ComputerAided_Design_Engineering_amp_Manufactur.pdf

At the outset of the study, it was hypothesized that organizational context would be associated with
distinct and unique types of training, which in turn, would provide specific advantages. The firms were
broadly grouped as either organic or mechanistic; the classification methodology is discussed below.
Training programs were classified as either formal or informal. The nature of the training program was
determined from open-ended interview questions. The training program was determined to be formal
if it involved primarily classroom settings and lecture format. Informal training programs were those
where the workers were expected either to learn the system on their own or to receive unstructured oneon-one
tutoring from a co-worker.
Each choice of training method might then be associated with its specific advantages, as partially
suggested by Carter et al. 9 It should be noted, however, that while the Carter et al. study explored benefits
associated with internal and external training programs, this research is examining benefits received as a
function of the formality of the training program. In particular, de-skilling may be a benefit to firms using
CAD as a core technology because of the potential savings that can be realized through the process of hiring
and training inexperienced workers to perform the more routine aspects of design work. Based on a
review of current research, the following definitions and indicators of the variables and constructs used
in the study as related to the CAD environment are discussed below.
Organic Firm Structure
The organic nature of a firm using CAD is visible when workers are allowed influence over the decision
process concerning work issues. Employees in organic environments exhibit more autonomy from their
managers. 12 The level of autonomy is interpreted from interview questions that measure the amount of
contact the worker has with his or her manager. Workers in independent, organic structures have less
contact with their manager and receive less direction regarding work methods. In organic structures, the
workers are assigned work and allowed the freedom and responsibility to complete it in ways they deem
appropriate. 12,15 Another indicator of an organic firm is the workers’ involvement in the decision process
of acquiring a CAD system. In organic structures, consideration is given to the employees’ opinion
regarding which system to purchase. Although initially this variable seemed difficult to measure, simple
questions such as, “Where is the CAD manager’s office in relation to the CAD users” and “How frequently
do you interact/speak with your manager/worker” are quite effective in revealing the work environment
and its structure.
Mechanistic Structures
CAD firms with mechanistic structures are organized in a top-down fashion. Unlike organic structures,
workers in mechanistic structures have little say in the day-to-day decisions that affect their occupations.
Instead, management makes all decisions regarding the selection of the CAD system and how it is used.
In general, management in mechanistic CAD firms makes itself more visible to the worker than in
organic structures. Management is more likely to dictate rules and policy than to ask for the opinion
and input of workers.
Formal Training
Formal CAD training programs are those with the traditional instructor/student relationship and
are often taught in a classroom. They are scheduled in advance and may also include additional
written supporting documents besides the instruction manual that accompanies the software. Formal
training programs are often taught by outside consultants, such as CAD vendors. Large firms may
maintain an in-house instructor. These instructors have frequently received their own training from
outside sources. This method of CAD training was found to be prevalent in studies performed by
Beatty. 6