TOWARD A DEFINITION OF MANAGEMENT PROCESS1

b

B m B. SCOULLAR

Dtpurtmmt of Extetuioa EL!watwn, &dtural Uniwrrity, Wag-en

Research into farmers’ managerial ability has included research into “management process” (Nielsen, I 962). Despite considerable efforts, little has been learned about the steps in the process, or where it begins and ends (Wirth, in Justus & Headley, 1968, p. 29). Some (e.g. Headley, 1961) question the value of investigating ‘process’ at all. The review by Muggen (1969) however shows that the few studies which have investigated ‘process’ variables have produced encouraging results, and he concludes that “This area (of study) deserves much more research, because knowledge of the effects of management- processes can be used rather easily to increase farming efficiency” (op. cit. p. 8).

The aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of “management process” and so idenafV some reasons why the study of ‘process’ has, to date, been of little assistance to extension services or to those teaching farm management.

A D E F I N I T I O N OF T E R M S

A major, fundamental reason for the lack of progress with gprocess’ lies in the lack of definition of the concepts used when management proces is discussed. “Management process”, “problem-solving process” and “decision-making process” are terms which are used intu- changeably. Nielson (1961, p. 12j I) pointed to decision making as an act, but few abide by this useage, and the expression “decision-making process” is common (e.g. Castle, Becku & Smith, 1972). Nobody has drawn a distinction between “management process” and “pro- blem-solving process”. Then, of course, there are ‘objectives’, ‘goals’

2 60 Brian B. Scoullar

and ‘problems’, which have not been clearly defmed within the context of the profession of farm management.

Mager’s (1962) definition of “an objective” is most appropriate for farm management because it implies quantification of the concept. An objective is an intent, communicated by a statement describing a proposed change, of what is to be when an experience is successfully completed (op. cit. p. 3). An objective is a description of a prodwt resulting from completion of aproccss (op. ut . p. 8). The objective is stated in terms of who are the people involved in the change, what are the expected changes, when will the changes be completed and how well will they be performed. Objectives are proposed changes in the long term, and goals are the short-term changes necessary to achieve objectives. Changes to be achieved in the very short term (anythmg from a few minutes to a few days) can be categorized as

A problem occurs when there is a goal to be achieved and the individual does not have in his repertoire of behaviour any readily available response that will permit him to achieve the goal (Travers 1972, p. 2jj). It follows from this definition that, if an individual does possess the required response, a problem has been solved, a response has been learned. The appropriate response will be produced (assuming that it has not been forgotten) when the same situation recurs later. Thus, the situation is no longer a problem (op. cit. p. 25 j) .

A decision is the act of making a choice between alternatives (Edwards & Tversky, 1967 p. 7). In farm management, decisions will often be made under conditions of risk or uncertainty (Johnson & Lard, in Johnson, Halter, Jensen & Thomas, Eds., 1961 pp. 43-4j), and so managers utilize a number of specific, and non-specific models by whch to choose the most (subjectively) appropriate alternative. Dillon & Heady (1960) describe some of the models, and farmers’ use of them.

From the definitions given above it immediately becomes dear that the management process is not one process, but two; the goal- achievement process, and the problem-solving process. The two processes are distinct in that each has its own starting point and end point, and different concepts are involved. The two processes are represented in their simplest form in Figure I, together with the point at which a decision is made in each process. According to the analytical models adopted here, the goal-achieve ment process is a dynamic cycle of setting goals, achieving goals and, through evaluation of goal-achievement, setting further goals

sub-gods.

Toward a &finifion of management process 261

PIG. I . A r p t s d o t i m of th pd-arbiimmart process and tbt pblmr-mlvhg proress and rbt position of h akruion point in tacb.

(a) Tbr gwl-rrrbirpnd p u s

Evaluation \

u c c i s i o n Point

(b) Tbt pmbltm-solving pmcm Recognizing +Decision Solving the Problem + Point the Problem

aimed at achieving objectives. Making a decision is an act in the cycle which is taken after the analysis of alternatives, and before imple- mentation of the chosen alternative. Like any cycle, choosing the starting point is to some extent an arbitary decision, but by convention it usually begins with setting the goals.

The problem-solving process, however, has a clearly ddined begin- ning and end, and so is represented by a straight line. The process begins with recognition of a problem, and ends with selecting the best alternative for overcoming the problem. The decision point therefore coincides with the end of the process.

It is quite possible that the goal-achievement process can be com- pleted without the need to solve a problem. If every act towards goal achievement produces the desired outcome (or approximates to it to the extent that the manager enacts the next step), then no problems d be met. Alternatively, every step in the god-achievement process may produce a new problem. Implementing the chosen solution to the problem becomes the linking step between the two processes.

To talk about goal-achievement process and problem-solving process is inconvenient, when the subject being discussed is a highly inter-woven, inter-related mixture of the two. The term management process is quite adequate as long as it is understood that both goal- achievement and problem-solving are implied in the term ‘‘manage-

262 Brian B. Scodkar

ment process”. In t h i s paper the term “management process” is taken to mean “goal-achievement process” plus “problem-solving process”.

E X P L O R I N G THE P R O C E S S E S

(a) The probhm-solving proce~~

To say that the management process is, in fact, two inter-related processes is only of passing interest, unless there is also a difference in the abilities and skills required to competently perform each process. In order to explore this point, it is necessary to know more about the steps in each process. Tully (1971) has reported the steps in the problem-solving process which she developed whilst working with a group of farmers near Brisbane. The steps are; - Recognition of the problem in general terms - basic economic and

- Recognition of all the important variables or parameters concerned

- Recognition of the inter-relationships of these variables or para-

- Recognition of the causes of the problem. - Recognition of possible solutions to the problem. - Recognition of the most practical and economic solution. - Planning to carry out the solution.

technical knowledge of agriculture is required here.

with the problem.

meters.

The problem-solving steps fit very well into Bloom’s (I 9 5 6) cognitive hierarchy of educational objectives. Each step in the hierarchy defines a higher ability. A person who has the capacity to perform at level 4, for instance, also has the abilities defined at levels one, two and three. As well as defining the abilities required in problem solving, the hierarchy of educational objectives indicates additional steps not included in the process described above.

A detailed comparison is presented in Table I. Some of the des- criptions of Bloom’s categories have been slightly altered, but their essential meaning remains unchanged.

Toward a &@tion of management procas 263 T o m I : A romparisaa brbvrm tbr strpr m tbr pmblnn-rolvmg proms (TI& 197r-aJodilSrd) and a biararcb of &;iomal objutins (Bloom, 1916

Problcm-solving proccsa Hierarchy of educational objectives

I. Recognizing the problem in tcchnial/aonomic terms. Technical/cconomic knowledge required; a minimum level of

2. Recognizing a ‘model’ under which the problem will be studied.

t ~ d / a o n o m i c terminology.

3. Recognizing all important vari- abla within the ‘model’.

4. Knowledge of the methods needed to investigate the variables within the ‘model’.

5 . Knowledge of principles and gendizations, e.8. the phUplU required to assess quality and value of feed concentrate.

6. Comprehension of accumulated facts. This step also involves interpretation (e.g. to own farm situation) and extrapolation (e.g. to longterm implications) of the facts.

7. Recognizing the interrelationships between variables.

Knowledge of specifics. 1.10

Knowledge of taminology 1 .11

Knowledge of spcdfic facts. 1.12

Knowledge of the ways and means of I . to dealing with spcci6cs. i.e. Knowledge of the ways of orga- nizing, studying, judging and criti- cizing. Knowledge of classifications and categories. 1.23 i.e. to recognize the area encompassed by the problem.

i.e. knowledge of methods of enquiry, techniques and procedures. The emphasis is on knowledge, ratha than on ability to use the method.

alizations, 1.31 i.c. knowledge of particular ab- stractions which summarize o k - vations of phenomena so as to explain describe, predict or determine the most appropriate action to be t a k a

i.c ability to make use of facq but not necessarily to relate to o t h a hcu, or to see full implications of the facts. Interpretation 2.20

Eatapoktion 2.30

hdys i s . 4.00 i.e. a summvizing of the problem into its constituent elements, such that their relationships are made explicit. M y s i s of elcmcna. 4.10 i.r ability to recognize unstated aa-

facm from hypotheses.

Knowledge of methodology. 1.25

Knowledge of principles and g m a -

Comprehension 2.00

rumptions. skill in distinglaidlhg

264 Brian B. Scolrlar ~~ ~

Problun-solving process Hierarchy of educational objectives

Daaiption Level

8. Recognizing the caws of the problem.

that there is a causal csplanation of the problem.

9. Recognition of possible solutions.

Putting togetha the frca such

10. Recognizing the most practical and economic solution: the de- cision point.

Analysis of relationships. 4.20 i.c. the connections and interactions betarcen the elemcntl. Synthesis, I.= i.e. putting togetha the eluncna so as to form a whole.

(Synthesis) Production of a proposed 5.20

i.e. the development of alternative plans, that will satisfy the require- ments of the task. Evaluation. 6.00 i.e. judgements about the plans for attaining the given purpose. Judgements of internal criteria. 6.10 i s . judging the accuracy and logic of the argument. Judgements in terms of external criteria, 6.20

e.g. with the experience of othen.

SCt of operations.

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the comparison. - Defining the problem constitutes seven out of the ten steps in the

process. Problem definition requires ; knowledge - of facts, categories, methodology, generalizations. comprehension - understanding of these knowledge types. analytical ability - of dements and inter-relationships. - At any point during the process, an acceptable solution to the

problem may become dear. Therefore, a farmer who can define a problem in terms of elements and their inter-relationships (i.e. step 7), has a very good chance of being able to solve most of the important farming problems that he encounters. This point will be taken up again later.

- From the beginning of the process, an ability is required to deal with abstract concepts.

- Specialized technical knowledge is usually required to carry through the process.

Toward a dc jnition of management process 2%

- Questions which need to be asked and answered, in the main, begin with ‘why?’.

- Problem-solving is a learning process and therefore can be taught. However the task will probably not be an easy one, because the concepts and models used in the process are abstract, and the level of technical knowledge required is often quite high.

@) The goal-achievement proceJs

An example is given below of a simple goal-achievement situation. From the example, the steps in the goal-achievement process will be derived, and the abilities indicated which are required to competently complete the process. EXAMPLE: In keeping with his plan to increase his herd size from 40 to I 00 milkers by December I 976, a farmer wants to purchase I o milkus before the beginning of winter to take advantage of low prices and some excess winter housing capacity. Through enquiry, he discovers a farmer j o km. away who has heifers with their first calves, of the same breed as his own, and proven high-production stock at X dollars each, but that farmer will not deliver. Another farmer nearby has pregnancy tested cows of a different breed to his own, with good production records, and he will deliver them immediately. But t h i s farmer has a bad reputation for disease in his herd. Further equiries reveal a number of other farmers and agents with stock for sale varying substantially in price, quality and type. The alteratives avail- able cause him to review his goals, and reject some alternatives (e.g. “I certainly don’t want a mixed herd”). He then organizes the remain- ing alternatives into comparable units (e.g. cost/head at his farm gate, age and condition of stock, estimated number of calves in spring, estimated production per cow, relative risk of introducing disease). With the help of some budgeting techniques, he concludes that two of the alternatives are practically the same, but one is from a friend with whom he has been dealing for many ycars, and the other is with a stranger. He decides to deal with his friend, he acts on the decision within the time limit set and over time, evaluates the decision in term of his total farm objectives. The steps in the process can be itemized as follws :

I . Formulating objectives and deriving goals. 2. Recognizing the subject-matter area under which information

should be collected.

266 Brian B. Scoullar

3. Recognizing a l l the important factors within each subject-matter

4. Knowledge of methods; i.e. where to find information, what

j . Knowledge of standards; e.g. price and quality. 6 . Analysis of the variables and their inter-relationships. 7. Recognizing possible alternatives. 8. Recognizing the most practical and economic alternative: the

decision point. 9. Taking action.

area.

questions to ask, and to whom.

10. Evaluating outcome in terms of goals and objectives.

A moment’s glance at Table I shows that the two processes are similar, escept for their starting and ending points. Like the problem-solving process, the goal achievement process is an educational one implying increasing abilities with each successive step. However, to be similar to, is not the same as to be identical with. There are important differences between the two processes. - Formulating objectives and goals differs from recognizing problems

in that the latter involves drawing inferences from one’s environ- ment, a skill not required in the former act.

- Step 2 in the problem-solving process requires an ability to con- ceptualize abstract models2, whilst Step z in the goal-achievement process deals with concepts (set Travers 1972, pp. t j9-261) within a concrete subject-matter area. This difference remains throughout both processes ; the problem-solving process deals with knowledge about abstract variables derived from an abstract conceptual model, whilst the goal-achievement process deals with knowledge about concrete variables derived from concepts within a subject - matter

- Because of this distinction, Step 6 in the problem-solving process (comprehension of accumulated facts) is not necessary in the goal- achievement process. A farmer who knows that the soil pH on the nearby research station is 4 may not comprehend that fact, nor interpret it or extrapolate from it. However, a farmer who knows what a fair price is for breeders also comprehends that fact.

- Fundamentally, it is the difference in required abilities and knowl- edge which distinguish “problem-solving” from “goal-achieving”. Problem-solving involves dealing in abstractions, and formulating and answering ‘why?’ questions. “Goal-achieving” deals with concrete subject-matter areas and concepts and requires formulat-

area.

Toward a &finition of mamgement procm 267 ing mainly ‘what?’ and ‘when? questions. The level of specialized technical knowledge required to solve complex problems is usually higher than that required to successfully complete a complex goal- achievement process.

Having emphasized the differences between goals and problems, it is important also to restate their similarities. Goals and problems are concepts which are inter-dependant and are closely inter-woven into the total management process. A problem cannot exist without a goal also existing, since a problem is a block to a god. Furthermore, when a problem is encountered the goal towards which the farm manager is moving becomes either subordinated to a more immediate goal (the removal of the problem) or, if the problem is ignored or its definition proceeds over a period of time, there is reduced goal attainment. This may or may not be a significant perceived loss to the farm manager.

T H E MANAGEMENT S I T U A T I O N

The discussion to date has implied that every goal and problem each requires an involved, time-consuming, skilled process to be performed before a decision is made. This, of course, is not so. Different goals and problems will call for different degrees of process effort (Nielson, 1961 pp. 1 2 ~ 8 - 1 2 j 9 ) . Simply recognizing a problem in technical terms may immediately indicate a satisfactory solution. One would expect that farmers high on both process abilities would make decisions involving much lower risk and uncertainty than those low on both abilities. However, there will be no influence on farm output if the full management process is performed on trivial problems and minor goals. There may even be a depressed output because of less time available to deal with important goals and problems.

A management situation can be ddined in terms of the charactcris- tics of the goals and problems being faced by the farmer at any point in time. Three dimensions can be considered for goals, and three for problems.

268 Brian B. Jcodhr P d h l n ima i t id -b aitial dmplc

It is thus possible to place each goal and problem in a position within a 3-dimensional model which will allow an estimate of the degree of time, dfort and skill which should be devoted to reducing risk and uncertainty in the final outcome.

A critical decision in itself is, of course, evaluating the criticalness of a goal or a problem. The degree of criticalness is determined by the degree to which failure to achieve a goal or solve a problem will cause losses in achieving the overall objective. The reasons for a goal or problem being critical will M e r from one agricultural system to another, and also through time. The situation may be critical because of timing (e.g. of a planting operation), the capital involved, irrevo- cability once the goal is attained (e.g. farm building), opportunity, and other factors.

cornpla baafrmuliar

I M P L I C A T I O N S

What has been said to date has probably not helped farm managers at all, but it should help those conducting research into farm manage- ment. Implications of the discussion will be directed towards the latter group and hopefully, the resulting research will benefit the former group.

There will be differences between farmers in their abilities to perform the management processes. The extent of their abilities will determine the extent to which risk and uncertainty can be reduced in a manage- ment situation. However, high levels of management process ability are required in only a relatively narrow range of management situ- ations; where goals are critical, d8icult to attain and unusual and/or where the problems are critical, complex and unfamiliar. The fre- quency with which management situations occur in that area where process abilities are limiting will depend upon the type of agriculture, the stage of development of the farm (Crouch, 1972) and the previous experience of the farm operator. Furthermore, the reasons why the management situation is critical will vary (timing, irrevocability, capital involved, etc.). A farmer may be better at handling one type of critical management situation than another.

Where do we go to from here? It is dear that defining the manage- ment situation in which management processes must operate is

Toward a &finition of management process 269 essential if the predctive power of results from farm management research is to be increased. Situations will d8er not only in the ‘mix‘ of inherent problems and goals, but also in the degree to which management process ability is limiting output. A situation in which the critical problems are simple and familiar and the critical goals easy to attain and routine, will require little in the way of process abilities. Process abilities must be studied in a situation which allows com- parisons between all farmers in the sample and where these abilities are likely to be limiting farm output.‘ Process ability studies to date have not demonstrated the extent to which these two conditions have been met amongst the population of farmers studied.

Having defined the situation, and demonstrated that process abilities may be limiting output, it is then possible to develop hypo- theses concerning the actions of farmers high and low in process abilities. The areas on which the study should focus are at either extreme of the “non-critical” to ‘critical‘ continuum for problems that are complex and unfamiliar and goals which are difficult to attain and unusual. The critical categories of these problems and goals should maximize the chances of management process abilities being demonstrated, whilst the non-critical end of the same cate- gories should maximize the chance of economizing principles (Nielson, I 961 pp. I 2 j 8- I 2 j 9) being discovered. Other situations are either relatively simple, or non-critical, or both and therefore thcre is less chance of substantial behavioural differences between those high and those low on management process abilities.

N O T E S

1 Prof. A. W. van den Ban, Dr. C. M. J. van Wocrkum and Dr. B. Benvmuti construc- tively criticized an earlier draft of this paper. Their suggations are gratefully acknowl- edged. The models developed must, to an increasing atent, include the relationships between

the farm firm and the institutions memal to the fum to which the farm firm is connected. Harris (1974) conduda that about half the select elements of entrcprcncunhip have been rhiftcd to off-fum firms, and the contracts between the firmer and these firms are weighted to protect the latter’s interests. Sec also h v e n u t i (1971).

By definition, it is not possible to have a ‘routine’ problem. However it is poesible to have a familiar one; one where the initial inferences from the environment suggest the s ~ n e problem-solving model, the same variabla and the m e qUati0M to be considered aa has been considered for a problem in the past. ’ The quation of what should be m d aa the product of mmqcmcnt proms ability(i.c. “the criterion problem”) is acknowledged, but is outside the scope of this papa.

Brian B. Scodkn REFERENCES

B x m v ~ ~ u n , B. (1975). General s y s r u ~ theory and entrepreneurial autonomy in farming: toward a new feudalism or toward democratic planning? Sodologk R d ,

BLOOM, B. S. (Ed), (1956), Taxonomy of eduaUon?l objeaivu. Handbook I: Cognitive

Gma, E.. M. BEC- and F. SMITH (1972). Farm business management. The decision-

CROUCH, B. R. (~972) . Innovation and firm development. A multidimmriod mod4

DILLON, J. L. and E. 0. HEADY (I 960). Theories of choice in relation to fvmcn decisions, Agricultural and Home Economics Erpaiment Station, Iowa State Univenity of Science and Technology, Rcsarcb Bulletin 481.

EDWARDS, W. and A. TVER~KT (1967). Decision making (Middlescx-England: Pmguin Modem Psychology).

HARRIS, M. (1974). Enueprcncurial control in fuming, Economic Ruearch Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Repon no. 5 4 .

HEADLET, J. C. (1965). The management factor in c o m m a d agriculture: How can it bc recognized, Journal of Farm Economics, 47 (I), 1437-1439.

JOHNSON, G.. H. JENSEN and D. WOODS THOYAS (Eds.), (1961). A study of managerial procusa of midwestem farmen, (Am&USA: The Iowa State Univmity Press).

Jusrus, F. and J. C HEADLET (1968). The management hctor in farming; An evaluation and summary of d, Agricultural Experimental Station, Univaxity of Minnaota, Technical Bullnin 218.

MAGER, R. F. (1969). Preparing o b j a i v a for programmed instruction, (San Francisco: Faron Publishers).

MUGGHN, G. (1969). Human factors and farm management: A review of the literature, Worid Agricultural Economic and R d Sociology Abstracts, XI (2). 1-11.

NIELSON, J. (1961), Improved managerial Processu for hrmm. Jourml of Farm &no- mia 43 ( 5 ) . 1250-1261.

NIELSON, J. (1962), A s p e a of management of concan to bask ruurchen, Farm Mana- gement Rcscuch Committee of the Western Agricultural Economics Research Council, Repon no. 4

Travers, R. M. W. (1972). Essentials of laming, 3rd Ed., (New York: bflcmillnn Com-

TULLY, J. (1971). Eduaaon for Change, Paper presented to the 43rd Congrew of the Australian and New Z d a n d Association for the Advancement of Scicnce, Brisbane, Australia.

xv, ( I l 4 4u4.

Domain, (New York: Lonermn~, Green & Co.).

making process. znd. d, (New York: The Maanillan Co.).

Sociolo~ia R d h , V, IZ (3/4), 431-49

PrnY).

S U M M A R Y

The concepts commonly used in discussing farm management process arc defined and the process itself is conceptualized as being not one, but two processes; the goal-achievement process and the problem- solving process. These two processes are closely interdependant and inter-woven. The two processes differ because they have dif- ferent starting points and ending points but, more importantly, to

Toward a akjniiion of munagement process 271

complete them requires different abilities of the farpl manager. Problem solving involves conceptualizing abstract analytical models and understanding and manipulating knowledge on abstract variables, whilst the goal-achievement process deals with concrete variables within particular subject-matter areas. A comparative analysis of both processes with Bloom’s (1916) hierarchy of educational objec- tives indicates that each process is an educational one requiring increasing abilities with each successive step.

Goals and problems are each positioned in a space defined by three continua; for goals, from non-critical to critical, easy to attain to difficult to attain and routine to unusual; and for problems, from non-critical to critical, simple to complex and familiar to unfamiliar. Critical problems and goals are classified according to their reasons for being critical. This defines the management situation of the farmer at any point in time.

Implications of the model are drawn for future farm management research.

RE SUM^

D’abord sont presentis les concepts Ies plus courants pour une discussion sur la direction d’une entreprise agricole et ensuite la direction de l’entreprise agricole est dissocite en deux processus Wirents: le processus du ((but 6 atteindre)) et le processus de cubo- lution des problkmes)). Les deux processus dif€&ent parsqu’ils ont des points de dCpart et des buts diffirents, et, ce qui est le plus im- portant, parce que l’atteinte de ces points edge des capaatks difftren- tes dans la direction de l’entreprise agricole. Pour la ccrtsolution du problkme)) il s’agit de saisir des modues analytiques et abstraits, de comprcndre et d’klaborer des variables abstraites, tandis que Ie pro- c e s s ~ ~ du ((but A atteindrev s’occupe des variables concrktes d a n s certains domaines d’objet. Une analyst comparative des deux processus A l’aide de la hihrchie des buts d’cducation de Bloom (1956) montre que chaque processus est un processus d‘tducation et qu’il exige des capacitds plus grandes A chaque degrC supcrieur.

Les buts et les probltmes sont A rechucha toujours dam un Cspace qui est ddfini par trois continue, pour dcs buts ce sont de non critique 6 critique de fade A atteindre A difficile d’atteindre et de routinier A non habituel; pour des problkmes ce sont de non critique A critique, de simple A complexe de COMU A ~ C O M U .

Les problkmes critiques et les buts sont rangb d’aprh le crittrc

Brian B. Scoullar

par quelles raisons ils sont critiques. Ensuite la situation de la direction de l'cntreprisc agricole se laissc definir B tout moment. Les implications du mod& pour la recherche future dans le

domaine de la direction d'une usine agricole sont expliquks A la fin.

Z U S A M M E N F A S S U N G

Zuniichst werden einmal die gebrauchlichsten Konzepte fiir die Diskussion der Betriebsfiihsung in der Landwirtschaft vorgestellt und die Betriebsfiihrung dann in zwei verschiedene Prozesse aufgcspalten : den Prozess der Ziel-Errcichung und den Prozess der Problem- Losung. Die zwei Prozesse unterscheiden sich, weil sie verschiedene Ausgangs- und Endpunkte haben und, was am wichtigsten ist, weil ihre Erfiillung verschiedene Fiihigkeiten in der Betriebsfuhrung erfordert. Beim Problem-Losen kommt cs auf das Erfassen abstrakter analytischer Modelle und das Verstehen und Bearbeiten von abstrak- ten Variablen an, whrend der Prozess der Ziel-Erreichung sich mit konkreten Variablen in bestimmten Gegenstandsbereichen befal3t. f ine komparative Analyse beider Prozesse an Hand von Blooms ( I 9 j 6 ) Hierarchie von Erziehungszielen zeigt, daf3 jeder Prozel3 ein EniehungsprozeB ist und auf jeder hoheren Stufe zunehmende Fagkeiten erfordert.

Ziele und Probleme sind jeweils in einem h u m , der durch drei Kontinua definiert ist, auszumachen: fur Ziel-Erreichung sind dies: von nicht-kritisch bis kritisch, von leicht zu erreichen bis schwierig zu meichen und von routine-sig bis ungewohnlich; f i r Problem- Losung sind dies: von nicht-kritisch bis kritisch, von einfach bis komplur und von bekamt bis unbekamt. Kritische Problcme und Ziele wuden danach eingeordnct, aus welchen Griinden sic kritisch sind. Danach l d t sich die Situation der Betriebsfuhrung zu jcdem beliebigen Zeitpunkt definieren..

Am Schlul3 werden die Implikationen des Modells fiir die zu- kiinftige Forschung in der landwirtschaftlichen Bemebslehre darge- legt.