as computers; network connectivity; internet; computer support; Help Desk services; application development; much like a typical contractor relationship. However, technology-related employees are fully employed by the NRC just as all other NRC staff. A basic rate paid per computer residing on a user desktop provides certain services to the units. Special requests such as website development, custom application development, are paid for at a specified rate. The NRC units become "paying customers" as a result of this relationship and, as such, have high expectations. They want to be sure, and rightly so, that they receive services commensurate with the costs so associated.

The initial methodology as outlined in the attached document entitled "Practicum Proposal", was modified to accommodate both the needs of the National Research Council staff who participated in the study as well as organizational, time, and legal restraints as provided by the Academy’s Office of the General Counsel (see attached). 

The original plan required the use of a "slightly modified version of a technique called Appreciative Inquiry. A summary of the process is attached. The modification extends only to the point that participants will be asked to limit their initial "stories" to those of a technical nature; experiences when technology and technology support people were helpful, and why. Normally, participants would be asked to share a generic experience illustrating when they felt valued, excited, etc.

Data Collection and Instrumentation – In the process of Appreciative Inquiry, I will gather two separate groups of ten (10) participants each to share initial stories for the gathering of themes or values related to technology-based experiences. The second phase of the study will include interviews of a separate group of twenty (20) participants to "verify" the themes. I am hopeful that some of the participants in the first phase will help to facilitate the second phase. I will need to study the impact this may have on the latter’s responses.

Unfortunately, due to time constraints, access to users, and some legal restrictions, the AI process was modified even further as outlined below.

Thirteen users initially committed verbally to participate in the project. The process and the intention were explained to each individual. Most expressed a sincere and enthusiastic interest in participating. Due to the constraints listed above, the initial group meeting was canceled. I then sent an E-mail to each participant that included the following:

• PowerPoint presentation explaining AI methodology and process
• Interview Consent Form
• Interview Questions

Each participant was informed of the changes to the process and the reason for this departure from that previously explained to them.

Along, with the electronic forms, I also had face-to-face conversations with five participants who did not respond to the electronic survey. Of the thirteen original participants, five responded to the electronic, five were informally interviewed face-to-face, two participants requested that they be excused from the project, and one participant left employment at the NRC and did not participate in the project at all.

Data from the electronic responses were analyzed for various themes that could be interpreted as Core Values for the purposes of the AI Model. Also extracted from the data were Characteristics, which replace the traditional AI Factors that Enhance Core Values. These Characteristics represent aspects of the technical interchanges described in the interviews. Therefore, the AI Matrix describes Values and the Characteristics of the technical interchange that Enhance those values.

Those users who did not respond to the electronic survey were asked the following triggering question:

• What about the electronic process made it challenging for you to respond?

After this initial question, some of the other questions originally on the survey were asked, but generally the conversation was allowed to flow around the difficulties I now assumed - but had not anticipated - that people had with the electronic survey. Responses to these conversations are recorded and Analyzed in the Section titled Surprises and Special Learning.

It should also be noted that even conducting informal interviews posed a time problem. All of the users are extremely busy with many managing the offices and schedules of Academy executives. Notes were not taken during these interviews in an effort to allow the process to be as natural as possible.

 The results of the study were actually not very surprising. The assumptions outlined in the Practicum Proposal which prompted the study were strongly supported. However, the objective of the study was not to verify the assumptions but to provide some insights into the characteristics that compose a positive and helpful interchange between technical support personnel and the computer user.

Following is a list of Themes that I extracted from the stories shared by those who responded to the electronic survey form. An * next to an item denotes that this theme was noted more than once by a given respondent. A + means that the theme was listed by more than one respondent.

Availability (of Technology)

Productivity (Technology Increases) +

Calm

Professional

Simple English ++

Technical Terms Explained +

Learning Opportunity (for User) + *

Technical Skill (of Techie)

Team Effort (Techie and User) *

Patience + *

Trust

Confidence

Communication

Understanding (of Techie)

Competence (of Techie)

Helpful Attitude

Time

Knowledge Sharing +

In extracting the data, it was interesting to note that 4 of the 5 respondents alluded that they hoped to be a part of the process of solving the problem. One respondent stated that he/she had never received help from a technical person. This was an interesting because I have personally been involved in situations where technical help was provided to this individual. I have worked hard to not regard this as a personal affront, but I am also still trying to make some sense of this response. At some moment that "seems" right, I will ask the respondent about this answer. It is hard to tell whether the individual may have misunderstood the question or simply found it difficult to put an experience into words.

Several characteristics were verified as key elements by the five interviewees who did not respond to the electronic survey. The top four are listed on the graphic in the Discussion and Interpretations section. However, four of these five individuals shared the view that fixing the problem quickly was the most important element, and that how it was done and any learning gained was not important. As a note, from personal experience, all of these users generally prefer what we call deskside assistance in trouble situations.

Clearly the priority for people is to have their problems resolved quickly. There are certainly differences in preference as to how this occurs and much depends on the particular situation. Unfortunately, there is simply not enough data in this study to reach any concrete conclusions.

Thematic Analysis/Implications

I was disappointed when several users opted not to participate in this project after initially committing enthusiastically to the project. After some careful reading along with some insightful discussions with Dr. Lavoie, I have a better idea now of some things that may have happened. The fact that more than half of the original candidates did not participate along with some reasons that may have contributed to this have had significant impact on the study. One obvious result is that there is simply not as much data as originally anticipated. So, some of the interpretations and discussion result not only from the data but from these other factors as well. For these reasons, this discussion seems to fit best here.

As some users either did not respond in a timely manner or expressed their desire not to participate, time demanded that the process change some, as outlined earlier in this paper. The original group discussion was replaced by a standard questionnaire which was distributed electronically. I had not anticipated that the way the questions were asked would have such an impact on the response. D. Nadler made a comparison between various methods of data collection(Cummings and Worley; p.114). The four major potential problems he associates with the questionnaire method follow:

1. Nonempathy

2. Predetermined questions/missing issues

3. Overinterpretation of data

4. Response bias

One user expressed all of these problems in her response to my electronic query:

"I have not had a 'positive experience' where I understood and used technology well. I may not be the person to respond to these questions. The questions are so obviously asked in such a way that you will get positive responses only."

It seems that the restriction that seems to be placed on users by asking them to recall a situation when they understood and used technology well was flawed, and overwhelming for this user. One of my assumptions is/was that most of us do not understand technology well at all. Secondly, that my questions were geared to solicit only positive experiences also caused a problem. I had made an assumption that people would enjoy the opportunity to share positive experiences. This proved difficult for all respondents, and two users stated this specifically in slightly different ways.

Also, this method seemed to provide users a blank sheet on which they were required to provide some positive experience about the "thing" they were required to use in drafting responses: their computers. In my personal interactions with all of these users, I recognize frustration levels of varying degrees regarding the use of computer equipment. The group interaction would probably have provided a much less threatening environment and a refreshing break from their computers. We might ask who wants to talk about computers using a computer?

The NRC recently completed the organization-wide upgrade to Microsoft Office 97. For many this caused tremendous stress. WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS users are feeling particularly threatened. According to the Force-Field Analysis method, a derivative of Kurt Lewin's three-step mode of change, Group Performance Norms, Well Learned Skills, and Member Complacency are all factors in resisting change (Cummings & Worley; p.125. As a group of sensitive users, these factors must come in to play as we "force" software upgrades upon them.

These factors also appear to come into play within the context of this study. As some users recognized the real impact and intention of the research, I wonder if there was some concern that these areas might be threatened. Afterall, if we make things better as a result of our efforts, we will be accountable for that input which may require an increase of output and the learning of new skills. It is hard to say exactly what is going in people's minds without asking them directly. Even then, one would be hard-pressed to flesh out all of the root causes of behavior.

My own sense is that software upgrades threaten these areas; that discussions about how to use technology well threaten these areas; and that sharing information about what works well may be used as evidence for driving the user community further from their comfort zone. Professor Yasmin Kafai, in briefing an NRC committee assembled to address information technology literacy, stated that the term "fluency connotes the ability to reformulate knowledge, to express oneself creatively and appropriately, and to produce and generate information (CSTB/NRC; p.viii; 1999). This concept of "cluency" could potentially create some apprehension for computer users. Many already feel intimidated by the machine that occupies their desktop. But many also feel "fluent" in the processes that they have "memorized" to accomplish certain tasks. Events that appear to threaten ones fluency must certainly exacerbate any previously existing feelings.

This data along with the attending discussion and interpretations denote several significant implications, not only for the NRC but for all technical organizations that provide support to computer users. The assertion in the Practicum Proposal as originally suggested by Dr. Lavoie is that techies and users appear to be operating within a system that does not necessarily promote cooperation and understanding. In short, the road that can bridge the apparent gap between the techies and the community of computer users is certainly a two-way street.

Techies become expert in understanding how computers work and in navigating their interfaces. But, this does not require that the techie understand the business of the user. Conversely, users know what it is that they want to accomplish but have been given a tool to help without having a good grasp of how these tools work. The what and the how don't seem to always connect nicely. Computers want to "force" users into accomplishing the user's objective in a predefined way. This may account for the many forms of vain use of the name of Bill Gates. 

Candace Sidner of Lotus Development Corporation admits that "today's user interfaces are just too hard to use". She continues, "they are too complex even for the narrow range of users for whom they were designed (More Than Screen Deep; p. 315). Ms. Sidner made this assertion in a Proposition Paper submitted for a study conducted by the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board of the National Research Council. Now, what chance do we have to close the gap I have discussed when an executive from the developer of Lotus Notes software makes such an admission? And who are these interfaces designed for? It appears that these interfaces were designed for a few users who "fit the profile of use for current interfaces" (NRC; p.319), whatever that really means.

Ms. Sidner suggests that the lack of research in the areas of "human discourse communication" and of "human-to-human collaboration" and thus the lack of application of these principles to the design of user interfaces contribute to their lack of usability. Dr. John Warfield, Professor at George Mason University, asserted in a lecture from his course entitled, "Resolving Complexities in Organizations, that the main problem with software to day is that it is not designed at all. Conversely, more research in these areas would "offer a means of integrating various modalities and of extending the range of computer users (NRC; p.315). She also suggest that industry will be less interested in this type of research because the payoff is questionable (NRC; p. 317). Consequently, government and institutions such as the National Research Council are in a position to make an impact in this important area. A collaboration between developers and designers may have to occur to bring us closer to interfaces that more closely resemble the natural processes of human discourse (see Possibility Propositions 6 & 7).

In many typical consulting models, this section would most likely be entitled "Recommendations". Having identified problems, the natural next step for the Consultant would be to recommend changes, or fixes for the organization’s problems.

Previously, the implications and interpretation of the results of this inquiry are represented in a matrix (Figure I) which references the relationship between particular Organizational Factors and the Core Values, otherwise known as Life Giving Forces (LGF’s). The results of this thematic analysis represent the status quo, or the "What Is", in the AI Model.

From this perspective then, the natural next step is to reflect "What Will Be". As the previous matrix illustrates the relationship between Organizational Factors and the LGF’s, the following matrix (figure II) shows Propositions related to factors that enhance the Core Values (LGF’s).

Speaking in the form of possibilities does not always translate well in technical environments. We work in a world of numbers, quantifiable and measurable define how we might gather information and what of that information is actually usable. A recent discussion regarding user surveys resulted in the rejection of the idea based on the several factors: 1) that responses would have to be read, 2) that the results would be hard to quantify and measure, 3) that many suggestions would not/could not be implemented anyway. I found this discussion frustrating to say the least. A general lack of willingness to expend some energy to connect with the community that we serve typifies many technical organizations. I would like to say service organizations, but I think that many technical organizations are just not there yet.

Note the complex relationships that exist between all of the Factors and Values. Also, not all relationships include a specific example for the relationship. Those without examples are given for reference only. From this matrix I will extract the relationships which I see as having Possibilities. It may be assumed that among these other relationships, the present, or What Is", already represents What Will Be.

These possibilities will be illustrated from the matrix in the form of Possibility Propositions, as opposed to Recommendations. These Proposed Possibilities will be for the client to use as desired.

Proposition 1:

As part of the ITS philosophy, we do not assume that all computer users understand completely, nor do we expect them to, how it is that the computer technology they use works. We appreciate that for them computers are a tool, not "the job". Recognizing that computers are much easier to use if we understand some basic concepts, we provide as part of our regular "Brown Bag" training courses, a course in basic computer and network terms and functions.

Proposition 2:

We describe those who use computers to do their work as "interacter's", as opposed to mere "users". This attitude helps our technical staff to appreciate and respect those who interact with computers to accomplish the vital mission of the National Research Council. This helps us to shed a more positive light on the abilities of those interacters and on the often difficult challenges that today's computer interfaces present to them.

Proposition 3:

We are developing a short-course training program that sensitizes technical employees to the challenges faced by computer interacters. This program is intended to help technical employees appreciate that it is in fact their job to completely understand the computers that are used in the institution. Likewise, it is intended to remind technical employees that it is an unrealistic to expect all interacters (or even a majority) to understand all aspects of the computer and its operations and functions.

Proposition 4:

In helping interacters understand the often un-scientific nature of computers, we hope to create an atmosphere of patience and tolerance in resolving problem technical situations. That direct cause and effect relationships are not always clear and that troubleshooting processes can be as much intuitive as logical is a goal of this initiative. Another outcome of this proposition is a more realistic compromise to the often stated expectation: "fix it now!".

Proposition 5:

Our technical organization recognizes the community of interacters as customers. As such, each ITS employee recognize him or herself as a customer service representative. As such, a total service orientation exists which absolutely extinguishes any feelings of superiority by technical staff regarding computer interacters. Service is our motto. Customer satisfaction is the Clarion call.

Proposition 6:

The ITS organization at the NRC is so serious about customer service, it has commissioned the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board to launch a study in the areas of concern outlined in Candace Sidner's Proposition Paper as part of the NRC publication entitled "More Than Screen Deep". The two areas of focus are:

1. Principles of Human Discourse Communication

2. Principles of Human-to-Human Collaboration

All applications developed "in-house" will be designed based on the findings of such a study.

Proposition 7:

In conjunction with Proposition 6, ITS and the NRC are working actively to promote the implementation of the principles of design consistent with the study findings into future revisions of software.

The first and, possibly, most obvious conclusion is that doing research at work is a challenging task. A technical person doing research among computer users about the helpful qualities of computer-related exchanges may be considered either brave or fool-hearty! Not because the people among whom the research was conducted, but because this computer world effects everyone. And it effects everyone in different ways. Some people really love using computers to get work done. Others recognize that they cannot get their work done without them. Some want to understand them and make computers really useful tools. Others seem to look behind the computers to the people who build them at write the software they use with as sort of contempt. I can appreciate this because I have my own gripes with the design of so much software and hardware today.

Computers are everywhere. Auto mechanics use computers, attorneys use computers, scientists and clerks use computers. At the Academy, there is no shortage of highly educated people who could run circles around computer-related techies in discussions about biology or chemistry or physics. But while average person experiences these things daily, they are somewhat invisible to us. We don't have to how we breathe to do it. We don't have to know the properties of water to drink it or cleanse ourselves with it.

But everyone has a computer on his or her desk. It is an in escapable thing that sits on our desks and forces us to do things its way. And so often computer-related techies seem to take advantage of the pervasiveness of the computer in our lives. We have to use them and, in many ways, it is difficult to use one effectively if we don't have some idea of how it works. Put gas in your vehicle, turn the key, and drive along the country enjoying the view. Combustion, voltage, spark, air pressure, cooling, etc. All of these things and more make the car go. But we don't have to understand it all to drive to the grocery store or to Grandma's house. But if want to type a letter to Grandma and send it to her electronically, we may need to understand a little about how the computer works.

Not necessarily when everything is going the way we are accustomed. It is when something goes wrong that we find ourselves at the mercy of the techie. While there may be several ways to perform an operation, we may only know one of them. Knowing how the process actually works would provide us with the knowledge to try a new of doing something that may work. Then again, maybe not.

Clearly, many are convinced that they do not, cannot, and never will understand computers. As a Techie, I am not sure that I do either. But something in my training and experience guides me through a process of trying a new way if something isn't working right. Computers are a tool, just like a car. And we expect those tools to work properly, and that is fair. We may also wish that they would work the way we want them to and they may never happen. Because people learn differently, like and dislike different things, etc., it is unrealistic to think that this will ever happen. But it appears that these expectations often cause us some difficult in the computer revolution era. Computers also generally do what we tell them to do. And they don't always respond well when we tell them to do something that they are not programmed to do. They will never understand us, so our only choice seems to be to try and understand them. Scary!!

Here is an example: An individual was working in a Microsoft Access database. This database had tables and forms. A nice feature allows a user to sort by form. So, while looking at a table, one users attempted to use the Sort by Form feature. Unfortunately, tables are populated by Fields, not Forms. So this function did not work. Well it did sometimes. That was the strange part. This should have NEVER worked in this way. But because it had somehow worked once or twice, the perception when it did not work was that the software, well, wasn't working. It was enlightening for all of us as we learned more about this. So, a frustration that was initially blamed on bad software (and I agree on the point that the function should never work so as not to confuse users regarding its proper use), was merely a result of not having a clear and broad view of how a database works. So, while one may be able to enter data and create a database, interacting effectively with that data may require some deeper conceptual understanding of how databases actually work.

So, can we conclude that all users are dummies and don't understand computers? I don't think that would be fair. The computer revolution is moving rapidly and changes daily the way people do their work. People who provide computer support normally understand technology well. People who use technology to try and do their jobs understand their business function very well. But where do the two meet? This is what I am not sure of. We have some more questions to ask, but hopefully this is a good start on the path to bridging the gap between technology and those who support it, and those who use it everyday, often under extremely frustrating circumstances, to accomplish their work.

As this section title suggests, I was surprised by several aspects of this study and, consequently, have learned some things I had not anticipated. I also have several unanswered and, in many cases, still unformulated questions. I will make no intentional attempt to draw any conclusions in this section. Rather, I wish to share some of these surprises, learnings, and questions with a hope that this will generate some more discussion that may not only help to fill in gaps in this paper, but also to assist with research processes that may have helped to avoid some of the difficulties of this study. However, I do believe that some of the surprises I encountered may be associated with the technology system that we function and cannot be attributed solely to any flaws in the approach.

As stated elsewhere, I was surprised by the shift of enthusiasm for the project by people who had originally committed to participate. I am not angry with these individuals, but I hope that somewhere along the way I can get a better handle on "what happened" that "caused" individuals to withdraw from the study. My initial impression - and resulting from a limited conversation with one user - is that the change in process form group interaction to electronic survey format had an impact on some people's willingness to participate. I have not been able to verify this with those individuals and, because of my work relationship with them, may never feel able to approach this topic. I will be open to opportunities as they arise.

Another surprise, and hopefully a learning, was the response by some who stated that they had never had a positive experience using technology and/or with a technical help person. My initial gut reaction to this was along the lines of personal offense. I know that I have helped all of these individuals to some degree with technology. But I was asking the question from my perspective and so, as I reflected on this, recognize that I may have simply asked the question in a way that did not carry the same meaning for them as it did for me. Was it the way the question was phrased, or the format provided for answering the question? One nagging question for me is what results may have been afforded had the original plan for a group session actually occurred? My assumption is/was that as individuals shared positive stories that others would also have been able to "piggy-back" on the stories of others. In this sense they may have realized that they do share positive experiences and that interaction with others may have brought those to light.

On the other hand, it is possible that many do not feel that a computer can be a medium for a positive experience. I don't know what basis I have for that feeling except that in my interactions with many computer users, there seems to be an almost constant, antagonistic "relationship" that exists between user and machine. A near-hatred for the computer seems to hang like a shroud over one's ability to recognize the computer as a powerful tool and a useful facilitator of certain activities that would otherwise be much more difficult to accomplish. Among many users, however, talking on the telephone, and face to face conversation are really the "tools of the trade". In this context, the computer may be seen as a hindrance to the more human-oriented, natural course of communication.

 More Questions: A Theoretical Bent

This paper highlights some very strong relationships between technical support people and those who use computers, along with characteristics that help (or hinder) the communicative process between the two groups of people. But, simply, there is not enough data to make the solid conclusions along with some possibilities that would satisfy me and my academic adviser while also preserving the integrity of this study and that of the research process as well.

So, there are still many questions to ask. This section is intended to provide some theoretical basis for some of the actions described along with conclusions. Some historical background will also shed some light on the progression of technological impact in society. This should be a fascinating journey that will not only serve to fill in some gaps in this paper, but to serve as a catalyst for asking some deeper questions in trying to sort out what appears often to be a cultural clash. Not only between technical people and the users of that technology but also the intrusion of technology into our social systems, changing completely many ways that we function and even the way we think about the world around us.

In his book titled Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Neil Postman illustrates the impact of technology on societies through Plato's story of Thamus and his interaction with the god Theuth. Theuth had invented several useful tools such as number, calculation, geometry, astronomy, and writing (Postman). Theuth displayed his inventions before the king Thamus, who inquired as to their purpose and use. From Socrates the story goes as follows:

Of course, Thamus judged Theuth's "invention" of writing to be a burden while appearing to miss the potential benefits of this discovery. It is fascinating to note their completely opposite perspectives toward this technology. Theuth was enthralled with his invention, while Thamus saw only the downside. Donald Norman describes this phenomena in terms of a machine-centered view of technology and a human-centered view of technology (Norman, p.9). In this case, Thamus was probably over zealous in his wholesale condemnation of the art. Yet, the contrast between the two points of view is undeniable. And the point is well taken and worthy of discussion. Clearly, one side often only recognizes the benefits while the other may only be able to recognize the criticisms. While both are probably valid, they are not sufficient to stand alone. As Thamus and Theuth needed then, and as our techno-culture certainly does today, a recognition of the total impact of any technology on society is vital.

Brian Gore is completing a Master’s Degree in a George Mason University program titled Organizational Learning and is required to do a project for completion. The purpose of the project is to do an organizational analysis using a new methodology called appreciative inquiry. The project should normally provide valuable insights about the organizational dynamics of the firm and generate concrete propositions that are based on the core values of the organization.

Your participation in this project is requested. If you participate, you will be interviewed using variations of the questions listed on the next page. The interview may be audio-taped (optional) and transcribed for later analysis. The information will be used in writing a project report and turned in to the professor as an assignment. Should the results of this project be published in the future, the permission of the organization will be sought. If your organization requests a copy of the project report, it will be given to a designated person who may share the findings with you.

This project will be performed according to George Mason University procedures governing your participation in this research. The student’s Adademic Adviser is Professor Don Lavoie, who may be reached at 703 993 1142 for questions. You may also contact the George Mason University Office of Sponsored Programs at 703-993-2295, if you have any questions or comments regarding your rights as a participant in this research.

I have read this form and agree to participate in this project.

________________________________ _____________

SIGNATURE DATE

1) Think about a few recent positive experiences you have had in this organization. Describe one such event when you felt you understood and used technology well.

Follow-up questions

a) What made it a significant positive experience? Or, What is it about the experience that you continue to cherish?

b) What did you learn from that experience?

2) Name an event where a technical person was particularly helpful. (outstanding/highly successful). What did s/he do?

Follow-up questions

What did you admire in her/him?

a) How has that (what s/he did) contributed to the success of the organization?

b) What kind of language did he/she use?

3) What are your images for the successful use of technology? What would you like to contribute to make that happen?

4) Tell me something about what attracted you to this organization? How did you start out? What were your initial excitements and impressions?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5) Several people in your organization have identified ______ as a core value. Can you tell me something more about it?

Following are transcripts of the electronic responses to the survey questions. The original question is listed followed by the answers given by respondents.

1) Think about a few recent positive experiences you have had in this organization. Describe one such event when you felt you understood and used technology well.

a) What made it a significant positive experience? Or, What is it about the experience that you continue to cherish?

b) What did you learn from that experience?

2) Name an event where a technical person was particularly helpful. (outstanding/highly successful). What did s/he do?

I have to use the same event as above because I’m relatively new to the Academy (9 months service) and have not had a lot of contact with IT folks. She was able to arrange for a file to be restored from the backup tape. This was after an initial file restore failed.

What did you admire in her/him?

a) How has that (what s/he did) contributed to the success of the organization?

While it has not contributed widely, the macro can save a fair amount of time when handling text either pulled from the Internet or received from outside sources. The time alleviates very boring work and allows one to spend it more effectively.

b) What kind of language did he/she use?

3) What are your images for the successful use of technology? What would you like to contribute to make that happen?

4) Tell me something about what attracted you to this organization? How did you start out? What were your initial excitements and impressions?

Computer Science and Telecommunications Board; National Research Council, "Being Fluent with Information Technology," National Academy Press, 1999.

Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning; National Research Council, "How People Learn: Brain, Mind, experience, and School," Innovative Adult Learning With Innovative Technologies, Bransford, Brown, & Cocking (eds.), National Academy Press, 1999.

Steering Committee, CSTB, National Research Council, "More Than Screen Deep: Toward Every-Citizen Interfaces to the Nation's Information Infrastructure," National Academy Press, 1997.

Lavoie, Don Dr., Lecture notes and personal discussions, 1998-1999

Cox, Brad Dr., Lecture notes and personal discussion, 1998

Postman, Neil, Technopoly: The Surrendering of Culture to Technology, Alfred A. Knopf, 1993

Norman, Donald A., Things That Make Us SMART: Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine, Addison-Wesley, 1993 

Rheingold, Howard, Rheingold's Rant, http://www.rheingold.com/rants/

Mander, Jerry, Resisting the Machine, http://www.beacham.com/mander/mander_radio.html

 Appendix D - Memo from NRC Office of the General Counsel