Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nutt, P. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

On the Quality and Acceptance of Plans Drawn by a Consortium

Paul Charles Nutt

Hospital and Health Senrices Administration; The Ohio State University.

Laws and current practices often dictate participation by different organizations in one planning process. Plan sponsors form a "consortium" to represent different viewpoints on a planning group. In this study, consortium groups were made up of people drawn from several organizations and/or people with conflicting points of view. For comparison, members of "conventional" planning groups were drawn from the plan sponsors' immediate staff to ensure similarity of views. To gain insights into the effectiveness of the consortium as a vehicle for planning, the merits of plans drawn by consortium planning groups and by conventional planning groups were compared. To generalize the findings, several planning topics were addressed and several organizations participated. Consortia representing several distinct organizations were found to make plans of superior "quality" and "acceptance" (p < .05). Neither plan quality nor acceptance was enhanced when the consortium represented staff within an organization that had conflicting roles. In both cases, the co-optative benefits of a consortium seem overstated. Consortium planning groups promoted conflict, not endorsement via participation (p .05). Some guides for cooperative planning are drawn from these findings.

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 15, No. 1, 7-21 (1979)
DOI: 10.1177/002188637901500103
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?