THE APPLICABILITY OF SUPERPOSITIONING

TO AMERICAN ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS

by

SIU-HONG CHEUNG, B.Arch.

A THESIS

IN

ARCHITECTURE

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE

May, 1994

^ i / i'^

/r -x

Copyright 1994, Siu-Hong Cheung

lO^ j7rc?-Ar'f-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To finish this thesis does not only require enormous time and effort,

but also need broad experience in architectural field and knowledge of

statistical analysis. Solely completing this thesis is beyond my personal

ability. There are several gentlemen I should have to mention for their

immense attribution to my thesis. My committee members-Professors

Glenn Hill, Dr. Michael Jones and David Driskill. They assisted me to test

the questionnaire on which my research was based. Especially, my

committee chairman, Glenn Hill, his willingness for helping students and

kind personality encouraged me to go through the difficulties I encountered

from seeking the thesis topic till finishing it.

With regard to the statistical analysis in my thesis. Dr. William Lan,

who is a professor at College of Education in Texas Tech University, guided

me how in analyzing the data, and revised the results I wrote.

Besides acknowledging those in the academic field, I have received

substantial support from my eldest brother, Siu-Wang Cheung, when

studying in United States. Without his help, coming to America to studying

would have only been a unfulfilled dream in my life.

Thanks to all of them I mentioned above.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

ABSTRACT vi

LIST OF TABLES xii

LIST OF FIGURES xiii

CHAPTER 1

L INTRODUCTION 1

Thesis Statement 3

n. SUPERPOSITIONING 4

Introduction 4 Project Organizational Values 4 Firm Organizational Values 8 SuperPositioning 9 The SuperPositioning Matrix 9 Discussion 10

IIL THE COXE GROUP'S QUESTIONNAIRE 13

Introduction 13 The Application of The Coxe Group's Questionnaire 13 The Accuracy of The Coxe Group's Questionnaire 16 Coxe's Survey Results 16 Discussion 19

IV. THE RESULTS FROM THE POSITIONING AND SUCCESS OF JORDANIAN ARCHITECTURAL / ENGINEERING FIRMS 20

Introduction 20 New Version of the Questionnaire 20 The Contents in the Modified Questionnaire 22 Analytic Methods and Results 23

iii

Discussion 25

V. THE QUESTIONNAIRE 27

Introduction 28 Part One of the Questionnaire 28 Part Two of the Questionnaire 30 Part Three of the Questionnaire 31 Part Four of the Questionnaire 31 Discussion 32

VI. THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST AND THIRD PART OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 34

Introduction 34 The Research Sample 34 Analysis of the Data 37

VIL REGRESSION ANALYSIS 41

Introduction 41 Simple Linear Regression Analysis 41

The Level of Positioning of Project Organizational Values 44 The Level of Positioning of Firm Organizational Values 45

R-Square of the Simple Linear Regression 46 R-square of Project Organizational Values 47 R-Square of Firm Organizational Values 47

Multiple Linear Regression Analysis With Two Predictor Variables 47

The Level of Positioning of Project and Firm Organizational Values (SuperPositioning) 50

R-Square of the Multiple Linear Regression With Two Predictor Variables 51 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis With Three Predictor Variables 52 Discussion 55

VIII. THE RESULTS OF THE SECOND AND THE FOURTH PART OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 58

IV

Introduction 58 Part Two of the Questionnaire 58 Part Four of the Questionnaire 61 Discussion 64

IX. CONCLUSION 65

BIBLIOGRAPHY 68

APPENDIX

A. THE COXE GROUP'S QUESTIONNAIRE 69

B. MAMOUN FANEK'S QUESTIONNAIRE 74

C. THE AUTHOR'S QUESTIONNAIRE 80

D. A LIST OF THE FIRMS AND ARCHITECTS PARTICIPATING IN REFINING THE AUTHOR'S QUESTIONNAIRE 87

E. THE ANSWER CHOICES FROM QUESTION ONE TO THIRTY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 89

F. THE VALUES CHOSEN FROM ALL THE FIRMS 94

G. THE RESPONDENT'S RATINGS OF THE NINE ATTRIBUTES CONTRIBUTING TO ARCHITECTURAL SUCCESS IN PROJECT ORGANIZATION 97

H. THE RESPONDENT'S RATINGS OF THE NINE ATTRIBUTES CONTRIBUTING TO FINANCIAL SUCCESS IN PROJECT ORGANIZATION 100

I. THE RESPONDENT'S RATINGS OF THE NINE ATTRIBUTES CONTRIBUTING TO ARCHITECTURAL SUCCESS IN FIRM ORGANIZATION 103

J. THE RESPONDENT'S RATINGS OF THE NINE ATTRIBUTES CONTRIBUTING TO FINANCIAL SUCCESS IN FIRM ORGANIZATION 106

ABSTRACT

SuperPositioning is defined by the Coxe Group as "organizing and

managing the professional services firm so it provides excellent service to its

clients, does outstanding work recognized by peers, and produces

commensurate results in satisfaction and material rewards for its

professionals." According to SuperPositioning, the more SuperPositioned a

firm is, the more likely a firm will be successful.

SuperPositioning was formulated by Weld Coxe to show architectural

firms how to pursue high levels of success through management. It

combines the positioning of a firm's "Design Technologies" (Project

Organizational Values) with its "Organization Values" (Firm Organizational

Values). The basic principle of SuperPositioning is that a design firm

should simultaneously position its Project Organizational Values (Idea,

Service or Delivery) and Firm Organizational Values (Practice-Centered-

Businesses and Business-Centered-Practices).

According to SuperPositioning, if a firm's level of positioning of its

Project and Firm Organizational Values is increased, the likelihood of

achieving high levels of success will be greater than those architectural firms

with a lower level of positioning of Project and Firm Organizational Values.

When Project Organizational Values and Firm Organizational Value

were placed in combination, a six-celled matrix is formed. This matrix is

caUed SuperPositioning Matrix. SuperPositioning can be described by this

Matrix. The design professionals can choose to locate in cell A, B, C, D, E

or F. Each of them, shaped by different combinations of Project and Firm

VI

Organizational Values, has its unique strategies of project and firm

organization and management to achieve maximum chances of success.

The applicability of SuperPositioning was tested by Mamoun Fanek, a

graduate student at Texas Tech University. He investigated the current

levels of SuperPositioning of Jordanian architectural and engineering firms

according to SuperPositioning, and found that SuperPositioning could not

achieve the expected results to Jordanian architectural firms.

There are three possible ways to explain why Coxe's SuperPositioning

did not achieve the expected results in Jordan. The first one is the cultural

and professional differences between American firms, for which

SuperPositioning was designed, and Jordanian firms. The second one is the

small number of participants in Fanek's research. The third one is the

possibility of highly subjective statistical assumptions apphed by Fanek.

By conducting research on American firms with a revised version of

the questionnaire, and using a different statistical method, the author of this

research tested whether there was any significant correlation between levels

of Positioning and success comparable to Fanek's findings. The author and

his committee members, the same as those involved with Fanek's thesis,

modified the questions in the Coxe Group's questionnaire, making sure the

content was as similar as possible to the Coxe Group's while being

scientifically more responsible. Several questions were added to the

author's questionnaire. There were four parts in the author's questionnaire.

Part One contained the first thirty questions, and related to the positioning of

Project and Firm Organizational Values. Questions one to nine queried a

firm's positioning of Project Organizational Values (Idea, Service and

Delivery). Questions ten to thirty asked a firm's positioning of Firm

Vll

Organizational Values (Practice-Centered Businesses and Business-Centered

Practices). Part Two of the questionnaire was questions thirty-one and

thirty-two, they asked the firms to rate nine attributes of Project and Firm

Organizational Values contributing to their architectural and financial

success. Part Three of the questionnaire was questions thirty-three and

thirty-four, they were two self evaluation questions asking the firms to rate

from zero to ten their perceived architectural and financial success. Part

Four of the questionnaire was question thirty-five, it contained a list of

external factors that might contribute to a firm's architectural and financial

success. The firms were requested to indicate which of them contribute to

their architectural and financial success.

The city chosen to conduct this research was Dallas, Texas, for two

main reasons. Dallas offered a diverse and substantial population of

architectural firms. Also, the likelihood of the architectural firms in Dallas

familiar with Texas Tech University was very high, increasing their potential

willingness to participate in this research. After receiving the addresses of

aU the architectural firms in Dallas from the Dallas Chapter of the American

Institute of Architects (AIA), a copy of the questionnaire was sent to these

architectural firms. There were two hundred and forty-nine architectural

firms in Dallas, Texas. The usable retum rate of the questionnaire was

around 19%, equal to forty-eight from which the data was collected.

There were two hypotheses in this research, the research hypothesis

and the null hypothesis. The research hypothesis posited that increased

levels of positioning did increase levels of success. An opposite hypothesis

to research hypothesis was the null hypothesis which stated that increased

levels of positioning did not increase levels of success.

Vl l l

The author used a simple linear regression to test whether level of

positioning and success were significantly related. The results showed that

the level of positioning of Project Organizational Values could increase

the probability of achieving higher levels of architectural success, but

not financial success. The level of positioning of Firm Organizational

Values neither increased the probability of achieving higher levels of

architectural success, nor the probability of achieving higher levels of

financial success.

Using a multiple linear regression to test whether the level of

positioning of Project and Firm Organizational Values (SuperPositioning)

and success are significantly related, the author found that SuperPositioning

could increase the probability of achieving higher levels of architectural

success, but not financial success.

There are three possible ways to explain the results in this research.

The first explanation is that SuperPositioning can only improve the

probability of achieving higher levels of architectural success. If it is true,

we need to investigate what kinds of management strategies should be

applied to replace SuperPositioning to improve the probability of achieving

higher levels of financial success. The next explanation is that

SuperPositioning can indeed increase the probability of achieving higher

levels of architectural and financial success, and the results from the

architectural firms in Dallas is an exceptional case and does not fairly

represent the architectural profession in the United States. If the

architectural firms in Dallas cannot increase their probability of achieving

higher levels of financial success through SuperPositioning, what can the

architectural firms there do to improve their firms' financial success. The

IX

third explanation is that the applicability of SuperPositioning is

geographically restrained to Dallas and other similar cities and areas. If it is

true, we need to find out which regions we can apply SuperPositioning, and

where we cannot apply it.

We do not know which one of the three explanations mentioned above

is correct, so the author recommends a nationwide research to find out the

applicability of the SuperPositioning principles to all the American

architectural firms. In addition, this new research should attempt to modify

the SuperPositioning principles or to create a new theory.

Since SuperPositioning is one of the most recognized avenues to

pursue higher levels of success in architectural firms, its true applicability

should be thoroughly understood before we can rely on it to achieve success.

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Attributes of Different Project Organizational Values 7

2.2 Attributes of Different Firm Organizational Values 11

4.1 Results of Pearson Product-Moment Correlation on Jordanian Firms Responding to Questionnaire 25

6.1 The Firms' Size and Age 35

6.2 To Compare The Distribution of Architectural Firms By Number of Employees Across The United States and The

Author's Research 36

6.3 Firms'Responses to the Questionnaire 39

7.1 The Obtained Probability and Coefficient Values With

One Predictor Variable 44

7.2 The Obtained R-Square Values 46

7.3 The Obtained Probability and Coefficient Values With

Two Predictor Variables 49

7.4 The Obtained R-Square Values With Two Predictor Variable 52

7.5 The Obtained ProbabiHty and Coefficient Values With Three Predictor Variables 54

7.6 Results of Regression Analysis Method on Architectural Firms in Dallas, Texas 57

8.1 The Average Score of The Nine Attributes at Above and Below-Mean Level of Architectural and Financial Success in Project and Firm Organization 60

8.2 The Average Score of The Nine Attributes of Group I and Group II in Project and Firm Organization 62

XI

8.3 The Respondent's Selection of the Eight External Factors 63

Fl The Values Chosen From All the Firms 94

Gl The Respondents' Ratings of the Nine Attributes Contributing to Architectural Success in Project Organization 98

HI The Respondents' Ratings of the Nine Attributes Contributing to Financial Success in Project Organization 101

II The Respondents' Ratings of the Nine Attributes Contributing to Architectural Success in Firm Organization 104

Jl The Respondents' Ratings of the Nine Attributes Contributing to Financial Success in Firm Organization 107

Xll

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 The SuperPositioning Matrix 12

3.1 Self-Test Answer Sheet 14

3.2 Satisfaction in Firms With High Consistency of SuperPositioning 18

3.3 Satisfaction in Firms With Low Consistency of SuperPositioning 18

4.1 Question Number Twenty-Eight in the

Modified Questionnaire 23

4.2 The Scale Determining Levels of Success 23

5.1 Question Thirty-Two 30

5.2 Questions Thirty-Three and Thirty Four 31

5.3 Question Thirty-Five 32

Xl l l

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A great many professionals would agree that management is not their primary function, but most believe that management of their firms does matter : That a firm's ability to reach its goals (whether these are client service, financial rewards, or professional satisfaction and acclaim) depends not only on the talent of those who make up the firm but also on the way in which those talents are organized, marketed, developed, and rewarded. In a word, how they are managed, i

SuperPositioning was formulated by Weld Coxe to show architectural

firms how to pursue high levels of success through management. The Coxe

Group, the largest design management consulting firm in the United States,

developed the foundation of SuperPositioning after more than 20 years of

practice with some 600 cHents in architecture, engineering, interior design,

landscape architecture and planning. SuperPositioning became fully

developed after Weld Coxe proposed that "Design Technologies" and

"Organizational Values" could be described by a matrix with Design

Technologies on the vertical axis and Organization Values on the horizontal

axis.

SuperPositioning is defined by the Coxe Group as "organizing and

managing the professional services firm so it provides excellent service to

its clients, does outstanding work recognized by peers, and produces

commensurate results in satisfaction and material rewards for its

professionals." 2 According to the SuperPositioning principles, the more

SuperPositioned a firm is, the more likely a firm will be successful.

IWeld Coxe et al., Success Strategies for Design Professionals, (St. Louis: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1987) p.l.

^Ibid., front cover page.

The apphcability of SuperPositioning was tested by Mamoun Fanek, a

graduate student at Texas Tech University. He investigated the current

levels of SuperPositioning of Jordanian architectural and engineering firms

according to the SuperPositioning principles, to find out whether

SuperPositioning was applicable to Jordanian firms. By examining the

correlation between Jordanian firms' SuperPositioning and their perceived

levels of success, his result showed that there was a positive correlation

between the level of positioning of Project Organizational Values (Design

Technology) and architectural and financial success. There was a negative

correlation between the level of positioning of Firm Organizational Values

(Organization Values) and architectural and financial success. When

considering the level of positioning of Project and Firm Organizational

Values together (SuperPositioning), he found no correlation between

SuperPositioning and architectural or financial success in Jordanian

architectural firms. ^

As his research was conducted in Jordan, there are two hypotheses for

the failure of SuperPositioning to Jordanian architectural and engineering

firms. The first hypothesis proposes that there are cultural and professional

differences between Jordanian firms and American firms for which the

model was developed. Therefore, SuperPositioning is not applicable in

Jordan. The second hypothesis is Fanek's subjective assumptions. He

arbitrarily divided the respondents into three groups ("not well focused,"

"well focused" and "very well focused"), according to their level of

positioning of Project and Firm Organizational Values, and he tested the

correlation between the three groups and their architectural and financial

^Mamoun Fanek, The Positing and Success of Jordanian Architectural / Rn^ineering Firms, p.82.

success. His method of classifying the respondents into one of these three

groups may have yielded the biased results. A more objective statistical

method is recommended to replace his subjective one. By conducting

research on American firms with a revised version of the questionnaire used

by Fanek, and using a different statistical method, the author of this research

will test whether there is any significant correlation between an architectural

firm's level of Positioning and its success.

"Although there do exist some models of successful firm management,

there is no one best way to manage an architectural firm. Whether one is

considering marketing, organization, leadership style, staff development, or

any other management issue, one can point to a variety of successful firms

that use significantly different approaches." ^ However, the author was

curious to see if there were management attributes which were perceived by

architectural firms which contribute significantly to their success. Therefore,

the author in addition to his thesis chose to investigate how architects rate

Coxe's nine attributes of project and firm management.

Thesis Statement

There appears to be no correlation between Coxe's SuperPositioning

principles and success of Jordanian architectural firms. Could it be possible

that SuperPositioning does not increase the potential for success in American

architectural firms? If this is not proved are there specific management

attributes which contribute to the success of American architectural firms

with above-mean levels of success?

'^Weld Coxe et al., Success Strategies for Design Professionals, (St. Louis: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1987) p.l.

CHAPTER II

SUPERPOSITIONING

Introduction

Positioning is defined as "...possessing a desired image to make it

attractive to a part of the market...," i while SuperPositioning is defined by

Weld Coxe as combining the positioning of a firm's "Design Technologies"

with its "Organization Values." Since the terms "Design Technologies" and

"Organization Values" were confusing to architects who interpret these

words differently in their every day work, they are renamed in this thesis as

"Project Organizational Values" and "Firm Organizational Values"

throughout this paper (Figure 2.1). 2

Project Organizational Values

Coxe noticed that in order to match the client's needs and values, firms

organized around three different sets of values to manage a project. These

sets of values are expressed as Strong Idea, Strong Service and Strong

Delivery. The definition of these three sets of values are as follows:

Strong Idea Strong Idea on Project Organizational Values [design technologies] provide singular experdse, innovation, or both on projects of a unique nature. A strong Idea firm often depends most on the working style of its leader, or guru, and it can be quite flexible according to the nature of the assignment. ^

IWeld Coxe et al.. Success Strategies for Design Professionals. (St. Louis: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1987) p. front cover page.

^Mamoun Fanek, The Positing and Success of Jordanian Architectural / Rngineering Firms, p.24.

^Weld Coxe et al.. Success Strategies for Design Professionals. (St. Louis: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1987) p.l 1.

Strong Service Strong Service on Project Organizational Values [design technologies] provide experienced handling of complex assignments in which the process of getting the project accomplished requires the ability to deal with conditions that may change significantly from one project to another. A Strong Service firm emphasizes the management process that coordinates comprehensive, multidiscipline talents and services until the problem is solved or the project is built. "^

Strong Delivery Strong Delivery on Project Organizational Values [design technologies] provide highly efficient service on similar assignments, often to clients who seek more of a product than a service. A Strong Delivery firm will be designed to repeat—in process and in product—the best of prior solutions over and over again with highly reliable professional quality, cost, schedule compliance, and technical excellence. ^

The distinction among these sets of Project Organizational Values can

be seen in the sets of project management strategies used to optimize an

architectural firm's resources. According to Coxe, there are seven major

attributes that determine a firm's position among the range of Project

Organizational Values: ^

The project-operating process. Where project decisions are made. Staffing at middle levels and below. What the firm sells. Best markets, What the firm can charge. Best profit strategies.

4ibid. 5lbid. 6lbid.,p.l2.

Table 2.1 illustrates how these attributes may vary from one set

of Project Organizational Values to another in successful firms. The

choice of one set of values over another has a profound influence on

the course and activities of the firm.

An example used by Coxe to explain these three sets of Project

Organizational Values may be useful for the reader. Each scenario

represents a distinct set of values of an architectural firm and client involved

in the design and development of a three-story office building in a suburban

location.

[1] If the client is a developer commissioning a building on speculation for multiple tenants, the project may be served best by a Strong Delivery project organization provided by a firm that is a specialist in the project type, and can deliver the building design reliably, efficiently, and at a very competitive fee. 7

[2] If the client is a corporation (or government agency) that expects to use the building for a regional data processing center with very complex technical support requirement, the project may best be handled by a Strong Service project organization organized to program the complicated client requirements and pull together all the disciplines necessary to carry out the project. 8

[3] If the client is a company seeking to build a headquarters office building that will make an image statement for the organization, the project may be served best by a Strong Idea project organization, in which the architectural process produces a unique solution to every project. This firm may be led by a well-known star designer. ^

7ibid. 8lbid. 9lbid.

Table 2.1 Attributes of Different

Project Organizational Values

Attributes Project Organizational Values

Strong Idea

1. Project Flexible teams Operating organized around Structure each project.

Strong Service Strong Delivery

Departments, Departments working like studios, or teams led an assembly line or by hands-on project specialized teams that focus leaders. on one project type.

2. Project Decision Making

3. Project Staffing

Single authority or guru.

The best and the brightest.

Principal-in-charge or department head.

Train and retain experience.

Most decisions are standardized for each project specialty.

Paraprofessionals.

4. What the Innovations-one-of- "We've been there Expert product. Firm Sells a-kind. before."

5. Best Markets

6. How to Charge

7. Profit Strategy

Anyone with a unique problem.

Lump sum based on value.

Get highest-value premium.

Institutions, public agencies, and major corporation.

Hourly, open end.

Be good enough to get premium multiples.

Source: Weld Coxe et al.. Success Strategies for I

Developers (on all but largest, most complex projects), some sections of government agencies, and corporations. Lump sum based on bid.

Be most efficient.

Design Professionals. D . L

Firm Organizational Values

Firm Organizational Values are derived from the fundamental

difference of the firms' values, which are divided into two distinct sets of

values by Coxe-Practice-Centered Businesses (PC) and Business-Centered

Practices (BC). The values of a practice-centered organization are first

professional: "What will be done, for whom, and how well?" lo The primary

rewards are personal satisfaction in the doing and in seeing the result-a

constructed project or a pleased client. The values of a business-centered

design organization tend to be more tangible: "What material rewards will

we receive from doing what we do?" ii And the primary rewards are

financial. The definition of these two sets of values are as follows:

Practice-Centered Businesses Practice-Centered Businesses are driven by professionals who typically have it as their major goal to use the discipline they represent to serve others and have a qualitative bottom line focused on how they feel about the work they are doing. 12

Business-Centered Practices Business-Centered Practices are driven by professionals who are more likely to have as their personal objects a quantitative bottom line which is derived from the tangible rewards of their efforts. ^

The distinction between practice-centered-businesses (PC) and

business-centered practices (BC) on Firm Organizational Values are a set of

very different firm management strategies. According to Coxe, there are

10 Ibid., p.24. lljbid. 12lbid. l^Ibid.

8

nine major attributes that determine the firm's position among the range of

Firm Organizational Values: i

Organization structure. Organization decision-making process, How to plan, How to market, Best clients, Staffing strategy at the top. Profit strategy, Leadership and management style. Potential rewards.

Table 2.2 illustrates how these attributes may vary from one set

of Project Organizational Values to another in successful firms. The

choice of one set of values over another has a profound influence on

the course and activities of the firm.

SuperPositioning

The fundamental idea behind SuperPositioning is the simultaneous

positioning of a firm's Project Organizational Values (Idea, Service or

Delivery) and Firm Organizational Values (Practices-Centered-Businesses

and Business-Centered-Practices).

The SuperPositioning Matrix

When Project Organizational Values and Firm Organizational Values

are placed in combination, a six-celled matrix is formed (Figure 2.3). This

matrix is called the SuperPositioning Matrix. To be superpositioned a

design firm selects its location in A, B, C, D, E or F cell of the Matrix by

l^ibid., p.26.

choosing a response to questions posed. Each cell is established by different

combinations of Project and Firm Organizational Values, and has a unique

set of project and firm organization and management strategies to achieve

success.

What can be deducted from the Matrix is a clear picture which

indicates why some firms succeed by doing things one way while others are

equally successful by doing things quite differently. i5 Firms that have a

clear notion of what they do best (their Project Organizational Values), and

have a common set of goals (their Firm Organizational Values) have

succeeded best—for their clients and themselves. ^

Discussion

Many design professionals want to be able to respond to every client

that covers the full range of Project Organizational Values. At the same

time, successful firms recognize the need to limit their activities to what they

do best, and to have a clear understanding of how they do their work. This

clarifies the distinction between the three sets of Project Organizational

Values. 1' On Firm Organizational Values, the different positions—practice-

centered versus business-centered-will lead design professionals to very

different choices in significant areas of organization and management. As

Coxe states, firms that have a clear defined set of goal of Project and

Firm Organizational Values are more likely to be successful from their

clients and their own point of view, i

15lbid., p.36. 16lbid. 17lbid., pp.34-35. 18lbid.,p.36.

10

Table 2.2 Attributes of Different Firm Organizational Values

Attributes

1. Organization Structure

2. Decision-making Process

3. How to Plan

4. How to Market

5. Best Clients

6. Staffing Strategy

7. Profit Strategy

8. Leadership Management Styles

9. Potential Rewards

Firm Organizational Values

Practice-Centered Business (PC)

Proprietorship or partnership with equal ownership among peers.

Consensus decisions.

Follow opportunities. Welcome new challenges. Do little formal planning.

Broad, participative marketing; home of the closer doer.

Business-Centered Practice (BC)

Corporate organization Control closely held.

Hierarchical authority.

Planned goals and objectives.

Marketing is centrally directed. Marketing representatives are used to find leads. "Closers" hand most work to different "doers".

Clients who want to be Mega-corporations and personally involved with the government; clients who professional who is serving delegate the work within their them, especially institutions and organizations, entrepreneurs (developers).

Recruit career-oriented professionals; promote from within. Low turnover; retain maximum experience.

Hire experienced staff on a project basis. Higher turnover; tenure only for core specialists.

Maximize rates by giving most Seek lump sum fees, value. Maximize efficiency.

Focus on the professional Focus on administration of the quaUty of projects and long-term firm; attention to details; short professional trends. interval results.

Qualitative (How did the project Quantitative (How did we do on come out?") ["How satisfied we the project?") ["How well paid were with the project?"] we were for the project?"]

Source: Weld Coxe et al.. Success Strategies for Design Professionals, p.27.

11

Project Organizational Values

strong Delivery

strong Service

strong Idea

A

C

E

B

D

F

Practice-Centered Business

Business-Centered Practice

Firm Organizational Values

Where: A = Strong Delivery, Practice-Centered Business B = Strong Delivery, Business-Centered Practice C = Strong Service, Practice-Centered Business D = Strong Service, Business-Centered Practice E = Strong Idea, Practice-Centered Business F = Strong Idea, Business-Centered Practice

Figure 2.1 The SuperPositioning Matrix

Source: Weld Coxe et al.. Success Strategies For Design Professionals, p.36.

12

CHAPTER m

THE COXE GROUP'S QUESTIONNAIRE

Introduction

After having established the SuperPositioning Matrix, the Coxe Group

developed a questionnaire to help architectural and engineering firms

determine their position on the Matrix. The questionnaire consisted of ten

questions. For questions one to nine, there were six answer choices-"a."

"b," "c," "d," "e," and "f." Each answer choice corresponds to a different set

of values on the SuperPositioning Matrix. Answer choice "a" represents cell

"A" in the SuperPositioning Matrix. Answer choice "b" represents cell "B"

in the SuperPositioning Matrix, and so on. Question ten was a self-

evaluation question to rate the overall satisfaction with the performance and

success of the firm by the principals and staff (see Appendix A).

The Application of the Coxe Group's Ouestionnaire

There were four steps to make a quick assessment of a firm's position

and fit in the Matrix, as follows:

[1] From questions one to nine, choose the answer choice describing your firm most appropriately, then place a check mark in the answer block in Figure 3.1 in response to the corresponding numbered quesdon in the questionnaire. Ideally, there should be one answer; however, if the firm is close to being evenly divided between two or more responses, check all answer that apply, i

[2] Add the check marks in each column in Figure 3.1 and note the totals. 2

llbid., p.63. 2lbid.

13

[3] Enter the total number of the check marks in each column responding to each cell of the SuperPositioning Matrix. ^

[4] Note the answer(s) to question ten to determine the level of satisfaction with the firm at its present position. "^

Question

1. Ownership 2. Firmwide decisions 3. Staffing 4. Marketing 5. Project organization 6. Project decisions 7. Rewards 8. Pricing 9. Clients

Total

Technology-Value Position

a Answer Choices b e d

B D

Figure 3.1 Self-Test Answer Sheet

Source: Weld Coxe et al.. Success Strategies For Design Professionals, p.65.

The questionnaire was intended to measure consistency,

concentration, contiguity, multipositions, and present and future positions,

according to Coxe.

3ibid. ^Ibid.

14

[1] Consistency of the responses, measured by the number of cells used, can indicate how well focused the firm is in its position. The ideal would be to have all organization attributes fall into one cell of the Matrix (Two or three cells are more commonly expected). ^

[2] Concentration of responses can indicate the relative strength of the position. A firm using three cells and responding in a 2:1:6 ratio is more focused and sure of itself than a firm also using three cells but responding 3:3:3. ^

[3] Contiguity is another indicator of strength. It is more reasonable for a firm to find its responses in adjacent cells (e.g., A-C) than in cells not directly connected (e.g., D-E). Also, it is more reasonable (and probably more successful) to expect adjacencies in the vertical and horizontal directions (e.g., A-B, C-E) to be more compatible than adjacencies on diagonal (e.g., A-D, E-B). Horizontal adjacencies indicate a similar technology but a different emphasis on values. Vertical adjacencies indicate similar value but a shifting of technologies (Figure 2.5). "

[4] Multipositions may be possible. Multiple disciplines or profit centers may create more scattered results for a firm. A firm may find that these different activities have different technologies and can be effectively analyzed separately. However, the values of the total firm should be consistent in support of those technologies. ^

[5] Present and future positions can be developed. Responses to the quesrionnaire provide a beginning for analysis. By using the descriptions of the best strategies for SuperPositioning, one can estimate the location of the firm (or profit center, etc.) on the model. That position can be described both for where the firm presently sees itself and where it feels it wants to be in the future. 9

5lbid., p.66. 6lbid. ^Ibid. Sjbid. 9lbid.

15

The Accuracv of The Coxe Group's Ouestionnaire

Coxe states in his book that SuperPositioning was the result of his

career-long observations and research. He makes a very convincing case for

SuperPositioning. However, two questions arise.

The first question deals with the accuracy of the Coxe Group's

questionnaire which helps a firm determine its position on the

SuperPositioning Matrix. Through a pilot study conducted by a group of

graduate architectural students at Texas Tech University in 1988 the Coxe

Group's questionnaire was initially questioned regarding to its ability to

determine accurately a firm's position on the SuperPositioning Matrix. The

firms in this study expressed confusion while responding to the Coxe

Group's questionnaire; they felt that they were unable to answer some

questions accurately because some or all of each answer choice could be

applied simultaneously to their firms. For this reason, the consistency of

each firms response to SuperPositioning became questionable. How can a

firm's position be determined from a series of conflicting answers?

Coxe's Survey Results

The next question deals with the interpretation of the survey results used

by Coxe to support the vaHdity of SuperPositioning. The Coxe Group's survey

included a sample of 100 firms. These firms represented a mix of very small to

very large staffs, were geographically dispersed, comprised different ages, had

different organizational formats, addressed different markets, and included most

design disciplines, although predominately architectural and engineering. This

sample may be statistically too small to draw any significant conclusion for the

entire architecture population.

16

After responding to the series of SuperPositioning questions that defined

its position on the Matrix, each firm was asked to rate its satisfaction with the

"performance and success of the firm." ("Performance" and "success" were left

to each firm to define.)

According to his conclusion, firms that reported relatively high

consistency in their position on the Matrix reported relatively greater

satisfaction than those who had a low consistency in their position

Coxe's statement is true only with those firms with a next to the

highest level of satisfaction ("very" level of satisfactions). The percentage of

firms with high consistency of SuperPositioning is more than those with low

consistency, 55% to 32%. In contrast, the firms with the highest level of

satisfactions ("highly" level of satisfactions) and high consistency of

SuperPositioning represent 3% of his population, but the firms with the

highest levels of satisfactions and low consistency of SuperPositioning

represent 6%. In other words, more firms with lower levels of

SuperPositioning achieve the highest levels of satisfaction. Furthermore, the

firms with an "OK" level of satisfaction and high consistency of

SuperPositioning represent 25% of his population, but the firms with an

"OK" level of satisfactions and low consistency of SuperPositioning

represent 37%. Once again there are more firms with low consistency of

SuperPosidoning reporting an "OK" sadsfacdon level (Figures 3.2 and 3.3).

It is not a convincing statement by Coxe that high consistency of

SuperPosidoning results in greater satisfaction than those firms with low

consistency of SuperPositioning.

17

Percent 60 -,

50 -

40 -

30 -

20 .

10 -

0 .

3

55

Not Somewhat OK

Satisfaction Level

Very Highly

Figure 3.2 Satisfaction in Firms With High Consistency

of The SuperPosidoning Matrix

Source: Weld Coxe et al.. Success Strategies for Design Professionals, p.62.

Percent 60 y

50 . .

40 . .

30 - .

20 - .

10 - .

0 - ^

37

Not

32

OK

Satisfaction Level

Very Highly

Figure 3.3 Satisfaction in Firms With Low Consistency

of The SuperPositioning Matrix

Source: Weld Coxe et al.. Success Strategies for Design Professionals, p.62.

18

Discussion

The Coxe Group's questionnaire is designed to help architectural and

engineering firms determine their position on the SuperPositioning Matrix.

However, the validity of the quesdonnaire and his interpretation of the

survey results are questionable.

19

CHAPTER IV

THE RESULTS FROM THE POSITIONING AND

SUCCESS OF JORDANIAN ARCHITECTURAL /

ENGINEERING FIRMS

Introducdon

According to SuperPositioning, if a firm's level of positioning of

Project and Firm Organizational Values is increased, the likelihood of

achieving high levels of success will be greater than those architectural firms

with a lower levels of posidoning. SuperPositioning was tested by Mamoun

Fanek, a graduate student at College of Architecture in Texas Tech

University in 1993. His master thesis The Posidoning and Success of

Jordanian Architectural / Engineering Firms investigated the correlation

between a firm's level of positioning and their perceived levels of success.

New Version of the Quesdonnaire

Fanek rejected the Coxe Group's quesdonnaire and developed an

alternative quesdonnaire based on the old one because of the following

reasons:

[1] Language and terminology differences:

Some management terminology in English does not result in the same

specific meaning when translated into Arabic. ^

[2] Multiple issues in each answer choice:

According to the Coxe Group, if a firm answers a question with the

"a" choice, it receives one point in the (A) cell on the Matrix. (A) is

1 Mamoun Fanek, The Positing and Success of Jordanian Architectural / Engineering Firms, p.38.

20

an indicadon of a PC Firm Organizadonal Values and a Delivery

Project Organizadonal Values illustrated in Figure 2.3 . Most of the

answers, however, do not fall into a single category as they contain

informadon about either the firm's Project Organizational Values or

Firm Organizadonal Values.

For example, a quesdon asked "What is the firm's ownership:"

Answer choice "a" was "closely held by members of the firm acting

as a partnership." 2 All the informadon included in answer choice "a"

only deals with the Firm Organizadonal Values. It does not include

any information about Project Organizadonal Values. But according

to the self-test method, by choosing this answer choice, the respondent

adds one point in the "a" cell of the Matrix. This leads to the

conclusion that one answer cannot give the indicadon on both axes of

the Matrix together; it can only indicate one axis-either Project

Organizational Values or Firm Organizational Values axis. ^ In other

words, the Coxe Group's quesdonnaire could not produce accurate

results in positioning a firm on the SuperPosidoning Matrix.

[3] Lengthy sentences:

Some of the questions in the Coxe Group's questionnaire are too long

and were found hard to answer.

Because of these three reasons mentioned above, Fanek developed a

new questionnaire to conduct his research in Jordan. He based his revised

questionnaire on the Coxe Group's questionnaire. Fanek's questionnaire

2Weld Coxe et al , Success Strategies for Design Professionals. (St. Louis: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1987) p.63.

^Mamoun Fanek, The Positing and Success of Jordanian Architectural / Engineering Firms, p.36.

4lbid.

21

went through three phases to ensure its applicability to the Jordanian

populadon whose first language is Arabic.

The Contents in The Modified Ouesdonnaire

The modified questionnaire served the same purpose as Coxe's

original: it helped to determine a design professional firm's level of

SuperPositioning according to SuperPositioning strategies and the

respondent's level of satisfaction with the firm's performance (see Appendix

B).

There were twenty-eight questions in Fanek's questionnaire. Nine of

the questions (question number one to nine) were used to determine the

position of the Project's Organizational Values. Eighteen questions

(question number ten to twenty-seven) were used to determine the position

of the Firm's Organizational Values. Quesdon twenty-eight of the

questionnaire asked the respondents to rate the firms and their perceived

architectural and financial success (Figure 4.1).

Since the definidon of success differs from one firm to another,

success was divided into two generally recognized categories—architectural

and financial success. Firms being interviewed were asked to rate

themselves how they perceived their financial and architectural success on a

rating scale of one to five. A firm rating itself from one to two was

considered unsuccessful; three was considered low success (acceptable);

four to five was considered successful (Figure 4.2).

22

Please rate the following:

1. My firm's financial success. 2. My firm's architectural success. 3. My financial success. 4. My architectural success. 5. My personal success. (Opdonal)

Low 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3

High 4 5 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

Figure 4.1 Question Number Twenty-Eight in the Modified Questionnaire

Source: Mamoun Fanek, The Positioning and Success of Jordanian Architectural / Engineering Firms, p.l83.

Unsuccessful

* } Low

Success

Successful

^ \

Figure 4.2 The Scale Determining Levels of Success

Analydc Methods and Results

Fanek used two methods to analyze the correlation between success

and level of posidoning. The first method named was "the difference," and

the second method was "the rank of focus." ^

5lbid., pp.68-81,

23

By using the Pearson product-moment correlation, he calculated the

correlation between:

[1] the posidon of the Firm's Organizadonal Values (PC and BC) and their

architectural and financial success;

[2] the position of the firm's Project Organization Values (Strong Idea,

Strong Service, and Strong Delivery) and their architectural or

financial success;

[3] their level of SuperPositioning and their architectural and financial

success.

Fanek's results (Table 4.1) show that there was a negative correlation

between a firm's level of positioning of its Firm Organizational Values and

its level of architectural and financial success. In other words, a firm that is

well positioned on Firm Organizational Values (PC and BP) reduces its

likelihood of achieving architectural and financial success. With regard to

Project Organizational Values, there was a positive correlation between a

firm's level of positioning and its architectural and financial success. A firm

weU positioned in either one of the three sets of Project Organizational

Values (Idea, Service and Dehvery) increased its chance for success.

Based on his stadsdcal method, Fanek also discovered that there is a

negative correladon between the level of posidoning of Project and Firm

Organizadonal Values (SuperPositioning) and architectural and financial

success. In other words, SuperPosidoning decreases a firm's chance of

becoming successful.

24

Table 4.1 Results of Pearson Product-Moment Correlation on Jordanian Firms Responding to Quesdonnaire

Area of Focus

Firm Organizational Values

Project Organizational Values

SuperPositioning (Firm and Project Organizational Values added together)

Method of Analysis

Difference

Rank of focus

Difference

Rank of focus

Rank of SuperPositioning

Added Rank of Focus

Correlation Between Positioning and Success

Architectural Success

Negative (- 85%)

Negative (- 90%)

Positive (+ 70%)

Positive (+ 85%)

Negative (- 60%)

Negative (- 60%)

Financial Success

Negative (- 99.75%)

Negative (- 99.75%)

Positive (+ 90%)

Positive (+ 95%)

Negative (- 60%)

Negative (- 85%)

Source: Mamoun Fanek. The Posidonins and Success of Jordanian Architectural / Engineering Firms, p .82.

Discussion

Coxe's SuperPosidoning could not achieve the expected results for

Jordanian architectural firms. This might possibly result from three factors.

The first factor is the cultural and professional difference between American

firms for which SuperPosidoning was designed and Jordanian firms. The

second factor was the small number of participants in Fanek's research.

More statistically reliable results may have resulted through increasing the

25

number of firms interviewed. The third factor was the possibility of

inappropriate statistical assumptions applied by Fanek.

Following Fanek's research in the fall of 1993, the author and his

graduate committee members revised the Coxe Group's questionnaire,

pretested it, and sent it to all the architectural firms in Dallas, Texas, to test

the applicability of the SuperPositioning principles for American

architectural firms. In addition the author chose a different statistical

method from Fanek's because of his highly subjecdve assumptions. The

results are different from Fanek's findings, and they will be discussed in

chapter seven.

26

CHAPTER V

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Introduction

In October 1988, a group of architectural students at Texas Tech

University conducted a study using the Coxe Group's questionnaire to test

the appHcabihty of SuperPositioning. Five architectural firms in Lubbock,

Texas, were requested to respond to the Coxe Group's quesdonnaire. These

firms expressed confusion while responding to it. There were some

questions that they were unable to answer accurately because more than one

answer choice could be applied. ^ (See the Coxe Group's quesdonnaire in

Appendix A.)

Because of the reasons mentioned in pages 21-22, the Coxe Group's

questionnaire was rejected by the author. The author and his committee

members, the same as involved with Fanek's thesis, created a new

questionnaire by modifying the questions in the Coxe Group's questionnaire,

making sure the content was as similar as possible to the Coxe Group's while

being scientifically more responsible.

In order to ensure that the new version could be understood correctly

as predicted, a preliminary study was carried out with several practicing

architectural firms in Lubbock, Texas, and two professors in the College of

Architecture, Texas Tech University. They were all requested to respond to

the modified quesdonnaire to test the appropriateness and accuracy of the

quesdons. The firms and professors who pardcipated are listed in Appendix

E.

1 Mamoun Fanek, The Positing and Success of Jordanian Architectural / Engineering Firms. p.40.

27

Part One of the Quesdonnaire

The new quesdonnaire designed by the author (Appendix C) can be

divided into four parts. Part One contains thirty questions, and is intended to

determine the posidon of the respondents' Project and Firm Organizadonal

Values. The first nine quesdons determine the firm's posidoning of their

Project Organizadonal Values-Idea, Service and Delivery. Each question

has three answer choices from which the respondents may choose. Answer

choice "a," "b," and "c" represent Strong Idea, Strong Service and Strong

Delivery, respectively. For example, question one asks :

1. Projects are delivered primarily through: a. flexible teams established and organized (Idea)

around each project. b. fixed studios. (Service) c. departments working around specific phases (Delivery)

of the project.

The question contains an answer choice for each type of Project

Organizational Values. Answer choice "a" represents Idea, "b" represents

Service, and "c" represents Delivery.

Questions ten to thirty determine the firm's positioning of its Firm

Organizadonal Values—PC and BC. There are two answer selections from

which the respondents choose. The answer choices "a" and "b" represent PC

and BC types of Firm Organizadonal Values respecdvely. For example,

question twelve asks:

12. Our firm has: a. equal ownership. (PC) b. unequal ownership. (BC)

28

The answer choice "a" represents a PC set of Values and "b"

represents a BC set of Values. Some quesdons required a third alternative

that contained a null response. The null answer means the response is for

both PC and BC set of Values. Often the true idendficadon of the null

answer is related to the response of other relevant quesdons. An example is

given below:

10. Our firm is organized as a: a. sole proprietorship. (PC) b. partnership or sub-chapter S corporation, (null answer) c. corporadon. (BC)

11. The firm ownership has: a. no investors. (PC) b. limited investors. (null answer) c. unlimited investors. (BC)

12. Our firm has: a. equal ownership. (PC) b. unequal ownership. (BC)

13. Our firm's financial control is: a. intemal. (PC) b. extemal. (BC)

Answer choices "b" in quesdons ten and eleven are null answers. If a

firm chooses answer choice "b" (null answer) in these two questions, we

need to depend on the following two questions to judge quesdons ten and

eleven as either being PC or BC. For instance, if a firm chooses the null

answer ("b") on question ten or eleven the response will be determined to be

a PC or BC answer based on the response in questions twelve and thirteen.

The same situation happens again on quesdon number twenty-two; its true

identification depends on questions twenty-three and twenty-four.

29

Part Two of the Ouesdonnaire

Questions thirty-one and thirty-two ask the respondents to rate nine

attributes of Project and Firm Organizational Values for their contribution to the

firm's architectural and financial success. The radng scale is from zero to ten

(ten is significant, and zero is insignificant). The nine attributes are "operadng

structure," "decision-making process," "strategic planning," "marking strategy,"

"clients," "staffing strategy," "profit strategy," "leadership styles," and

"potential rewards." Question thirty-one is shown in Figure 5.1.

31. PROJECT ORGANIZATION. Please RATE the following nine items from zero to ten (ten is significant, zero is insignificant), contributing to your firm's architectural and financial success.

Operating structure

Decision­making process

Strategic planning

Marketing strategy

Clients

Staffing strategy

Profit strategy

Leadership styles

Potential rewards

insignificant

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

contribution to architectural success

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

significant

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Figure 5.1 Quesdon Thirty-Two

insignificant

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

contribution to financial success

2

2

2

2

2 2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4 4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6 6

6

6

6

7

7

7

7

7 7

7

7

7

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

9 9

9

9

9

significant

10

10

10

10

10 10

10

10

10

30

Part Three of the Ouestionnaire

Quesdons thirty-three and thirty-four are two self-evaluadon questions

asking the firms to rate their perceived architectural and financial success.

The rating scale is from zero to ten (ten is significant, and zero is

insignificant). The two quesdons are shown in Figure 5.2.

33. Please rate your firm's financial success.

Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

34. Please rate your firm's architectural success.

Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 5.2 Quesdons Thirty-Three and Thirty-Four

Part Four of the Questionnaire

The last question, thirty-five, contains a list of extemal factors that

may contribute to a firm's architectural and financial success. The firms are

requested to indicate which factors contribute to their architectural and

financial success. These include: annual design awards, duration of practice,

magazine articles, repeat clients, the sadsfacdon of our clients, repetition of

building types, firm commitment to community service, and contract

incentives. At the right-hand side of each factor are two blanks under the

columns of architectural and financial success. The firms were asked to

place a mark in the blank if the factor contributes to the firm's architectural

or financial success. Question thirty-five is shown in Figure 5.3.

31

35. Please place an 2Lnext to each factor that contributes to your firm's architectural and financial success.

Architectural Financial success success

Annual design awards Duration of practice Magazine articles Repeat chents The satisfaction of our clients Repetition of building types Firm commitment to community service Contract incentives

Other Other

Figure 5.3 Question Thirty-Five

Discussion

The author and his committee members created a new quesdonnaire

by modifying the questions in the Coxe Group's quesdonnaire. The new

questionnaire can be divided into four parts. Part One contains thirty

questions, and is intended to determine the posidon of the respondents'

Project and Firm Organizational Values. Part Two of the questionnaire asks

the respondents to rate nine attributes of Project and Firm Organizational

Values for their contribution to the firm's architectural and financial success.

Part Three of the questionnaire is two self evaluation questions asking the

firms to rate their perceived architectural and financial success. Part Four of

32

the questionnaire contains a list of extemal factors that may contribute to a

firm's architectural and financial success. The firms are requested to indicate

which factors contribute to their architectural and financial success.

33

CHAPTER VI

THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST AND THE

THIRD PARTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Introducdon

In order to determine what the architectural population as a whole is

like, broad sampling is necessary when in generalizing of research results.

Choosing one very large city with many different kinds of architectural firms

or applying a quota sampling all over the United States provide two

alternatives. The author and his committee members decided to choose one

city sampling instead of quota sampling. The city chosen to conduct this

research was Dallas, Texas, for two main reasons. Dallas offered a diverse

and substantial population of architectural firms. Also, the likelihood of the

architectural firms in Dallas familiar with Texas Tech University was very

high, increasing their potential willingness to participate in this research.

After receiving the addresses of all the architectural firms from the Dallas

Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), a copy of the

questionnaire was sent to all of these architectural firms.

The Research Sample

Fifty-seven out of two hundred and forty-nine architectural firms in

Dallas, Texas, responded to the questionnaire. The retum rate was 23%.

However, eight among those respondents failed to complete all the questions

in the questionnaire, and one respondent answered more than one option in

some of the questions. These nine respondents were not accepted. Asa

result, forty eight out of two hundred and forty-nine firms were finally

34

included for study and evaluation. The usable retum rate dropped to 19%.

The data collected was from these forty-eight firms.

The size of the firms responding to the questionnaire spreads over a

wide range, from two to three hundred and thirty-nine. The age of the firms

ranges from one to fifty-eight years in age (Table 6.1).

Table 6.1 The Firms' Size and Age

Firm

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 P Q R S T U V w X Y Z

Size of the Firm

20 12 10 253 6 186 32 12 2 12 33 3 14 3 2 28 5 13 15 6 6 5 2 16 4 4

Age of the Firm (years)

8 7 18 58 7 48 11.5 2.5 3 28 12 2.5 8 10 3 unknown 10 9 31 47 4 8 2 9 2 1.5

Firm

AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH Al AJ AK AL AM AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU AV

Size of the Firm

56 4 4 62 5 10 17.5 25 5 8 3 11 7 339 7 13 28 14 28 3 8 6

Age of the Firm (years)

31 21 20 33 1 12 14 15 26 10 12 43 1.5 53 35 20 5 11 15 3 2.5 2

35

The Census of Service Industries in the United States divides

architectural firms into three groups, based on the number if employees of

the firms. The range is from 0 to 19, 20 to 49, and over 50. The distribution

of architectural firms by number of employees across the United States is

compared in Table 6.2 for 1972, 1977 and 1982. In 1972 the percentages

were 93.1% : 5.2% and : 1.5% responding to the size of the firm from 0 to

19, 20 to 49 and over 50, respectively. In 1977 the percentages were 94.8% :

4.0% and : 1.2%. hi 1982 the percentages were 93.1% : 5.1% and : 1.9%

(Table 6.2).

In this research, 36 out of 48 respondents to the questionnaire have

between 0 to 19 principals and employees. Seven respondents have 20 to 49.

Five respondents have over 50. The percentages were 75.0% : 14.6% : and :

10.4% respecdvely (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2 To Compare the Distribudon of Architectural Firms By Number of Employees across the

United States and the Author's Research

Number of Principals and Employees

0-19

20-49

Over 50

1972

93.3%

5.2%

1.5%

1977

94.8%

4.0%

1.2%

1982

93.1%

5.1%

1.9%

Respondents' Percentage in this Research

75.0%

14.6%

10.4%

Comparing the distribudon of architectural firms by number of

employees across the United States for 1972, 1977 and 1982 with the

respondents' percentages in this research, it showed that the author's research

36

data has a higher percentage of respondents with more than twenty principals

and employees. This phenomena can be interpreted in two ways. The first

one is that the firms with the larger number of employees were more likely

to respond the questionnaire than the smaller firms, implying that larger

firms may be more interested in better ways to manage their firms and

participate the author's research. The second one is that since Dallas is a

large metropolitan center, the percentage of larger firms may be greater than

the national figures which include many small firms located primarily in

small communities throughout the United States. For these reasons the

author did not feel that the percentage difference between the Census of

Service Industries and his data was significant.

Analysis of the Data

Since there are nine questions in the questionnaire concerning a firm's

level of positioning with regard to Project Architectural Values, the highest

and lowest value a respondent can get for Idea, Service or Delivery is nine

and zero. With regard to a firm's level of posidoning of Firm Organizational

Values, the highest and lowest value a respondent can get for PC or BC are

twenty one and zero.

Table 6.3 shows all the firm's responses to the questionnaire. The

numbers in the Idea, Service, and Delivery, PC and BC columns refer to the

number of answers in each category. The numbers in the architectural and

financial columns represent the respondent's radng of his firm's success on a

scale from zero to ten (zero is insignificant and ten is significant).

For example, on Project Organizadonal Values, firm "A" chose two

Idea, four Service and three Delivery responses. On Firm Organizadonal

37

Values, firm "A" chose fifteen PC, and six BC responses and rated itself as

having an architectural success of nine and financial success of seven out of

a range of zero to ten.

Table 6.3 shows that of Project Organizadonal Values, Service was

the most chosen answer choice. Its mean, median and standard deviation

are 4.50, 3.00 and 1.29, respectively. The minimum and maximum value

are 1.00 and 7.00. Idea was the second most chosen answer choice. Its

mean, median and standard deviadon are 3.10, 5.00 and 1.34, respecdvely.

The minimum and maximum value are 1.00 and 7.00. Delivery was the

least chosen answer choice. Its mean, median and standard deviadon are

1.40, 1.00 and 0.89, respectively. The minimum and maximum value are

0.00 and 4.00.

Of Firm Organizadonal Values, PC was the most chosen answer

choice. Its mean, median and standard deviadon are 14.06 14.00 and 2.05,

respectively. The minimum and maximum value are 11.0 and 19.00. BC

was the second chosen answer choice. Its mean, median and standard

deviation are 6.92, 7.00 and 2.03, respectively. The minimum and

maximum value are 2.00 and 10.00.

In the rating of architectural success of the zero to ten scale, the mean,

median and standard deviation are 6.71, 7.00 and 2.07, respectively. The

minimum and maximum value are 1.00 and 10.00. In the radng of financial

success, the mean, median and standard deviadon are 6.36, 7.00 and 2.01,

respectively. The minimum and maximum value of are 1.00 and 10.00.

38

Table 6.3 Firms' Responses to the Questionnaire

Firm

R B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 P ' Q R S T U U U) K V Z RR RB RC RD RE RF RG RH Rl RJ

Project Organizational Ualues*

Idea Seruice Deliuery

2 2 3 2 4 5 4 3 3 3 5 4 3 4 6 2 3 3 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 7 4 3 2 3 2 2 3

4 5 4 6 4 3 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 2 5 2 5 5 3 4 4 6 5 5 6 6 6 1 4 5 4 5 5 5 6

3 2 2 1 1 1 e 1 I 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 4 1 2 2 I 3 I 2 2 e e 1 I 1 1 3 1 2 2 B

Firm Organizational Ualues*

(PC) (BC)

15 12 13 12 15 11.5 16 12 15 14 14 13 12 16 14 11 12 13 17 16 15 16 15 11 14 16 11.5 12 13 11 19 14 15 15 17 13

6 9 8 9 6 8.5 5 9 6 7 7 8 9 5 7 10 9 8 4 5 6 5 6 IB 7 5 9.5 9 8 IB 2 7 6 6 4 8

Success**

Rrch. Fin.

9 9 8 7 4 7 IB 3 5 7 6 6 4 IB 8 4 1 7 8 9 4 6 8 3 7 8 6 5 9 5 5 6 8 4 8 7

7 7 8 4 7 7 IB 3 3 8 7 6 7 5 7 6 1 7 9 6 8 4 6 7 3 5 7 6 8 5 7 7 6 5 8 7

39

Table 6.3 continued

Firm

RK RL RM RN RO RP RQ RR RS RT RU RU

Man. Possible Ualue

Mean

Median

Std Deu.

Minimum Ualue

Maximum Ualue

Project Organizational Ualues*

Idea Seruice

1 6 5 3 1 7 1 6 6 3 2 6 3 5 3 5 2 6 5 4 4 4 3 4

9.BB 9.BB

3.18 4.5B

3.BB 5.B0

1.34 1.29

1.BB 1.BB

7.BB 7.BB

Oeliuery

2 1 1 2 B 1 1 1 1 B 1 2

9.BB

1.4B

1.BB

B.89

B.BB

4.BB

Firm Organizational Ualues*

(PC)

15 13 15 11 13 13 16 12 14 19 17 16

21.BB

14.B6

14.BB

2.B5

11.BB

19.BB

(BC)

6 8 6 IB 8 8 5 9 7 2 4 5

21.BB

6.92

7.BB

2.B3

2.BB

1B.BB

Success

Rrch.

6 8 8 IB IB 6 5 9 7 8 7 7

1B.BB

6.71

7.BB

2.B7

.1

i

1 '•'' i 1 1B.BB t

*if

Fin.

7 3 7 IB 2 7 IB 9 6 8 7 5

1B.BB

6.36

7.BB

2.B1

1.BB

1B.BB

* The numbers in these columns under Project Organizational Values and Firm Organizadonal Values represent the number of questions answered in each category.

** The number in these columns represents the respondents' ratings of their firm's success.

40

CHAPTER VII

REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Introduction

In the author's research, there are two hypotheses (the null hypothesis

and research hypothesis). The null hypothesis is that increased levels of

positioning does not increase levels of success. The observed difference is

due to random error. The research hypothesis is that increased levels of

positioning do increase levels of success. The observed difference is not due

to random error. Furthermore, statisdcians generally have agreed that if an

event is not random, it occurs by chance less than five times out of one

hundred (Pr < 0.05); when such an event occurs the null hypothesis is

rejected. When the obtained probability value is larger than 0.05, the null

hypothesis will be accepted. The levels of positioning had no effect on the

levels of success. When the obtained probability value is smaller than 0.05,

the research hypothesis will be accepted. The levels of positioning had an

effect on the levels of success.

Simple Linear Regression Analysis

One of the most frequently used techniques to find a reladon between

two or more variables is regression analysis. In certain situations, regression

may be useful in obtaining an estimate or prediction of the most likely

measurements in one variable derived from a known measurement in another

variable(s). For instance, we observe that the taller a person, the heavier he

is more likely to be, and hence we assume that there is a reladon between

height and weight. If height and weight are related, then given the height of

a person, we may be able to estimate (predict) with accuracy his weight.

41

The above example is a simple linear regression with one criterion

variable and one predictor variable. The equation of simple linear regression

is shown below:

Y = a + bc

Where: Y = criterion variable, a = constant (or intercept), b = coefficient, c = predictor variable.

The criterion variable (Y) is Success and the predictor variable (c) is

the level of positioning of Project and Firm Organizational Values. The

coefficient (b) is equal to increase in Y if X is increased by one unit. " "a" is

a constant (intercept).

By using the simple linear regression equation, the author will test

whether success is related to:

1. the level of positioning of Project Organizational Values.

Success = f (the level of posidoning of Project Organizadonal Values).

2. the level of posidoning of Firm Organizadonal Values.

Success = f (the level of posidoning of Firm Organizational Values).

The value of the predictor variable for the level of posidoning of

Project Organizadonal Values is the highest value among either Idea,

Service or Delivery responses of each firm. The value of the predictor

7Thomas H. Wonnacott and Ronald Wonnacott, Introductory Statistics, p.303.

42

variable for the level of posidoning of Firm Organizadonal Values is the

higher value between PC and BC responses of each firm. These two values

chosen from each firm are called predictors, and are used to predict

architectural or financial success.

For example, the values of Idea, Service, and Delivery responses of

firm "A" are 2:4:3. Since 4 is the highest value it is the predictor variable for

the firm's level of positioning of its Project Organizadonal Values. The

values of the PC and BC responses of firm "A" are 15:6. Since 15 is larger

than 6, 15 is the predictor variable for the level of posidoning of its Firm

Organizadonal Values. Appendix G shows the values chosen from all the

firms.

By evaluating the obtained probability value from the Stadsdcs

Analysis System (SAS), we can determine whether the research hypothesis

is rejected or accepted. The obtained coefficient value from the SAS can

determine whether the relationship between the predictor variable (the level

of positioning) and criterion variable (Success) is posidve or negative. The

obtained probability and coefficient are shown in Table 7.1.

In Table 7.1, the values under the columns of "probability of

architecture and financial success" are used to determine whether to accept

or reject the research hypothesis. In this research, the probability (level of

significance) is set to 0.05. When the obtained probability value is smaller

than 0.05, the research hypothesis is accepted, implying that there is a

significant relationship between the level of positioning and success. When

the obtained probability value is larger than 0.05, the null hypothesis will be

accepted, implying that there is no significant relationship between the level

of positioning and success.

43

Table 7.1 The Obtained Probability and Coefficient Values

Predictor Variable

The Level of Positioning of Project Organizational Values

The Level of Positioning of Firm Organizational Values

Probability of Architectural Success

0.0435 *

0.1298

Probability of Financial Success

0.5386

0.2501

Coefficient of Architectural success

0.6839

0.2238

Coefficient of Financial success

0.2068

0.1661

* A value below 0.05 means this variable fulfills the research hypothesis.

When the obtained probability value is smaller than 0.05, the values

under the columns of "coefficient of architectural and financial success" are

used to determine whether the relationship between the level of positioning

and success is positive or negative. If the obtained coefficient value is

positive, there is a positive reladonship between the level of posidoning and

success. If the obtained coefficient value is negative, there is a negadve

relationship between the level of positioning and success. When the

obtained probability value is larger than 0.05, the obtained coefficient value

becomes unimportant.

The Level of Positioning of Project Organizational Values

When considering the level of posidoning on Project Organizational

Values as the only predictor variable to affect architectural success, the

44

obtained probability value of architectural success is 0.0435, less than 0.05,

indicating that the research hypothesis is accepted and the null hypothesis

is rejected. The observed difference is not due to random error. The level

of positioning did have an effect on architectural success. The obtained

coefficient value of architectural success is posidve (0.6839), indicating that

the level of posidoning of Project Organizadonal Values has a positive

relationship with architectural success.

When a firm's level of positioning of Project Organizational

Values increases, the probability of achieving higher levels of

architectural success does increase.

When considering the level of positioning of Project Organizational

Values as the only predictor variable to effect financial success, the obtained

probability value of financial success is 0.5385, larger than 0.05, indicating

that the research hypothesis is rejected. The observed difference is due to

random error. The level of positioning did not have an effect on financial

success. Since the obtained probability value of financial success is larger

than 0.05, the obtained coefficient value becomes not unimportant.

When a firm's level of positioning of Project Organizational

Values increases, the probability of achieving higher levels of financial

success does not increase.

The Level of Positioning of Firm Organizadonal Values

When considering the level of posidoning of Firm Organizadonal

Values as the only predictor variable to affect architectural and financial

success, the obtained probability values of architectural and financial success

are 0.1298 and 0.2501, both larger than 0.05, indicating that the research

45

hypothesis is rejected. The observed difference is due to random error.

The level of posidoning did not have an effect on architectural and financial

success. Since the obtained probability value of architecUiral and financial

success are larger than 0.05, the obtained coefficient value becomes

unimportant.

When a firm's level of positioning of Firm Organizational Values

increases, the probability of achieving higher levels of architectural and

financial success does not increase.

R-Square of the Simple Linear Regression Analysis

Another important piece of informadon obtained from SAS is the R-

square value (Table 7.2). The R-square is used to evaluate what percentage

of the variance on the criterion variable can be explained by the predictor

variable.

Table 7.2 The Obtained R-Square Values

Predictor R-Square of R-Square of Variable Architectural Financial

success success

The Level of Positioning of 0.0857 0.0083 Project Organizational Values

The Level of Positioning of 0.0492 0.0286 Firm Organizational Values

46

R- Square of Project Organizadonal Values

In considering the level of posidoning of Project Organizational

Values as the only predictor variable, the R-square value of architectural

success is 8.57% (0.0857 x 100%). That means 8.57% of the variance on

architectural success can be explained by the level of positioning of Project

Organizational Values (Table 7.2).

The R-square value of financial success is 0.83% (0.0083 x 100%).

That means 0.83% of the variance on financial success can be explained by

level of posidoning of Project Organizadonal Values (Table 7.2).

R-Square of Firm Organizational Values

In considering the level of positioning of Firm Organizational Values

as the only predictor variable, the R-Square value of architectural success is

4.92% (0.0492 x 100%). That means 4.92% of the variance on architectural

success can be explained by the level of positioning of Firm Organizational

Values (Table 7.2).

The R-Square value of financial success is 2.86% (0.0286 x 100%).

That means 2.86% of the variance on financial success can be explained by

the level of positioning of Firm Organizational Values (Table 7.2).

Muldple Linear Regression Analysis With Two Predictor Variables

In the simple linear regression analysis, there was only one predictor

variable (the level of posidoning of Project or Firm Organizadonal Values)

involved in predicting the criterion variable (Success), and the results show

that the R-square values of architectural and financial success are very low.

47

Therefore, the two predictor variables are combined to see how they affect

the value of R-square of architectural and financial success. In other words,

two predictor variables are both involved to predict the criterion variable.

When there is more than one predictor variable that affects a certain

outcome, a multiple linear regression analysis is applied. The equation of

multiple linear regression with two predictor variables is shown below:

Y^=a + biX^+b2X2

Where: Yc = the criterion variable, a = constant (or intercept), bi, b2 = coefficient, Xi, X2 = predictor variables.

There is one criterion and two predictor variables. The criterion

variable (Yc) is Success. The first predictor variable (Xi) is the level of

positioning of Project Organizadonal Values. The second predictor variable

(X2) is the level of positioning of Firm Organizational Values. The

coefficient (bi) is equal to the increase in Yc if Xi is increased one unit while

all other X variables are held constant. Coefficient b2 is equal to the increase

in Yc if X 2 is increased one unit while all other variables are held constant. ^

"a" is a constant (intercept).

By using the muldple linear regression equation, the author will test

whether success is related to:

3. the level of posidoning of Project and Firm Organizational Values

(SuperPositioning).

llbid., p.304.

48

Success = f (the level of posidoning on Project Organizational Values, the level of positioning on Firm Organizadonal Values).

The values of the first and second predictor variables are the ones that

were applied in the simple hnear regression equation. By evaluating the

probabiHty value obtained from SAS, we can determine whether the research

hypothesis is rejected or accepted, and the obtained coefficient value will

determine whether the relationship between the two predictor variables (the

level of posidoning of Project and Firm Organizational Values) and the

criterion variable (Success) is posidve or negadve. The obtained probability

and coefficient values are shown in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3 The Obtained Probability and Coefficient

Values With Two Predictor Variables

Predictor Variable

The Level of positioning of Project & Firm Organizational Values (SuperPositioning)

Probability of Architectural Success

Project = 0.0218 Firm = 0.0606 Overall = 0.0225 *

Probability of Financial Success

Project = 0.4352 Firm = 0.2158 Overall = 0.3822

Coefficient of Architectural Success

Project = 0.7679 Firm = 0.2685

Coefficient of Financial Success

Project = 0.2635 Firm = 0.1815

* A value below 0.05 means these variables fulfill the research hypothesis.

In Table 7.3, the values under the columns of "probability of

architecture and financial success" are used to determine whether accept or

reject the research hypothesis. The probability (level of significance) is set

49

to 0.05. When the probability value is smaller than 0.05, the research

hypothesis will be accepted, implying that there is a significant relationship

between the level of SuperPosidoning and success.

When the obtained probability value is smaller than 0.05, the values

under the columns of "coefficient of architectural and financial success" are

used to determine whether the relationship between the level of

SuperPosidoning and success is positive or negative. If the obtained

coefficient value is posidve, there is a positive reladonship between the level

of SuperPositioning and success. If the obtained coefficient value is

negadve, there is a negadve reladonship between the level of positioning and

success. When the obtained probability value is larger than 0.05, the

obtained coefficient value becomes unimportant.

The Level of Positioning of Project and Firm Organizational Values (SuperPositioning)

When considering the level of SuperPosidoning (Project and Firm

Organizadonal Values) as two predictor variables affecting architectural

success, the obtained overall probability value of architectural success is

0.0225, less than 0.05. This means the research hypothesis is accepted and

the null hypothesis is rejected. The observed difference is not due to

random error. SuperPositioning did have an effect on architectural success.

The coefficient values of architectural success are positive (Project = 0.7679,

Firm = 0.23685), indicadng that the level of SuperPositioning has a positive

relationship with architectural success.

When a firm's level of SuperPositioning increases, the probability

of achieving higher levels of architectural success increases. In addidon.

50

architectural success is affected more by level of positioning of Project

Organizadonal Values than level of posidoning of Firm Organizadonal

Values, based on their obtained probability values, 0.0218 and 0.0606

respectively. Although 0.0606 is greater than 0.05, the overall probability is

0.0225, less than 0.05.

When considering the level of SuperPosidoning (Project and Firm

Organizational Values) as two predictor variables affecting financial success,

the obtained overall probability value is 0.3822, larger than 0.05. This

means the null hypothesis is accepted. The observed difference is due to

random error. SuperPositioning did not have an effect on financial success.

Since the obtained overall probability value is larger than 0.05, the obtained

coefficient values become unimportant.

When a firm's level of SuperPositioning increases, the probability

of achieving higher levels of financial success does not increase.

R-Square of the Muldple Linear Regression Analysis With Two Predictor Variables

In considering the level of SuperPositioning (Project and Firm

Organizadonal Values) as two predictor variables to affect the criterion

variable (Success), the R-square value of architectural success is 15.52%

(0.1552 X 100%). That means 15.52% of the variance on architectural

success can be explained by SuperPosidoning. The R-square value of

financial success is 4.18% (0.0418 x 100%). That means 4.18% of the

variance on financial success can be explained by SuperPositioning (Table

7.4).

51

Table 7.4 The Obtained R-Square Values

Predictor Variable

The Level of Positioning of Project & Firm Organizational Values (SuperPositioning)

R-square of Architectural Success

0.1552

R-square of Financial Success

0.0418

Muldple Linear Regression With Three Predictor Variables

The next step in the author's statistical analysis was to determine if

there was a third predictor variable which could increase the R-square value

of the multiple linear regression. The third predictor variable was chosen to

be the interaction between the level of positioning of Project and Firm

Organizational Values. The equation for a multiple linear regression with

three predictor variables is shown below:

Where: Yc = the criterion variable, a = constant (or intercept), bi, b2. b3 = coefficient, Xi, X2, X3 = predictor variables.

The criterion variable (Yc) is Success. The first predictor variable (Xi)

is the level of posidoning of Project Organizational Values. The second

predictor variables (X2) is the level of positioning of Firm Organizadonal

Values. The third predictor variable (X3) is the interaction between the level

of positioning of Project and Firm Organizadonal Values. The coefficient

52

(bi) in the equadon is equal to the increase in Yc if Xi is increased one unit

while all other X variables are held constant. Coefficient b2 is equal to the

increase in Yc if X 2 is increased one unit while all other variables are held

constant, and so on. There is one criterion and three predictor variables, "a"

is a constant (intercept).

By using the muldple linear regression equation, the author will test

whether success is related to:

4. the level of SuperPositioning, with the interaction between the level of

posidoning of Project and Firm Organizational Values.

Success = f (the level of posidoning of Project Organizational Values, with the interaction between the levels of positioning of Project and Firm Organizational Values).

The values of the first and second predictor variables (level of

positioning of Project and Firm Organizadonal Values) are the same ones

that were used in the simple linear regression equation. The value of the

third predictor variable is the product of the first and second predictor

variables. For example, the values of the first and second predictor variable

of firm "A" are 4 and 15, respectively. The value of the third predictor

variable is the product of 4 and 15, which is equal to 60.

By evaluating the probability value obtained from SAS, we can

determine whether the research hypothesis is rejected or accepted, and the

obtained coefficient value will determine whether the relationship between

the three predictor variables (the level of SuperPositioning, with the

interaction between the level of positioning of Project and Firm

Organizational Values) and the criterion variable (Success) is positive or

53

negadve. The obtained probability and coefficient values are shown in

Table 7.5.

In Table 7.5, the values under the columns of "probability of

architecture and financial success" are used to determine whether accept or

reject the research hypothesis. The probabiHty (level of significance) is set

to 0.05. When the probability value is smaller than 0.05, the research

hypothesis will be accepted, implying that there is a significant relationship

between the level of SuperPosidoning and success.

Table 7.5 The Obtained Probability and Coefficient

Values With Three Predictor Variables

Predictor Variable

The Level of SuperPositioning, with the interaction between the level of positioning of Project & Firm Organizational Values

Probability of Architectural Success

Project = 0.0570 Firm = 0.0585 Interaction = 0.0989 Overall = 0.0163 *

Probability of Financial Success

Project = 0.6070 Firm = 0.5518 Interaction = 0.6687 Overall = 0.5541

Coefficient of Architectural Success

Project = 5.3530 Firm = 1.9101 Interaction = < 0.3341 >

Coefficient of Financial Success

Project = 1.5129 Firm = 0.6288 Interaction = < 0.0910 >

* A value below 0.05 means these variables fulfill the research hypothesis.

When considering the level of SuperPosidoning, with the interaction

between the level of positioning of Project and Firm Organizational Values

as three predictor variables effecting architectural success, the obtained

overall probability value of architectural success is 0.0163, less than 0.05.

However, the obtained probability value of the third predictor variable (the

interaction between the level of positioning on Project and Firm

54

Organizadonal Values) is 0.0989, larger than 0.05. It indicates that the third

predictor variable does not have a significant reladonship to affect the

criterion variable (Success), and we can delete this predictor variable in the

multiple regression analysis. On the other hand, the obtained probability

value of the first predictor variable (the level of posidoning of Project

Organizational Values) increased from 0.0218 to 0.0570 when adding the

third predictor variable to the multiple regression equadon. This implies that

the first predictor variable may be correlated to the third predictor variable.

This impHcation is demonstrated to be correct when applying Pearson

product-moment correlation to the first and third predictor variables. The

probabiHty value is 0.0001, much less than 0.05. We can conclude that the

first and the third predictor variables are highly correlated. The third

predictor variable can be represented by the first predictor variable, so the

third predictor variable is deleted from the multiple regression

equation.

Discussion

When considering the level of posidoning of Project Organizadonal

Values as the only predictor variable to affect architectural and financial

success, there is a significant positive relationship between the level of

positioning of Project Organizational Values and architectural success.

A well positioned firm in either Idea, Service or DeHvery of their Project

Organizational Values can increase the probability of achieving higher levels

of architectural success. There is no significant relationship between level

of positioning on Project Organizational Values and financial success. A

well positioned firm in either Idea, Service or Delivery of their Project

55

Organizadonal Values cannot increase the probability of achieving higher

levels of financial success (Table 7.6).

When considering the level of posidoning of Firm Organizadonal

Values as the only predictor variable to affect architectural and financial

success, there is no significant relationship between the level of

positioning on Firm Organizational Values and architectural and

financial success. A firm well-posidoned in either PC or BC on Firm's

Organizadonal Values cannot increase its probabiHty of achieving higher

levels of architectural and financial success (Table 7.6).

When considering the level of SuperPosidoning as two predictor

variable affecting architectural success, there is a significant positive

relationship between the level of SuperPositioning and architectural

success. A well-positioned firm in either Idea, Service or Delivery of their

Project Organizational Values and between PC or BC of Firm

Organizational Values can increase the probability of achieving higher levels

of architectural success. SuperPosidoning may have an impact on

architectural success.

When considering the level of SuperPositioning as two predictor

variables affecting financial success, there is no significant relationship

between the level of SuperPositioning and financial success. A firm by

positioning among Idea, Service or Delivery of Project Organizational

Values and between PC or BC of Firm Organizadonal Values cannot

increase the probabiHty of achieving higher levels of financial success.

SuperPosidoning may not have an impact on financial success (Table 7.6).

56

Table 7.6 Results of Regression Analysis Method on Architectural Firms in DaHas, Texas

Analysis Method*

1

2

3

Predictor Variable

The Level of Positioning of Project Organizational Values

The Level of Positioning of Firm Organizational Values

The Level of Positioning of Project & Firm Organizational Values (SuperPositioning)

Relationship Between Level of Positioning and Success

Architectural Success

there is significant positive relationship

there is no significant relationship

there is significant positive relationship

Financial Success

there is no significant relationship

there is no significant relationship

there is no significant relationship

* Analysis method one and two are simple linear regression, and three is multiple linear regression.

1. Success = f (level of posidoning of Project Organizadonal Values),

2. Success = f (level of positioning of Firm Organizational Values).

3. Success = f (level of posidoning of Project Organizadonal Values, level of positioning of Firm Organizational Values).

57

CHAPTER VIII

THE RESULTS OF THE SECOND AND THE

FOURTH PARTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Introducdon

SuperPosidoning claims that the probability of achieving higher levels

of success can be increased by increasing die level of posidoning of Project

and Firm Organizadonal Values. However, the author and his committee

were curious as to which attributes of Project and Firm Organizational

Values do firms perceive as being significant to their architectural and

financial success. Besides invesdgadng a firm's intemal management

strategies, the author and his committee were researching for extemal factors

not associated with management which may effect the success of

architectural firms. Questions regarding to these two aspects were added to

Parts Two and Four of the questionnaire, especially as the author and his

committee hoped to layout the preliminary work for addition investigation

into different avenues of "success." As these two questions are beyond the

scope of this thesis, the following is only a brief summary of the results, and

does not contain a thorough statistical analysis.

Part Two of the Questionnaire

In Part Two of the questionnaire, there are two questions. Number

thirty-one asks the respondents to rate nine attributes of Project

Organizational Values contributing to their architectural and financial

success in Project and Firm Organizadon. The nine attributes were

operating stmcture, decision-making process, planning strategy, marketing

58

strategy, clients, staffing strategy, profit strategy, leadership styles, and

potendal rewards. Quesdon thirty-two asks the respondents to rate the same

nine attributes of Firm Organizadonal Values contribudng to dieir

architectural and financial success in Project and Firm Organization, except

"operating stmcture." It is replaced by "organizadonal structure." The rating

scale of these two quesdons is from zero to ten, zero is insignificant and ten

is significant. The resuhs are shown in Appendix G, H, I and J.

Using the mean of the respondent's rating of architectural and

financial success (6.71 and 6.36), the respondents were divided into two

levels of success, above-mean level and below-mean level of success. Those

respondents whose perceived success is seven or above on the zero to ten

scale are classified as having an above-mean level of success, and those

respondents whose perceived success is six or below on the zero to ten scale

are classified as having a below-mean level of success. For instance, if a

firm rates its architectural and financial success as 7 and 6, this firm is

classified as above-mean level of architectural success and below-mean level

of financial success. Twenty-eight respondents belong to above-mean level

of architectural success, and twenty respondents belong to below-mean level.

With regard to financial success, there are twenty-eight respondents at

above-mean level, and twenty respondents at below-mean level.

The results show that the populadon at above-mean level of

architectural success in Project and Firm Organization has higher average

scores of all the nine attributes than the population at below-mean level of

architectural success, except "decision-making process" in Project

Organization. Once again, the populadon at above-mean level of financial

success in Project and Firm Organizadon has higher average scores of all the

59

nine attributes than the population at below-mean level of financial success

(Table 8.1).

Table 8.1 The Average Score of the Nine Attributes at

Above and Below-Mean Level of Architectural, and Financial Success

in Project and Firm Organizadon

Project Organization

Firm Organization

Nine Attributes

Operating structure Decision-making process Strategic planning Marketing strategy Clients Staffing strategy Profit strategy Leadership styles Potential rewards

Organizational structure Decision-making process Strategic planning Marketing strategy Clients Staffing strategy Profit strategy Leadership styles Potential rewards

Architectural Success

Below-Mean Level

7.10 7.60 5.90 5.55 6.25 6.60 4.80 7.10 5.40

6.20 7.15 5.50 5.00 6.15 5.94 4.80 6.90 5.60

Above-Mean Level

7.96 8.43 6.50 6.82 7.86 7.68 5.54 7.75 6.39

8.25 8.36 6.64 6.71 7.79 8.29 5.79 8.04 6.46

Financial Success

Below-Mean Level

7.60 7.70 6.25 6.55 8.10 6.95 6.85 7.60 5.55

6.95 6.75 6.20 6.40 7.75 6.20 5.40 6.95 5.20

Above-Mean Level

8.00 7.47 7.93 8.07 8.18 7.11 8.18 7.75 7.07

7.96 7.79 7.75 7.68 7.89 7.64 8.11 7.86 6.96

Another step in analyzing the respondent's radng of the nine attributes

is to classify the respondent to two groups. Group I and Group II. When,

both a firm's architectural and financial success, are above-mean level of

success, this firm is classified in Group I. When a firm's either architectural

60

or financial success is below-mean level of success, this firm is classified in

Group II. For instance, if a firm rates its architectural and financial success

as 7 and 6 on the zero to ten scale, this firm is classified in Group II, because

its financial success is below-mean level of success. Seventeen respondents

belong to Group I, and nine respondents belong to Group II.

The results show that Group I has higher average scores of all the nine

attributes than the Group II in Project and Firm Organization (Table 8.2). A

suggestion drawn from these preliminary observations is that higher levels of

architectural, financial, and architectural as well as financial success in

Project and Firm Organization may be achieved by putting more emphasis

on the nine attributes of Project and Firm Organizadonal Values.

Part Four of the Ouesdonnaire

Part Four of the questionnaire, question thirty-five, listed eight

extemal factors that may be considered contributing to a firm's success by

architects. They are "the sadsfacdon of our clients," "repeat clients,"

"duration of practice," "repetition of building types," "annual design

awards," "magazine articles," "firm commitment to community service," and

"contract incendves." At the right-hand side of each factors are two blanks,

one is under the column of architectural success and another one is under the

column of financial success. The firms were requested to place a mark in the

blank if the factor contributed to the firms' architectural or financial success

(see Appendix C).

61

Table 8.2 The Average Score of the Nine Attributes in Group I

and Group II in Project and Firm Organizadon

Project Organization

Firm Organization

Nine Attributes

Operating structure Decision-making process Strategic planning Marketing strategy Clients Staffing strategy Profit strategy Leadership styles Potential rewards

Organizational structure Decision-making process Strategic planning Marketing strategy Chents Staffing strategy Profit strategy Leadership styles Potential rewards

Architectural; as well as Financial Success

Group II (Below-Mean Level)

7.11 7.22 5.78 5.28 6.89 6.23 5.50 7.28 5.84

5.89 6.34 5.06 4.67 6.67 5.72 4.45 6.11 5.56

Group I (Above-Mean Level)

8.18 8.00 7.68 7.83 8.47 7.56 6.88 7.38 7.24

8.18 8.21 7.71 7.62 8.29 8.36 7.50 7.85 7.12

By adding the respondents' marks of each extemal factor, the

maximum score in each blank is forty eight, equal to the total number of

respondents. The actual range of scores is from one to forty in architectural

success. "The satisfacdon of our clients," "repeat cHents," and "duradon of

practice" are the three most chosen factors contributing to architectural

success. These three extemal factors got scores 31 or above out of 48. The

remaining five extemal factors ("repedtion of building types," "annual

design awards," "magazine articles," "firm commitment to community

62

service," and "contract incentives") are considered to contribute less to

architectural success. Their scores are less than 20 out of 48 (Table 8.3).

In financial success the actual range of scores is from three to forty-

five. "The sadsfaction of our cHents," "repeat clients," "duradon of

pracdce," and "repeddon of building types" are the four most chosen factors

contributing to financial success. These four extemal factors got scores 29

or above out of 48. The remaining four extemal factors ("annual design

awards," "magazine articles," "firm commitment to community service," and

"contract incendves") are considered to contribute less to financial success.

Their scores are less than twelve out of 48 (Table 8.3).

Table 8.3 The Respondents' Selecdon of

the Eight Extemal Factors

The Satisfaction of our Clients

Repeat Clients

Duration of Practice

Repetition of Building Types

Annual Design Awards

Magazine Articles

Firm Commitment to Community Service

Contract Incentives

Architectural Success

40

37

31

19

15

15

12

Financial Success

45

45

30

29

4

3

11

63

Discussion

A conclusion drawn from the preliminary observations in Part Two of

the quesdonnaire is that the populadon at above-mean level of architectural,

financial, and architectural and financial success in Project and Firm

Organization has higher average scores of all the nine attributes than the

population at below-mean level. In other words, higher levels of

architectural, financial, and architectural and financial success may be

achieved by putting more emphasis on the nine attributes of Project and Firm

Organizational Values.

The results in part Four of the questionnaire are that "the satisfaction

of our clients," "repeat clients," and "duradon pracdce" are the three most

chosen factors contributing to architectural success. "The satisfaction of our

clients," "repeat cHents," "duradon pracdce," and "repetidon of building

types" are the four most chosen factors contributing to financial success.

64

CHAPTER IX

CONCLUSION

SuperPosidoning was established in 1970s by Coxe to show

architectural firms how to pursue higher levels of success dirough

management. It is so influendal across the United States that it has been

cited in some recent architectural books, such as In Search of Design

Excellence, as providing a forward-looking way to approach the issue of

success.

After twenty years following the establishment of SuperPositioning,

Fanek and the author of this research tested the true ability of

SuperPosidoning to help architectural firms in the 1990s achieve success.

Although there is no single definition of success in architecture, Fanek and

the author of this thesis classified success in two acceptable categories

(architectural and financial success). Fanek found that SuperPosidoning

could improve neither the architectural nor the financial success of Jordanian

architectural and engineering firms. His results might result from three

factors; cultural and professional difference between American firms from

which SuperPositioning originated and Jordanian firms, the small number of

participants in his research, and his subjective assumptions.

A similar research to Fanek's was conducted by the author in the United

States. From the analysis of the author's research, the level of posidoning of

Project Organizadonal Values (Design Technologies) could increase the

probability of achieving higher levels of architectural success but not financial

success. The level of positioning of Firm Organizational Values (Organizadon

Values) could not increase the probability of achieving higher levels of

65

architectural and financial success. By combining the level of positioning of

Project and Firm Organizational Values (SuperPositioning) one could increase

the probability of achieving higher levels of architectural success, but not

financial success. In addidon, the level of posidoning of Project Organizational

Values played a more significant role in increasing the probabiHty of achieving

architectural success than the level of posidoning of Firm Organizadonal

Values.

There are three possible ways to explain the results in this research.

The first explanation is that SuperPositioning can only improve the

probability of achieving higher levels of architectural success. If it is true,

we need to investigate what kinds of management strategies should be

applied to replace SuperPositioning to improve the probability of achieving

higher levels of financial success. The next explanadon is that

SuperPositioning can indeed increase the probability of achieving higher

levels of architectural and financial success, and the results from the

architectural firms in Dallas is an exceptional case and does not fairly

represent the architectural profession in the United States. If the

architectural firms in Dallas cannot increase their probability of achieving

higher levels of financial success through SuperPositioning, what can the

architectural firms there do to improve their firms' financial success. The

third explanation is that the applicability of SuperPositioning is

geographicaUy restrained to Dallas and other similar cities and areas. If it is

true, we need to find out which regions we can apply SuperPosidoning, and

where we cannot apply it.

Since we do not know which one of the three explanadons mentioned

above is correct, the author recommends a nationwide research to find out

66

the apphcability of the SuperPositioning principles to aH the American

architectural firms. In addidon, diis new research should attempt to modify

the SuperPositioning principles or to create a new theory.

Since SuperPositioning is one of the most recognized avenues to pursue

higher levels of success in architectural firms, its true applicability should be

thoroughly understood before we can rely on it to achieve success.

67

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Coxe Weld, Nina F. Hartung, Hugh Hochbery, Brian J. Lewis, David H. Maister, Robert F. Mattox, and Peter A. Piven. Success Strategies for Design Professionals. St. Louis: McGraw-HiH Book Company, 1987.

Cozby, PaulC. Methods in Behavioral Research. Mountain View, Ca: Mayfield PubHshing Company, 1989.

Fanek, Mamoun. The Posidoning and Success of Jordanian Architectural / Engineering Firms. (Thesis) Texas Tech University, 1993.

Franklin, James R., FAIA. "Key to Design Excellence." In: In Search of Design Excellence. Thomas Vonier, AIA, editor. Washington, D.C.: The American Insdtute of Architects Press, 1989.

Gutman, Robert. Architectural Pracdce: A Cridc View. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1988.

Wonnacott, Thomas H. and Ronald J. Wonnacott, Introductory Stadsdcs. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1972.

Woodrow W. Wyatt & Charles M. Bridges, Jr. Stadsdcs for the Behavioral Sciences. Dallas: D.C. Heath And Company, 1967.

Young, Robert K. and Donald J. Veldman. Introductory Stadsdcs for the Behavioral Sciences. San Francisco: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, 1965.

68

APPENDIX A

THE COXE GROUP'S QUESTIONNAIRE

69

1. Is the firm's ownership:

a. Closely held by members of the firm acdng as a parmership? b. Held by one or more outside investors? c. A broad partnership or broadly held corporation? d. Closely controlled internally with a corporate atdtude? e. A proprietorship or smaU partnership with approximately equal

Ownership?

f. A proprietorship or smaU partnership with unequal ownership?

2. How are firm-wide decisions made?

a. By the dictates of a professionally oriented leader. b. By the book, foHowing a one-dme set of mles. c. By consensus of the owners or managers. d. By the majority vote of controlling owners. e. Benevolendy, by the leader(s) after input and collaboradon of

others. f. Autocratically, by the dictates of a business-oriented leader.

3. How do staff?

a. We are largely a group of highly specialized professionals with some lower-paid technical staff.

b. We have a few professionals plus a highly trained staff of paraprofessionals able to produce most of the firm's work.

c. We have many professionals and staff who are relatively well compensated and have been with the firm for many years.

d. We have some specialized, high-level professionals who stay with the firm and a large technical group that turns over frequently.

e. The brightest and best come to us, we ask a lot of them and expect that they will leave after a few years.

f. We recruit the best and the brightest; they often leave after a few years.

70

4. How does the firm market?

a. The principals seU; others do the project work; we sometimes advertise.

b. We rely on sales representadves who are supported by advertising and compeddve bidding.

c. We have an acdve markedng program managed by a marketing professional. The principals participate actively by courting, closing, and being involved in projects.

d. We organize around a centralized marketing department (PR, marketing assistance, bird-dogs, etc.). The marketing principal(s) seU(s); odiers largely do the project work.

e. Our cHents come to us. We publish and seek awards to maintain visibility. We succeed without a formal marketing program.

f. Our clients come to us. We publish and seek awards; however, we have a planned markedng program.

5. How does the firm primarily organize to deliver project services and products?

a. Departmentally. b. Clearly defined assembly line process. c. Closer-doer-led design teams or studios. d. Departments with project managers providing continuity on

projects. e. Design teams brought together on an ad hoc basis. f. Fixed design teams or studios.

6. How are project-related decisions made?

a. Our work is primarily the result of the standard process; design decisions are made by a leader designer.

b. Our designers are standardized, and solutions are largely decided by the client.

c. The project manager or closer-principal who obtains and manages the project makes the design decisions.

d. The department head makes them. e. The design principal make them; each job is consciously made

different. f. The design principal makes them; successful solutions are often

repeated.

71

7. What is the best route to achieve maximum rewards in your firm (however you define rewards)?

a. High monetary rewards through maximizing efficiency. b. High monetary rewards through maximizing volume. c. Security for many-salary and benefits, profit sharing, growth to

ownership. d. High monetary retums for a few at the top by focusing on

profitable activities. e. Fame. f. Fame and fortune.

8. What is the predominant pricing system in your firm?

a. Lump sum, getdng as much as we can. b. Successful bidding. c. Hourly, with upsets. d. Hourly, open-end. e. Higher hourly rates and /or multiples than competitors, f. Higher lump sums with value-added premiums.

9. How would you describe the majority of your clients?

a. Volume developers or entrepreneurs. b. National chain clients with standardized building requirements. c. Institudons. d. Government or municipal. e. Patrons in large and small organizations, and individual clients

seeking unique solutions. f. Corporations, institudons, and agencies seeking unique expertise.

10. How would you rate the overall satisfaction of the principals and staff with the performance and success of the firm? (Check one.)

Not Somewhat Satisfied Very Highly Satisfied Sadsfied Sadsfied Satisfied

72

Self-Test Answer

Question

1. Ownership 2. Firmwide decisions 3. Staffing 4. Marketing 5. Project organizadon 6. Project decisions 7. Rewards 8. Pricing 9. Clients Total

Responses c d e

Technology-Value Position A B C D

A

C

E

B

D

F

73

APPENDIX B

MAMOUN FANEK'S QUESTIONNAIRE

74

Please circle the following with the answer that best describes your firm.

1. Projects are delivered through:

a. flexible teams established and organized around each project b. fixed studios. c. departments working around specific phases of the project.

2. Project decisions are:

a. made primarily by the design principal / partner. b. made primarily by a project leader. c. standardized primarily for each project phase.

3. What is the criteria for hiring your professional staff?

a. Staff are selected from the best of recent graduates. b. Staff are selected to be trained for long-term retention. c. Staff are selected for their experience.

4. The reputation and success of our firm in attracting clients is based upon providing:

a. innovadon. b. special expertise and technical skills c. industry standard products.

5. The majority of our clients have projects requiring:

a. innovative solutions. b. reHable soludons. c. standard soludons.

6. Our fee structure is based on:

a. fixed lump-sum. b. hourly rates. c. a percentage of construcdon cost.

75

7. Our fee, compared to other Jordanian firms, are:

a. higher than average. b. average. c. lower than average.

8. We primarily attribute our profit margin to:

a. high fees. b. the efficiency of our services.

c. office standardization.

9. Our support staff consists primarily of:

a. inexperienced professionals. b. experienced professionals.

c. paraprofessionals.

10. Our firm is organized as a:

a. proprietorship. b. partnership.

c. corporadon.

11. Our firm has:

a. equal ownership.

b. unequal ownership.

12. The firm ownership is:

a. closely held through limited investors. b. broadly held through unlimited investors. c. a sole proprietorship.

13. The firm's financial control is:

a. intemal. b. extemal. c. both intemal and extemal.

76

14. Office management decisions are primarily based on:

a. autocratic decision making. b. democratic decision making. c. consensus decision making.

15. Our architects perceive themselves as:

a. businessmen first and architects second.

b. architects first and businessmen second.

16. Our firm leaders make organizational decisions:

a. with input or collaboration from staff.

b. without input or collaboration from staff.

17. Our staff is expected to stay in the firm for a:

a. short duration.

b. long duration.

18. Our staffs salaries are primarily:

a. higher than average. b. average. c. lower than average.

19. Our firm has: a. a formal marketing program.

b. an informal markedng program.

20. Who primarily markets your firm?

a. Principals / partners. b. Marketing Professionals

21. Those who market the job: a. continue in the development of the project. b. oversee the development of the project. c. are not involved in the development of the project.

77

22. In regard to marketing, we primarily use:

a. direct markedng. b. pubHc reladons. c. design awards and the publicadon of our project.

23. Initial client contact comes primarily from:

a. the firm.

b. the clients.

24. We reward our staff primarily with:

a. non-financial rewards.

b. financial rewards.

25. The reward system includes:

a. all our staff. b. only our senior staff.

26. Most of our clients: a. want to be personaUy involved in the development of the project. b. do not want to be personally involved in the development of the

project.

27. The firm evaluates accomplishment by focusing on:

a. how satisfied we were with the project. b. how well paid we were for the project.

*** Please rate the following:

1. My firm's financial success. 2. My firm's architectural success. 3. My financial success. 4. My architectural success. 5. My personal success. (Opdonal)

Low High 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

78

* * * Please rate the following (employees only):

Disagree 1. In my firm I have a great deal of freedom in

doing my own work and in making my own decisions.

2. If I had more autonomy than I have now, I would do a better job as an architect.

3.1 wish I have more responsibility than I have now in my job as an architect.

4.1 identify more closely with my profession, architecture, than with the firm in which I work. 1 2

5.1 have enough authority to do my job well. 1 2 6.1 am very satisfied when I compare my present

job with similar jobs in other firms. 1 2

3

3

3

3 3

Agree

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 4

4

5 5

79

APPENDIX C

THE AUTHOR'S QUESTIONNAIRE

80

October 15,1993

Dear Principal,

The effectiveness of design office management and its link to architectural success has been a growing concem of the profession of architecture and the CoUege of Architecture at Texas Tech University. In order to understand these relationships the College of Architecture created a post-professional graduate degree in Design Management and has begun to initiate research into the management issues of architectural firms. The enclosed questionnaire is part of a comprehensive study on the practice of architecture, being conducted by the College of Architecture.

We understand that no one likes to respond to a survey, but we feel it is very important professionally that we scientifically begin to understand the nature of our profession and begin to position ourselves to respond to the changing future. We hope you will join us and participate in this study.

Sincerely,

Glenn E. Hill Associate Professor

81

College of Architecture at Texas Tech University is conducting research on the correlation between management strategies and success. This questionnaire is part of the comprehensive study on the practice of architecture. Please retum the questionnaire by 25 October, 1993.

All information obtained is confidential, and will not be revealed except anonymously in a collective manner. If you have any questions regarding to this questionnaire, please do not hesitate to contact Professor Glenn Hill, (806) 742-3136.

Please answer ah questions. Thank you for your kind cooperation.

For Office Use Only: Date Received

Date Tabulated

General Information:

Firm's name

Address

Telephone Number

The name of the person responding to the questionnaire

The position of the person responding to the questionnaire

Number of principals / partners

Number of architects in the firm

Number of other professionals

Number of paraprofessionals

Number of clerical staff

Age of firm

82

There may be more than one answer that appropriately describes your firm, but please circle the O M answer. ^^ i^ y y ^ v Please answer Ail questions.

1. Projects are delivered primarily through :

a. flexible teams established and organized around each project.

b. fixed studios. c. departments working around specific

phases of project.

2. Major project decisions are primarily a. made by the design principal / partner. b. made by project leader. c. standardized for each project phase.

3. Our design / technical staff consists primarily of:

a. inexperienced professionals. b. experienced professionals. c. paraprofessionals.

4. The primary criteria professional staff are primarily selected :

a. from the best of recent graduates. b. for training for long-term retention. c. for their architectural or other experience.

5. The reputation and success of our firm in attracting clients is primarily based upon providing:

a. innovation. b. special expertise and technical skills. c. industry standard solutions.

6. Our fee structure is primarily based on :

a. fixed lump-sum. b. hourly rates. c. a percentage of construction cost.

7. We primarily attribute our profit margin to :

a. the ability to charge high fees. b. the efficiency of our services. c. office standardization.

8. The majority of our clients have projects requiring:

a. innovative solutions. b. reliable solutions. c. standard solutions.

9. Our fees, when compared to other American firms, are :

a. higher than average. b. average. c. lower than average.

10. Our firm is organized as a : a. sole proprietorship. b. partnership or sub-chapter S corporation. c. corporation.

11. The firm ownership has : a. no investors. b. Hmited investors. c. unlimited investors.

12. Our firm has : a. equal ownership. b. unequal ownership.

13. Our firm's financial control is primarily :

a. intemal. b. extemal.

14. Primarily, our firm leaders make organizational decisions :

a. with input or collaboration from staff. b. without input or collaboration from

staff

83

15. Our firm has : a. an informal marketing program. b. a formal marketing program.

16. In regard to marketing, we primarily nsp :

a. direct marketing. b. public relations.

17. Who orimarily markets your firm ? a. Principals / partners. b. Marketing professionals

18. Those who market the job : a. are usually involved in the development

of the project. b. are usually not involved in the

development of the project.

19. Our firm's initial contact with clients primarily comes from :

a. the firm. b. the clients.

20. Most of our clients : a. want to be personally involved in the

development of the project. b. do not want to be personally involved

in the development of the project.

21. Our firm's clients are primarily : a. small business, individuals, and institutions. b. large corporations and government.

22. Our staff's salaries are primarily : a. higher than average. b. average. c. lower than average.

23. Our firm has : a. low turnover rate. b. high turnover rate.

24. Our firm's staffing strategy primarily retains :

a. experienced professionals. b. core specialists.

25. Our firm perceives itself primarily a s :

a. architecture driven first and business second.

b. business driven first and architecture second.

26. Our firm's profit strategy is primarily :

a. to maximize rates. b. to maximize efficiency.

27. Primarily, our firm focuses on : a. management of the firm. b. management of the project.

28. Primarily, our firm focuses on : a. long term goals. b. short term goals.

29. We reward our professionals primarily with :

a. non-financial rewards. b. financial rewards.

30. The firm evaluates success by focusing :

a. on the achievement of our architectural goals.

b. on the profitability of projects.

84

31. PROJECT ORGANIZATION. Please RATE the following nine items from zero to ten (ten is significant, zero is insignificant), contributing to your firm's architectural and financial success.

contribution to contribution to architectural financial success success

4J

c Rt U

•H •ri G

•ri

n G

-H

Operating structure

Decision­making process

Strategic planning

Marketing strategy

Clients

Staffing strategy

Profit strategy

Leadership styles

Potential rewards

c to u

<W • H

c •H n

4J G m u

•H %4 -H G 0<

•H n G •H

4J

c o

• H

c

CO

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6 7 8

6 7 8

7 8

7 8

7 8

7 8

7 8

6

6

6

6

6

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

32. FIRM ORGANIZATION. Please RATE the following nine items from zero to ten (ten is the significant, zero is insignificant), contributing to your firm's architectural and financial success.

contribution to contribution to architectural financial success success

Organization structure 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Decision­making process 0 1 2 3

Strategic planning 0 1 2 3

Marketing strategy 0 1 2 3

Clients 0 1 2 3

Staffing strategy 0 1 2 3

Profit strategy 0 1 2 3

Leadership styles 0 1 2 3

Potential rewards 0 1 2 3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

7 8

7 8

7

7

7

7

7

7

8

8

8

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

7 8

7 8

7 8

7 8

7 8

7 8

7 8

7 8

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

85

33. Please rate your firm's financial success.

Low

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

34. Please rate your firm's architectural success.

High

Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

35. Please place an 2Lnext to each factor that contributes to your firm's architectural and financial success.

Annual design awards

Duration of practice

Magazine articles

Repeat chents

The satisfaction of our clients

Repetition of building types

Firm commitment to community service

Contract incentives

Other

Other

Architectural success

Financial success

Comments

86

APPENDIX D

A LIST OF THE FIRMS AND ARCHITECTS PARTICIPATING IN REFINING THE

AUTHOR'S QUESTIONNAIRE

87

A List of the Firms and Architects Participating in Refining The Author's Questionnaire

Architectural Firm in Lubbock, Texas

BGR Architects—Engineers Bill Cox / Dirks—Architects Pierce & Winn Architects

Professors at College of Architecture in Texas Tech University

John White, AIA Marc Giaccardo, AIA

88

APPENDIX E

THE ANSWER CHOICES FROM QUESTION ONE TO THIRTY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

89

The Answer Choices from Quesdon One to Fifteen of the Quesdonnaire

Firm Question Number of the Questionnaire I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

0

P

Q R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z

c

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

b

b

c

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

c

b

b

b

b

b

c

b

c

c

b

b

c

c

c

a

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

b

a

b

b

b

a

a

a

b

b

b

a

b

c

a

a

b

c

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

a

c

b

c

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

c

a

a

a

a

c

c

a

c

b

a

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

c

b

b

c

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

c

a

c

a

a

c

c

b

b

a

a

b

b

b

c

b

b

c

a

b

b

c

b

b

b

b

b

c

b

b

b

b

c

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

a

b

b

a

b

a

a

b

b

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

b

a

a

b

b

b

a

b

a

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

a

a

a

a

a

b

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

b

b

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

b

b

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

b

b

b

b

a

b

a

b

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

(Continued on the next page)

90

To continue the Answer Choices from Quesdon One to Fifteen of the Questionnaire

Firm Question Number of the Questionnaire I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

A A

A B

A C

A D

A E

AF

A G

A H

Al

AJ

A K

A L

AM,

A N

A O

A P

A Q

A R

AS

A T

A U

A V

a

a

a

a

a

c

a

c

a

a

b

a

a

c

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

b

a

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

c

c

c

c

a

b

c

b

c

c

b

b

b

b

c

c

c

b

a

c

b

b

a

b

b

c

b

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

a

b

a

b

b

a

b

b

a

c

a

a

a

a

c

a

c

a

b

a

c

c

b

c

a

a

b

b

a

a

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

a

a

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

a

a

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

c

b

b

c

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

b

c

c

b

b

a

b

a

b

a

b

b

a

a

b

a

b

a

b

a

b

b

a

a

a

b

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

b

b

b

a

b

a

b

a

a

a

b

b

b

b

a

a

b

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

b

a

b

a

a

b

a

a

b

a

b

a

a

a

a

b

a

b

a

b

a

a

a

a

91

The Answer Choices from Quesdon Sixteen to Thirty of the Questionnaire

Firm Quesdon number of the quesdonnaire 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

A

B C D E F G H I

J K L M N O P

Q R S T U V W X Y Z

a a

a

a

b

a

a

a

b

a

b

a

b

b

b

a

b

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a a

b

a

a

a

b

a

b

a

a

b

a

b

b

a

b

b

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

b

a

b

a

b

a

b

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

b

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

b

b

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

b

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

b

b

a

a

a

a

b

b

a

b

a

a

b

a

a

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

a

a

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

a

a

b

b

a

a

a

b

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

a

b

a

b

a

a

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

a

a

a

a

b

b

b

b

a

b

a

a

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

b

b

a

a

b

b

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

b

b

b

b

a

a

b

a

b

b

a

a

(Continued on the next page)

92

To continue the Answer Choices from Quesdon Sixteen to Thirty in the Questionnaire

Firm Question number of the questionnaire 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH Al

AJ AK AL AM, AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU AV

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

b

b

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

b

a

a

b

a

b

a

b

b

b

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

b

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

b

a

a

b

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

b

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

b

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

b

b

a

b

a

a

a

a

a

b

a

a

a

b

a

b

b

a

a

a

a

a

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

a

a

b

b

b

b

a

a

b

a

a

b

a

a

a

a

b

b

b

a

b

b

a

b

b

a

a

a

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

a

a

a

b

a

b

a

b

a

a

b

a

a

b

a

a

a

b

a

a

b

b

b

a

a

a

93

APPENDIX F

THE VALUES CHOSEN FROM ALL THE FIRMS

94

Table F.l The Values Chosen From All the Firms

Firm

R B C D E F G H 1 J K L M N 0 P Q R S T U U U) K V z

Project Organizational Ualues

Idea

2 2 3 2 4 5 4 3 3 3 5 4 3 4 6 2 3 3 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 3

;*

Seruice

4 5 4 6 4 3 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 2 5 2 5 5 3 4 4 6 5 5 6

Deliuery

3 2 2 1 1 1 e 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 4 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 e

The Highest Ualue

4 5 4 6 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 6 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 6 5 5 6

Project Organizatii Ualues*

(PC)

15 12 13 12 15 11.5 16 12 15 14 14 13 12 16 14 11 12 13 17 16 15 16 15 11 14 16

onal

(BC)

6 9 8 9 6 8.5 5 9 6 7 7 8 9 5 7 IB 9 8 4 5 6 5 6 IB 7 5

The Higher Ualue

15 12 13 12 15 1 1.5 16 12 15 14 14 13 12 16 14 1 1 12 13 17 16 15 16 15 11 14 16

(Continued on the next page)

95

Table F.l Continued

Firm

RR RB RC RD RE RF RG RH Rl RJ RK RL RM RN RO RP RQ RR RS RT RU RU

Project Organizational Ualues

Idea

3 2 7 4 3 2 3 2 2 3 1 5 1 1 6 2 3 3 2 5 4 3

5*

Seruice

6 6 1 4 5 4 5 5 5 6 6 3 7 6 3 6 5 5 6 4 4 4

Deliuery

B 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 B 2 1 1 2 B 1 1 1 1 B 1 2

The Highest Ualue

6 6 7 4 5 4 5 5 5 6 6 5 7 6 6 6 5 5 6 5 4 4

Project Organizatj Ualues*

(PC)

11.5 12 13 11 19 14 15 15 17 13 15 13 15 11 13 13 16 12 14 19 17 16

ionai

(BC)

9.5 9 8 IB 2 7 6 6 4 8 6 8 6 IB 8 8 5 9 7 2 4 5

The Higher Ualue

11.5 12 13 11 19 14 15 15 17 13 15 13 15 11 13 13 16 12 14 19 17 16

*The numbers in these columns under Project Organizational Values and Firm Organizational Values represent the number of questions answered as each category.

96

APPENDIX G

THE RESPONDENTS' RATINGS OF THE NINE ATTRIBUTES CONTRIBUTING TO ARCHITECTURAL

SUCCESS IN PROJECT ORGANIZATION

97

T a b l e d Architectural Success in Project Organizadon

Finn

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V w X Y z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH Al AJ AK

Operating structure

10 10 8 8 10 6 10 8 6 8 8 5 9 10 2 6 7 8 10 8 3 7 9 9 8 10 8 6 10 8 6 9 7 8 9 10 7

Decision making process

5 9 10 8 10 7 9 9 7 9 9 5 9 10 7 6 6 5 10 8 5 10 9 8 10 10 6 5 10 10 9 6 9 8 9 9 10

Strategic planning

10 7 7 3 10 6 5 5 8 7 6 5 3 10 7 3 5 5 8 6 5 5 9 3 4 5 4 4 6 8 3 5 3 10 9 9 7

Marketing strategy

10 10 10 8 10 9 3 2 3 9 8 3 3 5 10 3 2 2 9 3 3 7 9 10 2 5 5 3 2 8 3 5 3 5 5 8 9

Clients

5 10 7 10 10 7 6 10 6 7 10 4 3 5 10 3 7 10 8 8 3 3 10 7 8 8 6 4 10 9 3 7 3 3 7 8 8

Staffing strategy

8 10 7 10 8 7 9 8 7 5 8 4 9 5 4 5 7 10 9 8 8 4 9 9 8 9 6 3 8 9 8 3 7 6 3 6 7

Profit strategy

3 7 9 2 5 7 3 2 4 5 2 4 7 0 4 6 5 5 5 8 3 5 9 3 6 5 3 3 10 5 5 6 3 5 8 6 9

Lead -ership styles

3 8 9 8 5 7 9 8 8 8 7 9 9 10 6 6 8 5 10 9 5 7 9 8 9 10 5 4 10 9 7 5 7 7 2 6 6

Potential rewards

3 8 9 2 10 7 7 0 8 9 3 10 6 5 9 3 9 2 6 5 3 3 9 5 5 8 6 5 10 9 5 5 3 5 9 6 3

98

T a b l e d Continued

Firm Operating Decision Strategic Marketing Clients Staffing Profit Lead Potential structure making planning strategy strategy strategy -ership rewards

process styles

AL 3 AM 8 AN 8 AO 5 AP 7 AQ 5 AR 9 AS 8 AT 8 AU 8 AV 5

9 8 8 5 9 5 10 8 8 8 9

3 6 10 5 9 10 9 9 3 6 5

9 7 10 6 9 10 10 6 8 8 5

9 8 10 3 9 10 9 9 10 10 5

8 8 8 6 5 8 8 9 8 8 10

7 4 8 6 9 5 7 8 2 6 2

7 7 10 5 9 10 8 9 9 8 9

8 8 10 5 5 5 7 6 2 6 5

99

APPENDIX H

THE RESPONDENTS' RATINGS OF THE NINE ATTRIBUTING CONTRIBUTING TO FINANCIAL

SUCCESS IN PROJECT ORGANIZATION

100

Table H.l Financial Success in Project Organization

Firm

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V w X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH Al AJ AK

Operadng structure

5 7 9 8 10 7 2 10 3 8 8 8 7 10 8 7 8 8 10 8 8 7 9 4 8 10 8 8 10 10 8 9 8 6 9 9 7

Decision making process

5 8 10 5 4 6 4 5 3 9 9 8 9 10 8 7 8 5 10 8 7 9 9 8 8 10 8 8 10 10 6 3 10 6 6 9 10

Strategic planning

10 9 9 7 10 7 9 2 3 10 7 8 2 10 8 3 5 5 9 4 8 5 9 8 7 5 6 9 8 10 10 3 8 6 9 9 7

Marketing strategy

10 10 10 3 10 9 3 10 5 10 8 8 5 10 10 7 2 2 10 3 10 3 9 10 8 5 9 9 2 10 7 3 9 5 9 5 9

Clients

5 10 10 10 10 7 7 10 8 10 10 10 3 5 10 7 9 10 8 10 10 6 10 0 8 10 7 8 10 9 10 6 9 8 8 9 8

Staffing strategy

5 10 10 10 5 8 8 7 7 6 9 5 8 5 8 7 8 10 9 10 8 4 9 3 5 5 6 6 10 9 6 3 7 6 4 6 7

Profit strategy

5 10 10 7 10 8 10 7 7 10 8 8 7 5 8 6 9 5 9 8 8 5 9 10 7 10 8 7 10 5 9 6 9 6 4 6 9

Lead­ership styles

5 7 10 9 10 7 8 8 4 7 7 10 9 10 9 6 7 5 8 8 10 7 9 8 9 10 9 6 10 10 7 6 3 7 4 6 6

Potential rewards

10 9 10 2 10 7 7 0 5 9 5 10 5 0 9 3 8 2 10 9 10 3 9 5 7 5 6 8 10 9 5 7 3 7 6 6 3

101

Table H.l Continued

Firm OperaUng Decision Strategic Marketing Clients Staffing Profit Lead- Potential structure making planning strategy strategy strategy ership rewards

process styles

AL 8 AM 9 AN 10 AO 5 AP 9 AQ 10 AR 10 AS 6 AT 7 AU 8 AV 5

9 7 10 5 9 5 9 7 7 8 9

8 7 10 5 10 10 9 6 5 8 5

9 9 10 6 9 10 10 5 7 10 5

8 7 9 10 9 8 10 10

10 5 5 8 7 9 5 8 10

10 5 9 10 9 8 7 8

10 5 9 10 10 9 8 6

10 5 5 9 8 6 3 6

102

APPENDIX I

THE RESPONDENTS' RATINGS OF THE NINE ATTRIBUTES CONTRIBUTING TO ARCHITECTURAL

SUCCESS IN FIRM ORGANIZATION

103

Table LI Architectural Success in Firm Organization

Firm

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH Al AJ AK

Organiza­tional structure

4 10 10 8 10 5 10 8 8 7 6 5 7 10 7 3 3 8 10 10 3 5 9 4 8 10 6 5 10 8 7 9 7 6 9 9 3

Decision making process

9 9 10 6 10 5 9 9 9 9 7 5 10 10 9 5 2 5 9 9 5 9 9 8 9 9 6 5 10 8 7 5 9 8 9 9 8

Strategic planning

10 7 10 8 4 5 5 5 4 9 6 5 5 10 7 3 4 5 7 6 5 3 9 5 3 5 5 3 6 8 4 4 3 10 9 8 8

Marketing strategy

10 10 10 10 4 7 3 2 3 8 8 3 3 5 7 3 1 2 9 4 3 3 9 10 5 5 6 4 2 8 4 3 3 5 9 6 8

Clients

5 10 10 10 7 9 6 10 7 8 10 4 5 5 8 3 8 10 5 10 3 5 10 3 5 9 7 3 10 9 5 7 3 3 9 8 8

Staffing strategy

5 10 10 5 4 9 9 8 8 9 9 4 8 5 8 3 6 10 10 10 8 4 9 5 7 9 6 7 10 9 4 4 7 6 9 6 6

Profit strategy

5 10 10 2 4 9 3 2 6 9 2 4 5 0 9 3 3 5 5 7 3 4 9 3 4 5 7 6 10 5 4 4 3 5 4 6 8

Lead­ership styles

5 8 10 5 10 9 9 8 7 8 8 9 10 10 9 3 2 5 10 9 4 8 9 5 8 10 6 5 10 9 6 7 7 7 4 6 7

Potential rewards

10 7 10 2 10 6 7 0 8 8 7 10 2 5 9 3 7 2 5 7 3 4 9 5 3 7 6 6 10 9 4 5 3 5 8 6 4

104

Table I.l Continued

Firm Organiza- Decision Strategic Marketing Clients Staffing Profit Lead- Potential tional making planning strategy strategy strategy ership rewards structure process styles

AL AM AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU AV

8 9 10 5 9 9 9 8 8 8 5

8 9 8 5 9 8 8 8 8 8 9

3 7 8 5 9 10 8 7 3 8 5

8 8 9 3 9 10 10 5 8 8 5

8 6 8 3 8 8 9 9 10 10 5

8 8 10 7 5 5 8 8 8 8 10

3 6 8 5 9 9 8 5 2 8 2

8 8 10 5 8 9 9 10 9 6 9

8 6 8 5 5 9 8 7 2 8 5

105

APPENDIX J

THE RESPONDENTS' RATINGS OF THE NINE ATTRffiUTES CONTRIBUTING TO FINANCIAL

SUCCESS IN FIRM ORGANIZATION

106

Table J. 1 Financial Success in Firm Organizadon

Firm Organiza- Decision Strategic Marketing Clients Staffing Profit Lead- Potential tional making planning strategy strategy strategy ership rewards

structure process

R 8 5 5 S 10 9 9

AH 6 6 6 5 Al 9 9 9 10 AJ 8 8 9 8 AK 3 8 8 8

Styles

A 5 5 10 10 5 5 ^ ^ ?. B 9 8 7 10 10 10 10 8 9 C 10 8 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 D 9 8 7 9 8 5 5 8 E 10 4 4 4 7 10 10 10 10 F 8 9 7 7 8 7 9 10 6 G 2 4 9 3 7 8 10 8 7 H 10 5 2 10 10 7 7 ^ ^ 1 5 5 4 3 7 6 3 4 6 J 7 9 10 10 8 9 9 8 8 K 9 6 7 8 10 8 9 8 7 L 8 8 8 8 '' I ' ]' \' M 9 8 3 5 ^ ', ' 0 0 N 10 10 10 10 5 5 ^ i^ Q ^ ' ' ' I I I I I 3 P 3 5 3 6 ^ ^ I I i Q 2 1 5 1 9 5 4 2 8 2 10 10 5 5 2

9 5 8 10 8 9 T 10 8 8 4 10 10 7 9 7

U 8 ' 8 10 I' I I I' f v s 7 3 3 5 5 5 8 4 W 9 9 9 9 ^^ '. I I I 10 0 3 8 5 5

3 7 6 6 8 7 10 7 10 10 8

X 8 8 8 Y 8 4 4 Z 10 10 9 7 AA 8 8 6

AC 10 l o 8 i 10 10 10 10 10

8 7 6 8 9 7 6 4 2 1 0 1

AD 8 10 10 10 9 9 5 10 9 AE 5 10 10 7 8 8 7 6 V AF 9 8 4 3 AG 8 10 8 9

7 4 5 7 5 9 7 9 3 3 8 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 4 6 9 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 7 4

107

Table J. 1 Continued

Firm Organiza- Decision Strategic Marketing Clients Staffing Profit Lead- Potential tional making planning strategy strategy strategy ership rewards structure process styles

AL AM AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU AV

2 7 10 5 10 9 9 8 7 8 5

2 8 10 5 9 6 10 6 7 8 9

7 6 10 5 9 10 9 6 5 8 5

9 8 8 6 9 10 10 5 7 10 5

6 7 8 8 9 10 9 9 10 10 5

7 8 10 2 6 10 8 8 5 8 10

7 6 10 1 9 10 8 5 7 8 2

7 8 10 4 8 8 9 10 8 6 9

7 6 10 2 5 9 8 6 3 8 5

108

PERMISSION TO COPY

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for a master's degree at Texas Tech University or

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I agree that the Library

and my major department shall make it freely available for research

purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may

be granted by the Director of the Library or my major professor. It

is understood that any copying or publication of this thesis for

financial gain shall not be allowed without my further written

permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.

Agree (Permission is granted.)

Student's Signature Date

Disagree (Permission is not granted.)

Student's Signature / Date