KBM Journal of Cognitive Science - ISSN 2152-1530. Published By KBM Scientific Publishing, LP (www.kbm-scientific-publishing.org)
KBM Journal of Cognitive Science (2010) 1 (1): 1-8
doi: 10.5147/kbmjcs/2010/0016
Pathology of Structure and Organization (Administrator Organization) of Cadastre Plan from Technological Perspective
Seyed Hossein Akhavan Alavi1, Hassan Zareei Matin2, Gholamreza Jandaghi2*, and Seyed
Reza Razavi Saeedi2
1
Hawzah and University Research Center, Iran; 2 University of Tehran, Iran
Received: December 17, 2009 / Accepted: October 3, 2010
Abstract
In today changing environment, defining a structure is considered as an important issue for any organization. In this
end, managers should persistently adopt their organizational
structure to environmental conditions and make necessary
modifications. Organizational structure is affected by some
textual variables. One of such variables is technology. Indeed, defining the type of organizational structure depends
on its technology. Researches made by some scientists like
Joan Woodward, James Thompson and Charles Prow on the
effects of technology on structure confirm this point. With a
functional goal, present study titled “Pathology of structure
and organization (administrator organization) of Cadastre
plan from technological perspective” is planned and implemented. Its methodology is descriptive – survey and two
kinds of questionnaire are used to collect data. Triple aspects
of Cadastre administer organization’s structure (complexity,
centralization and formalization) were determined by first
questionnaire. Second questionnaire determined Cadastre
technology. Research population was the technical employees of Tehran Cadastre Plan Authority with high educations
(associate of arts, B.A. and M.A.). The method of data collection was polling. In this study, it was initially examined
that Cadastre technology is more compatible with which typology of technologies (Woodward, Thompson, and Prow).
The results showed that Cadastre technology is more compatible with Prow’s model. In other words, because of comprehensiveness of Prow’s technological typology, one can
determine the type of Cadastre technology better. After basic
typology, it should be determined that Cadastre technology
is more compatible with which technology in that typology.
__________________________________________________
* Corresponding author: [email protected]
By reviewing two aspects of variety in function and the capability of problems analysis, it was determined that Cadastre technology is more compatible with Prow technological
typology. In other words, Cadastre is a normal technology.
Then in the framework of theoretical literature, the structural
aspects (complexity, centralization and formalization) of organizations in relation with normal technology was determined and compared with structural aspects of Cadastre plan
administrator organization. Based on Prow’s model, these
three structural aspects are high in normal technology but
the researches showed that it is not true in structure of Cadastre plan administrator organization and there is a deviation between status quo and ideal situation. Finally, because
of low rate of complexity and formalization as well as the
moderate rate of centralization in Cadastre plan administrator organization, guidelines were provided to increase such
aspects (which cause the fill of this gap and getting close to
ideal situation).
Keywords: structure, complexity, formalization, centralization,
technology typology, Cadastre.
Introduction
In not so far-fetched past, organizing was considered as periodical act. Today it is a continuous act which a manager is always facing it because of environmental conditions and it is not
unique to initial stages (Zareei Matin, 2003).
Almost any company tries reorganization in a period. Organizations should change their structures because of changes in
the strategies of their rivals, in technology and in environment.
1
KBM Journal of Cognitive Science - ISSN 2152-1530. Published By KBM Scientific Publishing, LP (www.kbm-scientific-publishing.org)
An important problem which managers are facing with it is to
understand the fact that how organizations should be planed in
order to respond their future needs and achieve organizational
goals (Daft, 2007).
Cadastre is a system in which technical information (exact
position of properties’ corners in a system of unit coordinates)
and legal information (such as ownership, rights and current limitations in the property) are maintained and managed in order
to use them firstly for affairs on properties like position determination and document issuance, aggregation and separation and
secondly for resolving many legal conflicts in courts and thirdly
for organizing decision-makings to administer the country.
In 1989, Cadastre plan was established in National Documents and Properties Registration Organization after approval
by Parliament. In this line, Cadastre plan was begun in 1990 by
formation technical Cadastre plan board. The board organized
its meetings and decided to implement Cadastre plan during a
20-year period consists of four 5-year periods.
Based on negotiations with authorities and experts of the
plan, non-compatibility of administrator organization’s structure
with Cadastre technology was obvious. Now, it seems that after
passing one half of the plan (13 years after starting administrating operation), it is vital to revise the structure of administrator organization and possibly to reform its structure since there
has been no activity on revising Cadastre plan structure and in
some sessions with its experts, they confessed that because of the
governmental structure of administrator organization in which
bureaucratic governance is an indicator, one can point to the
lowness of works turnover and information flow as well as the
lack of outsourcing rooted in its improper organizational structure. Therefore, the main question of the research is that: “are
the structural traits of Cadastre plan administrator organization
appropriate with Cadastre technology?” We attempt to answer
this question in present research.
The Dimensions of Structure Design
Daft categorized organizational dimensions into two groups:
structural and contextual. Structural dimensions express endogenous traits of an organization. They provide a basis on which one
can measure and compare organizations. Contextual dimensions
express organization overall such as the size of the organization,
technology type, environment and its aims. They show the status
of the organization and affect on structural dimensions.
Structural dimensions include formalization, specification, standards, authority hierarchy, complexity, centralization, professionalism and personnel relations.
Organizational structure defines how job tasks are formally
divided, grouped, and coordinated. (Ibrahim Ali, 2005). One of
the reasons attributed to the low performance is the organizational structure of that firm which remains static in the changed
environment. (K.Abdul Ghani, 2002). Contextual dimensions include size, technology, environment, aims, strategy and culture of
the organization (Richard L. Daft, 2007).
Henry Mintzberg introduces four factors for organizational
designing and calls them as situational or positional factors:
background, size, used technical system in operations and vari2
ous aspects of organizational environment (Mintzberg, 1992).
Stephen Robins says that three elements to create an organizational structure are complexity, formalization and centralization. Although accepting these three elements as main aspects of
organizational structure is common, it is not universal.
The design of an appropriate structure is vital in achieving
performance and accomplishing organizational goals. (Ibrahim
Ali, 2005). The organizational structure is defined as the formal
allocation of work roles and administrative mechanism to control
and integrate work activities. (Abdul Ghani, 2002). Organizational structure may influence decision making process including
external technology collaboration (Jing Zhang, ????).
In her book, Marry Joe points that social structure is measured by various variables. In addition to aspects considered
by classics, three dimensions that are permanently mentioned in
situational arguments especially in modernists’ theories are complexity, formalization and centralization (Hatch, 2006).
Complexity
Complexity points out the amount of separation in an organization. Horizontal separation shows the amount of horizontal
separation level among units. Vertical separation points out the
depth or altitude of organizational hierarchy. Geographical
separation shows the distribution of units, facilities and human
forces geographically (Robins, 2008).
Formalization
Formalization points out the level of rules, laws, policies and
procedures in organization. For example, the indicators of formalization in an organization include devised policies, terms of
reference, procedural manuals (procedural devised notebooks),
organizational charts, managerial systems such as management-based objective (MBO), technical systems such as program
evaluation and review techniques (PERT) and formal list of laws
and rules. Studies reveal that formalization weakens innovation
and decrease inter-organizational communications (Marry Joe
Hatch, 2006).
If a job possesses high formalization, job owner would have
lowest freedom in performing its related works, the time of doing the job and the way of doing it. In such circumstances, employees are expected to use similar inputs in a certain method
which leads to predetermined results (Robins, 2008).
Centralization
Centralization answers this question: “In what level of the organization, decisions are made?” In a centralized organization,
final options are almost uniquely chosen in superior levels and
such decisions are accepted without any argument. As a result, in
a centralized organization, the contribution of low level people
in decision-making is at lowest level. In a decentralized organization, decisions are made by people who are closer to situation
than others. Decentralized organizations are highly depended
on the contribution of many organizational members in decisionmaking process (Hatch, 2006).
KBM Journal of Cognitive Science - ISSN 2152-1530. Published By KBM Scientific Publishing, LP (www.kbm-scientific-publishing.org)
Technology
Technology refers science and knowledge relevant to tools,
skills and professions. In other words, it is a concept which put
knowledge, skillfulness and art together (Mahmoodi, 2007).
Technology is one of the important factors inside the organization. There is a relationship between technology and managerial processes. Indeed, determining the way of organizational
management depends on technology type. Technology is a factor to determine the theories, principles and structures of the
organization (Zareei Matin, 2003).
The firm’s technology influences the organizational structure
at operational and administrative levels, and consequently, the
performance of the firm. (Abdul Ghani, 2002).
Studies on organizational theory assert that technology has
an influence over organizational structure. (Abdul Ghani, 2002).
Woodward performed one of the earliest researches on technology in mid-1960s. She chose about 100 manufacturing companies in south England. She collected some information about
these companies. Her study was focused on manufacturing technology. She categorized companies based on three elements
namely unit manufacturing technology, mass production and processing production (Robins, 2008).
Edward Harvey was one of the initial supporters of Woodward. He studies 43 industrial organizations and categorized
them based on high technical complexity (similar to Woodward’s
processing production technology), moderate technical complexity (similar to Woodward’s mass production technology) an organizations with certain technical complexity (similar to Woodward’s unit technology) (Edward Harvey, 1968).
William Zovermann repeated Woodward’s study in 55 firms
with some exceptions. He reported Woodward’s findings but did
not find any relation between technology and frontline supervisors’ authority. His study was a repeat and powerful confirmation of Woodward’s findings (Ghani Zadeh, 1996).
Some years later, when Woodward published her findings
and the works of other researchers also confirmed her ideas,
opponents’ ideas were begun. The most important ones were
belonged to Aston Group. Since the research was done by a
group of students in Aston University in Birmingham, England,
their study was called Aston Group Studies. Aston Group studied 46 English firms in Birmingham suburbs with 240 to 25,000
employees (Ghani Zadeh, 1996).
The group provided a category of technology concepts and
classified the organizations based on Woodward’s plan as follows:
• Operation technology
• Material technology
• Knowledge technology
These categorizations are based on “the times of change
repetition” and “the nature of change on the basis of background in organization” (Ghani Zadeh, 1996).
The ideas of American theoretician, Jay Galbright, on technology are more focused on the manufacturing position of large
companies. He considers some requirements for such companies
and believes that technology governs such companies via these
requirements (Ghani Zadeh, 1996).
At the end 1960s, James Thompson provided considerable
achievements in theorizing by considering manufacturing and
service technologies in a typology. He categorized technology
into three groups: continuous – long; intermediate; and focused.
Charles Prow modified one of the deficiencies in theoretical developments of Thompson and Woodward. Both of them
imagined organization as if it has one dominating technology
while Prow defined technology in unit analysis level perspective
(Hatch, 2006).
Rather paying attention to manufacturing technology, Prow
considered knowledge-based technology. He defined technology as an action or method by which an individual changes a
concept, a purpose or an object whether he/she uses or does not
use mechanical tools and methods. Then, he identified two principal aspects of knowledge-based technology (Stephen Robins,
2008). He believed that one could merge two aspects of technology namely variety and analysis capability. So, he determined four types of technology: normal technology, engineering
technology, art technology and complicated technology (Zareei
Matin, 2003).
The Typology of Organizational Technology
Based of research findings, various typologies are provided.
We can classify these typologies in three main groups called
paradigm which include Joan Woodward, James Thompson and
Charles Prow.
Joan Woodward
She selected almost 100 manufacturing companies in south
England. She prepared a scale and a list in which the names of
the companies were registered according to their technical complexity (regarding manufacturing process). Technical complexity
shows that how mush is this manufacturing process mechanical or
is implemented by complicated devices (Daft, 2007). Then she
divided them into three following groups:
First group: single product and small sets.
Second group: mass production and large-batch production.
Third group: continuous process production.
Such classifications of technology are proper for manufacturing companies and they are less used by service organizations
(Zareei Matin, 2003).
Newman also categorized technology into four groups:
James Thompson
•
•
•
•
Stable technology
Regular resilience technology
“temporary – emergency” technology
Adoptable technology
Contrary to Woodward, James Thompson did not agree that
technology is determinant. As we will see, the role of Thompson in this theory is that technology makes it possible to choose
3
KBM Journal of Cognitive Science - ISSN 2152-1530. Published By KBM Scientific Publishing, LP (www.kbm-scientific-publishing.org)
proper strategy to mitigate uncertainty and specific structural
shapes can correct uncertainty (Stephen Robins, 2008).
Thompson proposed three types of technology as follows:
1. mediating technology (joint dependency – independent – focused)
2. long – linked technology (frequent dependency)
3. intensive technology (mutual/bilateral dependency)
files of deeds or titles and other abstracted descriptive information and shows the information of each parcel on map.
Cadastre
Cartography
One can show Thompson’s typology in two dimensions easily. This matrix (2X2) allows us to consider four types of organizational technology created by two Thompson’s conceptual
aspects: 1. Standard inputs/outputs 2. Standard conversion
processes. Four squares inside the matrix show four types of organizational technology.
1. Standard inputs/outputs with standard conversion processes which describe long-linked technology.
2. Non-standard inputs/outputs with standardized conversion processes which show mediating technology.
3. Non-standard inputs/outputs with non-standard conversion processes which describe intensive technology.
4. Standard inputs/outputs with non-standard conversion
processes (Mary Joe Hatch, 2006).
Charles Prow
Rather paying attention to manufacturing technology, Prow
considered knowledge-based technology. He defined technology as an action or method by which an individual changes a
concept, a purpose or an object whether he/she uses or does not
use mechanical tools and methods. Then, he identified two principal aspects of knowledge-based technology. The first aspect
of knowledge-based technology considers the exceptions which
a person is faced in his/her work. The second aspect of knowledge-based technology evaluates the searching procedures to
find successful methods to answer them properly (Stephen Robbins, 2008).
One can merge two dimension of technology namely variety and analysis capability to determine four following types
of technology: normal technology, engineering technology, art
technology and complicated technology (Zareei Matin, 2003).
Cadastre Technology
According FIG definition, Cadastre is a sorted list of land
parcels information inside the geographical bound of a country/region which is started by mapping the lands. Then other
required traits such as property rights, utilization, size and value
is attached and registered in big scale map formally. In other
words, Cadastre is in first step an answer to where and how in
lands registering system.
Cadastre Consists of two parts:
Cartography (graphics) which includes big scale maps based
on ground, aerial and even satellite mapping and shows parcel
along with their unique identifiers.
Descriptive (explanative) which includes registering affairs and
4
Description
Parcel
Attributes
Owner
Value
Land use
Tax data
Physical features
Area
Location
Identifier/identification
Fig. 1. Information systems of Cadastre. Source: Yusefi, Ramin, (2001).
The impact of Technology on Structure
The relation between structure and technology is not always
clear and obvious. The impact of technology on structure is not
true in all occasions if we accept unique simplified vision on technology. The possibility of using structural dimensions in organization’s operational part or near to it is further and possibility of
their utilization in small organizations compared to large ones is
diverse. The impact of technology on some structural dimensions
is more than other ones (Robins, 2008).
Methodology
In this research, after expressing the necessity of organizational structures in improving organizational aims and describing
organization’s structural dimensions in the words of distinguished
scientists such as Richard L. Daft, Stephen Robins and Henry
Mintzberg, we finally considered three structural dimensions in
Robins’ theory highly mentioned in situational arguments especially in modernists’ theories on organization as the indicators
of organization’s structural dimensions namely centralization,
complexity and formalization. By reviewing researches on the
impacts on organizational technology on organizational layout
and structure, we studied the findings of authors like Woodward,
Prow and Thompson which all confirmed the impact of technology on organizational structure. Although models defined by
Woodward and Thompson are suitable for manufacturing organization, Prow’s model is more comprehensive and compatible to
service organizations and knowledge creating firms. So, we used
Prow’s model in this research.
The methodology of research is descriptive – survey and research population was the technical employees of Tehran Cadastre Plan Authority with high educations (associate of arts,
B.A. and M.A.). Since the research population (N) consisted of 70
KBM Journal of Cognitive Science - ISSN 2152-1530. Published By KBM Scientific Publishing, LP (www.kbm-scientific-publishing.org)
individuals, data collection was through counting all individuals
(polling). Two kinds of questionnaire are used to collect data.
Questionnaire 1 was used to determine the structure and questionnaire 2 was used to determine technology type.
To measure the reliability, after entering extracted data into
SPSS software, chronbach alpha was achieved 0.86 for structure and 0.72 for technology respectively which are plausible.
The main question of the research is that: Are the characteristics
of administrator’s organizational structure proportionate with
Cadastre technology type?
It is divided into 6 sub-questions
1. To which typologies of Joan Woodward, James Thompson
and Charles Prow does Cadastre technology belong?
2. To which types of technology is Cadastre technology
compatible with relevant typology (question 1)?
3. What are the traits of structural dimensions and determined technology (questions 1 and 2)?
4. What is the current situation of Cadastre administrator’s
structural dimensions?
5. How is Cadastre administrator’s structural dimensions compared to ideal structural dimensions for Cadastre administrator (question 3)?
5.1: Is there any proportionate between the complexity dimension of Cadastre administrator’s structural dimensions
and Cadastre technology?
5.2: Is there any proportionate between the centralization
dimension of Cadastre administrator’s structural dimensions
and Cadastre technology?
5.3: Is there any proportionate between the formalization
dimension of Cadastre administrator’s structural dimensions
and Cadastre technology?
6. What are your practical suggestions to remove non-compatibility of Cadastre administrator’s structural dimensions
and ideal structural dimensions of Cadastre administrator’s
via focusing on technology?
Data Analysis and Reviewing Research Questions
of technologies utilized in complicated organizations. Finally,
studies showed that the models of Woodward and Thompson
are proper for manufacturing organizations and Prow’s model is more comprehensive and one can evaluate all units of an
organization by using his technology (since various organizational units differ each other regarding their technologies) and
it is more compatible with service organization and those firms
whose technology is based on knowledge. Since Cadastre technology is service/information type, it is more compatible with
Prow’s technology typology. Therefore, we based our research
on Prow’s model. Analyzing second sub-question will confirm the
correctness of conclusion more specifically.
Second sub-question
To determine that Cadastre administrator’s technology is compatible with which technologies in Prow’s categorization (normal,
engineering, and art, complex), we will analyze the information
extracted from technology determination questionnaire.
Cadastre technology determination questionnaire is divided into
two compartments: determining the diverse in functions and determining the capability of problems analysis.
The first compartment of the questionnaire is made up five
questions that the mean answer to questions is 1.88 with 0.96 as
standard deviation. Acceptable rate is a range of 1.4 to 2.36
with 50% as standard deviation (1.4 <x< 2.36 or 1.88 ± 50%
(0.96). Since its maximum level is less than 3, variability in Cadastre technology is low.
mean
Variability in
tasks
50%σ
0.48
1.4 <x<2.36
Second compartment of the questionnaire consists of five
questions that the mean answer to questions is 3.53 with 0.99
as standard deviation. Acceptable rate is a range of 3.04 to
4.02 with 50% as standard deviation (3.04 < < 4.02 or 3.53
± 50% (0.99). Since its minimum level is greater than 3, problem
analyzability in Cadastre technology is low.
First sub-question:
Based on typologies by Joan Woodward, James Thompson
and Charles Prow, it was determined that Woodward’s study
was focused on manufacturing technology. He categorized companies based on one of the three units, mass and processing
manufacturing technologies.
One of the most important constraints on Woodward’s attitude is that she based her research on manufacturing technology. Since less half of companies are manufacturing ones, it is
necessary to define the technology in a way to involve all organizations. Charles Prow proposed a guideline. Rather than focusing on manufacturing technology, he considered knowledgebased technology. Contrary to Woodward and Prow, Thompson
believed that technology is not a determinant. He believed that
technology makes it possible to select a proper strategy to decrease uncertainty and specific structural shapes can facilitate
uncertainty reduction. He decided to provide a categorization
1.88
Standard
deviation
0.96
Problem
analyzability in
tasks
mean
Standard
deviation
50%σ
3.53
0.99
0.49
3.04<x<4.02
Regarding the analysis of experts’ answers at Cadastre administrator organization to questions in first and second compartments (low tasks diversity and high problem analysis capability),
one can conclude that Cadastre technology is compatible with
normal or steady technology in Charles Prow’s technology typology.
Third sub-question
According to fig. 2, we understand that normal technology enjoys following features: Human-type managerial systems, high
formalization, low need to training and experience, wide control
5
KBM Journal of Cognitive Science - ISSN 2152-1530. Published By KBM Scientific Publishing, LP (www.kbm-scientific-publishing.org)
Fig. 2. Relationship between technology and managerial processes. Source: Richard L. Daft, (1992).
scope (in operational part), written and vertical communications.
Fourth sub-question
To determine current status of structural dimensions (centralization, complexity and formalization) in Cadastre administrator organization, we attempt to analyze information gathered
from structure determination questionnaire. This questionnaire is
divided into three parts: determining complexity, determining
centralization and determining formalization.
The first part is made up of 7 questions that the mean answer
to questions is 2.35 with 0.54 as standard deviation. Acceptable
rate is a range of 2.08 to 2.62 with 50% as standard deviation
(2.08 <x< 2.62 or 2.35 ± 50% (0.54). Since its minimum level
mean
Complexity
6
2.35
Standard
deviation
0.54
50%σ
0.27
2.08 <x< 2.62
is less than 3, the complexity in Cadastre administrator is low.
Second compartment of the questionnaire consists of ten
questions that the mean answer to questions is 2.93 with 0.97
as standard deviation. Acceptable rate is a range of 2.45 to
3.41 with 50% as standard deviation (2.45 <x< 3.41 or 2.93
± 50% (0.97). So, one can conclude that centralization of Cadastre administrator organization is moderate.
mean
Centralization
2.93
Standard
deviation
0.97
50%σ
0.48
2.45 <x< 3.41
Third compartment of the questionnaire consists of seven questions that the mean answer to questions is 2.48 with 0.96 as standard deviation. Acceptable rate is a range of 2 to 2.96 with 50%
as standard deviation (2 < < 2.96 or 2.48 ± 50% (0.96). Since
its minimum level is greater than 3, the formalization in Cadastre
administrator organization is low.
KBM Journal of Cognitive Science - ISSN 2152-1530. Published By KBM Scientific Publishing, LP (www.kbm-scientific-publishing.org)
mean
Formalization
2.48
Standard
deviation
0.96
Conclusion and Recommendations
50%σ
0.48
2 <x< 2.96
One can summarize above findings in following table:
The current status of structural dimensions on
Cadastre administrator organization
Low
Complexity
Moderate
Centralization
Low
Formalization
Fifth sub-question
To answer this question, we divided it into three questions:
Fifth sub-question (1):
In repetitive and normal technologies, complexity is high,
while we learn from the questionnaire on structural dimensions
of Cadastre administrator organization that complexity in such
organization is low. It means that there is no meaningful relation
between Cadastre administrator organization’s complexity and
Cadastre technology.
Fifth sub-question (2):
Centralization in organizations with normal technologies
should be high, while we learn from the questionnaire on structural dimensions of Cadastre administrator organization that
centralization in such organization is moderate. It means that
there is no meaningful relation between Cadastre administrator
organization’s centralization and Cadastre technology.
Fifth sub-question (3):
Formalization in organizations with normal technologies
should be high, while we learn from the questionnaire on structural dimensions of Cadastre administrator organization that
formalization in such organization is low. It means that there is
no meaningful relation between Cadastre administrator organization’s formalization and Cadastre technology.
Finally, one can summarize answers to fifth question in following table:
Complexity
Centralization
Formalization
Current status
Low
Moderate
Low
Ideal status
High
High
High
While concluding in this section, we answer sixth question of
the research. Indeed, our response involves practical suggestions
to remove non-compatibility of Cadastre administrator organization’s structural dimensions by focusing on Cadastre technology. Based on previous responses, it became clear that in
Cadastre administrator organization’s current status, complexity
is low, centralization is moderate and formalization is low which
is far from ideal status (high complexity, high centralization and
high formalization). In fact, answers to sixth question are practical suggestions to remove non-compatibility of Cadastre administrator organization’s structural dimensions with ideal status
and focusing on Cadastre technology. Finally, we provide our
suggestion to fill the gap and to get closer to ideal status.
It is proposed to make following initiatives in order to increase the complexity of Cadastre administrator organization:
The number of hierarchies should be increased and complexity
should be soared by increasing linear organizational positions.
By establishing Cadastre offices in provinces and assigning a
part of their functions, we can surge location separation and increase the complexity of Cadastre administrator organization’s
structural dimensions. It is proposed to make following initiatives
in order to increase the centralization of Cadastre administrator
organization: Monitoring affiliated units is one of the ways to
increase the centralization and more coordination in doing the
affairs. We can increase centralization by close monitoring on
Cadastre offices in provinces (weekly, monthly, etc). It is better
to increase the centralization; Cadastre administrator organization has a tendency to bureaucratic structures. It is proposed to
make following initiatives in order to increase the formalization
of Cadastre administrator organization: It is suggested to devise
terms of references, policies and recipes carefully and to standardize tasks in order to achieve more coordination in doing the
works. It means that documents should explain terms of references, work stages and personal traits carefully. To implement such
suggestions practically, it is proposed to execute Cadastre as a
pilot in a town where registering problems are limited and then
to extend the trends and standards to other cities gradually. It is
proposed to write all rules and policies should be implemented
by Cadastre administrator organization. Decreasing the freedom of Cadastre administrator organization’s employees and
requiring them to execute written rules and recipes can increase
formalization. By organizing in-service classes, experienced
members in Cadastre administrator organization can share their
experiences and knowledge with others.
Finally, on can say that analyzing the information extracted
form questionnaires show that the levels of complexity, centralization and formalization in Cadastre administrator organization should be soared. It seems that we can increase the
complexity of organization by establishing Cadastre offices in
provinces. In the meantime, we can increase formalization by
devising and communicating standard recipes, manuals and procedures. We can increase centralization by ongoing monitoring
(weekly, monthly, etc) on Cadastre offices in provinces and removing possible deviations in communicated standards.
7
KBM Journal of Cognitive Science - ISSN 2152-1530. Published By KBM Scientific Publishing, LP (www.kbm-scientific-publishing.org)
References
Aliahmadi, Ali Reza (2003), “Information Technology and its Uses”,
Tolid Danesh Publications.
Alvani, Seyed Mahdi (2003), “General Management”, Nay Publications.
Andrew H. Van de Ven and Andre L. Dolbecq, (1971), “A Task Contingent Model of Work –Unit Structure”, Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 59-444.
Azar, Adel and Momeni, Mansour (2006), “Statistics and its Utilization in Management”, Studying and Devising Liberal Arts Academic
Books.
Daft, Richard (2007), “Organization’s Theory and Designing”, translated by Ali Parsian and Seyed Mohammad Arabi, Cultural Researches
Office.
Ebrahimi, Tooraj (2001), “Statistics and its Utilization in Management”,
Hastan Publication.
Edward Harvey, (1968), “Technology and the Structure of Organizations,” American Sociological Review, pp. 59- 247.
Ghanizadeh, Hussain (1996), “The Impacts of Technology on Organizational Structure in Kerman Province Product and Service Sectors”,
Alameh Tabatabaei University, Management School.
Hatch, Marry Joe (2006), “Organization Theory (Modern, Symbolic
and Postmodern Descriptive)”, Hassan Danayi FArd, Tehran, Afkar.
Ibid and D.S. Pugh, D.G. Hickson, C.R. Hinings, and C. Turner, (1969)
“The Context of Organizational Structures”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, pp. 91-114
Ibrahim Ali , Juhary Haji Ali , (2005) , “ The Effects Of The Interaction
Of Technology , Structure , And Organizational Climate On Job
Satisfaction “ , Sunway Academic Journal 2,23-32
Jerald Hage & Michael Aiken (1969),”Routine Technology, Social Structure, and Organizational Goals”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
pp. 77-366.
Jing Zhang , Charles Baden-Fuller, (This is an Accepted Article that has
been peer- reviewed and approved for publication in the Journal
of Management studies, but has yet to undergo copy-editing and
8
proof correction . Please cite this article as an “ Accepted Article “ ; doi
: 10 .1111/j . 1467-6486.2009.00885.x) , “ The Influence Of Technological Knowledge Base And Organizational structure On Technology
collaboration “
Joan Woodward, (1965), Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice,
London: Oxford University Press.
K.Abdul Ghani , v. Jayabalan , M.Sugumar , (2002), “ Impact of advanced
manufacturing technology on organizational structure “ , Journal of
High Technology Management Research 13, 157-175
Mahmoody, Seyed Mohammd (2007), “Information Systems in Management”, Tehran University Publications Institute.
Rashid Kaboli, Majid & Ranjbarian, Bahram (1992), “Technology and Management: the Impacts of Technology on Organizational Structure”, Public Management Journal, vol. 16, new series, pp. 108 – 88.
Richard Daft and Norman Macintosh, (1978),” A new approach to design
and use of management information”, California management review
21, pp.82-92
Richard L. Daft, (1992),”Organization Theory and Design” West Publishing
Company, p. 130
Robins, Stephen (2004), “Organizational Behavior (Concepts, Theories and
Uses)”, translated by Ali Parsian and Seyed Mohammad Arabi, Cultural
Researches Office.
Robins, Stephen (2008), “Organizational Theory (Structure and Organizational Plan”, Translated by Mahdi Alvani and Hassan Danayi Fard,
Safar Publications.
Sarmad, Zohreh, Bazargan, Abbass & Hejazi, Ellaheh (2006), “Methodologies in Behavioral Sciences”, Agah Publications.
Thomas A. Mahoney and Peter J. Frost, (1974),” The Role of Technology in
Models of Organizational Effectiveness”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, pp. 38-122
Vares, Hamed (2001), “Creating a Model to Define the Impacts of IT on
Organizational Structure”, Payam Modiriat, vol. 1, pp. 123 – 135.
Yusefi, Ramin (2001), “Numerical Cadastre”, National Drawing Organization Publications.
Zareei Matin, Hassan (2003), “The Basics of Organization and Management”, Tehran University Publications Institute.