website development: a study of the communication and decision

Website Development: A study of the communication and decision-making process associated with

developing an effective website within a complex corporate structure

_________________________________________________

A Project

Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies

School of Professional Studies

Gonzaga University

__________________________________________________

Under the Mentorship of Dr. Heather Crandall

_________________________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree:

Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies

____________________________________________________

By Leslie Hebert

December, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 2

Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 2

The Project Goal ......................................................................................................................... 2

Importance of the Study .............................................................................................................. 3

Definitions of Terms Used .......................................................................................................... 3

Organization of the Remaining Chapters .................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 7

Theoretical Basis ......................................................................................................................... 8

The Literature ............................................................................................................................ 10

Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 17

CHAPTER 3: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 19

The Scope of the Study ............................................................................................................. 19

Methodology of the Study ......................................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER 4: THE STUDY ......................................................................................................... 24

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 24

Results of the Study .................................................................................................................. 25

Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 33

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 36

Limitations of the Project .......................................................................................................... 36

Further Study Recommendations .............................................................................................. 37

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 37

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 39

APPENDIX A: SURVEY &RESULTS ....................................................................................... 43

APPENDIX B: CHI SQUARES ................................................................................................... 58

APPENDIX C:COMMUNICATION TOOLS ............................................................................ 65

Website Decision Making Matrix Template ............................................................................. 65

Internal Survey Template .......................................................................................................... 66

External Survey Template ......................................................................................................... 67

In-House Memorandum Template ............................................................................................ 68

Sample Organizational Charts................................................................................................... 70

Website Request for Qualifications Template .......................................................................... 72

Request for Qualifications Scoring Sheet ................................................................................. 76

ABSTRACT

The 21st Century demands the use of technology and the internet to promote businesses and the

services or products they provide. It is with this challenge that organizations are faced with how they

can compete in their market place with their website. When an organization decides they need to

create a website, several questions need to be asked and process structure needs to be created. In a

complex organization, one with multiple offices and several employees, the communication process

for developing a website can quickly become a multifaceted and unorganized if proper planning and

communication tools have not been established. This planning lends itself to decision-making

processes that usually involve a team of qualified individuals. This project aims to address the

potential pitfalls associated with group decision-making such as rational and nonrational decision-

making, how stakeholder involvement can influence the process, and how a quality leader should be

established to create a foundation for a successful project.

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCATION

Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (2005) details how

we make snap judgments from initial impressions of items we observe every day. A website is the

storefront to consumers who want to get a glimpse of your company. These first impressions usually

create lasting opinions in a positive or negative way. Some of the most popular websites such as

Amazon.com or Facebook.com were created with large internal web development teams to produce a

site that reflects the goals and objectives of their organization. Behind any good website was a team of

people working together, and making decisions to achieve a successful end product. When starting a

process, such as a website, all aspects of communication must be planned and established prior to

embarking on the project.

Some smaller organizations may choose to utilize a simple online website creation tool such as

Intuit.com, while larger organizations may need to hire a custom web development firm spending

thousands of dollars. For the latter, extensive upfront internal planning must occur to ensure a

successful outcome. When organizations have several employees, multiple locations, or multiple

services or products the development of a website quickly becomes complex in terms of internal

communication. There can be varying opinions about content, design, functionality, project leadership,

and decision makers, etc. With a complex internal structure coupled with the implementation of these

new processes, various communication problems can arise such as group decision-making conflicts,

lack of rationality, emotional involvement, and trust in leadership or lack thereof.

In order to examine the potential communication problems addressed above, a Literature

Review has been conducted to evaluate the potential pitfalls associated with such a process.

2

Furthermore, a survey was conducted to determine the best communication practices with internal web

development teams.

Statement of the Problem

Creating a quality website takes diligent internal planning. Several internal decisions need to

be made such as who will be leading the process, who will be on the web development team, what

web developer should be hired, and how decisions will be made. Without such planning the website

could fail to represent the organization, and ultimately drive customers away. The problems that could

arise from an organization taking on a web development process include group decision making,

quality of leadership, stakeholder participation, and rational and non-rational decision-making.

The Project Goal

The goal of this project is to set up an effective internal communication process for creating a

website within a complex corporate structure that involves multiple constituents. Thus leading to the

creation of a site where these stakeholders are satisfied with its outcome. Based on this project, a set of

recommendations will be addressed that will help other organizations through this complicated

communication and leadership process. Additional goals of this project are to research the

abovementioned potential communication issues, survey individuals to find out best practices, and

prepare a set of template tools that an organization can use to facilitate a rational decision-making

process. This project hopes to serve as a guide to any organization looking to embark on creating a

new website.

3

Importance of the Study

As mentioned above, we are living in a consumer savvy world and providing a quality website

that meets the customer's needs is essential. However, this cannot be achieved unless the organization

creates a web development process that fosters positive, rational group decision-making. It is

important to address the issues associated with a web development process because little research has

been conducted in this specific area. With so many companies creating web sites, a resource such as

this project would be beneficial.

Definitions of Terms Used

Autocratic Decision-Making: Process by which the leader solves the problem themselves with the

information they possess (Yukl, 2010, p. 94).

Codetermination: Collaborative decision making; participatory democracy in the work place.(Griffin,

2009, p. 264).

Communicative Rationality: Where rationality is a necessity to successful communications (Bohman,

& Rehg, 2011).

Conformity: The tendency of group members to comply with a group’s majority viewpoint (Zhang et

al, 2007, p. 55).

Consultation Decision-Making: where the leader shares the problem with the subordinates

individually and does not bring them together as a group to make a decision (Yukl, 2010, p.

95).

4

Group Decision-Making: Where the leader shares the problem with the group and the group

collectively evaluates and attempts to reach a consensus decision (Yukl, 2010, p. 95).

Majority Influence: Majority of group members impose their common position on group dissenters

during a decision-making (Zhang et al, 2007, p. 54).

Non-rational: Not in accordance with the principles of logic or reason (Nonrational, 2011).

Psychodynamic Perspective: The approach to the study of group behavior that focuses on the

relationships between emotional non-conscious processes and the conscious rational processes

of interpersonal interactions (McLeod & Kettner-Polley, 2005, p. 65).

Rational: Thinking process that employs logical, objective, and systematic methods in reaching a

conclusion or solving a problem (Rational, 2011).

Rational World-Paradigm: Scientific approach or philosophical approach to knowledge that assumes

people are logical making decisions on basis of evidence and lines of argument," (Griffin,

2009, p. 301).

Retrospective Sense-Making: Making decisions that seem to be correct and then constructing a picture

of decisions-making process that makes them seem to be rational actors (Conrad & Poole,

2005, p. 294).

Stakeholder Participation: process by which all stakeholders in an organization negotiate power and

openly research collaborative decisions (Griffin, 2009, p. 270).

5

Strong Communicative Action: speakers coordinate their action and pursuit of individual (or joint)

goals on the basis of a shared understanding that the goals are inherently reasonable or merit-

worthy (Bohman, & Rehg, 2011).

Systematically Distorted Communication: Operating outside of employees' awareness, a form of

discourse that restricts what can be said or even considered (Griffin, 2009, p. 267).

Validity: The extent to which a measure reflects on the desired construct without contamination from

other systematically varying constructs (Hoyel et al., 2002, p. 83).

Organization of Remaining Chapters

This project is separated into five chapters. Chapter 1, introduces the project and details the

statement of the problem, the goal of the project, the importance of the study, definition of the terms

used throughout the project, and the organization of the remaining chapters.

In Chapter 2, a literature review was conducted and internal processes were examined in terms

of group decision making, and rational and nonrational decision making, in conjunction with

stakeholder involvement. Several books and journals were reviewed and there was a clear correlation

between the establishment of a credible leader and the facilitation of healthy group decision making.

Chapter 3 defines the theoretical basis, methodology, scope, and limitations of this project

laying the ground work for gathering the information needed to recommend internal communication

tools.

6

Recommended communication tools and processes are introduced in Chapter 4. This section

will provide documents that will guide an organization through a website development from an

internal process perspective. Chapter 4 includes:

1) An internal survey to determine goals and objectives for creating a new website;

2) A document synthesizing the goals and objectives in order to achieve stakeholder

approval;

3) A sample request for proposal template in order to hire a web consultant and evaluation

criteria scoring sheet;

4) Template tools to aid in internal decision making processes (decision making matrix,

meeting agendas, etc.) focused specifically on group decision making; and

5) An internal survey to evaluate the success of the project.

Chapter 5 summarizes the project with its limitations and recommendations for further study in

the area of internal website development.

7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

In 2009, there were l.73 billion internet users worldwide (Lewis, 2009, p. 1). This was an 18%

increase in internet users over the previous year (Lewis, 2009, p. 1). With these staggering figures,

many organizations realize that with today's rapidly evolving technology a website is key to

representing their company and capturing new customers. The internal process of building a new

website for an organization can take on many forms and is largely dependent on whether it is a small

or large organization, and who will ultimately be facilitating the process. This literature review will

examine this process in the context of a large complex organization. Vrontis et al.(2006) describe the

importance of an effective website.

A website is the heart of the online marketing program, the focus of all marketing

communications, and the single most important means of communication for transportation.

For prospects, customers, and partners, a company’s website is often the single most visible

and used resource. (p. 127)

Creating a new website can seem overwhelming, but the key is planning (Stewart, 2011, p. 10).

First, the organization needs to establish its goals for the new site to maximize its effectiveness

(Welch, 2001, p. 45). The organization may hire a web development company, form decision-making

teams, and establish an internal project manager, which take time and planning. According to Petro

(2011), a creative team spent nearly a year collecting data for their Buffalo law firm's new website,

including using focus groups that represented more than a dozen Fortune 1,000 firms.

For the purpose of this literature review, the term complex organizational structure consists of

an organization with more than one office location, and 20 or more employees. When multiple offices

and people are involved in an overarching decision-making process it can set the stage for complex

8

communication to occur. Organizations are inherently dynamic, thus the website development

communication process must be viewed through several lenses, such as group decision-making,

rational, and non-rational decision-making, intuitional decision-making, stakeholder involvement, and

trust in leadership. These processes require decision-making skills and communication tools to garner

the information needed to complete a comprehensive site.

Theoretical Basis

In regards to the theoretical basis of this research project, Conrad and Poole (2005) explain

why humans are naturally not rational through the term retrospective sense-making, which details that

people often make their choices first and seek out information to rationalize their decision (p. 294). It

is therefore not uncommon to experience non-rational decision-making in a group setting. The non-

rational model suggests that organizations are multifaceted and the decision-making process is equally

as complex (Conrad & Poole, 2005, p. 300).

The main communication theory found to be beneficial regarding stakeholders is the critical

theory of communication in organizations by Stanley Deetz (Griffin, 2009, p. 262), and specifically

the topics of stakeholder participation, systematically distorted communication, and the information

and communication model (pp. 263-270). The definition of stakeholder participation is the "process

by which all stakeholders in an organization negotiate power and openly research collaborative

decisions (Griffin, 2009, p. 270).

Another theoretical basis for this research stems from Habermas' idea of Public Sphere and

Reason where Habermas refers to strong communicative actionas "speakers coordinate their action

and pursuit of individual (or joint) goals on the basis of a shared understanding that the goals are

9

inherently reasonable or merit-worthy." "Communicative action is thus an inherently consensual form

of social coordination in which actors “mobilize the potential for rationality” given with ordinary

language and its purpose of rationally motivated agreement,"(Bohman, & Rehg, 2011). Another

element discussed by Habermas is the theory of communicative rationality, where he refers to

rationality as a necessity to successful communications.

With the advent of the internet, companies now realize they need a web presence to compete in

their marketplace. This challenge sets the stage for a dynamic decision making processes to occur

internally at an organization. The purpose of this literature review is to gather a wide sampling of case

studies, journal articles, and books that lend themselves to addressing the communication and rational

decision-making process associated with developing an effective website within a complex corporate

structure.

Philosophical Assumptions

Communication is key to the success of any new process in an organization. This is done by

creating messages (Griffin, 2009, p. 7) between decision-making groups through face-to-face

meetings, emails, memorandums, etc. All of these messages are aimed to illicit a response (Griffin,

2009, p. 8), in this case the decision is about the website. The main philosophical assumption of this

project is the rational world-paradigm (Griffin, 2009), which is defined as a "scientific approach or

philosophical approach to knowledge that assumes people are logical making decisions on basis of

evidence and lines of argument," (p. 301). The key to this definition is the word assume. As mentioned

later in this literature review, most people view themselves as rational actors when in reality many

decisions they make are non-rational.

10

It is assumed that organizations undoubtedly experience group decision-making on a daily

basis, reinforcing the premise of this paper. No two groups are the same and often vary in group size,

prior working relationships, hierarchy, leadership, and communication styles. These social structures

(Griffin, 2009, p. 237) are critical to determining how a group will function. At a very basic level,

whenever a member of the group interacts with other members of the group (Griffin, 2009, p. 239) it

has an impact on outcomes.

The Literature

Group Decision-Making

At the very foundation of any new process in an organization lies the question, “How can this

process be successful and what are the pitfalls that could occur?” The term success can vary by project

and by leadership's expectations. The literature review below will show that developing a new process

in an organization, and in this case a new website, lends itself to a highly complex and dynamic set of

communication and organizational issues.

Group decision-making is the first of these multifaceted issues. Generally, website

development decisions are not made by one person and require collaboration across an organization to

portray its image. To ensure the website reflects the character of the firm, Denise (n.d.) recommends

that an internal panel of firm leaders need to kickoff the effort (p. 1). The complexity of group

dynamics is broad at best, therefore, in terms of group decision-making, rational, and non-rational

decision-making must be explored to fully understand and anticipate how decisions are made and

influenced. In this context the term rational means that decisions are made through gathering of

information and using evaluation criteria to provide an objective outcome. The term non-rational

11

decision-making relies on gut feelings and often inadequate information gathering to reach a decision.

However, for Habermas, rationality consists not so much in the possession of particular knowledge,

but rather in “how speaking and acting subjects acquire and use knowledge,” (Bohman, &Rehg,

2011).

Conrad and Poole (2005) detail that groups have several advantages over individuals that can

lead to rational decision-making (p. 294). In group settings, synergies can form, enabling the group to

see where there are flaws in reasoning or if they have inaccurate information (Conrad & Poole,2005,

pp. 294-295). In addition, leaders can influence the group’s behavior by indicating what attitudes and

behaviors are acceptable (Wiesekeet al., 2009, p. 127). To make effective decisions as a group Conrad

and Poole (2005) suggest the following steps:

1. Define the task, make sure each member understands why it is important, what the final

product will look like, and what the final product is for.

2. Reach agreement on group and individual responsibilities.

3. Seek out all information needed by the group, arrange it for easy access, and evaluate its

accuracy.

4. Establish criteria for evaluating possible courses of action, including recognizing options

and whether outcomes are realistic.

5. Discover and evaluate options.

6. Prepare to present the group's choice persuasively and defend it to people who will be

involved in implementing (p. 295).

It can be determined from the aforementioned steps that acquiring a detailed set of criteria and

evaluation methods when implementing a process will help keep a group focused on the task and the

12

goal. An area of study worth noting is the research on Psychodynamic Perspectives on Small Groups

by McLeod and Kettner-Polley (2005). Psychodynamic Perspective is defined as the approach to the

study of group behavior that focuses on the relationships between emotional non-conscious processes

and the conscious rational processes of interpersonal interactions (p. 65). There are various forms of

this perspective but McLeod and Kettner-Polley (2005) explore the humanistic and psychoanalytic

elements. The two approaches differ in that the humanistic approach focuses on the unlocking of

potential rather than the curing of pathology (p. 72). This research implies that non-conscious

emotional processes shape our behaviors in groups and the lack of awareness of these processes

inhibits effective work groups (p. 63).

Decisions Based on Intuition

Emotional behavior in a group setting often lends itself to making decisions based on intuition,

which is nonrational. The research suggests that acting upon hunches is not always reliable and

depends greatly on the person’s experience and the ability to notice a break in normal patterns (Conrad

& Poole, 2005, p. 301). Many times businesspeople attribute tough decisions to intuition and see this

process as legitimate and rational; however, it is often seen as an excuse and a false justification

(Easen & Wilcockson, 1996, p. 668). It is important to address the rational and non-rational models

because without adequate knowledge of both, the person running the website process may allow

intuitional decision making to occur. .

However, the research also shows that it is difficult to characterize intuition based upon

previous knowledge because it may be based on rationality (Easen & Wilcockson,1996, p. 672).

Successful decision-makers in high velocity environments use more information, consider alternatives,

and seek greater amounts of advice (Goll & Rasheed, 1997, p. 584). "Qualitative research findings

13

also suggest that an important aspect of high-quality decision-making is the accurate identification and

application of information related to the problem," (Mayer, 1998, p. 124). In a process such as

developing a new website, a leader following the decision-making steps outlined by Conrad & Poole

(2005) would therefore help mitigate the potential issues associated with intuitional decision making.

The use of groups to complete projects has become essential in today's workplace (Lowry et

al., 2006, p. 632). Lowry et al. (2006) emphasize that a team must have proper communication to

function collaboratively and produce high quality results (p. 633). However, a common

communication dysfunction in group decision-making is majority influence. This term refers to the

process by which a majority of group members impose their common position on group dissenters

during a decision-making," (Zhang et al, 2007, p. 54). Another common dysfunction is conformity,

which refers to "the tendency of group members to comply with a group’s majority viewpoint,"

(Zhang et al, 2007, p. 55). It is also noted that strong majority influence can result in poor

organizational decisions because people fear retaliation from the majority (Zhang et al., 2007, p. 54).

When making decisions for a complex corporate structure it is inevitable that one or more groups will

have a differing viewpoint. It can therefore be concluded that it is vital that the leader take care in

recognizing these potential negative group dynamics and how they should positively interact with

their team.

The procedures that a leader uses can affect the decision quality, acceptance by the group, and

the success of its implementation (Yukl, 2010, p. 94). Yukl (2010) outlines Vroom and Yetton's

normative decision model (1973), which details the various procedures of decision-making involving

multiple subordinates (p. 13). The autocratic decision-making process allows the leader to solve the

problem themselves with the information he or she has available. In addition, the leader may ask the

14

subordinates only for the information to make the decision and not let the group in on the decision-

making process (Yukl, 2010, p. 94). Next are two varieties of consultation decision-making, where the

leader shares the problem with the subordinates individually, not bringing them together as a group.

The leader gathers the feedback from the group and then chooses to use that information to influence

the decision (Yukl, 2010, p. 95). Last is group decision-making, where the leader shares the problem

with the group and the group collectively evaluates and attempts to reach a consensus decision. The

leader acts as a chairperson that stays neutral as to not sway the decision of the group (Yukl, 2010, p.

95).

Vroom and Yetton's (1973) model looks at multiple situational variables that influence the

decision’s effectiveness, such as the amount of information the group has, likelihood of acceptance by

the group, probability of cooperation, level of disagreement, the complexity of the issue and the need

for a creative solution (Yukl, 2010, p. 95). Another key aspect to this model examines the acceptance

of the decision in terms of subordinates. The group that was consulted may be highly motivated

because the outcome benefits the group. The group could potentially be resentful if the autocratic

method was used because they do not understand the reasons for the decision (Yukl, 2010, p. 95). The

weakness in this model pertains to the lack of recognition that a leader may have of these methods

while making a decision (Yukl, 2010, p. 99).

Effective Decision-Making and Leadership

Conrad and Poole (2005) examine rational and non-rational decision-making thoroughly in

terms of communication, but lack discussion on proper leadership in this process. Kouze and

Pozner(2007) assert that in order to complete any task as a group, a trustworthy leader must be in

place. Kouze and Pozner (2007) suggest that trust is the most fundamental element of a winning team

15

(p. 225). Kouze and Pozner (2003) also emphasize that leaders must enable employees to explore and

understand their common agendas when projects require them to make decisions as a team (p. 131).

Leaders need to ensure that the group members know their responsibilities and how to help each other

in order to achieve success. When this is achieved, the group dynamic shifts from power struggles to

power sharing (p. 131).

Structuring projects to promote joint efforts can be an effective way a leader can show his or

her team that they can gain more by working together than individually (Kouze & Pozner, 2007, p.

237). "Leaders who identify strongly with the organization actively strive to enhance the status of their

group and to fulfill collective goals, even in the absence of personal benefits," (Wieske et al., 2009, p.

127). A leader's emotional intelligence (EI), therefore, has a strong effect on group dynamics. How a

leader portrays his or her positive or negative emotions has been directly linked to subordinates’

outcomes at work (Kafetsios et al., 2011, p. 1122).It can be concluded that a trustworthy and credible

leader who can effectively manage the progress and govern a decision-making process must be

selected. Without such a leader the likelihood of autocratic decision-making could occur, negating

vital information sharing.

Stakeholder Involvement and Communication

Groups in large organizations are often governed by internal stakeholders, which contribute to

another level of leadership and group dynamics. Freeman (1984) defines a stakeholder as "any group

or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objectives,"

(Bolton et al., 2011, p. 61). In some organizations the network of stakeholders can be complex (Bolton

et al., 2011, p. 63). For this literature review, stakeholders are considered members of the organization

who have a vested interest in the web development process, and in most cases are owners in the

16

organization. The term subordinates refers to those who are members of the decision-making process

but do not have final decision-making power. Simões et al. (2005) suggest that a successful branding

effort can increase stakeholder commitment and loyalty to marketing efforts (p 153.), which reinforces

the importance of this research, as well as establishing a sound process between stakeholders and

subordinates. Establishing a rational decision-making process between stakeholders and subordinates

will help mitigate the kind of autocratic decision-making outlined in Vroom and Yetton's (1973)

normative decision model.

The study of stakeholder involvement, in this case organizational owners, is particularly

useful in union with the rational and non-rational decision-making models mentioned above in terms

of how owners interact with subordinate decision-making groups. The term systematically distorted

communication refers to "operating outside of employees’ awareness, a form of discourse that restricts

what can be said or even considered," (Griffin, 2009, p. 267). This form of communication can

suppress conflict within a group setting and unknowingly allow stakeholders to decide without further

discussion. This research further reinforces that a decision-making structure must be implemented at

the onset of a project, to make sure collaboration happens openly and willingly.

The information and communication model (Griffin, 2009) by Deetz, which recommends

using the practice of codetermination to achieve open dialogue among all stakeholders.

Codetermination allows a participatory democracy where there are "collaborative collective

constructions of self, other, and the world," (p. 264). To achieve codetermination within a group,

Kouzes and Posner (2003) emphasize engendering trust from your people first (p. 107). "Being trusted

requires reciprocity, a willingness on both parties to enter into dialogue and conversations," (p. 108).

17

Research Questions

Based on the findings in this literature review, the following questions emerge as appropriate

in a formative evaluation of the process associated with creating a website in a complex corporate

structure.

RQ1: What communication tools should be developed to facilitate a web development process

that follows Deetz's rational decision-making process in a complex corporate structure?

RQ2: How will these communication tools allow for rational decision-making to occur

between subordinate group members, mitigating majority influence and conformity?

RQ3: How will these communication tools allow for a rational decision-making between

stakeholders and the subordinate group, which mitigate systematically distorted communication and

achieve codetermination?

The goal of this project is to set up an effective internal communication process for creating a

website within a complex corporate structure that involves multiple constituents, thus leading to the

creation of a site where the stakeholders are satisfied with the outcome. Based upon this project, a set

of recommendations will be addressed that will help other organizations through this complicated

communication and leadership process.

Summary

It can be easily assumed that through this literature review it is not uncommon for several

influences to affect group decision-making. When multiple constituents are involved in a process such

as a new website, several communication theories and leadership aspects come into play. It can also be

18

assumed that depending on the internal structure of an organization, one or more of the negative group

dynamics, such as systematically distorted communication or autocratic decision-making, can easily

occur. Another conclusion drawn from this research is the importance of a strong leader in order to

help mitigate non-rational decision-making.

The internal communication process of creating a website in a complex corporate structure has

not been specifically researched. The research of group dynamics and stakeholder involvement;

however, have been studied in-depth. Therefore, a study such as this would help organizations who

face a similar task of developing a website.

Several communication theories need to be considered when embarking on the development of

a successful website, such as rational and non-rational decision-making, small, and large group

decision-making, and stakeholder involvement. It is clear from this research that diligent internal

planning, processes, information gathering and sharing are required to implement a successful new

website. Also, through this literature review it can be suggested that in order for a new process to be

implemented into a complex organizational structure, several factors need to be considered, including

establishing an experienced trustworthy leader who can mitigate potential negative group dynamics,

and effective stakeholder participation. Leaders also need to be aware and knowledgeable of the

psychodynamic perspective of small groups and rational and non-rational decision-making. With this

knowledge, leaders can promote rational decision-making when there is a tendency to be non-rational.

Following Conrad and Poole's (2005) normative decision-making model will help establish a solid

decision-making and communication process. This process is vital to the success of the project;

without preparation and detailed procedures, the development of a new website can take longer than

desired, fail to fulfill stakeholders’ expectations, and inaccurately represent the organization.

19

CHAPTER 3: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

More now than ever having a presence on the web is vital to any organization’s marketing

plan. With more than a billion users, the Internet has become an essential tool in selling and promoting

businesses. If a website is poorly executed a company can lose clients and decrease market share.

Therefore, the importance of creating a quality website has grown exponentially. A successful website

is directly dependent on the internal process an organization takes to accomplish this task. As

mentioned in Chapter 1, the development of a website for an organization can be complex in terms of

internal communication and leadership.

The Scope of the Study

The primary objective of this project is to provide communication tools that will help guide an

organization through the internal process, mitigating potential pitfalls associated with group decision

making. First is the examination of group decision-making in terms of the rational decision-making

model, followed by the project manager's involvement with subordinate decision making groups. The

goal of the study is to:

1. Survey organizations that are considered complex (structurally) in nature (i.e. more than one

office location, more than 10 people in the company, and more than two people involved in

the website development process).

2. Review the data and determine if providing communication tools to facilitate a rational

website development process contributes to a successful outcome.

3. Analyze the data and formulate template communication tools that an organization can use to

mitigate potential group decision-making pitfalls such as conformity and majority influence.

20

4. Analyze the data and also create documents that will mitigate potential communication pitfalls

between final decision-makers and subordinate groups.

Methods of the Study

In order to collect examples of tools other organizations have used to facilitate the web

development process, a Zoomerang survey was distributed to the National Society of Professional

Marketing Services via its listserv, consisting of 5,800 members at www.smps.org. The same

Zoomerang survey was sent to the membership of Marketing Associates of Spokane (MAS)

www.maspokane.org, which has 70 members, and Spokane Regional MarCom Association

http://www.spokanemarcom.com/, which has 80 members. The aforementioned organizations were

selected because of the high concentration of marketing members. The literature presented in the

previous chapter indicates that marketers are most likely to be involved in the website development

process. The survey was sent to the organizations via email as a hyperlink. The board member

responsible for each organization's website posted it to their website homepage, or sent the link out via

email to their membership.

The survey consists of 12 questions. The first question asked if their organization had

completed a website in the past three years, this was asked to prequalify the survey respondents. If

they answered "yes" they could move on to the rest of the survey. If they answered "no" the survey

taker was asked to terminate the survey because they did not qualify. Questions #2 and #3 asked the

respondent how many people are in their organization and how many office locations their

organization has. These two questions were asked to determine the size and complexity of the

organization. Questions 4-6 were asked to determine who managed the website development process,

21

how many people were in the decision making group and who was the project manager. These

questions were aimed to show the size and complexity of the decision making groups.

Questions 7-8 helped determine the role of the respondent and also all the groups who had

influence in the project. Question #9 was asked to determine which communication tools their

organization used to facilitate the website development process in order to determine best practices,

and to help build the template documents located in the Appendix. Question #9 was to directly answer

research question 1. Question #10 asked the respondents to place in order of importance the key

factors of successful decision making. This question was formulated to address all three research

questions in terms of rational decision making processes.

The largest section to the survey was question #11. This section was based on the five-point

Likert Scale with choices ranging from strong agreement, rated as (5), to strong disagreement, rated as

(1). There was also a not applicable option in case the question did not apply to their organization and

decision making structure.

The Zoomerang survey system tallies the responses and provides percentages for each

question. It also provides statistics in terms of mean, median, mode, range, standard deviation,

standard error, and confidence interval. Also, cross tabulation charts were determined through this

survey tool. In Chapter 4, detailed correlations are presented to address the research questions set forth

in Chapter 2. Also in Chapter 4, an overall list of answers to the survey will be demonstrated in cell

form, including the statistics mentioned above. Individual question results are displayed as bar graphs

with whole numbers. Once the survey was closed, the charts were created through Zoomerang's

"action menu," and are presented in the Appendix A.

22

Validity & Reliability

Validity and reliability are essential elements to a research project. Validity assesses whether

or not the measurement process, assessment, or project actually measures what it was intend to

measure. In research, validity consists of two elements: internal and external validity. Internal validity

is achieved if the results of the study are legitimate because of the way the groups were selected, data

was recorded, or the analysis performed. Through proper study design and execution, high levels of

validity, both internal and external, can be achieved (Hoyel et. al., 2002, p 32).

"Surveys tend to be weak on validity and strong on reliability," (Miller et al., 2005). Because

surveys are not in-person interviews, it is hard to grasp people's true emotions through questions such

as "like or dislike" or "agree or disagree." However, reliability tends to be much clearer, because the

survey "presents all subjects with a standardized stimulus" and it lends itself to mitigating

unreliability. "Careful wording, format, content, etc. can reduce significantly the subject's own

unreliability," (Miller et al., 2005).

The construct for this paper is the theoretical concepts addressed in Chapter 2.The operational

definition for the data collection consists is the survey itself, which contains qualitative and

quantitative responses. For this research project, steps were taken to help ensure internal and external

validity. The sample was drawn from marketing associations, where these groups consist of mostly

marketing professions. These individuals are more likely to participate in the website development

process, which aids in creating a higher validity from the survey. The population size of the survey

was large; however, the results were not dependent on gender, race, age, organization location, or type

of organization, all of which could be limiting factors in data gathering. However, one area for

potential flaw is the inability to determine the respondent's satisfaction with their current job. This

23

factor could affect the way they answer the questions about group decision making, leadership, or

ownership involvement. Although the questions were directed solely at the website development

process, it is possible that prior emotions surrounding other projects or interactions could sway their

answers in one direction or the other.

The survey questions constructed were intended to narrow the field of respondents

appropriately in terms of the research questions. For example, the first question of the survey asked

the respondent if they had completed a website process within the last three years. This question was

asked in an attempt to narrow the field of respondents. However, one respondent answered "no" and

continued taking the survey, instead of terminating the survey as instructed. This survey was then

excluded from the results.

The survey method offered feedback from 43individuals that fit the above mentioned criteria.

The survey was constructed so the responses were confidential. Survey takers were given the option to

provide their name or remain anonymous. Clear instructions at the beginning of the survey

emphasized the voluntary nature of the survey and instructions for completing each question.

24

CHAPTER 4: THE STUDY

Introduction

The data for this project was collected using electronic surveys distributed amongst three

Marketing organizations: Marketing Associates of Spokane, Spokane Regional MarCom Association,

and the Society of Professional Marketing Services. This chapter explains the purpose of the

questions, describes what was discovered, and discusses the results in relation to the research

questions. The intent of this data collection is to determine if creating communication tools aids in the

decision making process. From this data, basic communication tools have been created and are placed

in Appendix C.

Results of the Study

Web-Based Survey

After the distribution of the survey on November 1, 2011 to the abovementioned groups 43

individuals completed the survey. The demographic of the survey group is broad. The groups consist

of marketing professionals male and female with ages roughly ranging from 21-60 years old,

determined through the organization's membership. However, age and gender were not a factor in this

research. The prequalification to take the survey included: creating a new website or revamping a

website within the last three years and being over 18 years of age. No age or gender requirements

were issued because those factors do not reflect the nature of the research questions. The respondents

were from all over the country.

The intent of the web-based survey was to gather information regarding the web development

process in terms of communication in an effort to draw correlations between communication tools,

25

group decision making, project leadership, and ownership involvement. The questions in the survey

were formulated to make comparisons to one another addressing the research questions proposed in

chapter 3. The focus of the reporting will be in cross tabulation reports from question #11. The

subsequent questions were asked to qualify the respondents and or gather the size and role. The set of

questions asked in #11 were most influential to the research questions. See Appendix A for the survey

results.

Cross Tabulation Reporting

In order to answer the research questions set forth in this project, comparisons must be made

between several questions asked in the survey. Each cross tabulation chart is aimed to address each

research question. The research questions addressed previously in the Chapter 2 are as follows:

RQ1: What communication tools should be developed to facilitate a successful web

development process that follows Conrad and Poole's (2005) rational decision-making process

in a complex corporate structure?

RQ2: How will these communication tools allow for rational decision-making to occur

between subordinate group members mitigating majority influence and conformity?

RQ3: How will these communication tools allow for a rational decision-making between

stakeholders and the subordinate group, which mitigate systematically distorted

communication and achieve codetermination?

This cross tabulation method shows the relationship between two or more survey questions. It

allows you to quickly compare how different groups of respondents answer your survey questions. It

26

represents the number of respondents falling into each possible pairing of the answers to the survey

questions.

Chi Squares were also created for each cross tabulation report question. A Chi Square test

calculates how well a series of numbers fits a distribution. The Chi Square statistic compares the

tallies or counts of categorical responses between two (or more) independent groups (Berenson &

Levine, 1999).For the hypothesis to be true See Appendix B for the Chi Squares that correspond to the

cross tabulations reports.

Cross tabulation addressing RQ1

1.) Two variables were compared under #11, which asked the respondents to rank the

questions from strongly disagree to strongly agree with the following statements in terms of the web

development process:

i. the project manager provided communication tools that facilitated the decision making process

and;

ii. the web development team felt they had adequate information to make informed decisions.

The intent of comparing these two questions was to determine the importance of using

communication tools and the effect on the group decision making process. Providing a group with

information needed to make decisions is a key function to Conrad and Poole's (2005) rational

decision-making process. The results showed that a favorable answer to question (i.) directly

correlated to the positive results of (ii.). These results are reinforced Table 1and the Chi Square in

Appendix B.

27

Table 1

The project manager provided

communication tools that

facilitated the decision making

process.

The web development team felt they had adequate information to make informed

decisions.

Disagree Neutral Agree

Disagree 1 3 1

Neutral 0 0 5

Agree 1 2 26

2.) Two more questions were compared under question #11, which asked the respondents to

rank the questions from strongly disagree to strongly agree with the following statements:

iii. The project manager provided communication tools that facilitated the decision making

process and;

iv. ownership viewed the website development process a success.

The intent of comparing these two questions was to determine if establishing tools would

directly affect the success of the web development process. An important factor in Conrad and Poole's

(2005) decision making process is the ability to evaluate the success of the new process. The results

showed that a favorable answer to question (iii.) directly impacted the results of (iv.) indicated in the

chart below. These results are reinforced with Chi Square provided in Appendix B.

28

Table 2

The project manager provided

communication tools that

facilitated the decision making process.

Ownership viewed the website development process a success.


Disagree 2 2 1

Neutral 0 1 4

Agree 0 1 29

Cross tabulations addressing RQ2

1).Two additional questions were compared under #11, which asked the respondents to rank

the questions from strongly disagree to strongly agree with the following statements:

v. The web development team communicated well with each other in order to make decisions in a

timely manner and;

vi. the project manager provided communication tools that facilitated the decision making

process.

The intent of comparing these two questions was to determine if utilizing communication tools

helped the decision making group communicate well with each other. The results showed an overall

positive correlation between the two questions. Also, as mentioned in the validity section in Chapter 3,

speculative influences could be prior dysfunction between team members, or individual's

29

unwillingness to utilize the communication tools. However, even with these influences Table 3shows

that a direct relationship exists between the two questions as well as the Chi Square in Appendix B.

Table 3

The web development team

communicated well with each

other in order to make decisions in a timely manner.

The project manager provided communication tools that facilitated the decision making

process.


Disagree 0 2 4

Neutral 2 0 2

Agree 2 3 26

2.) Two additional questions were compared under #11, which asked the respondents to rank


vii. The web development team had regular meetings during the web development process and;

viii. the organization viewed the final website as a success

The intent of comparing these two questions was to determine if holding regular meetings

contributed to the success of the overall website. Meetings are used to facilitate the decision making

processes, in which communication tools such as agendas are created. The results showed that a

favorable answer to question (vii.) directly impacted the positive results of (viii.) as demonstrated in

the cross tabulation Table 4.These results are also reinforced with Chi Square provide din Appendix

B.

30

Table 4

The web development

team had regular

meetings during the

web development

process.

The organization viewed the final website as a success.


Disagree 1 1 2

Neutral 0 0 4

Agree 1 2 26

Cross tabulation addressing RQ3

1.) Two additional questions were compared under #11, which asked the respondents to rank


ix. Ownership communicated frequently and clearly with the web development team and;

x. ownership stifled the opinions of the web development group.

The intent of comparing these two questions was to determine the communication methods of

ownerships and whether or not the subordinate group felt stifled in any way, thus leading to likelihood

of systematically distorted communication occurring amongst the decision making group(Griffin,

2009, p. 267). The results showed that when the respondent felt that ownership communicated

frequently the percentage of those who felt stifled decreased (Table 5). These results are also

reinforced with Chi Square in Appendix B.

31

Table 5

Ownership communicated frequently and clearly with the

web development

team.

The ownership stifled the opinions of the web development group.


Disagree 3 1 4

Neutral 4 1 0

Agree 16 4 8

2.) Two more questions were compared under #11, which asked the respondents to rank the

questions from strongly disagree to strongly agree with the following statements:

xi. The web development team felt that they were empowered to make decisions on behalf of the

company and;

xii. the web development team felt that ownership supported their decisions and recommendations.

The intent of comparing these two questions was to determine if support from ownership

directly affected the group's ability to make decisions. The results showed that when the group felt that

ownership supported their recommendations they were more likely to feel empowered to make

decisions as a group. Leaderships' support is vital to a team's success according to Kouze and Pozner

(2007). This cross tabulation report further reinforces the opposition to autocratic decision making

processes (Yukl, 2010, p. 94). The results are represented in Table 6, and in the Chi Square in

Appendix B.

32

Table 6

The web development team felt that

they were empowered to make decisions on behalf of the

company.

The web development team felt that ownership supported their decisions and

recommendations.


Disagree 2 3 0

Neutral 0 2 2

Agree 0 2 30

Other Results

The survey was able to determine that forty of the 43 respondents worked in organizations

with over 10 employees, and 28 respondents had more than one office location. These variables allow

for the likelihood of a more complex decision making structure to occur and for more accurate data to

be accumulated that directly reflects RQ1-RQ3. The majority of those assigned as project managers

were from the marketing department, 79% of those project managers had more than one person on

their decision making team which included 51% who had two to five members. The data also

reinforces that the majority of website development processes are lead by marketing professionals. In

terms of validity the sample size yielded responses that fit the criteria for a complex corporate

structure and size of decision making groups.

33

The questions regarding communication tools showed that 63% of respondents used meeting

agendas, 49% used internal memos, and 37% created internal surveys. Question 10 asked the

respondents to rank, in order of importance, key factors in a successful decision making process in

terms of website development. Fifty percent of the respondents viewed having objectives and goals as

most important, followed by a clear decision making structure, trustworthy leader, ownership

involvement, and lastly communication tools.

With the strong connection between having communication tools and overall satisfaction with

the web development process it is essential that question #9 be addressed. Sixty three percent of the

respondents used meeting agendas, 49% used internal memos, 41% created internal surveys, 37%

created a request for qualifications document, and 24% respectively used a RFQ scoring sheet, and a

decision making matrix (See Appendix A). Other tools utilized by respondents included a creative

brief, customer (external) surveys, and Strengths, Weaknesses/Limitations, Opportunities, and Threats

(SWOT) Analyses.

Discussion

The intent of gathering this research was to reinforce the idea that communication tools aid in

the perception of a successful decision making processes and the favorable outcome of the website. As

seen in the abovementioned cross tabulation reports, and the Chi Squares in Appendix B, the survey

was able to show that a relationship exists between creating tools for communication practices and a

successful outcome. It was also able to show the critical connection between a leadership and

ownership's involvement with the subordinate groups.

34

From the data collected, a clear connection existed between having communication tools and a

having a successful outcome via the answers in Licker Scale in question #11. The data also strongly

supports the recommendations of Conrad and Poole's (2005) rational decision making structure. Such

elements included when the web development group regularly met and felt they had adequate

information the data showed that that group was better able to make decisions in a timely fashion.

However, the findings in question #10 indicate that while having communication tools is important a

higher number of respondents felt that establishing goals and objectives was of the highest

importance. This again reflects the first step to the rational decision making model.

As suspected, when respondents answered favorably to questions regarding support from

ownership the overall responses regarding a successful outcome were also positive. According to

Kouze and Pozner (2003) 46% of people ranked supportiveness as a key factor in an admirable leader

(p. 19). Having supportive relationships in business has proven to help "transcend adversity," (p. 236).

When groups are formed to accomplish goals and solve problems support is essential.

Table three sheds light on how providing communication tools can possibly help mitigate

conformity or majority influence (Zhang et al, 2007, p. 54). The communication tools mentioned in

the survey encourage group members to work together rather than apart and on equal footing. Meeting

agendas, surveys, internal memos allowed each group member to be on the same page with that step

of the process.

The results represented in Table 6, show how empowerment of groups can lead to successful

outcomes. The term empowerment is often misunderstood - people think it is something that leaders

give to others, but it is more about setting them free to use their talents (Kouze & Pozner, 2003, p.

35

157). In terms of the questions posed in Table 6, when ownership showed they trusted the group by

liberating or empowering them to make decisions.

Table 4, which cross tabulated the questions regarding having regular meetings and the

perception of success from ownership reflects Vroom and Yetton's normative decision model (1973),

which details the various procedures of decision-making involving multiple subordinates (p. 13). It

appears that when the team had regular meetings to make decisions the ultimate outcome was positive.

Vroom and Yetton (1973) determined that when a leader shares the problem with the group and the

group collectively evaluates and attempts to reach a consensus, better outcomes occur.

Other elements that were reinforced by the survey results include the indication that most

website development processes are not created by just one person, marketing generally plays a very

active role, and ownership is generally vested in the process.

Overall the research and data collected helped aid in answering RQ1-RQ3as it provided

valuable insight into which key elements help aid in the website development process. It was

encouraging to see how positive the results of the survey were. It showed that the organizations took

the task of creating a website seriously. As mentioned throughout this project, planning the process is

vital to the success of any project.

36

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS

Limitations of the Study

These tools are designed to serve as a guide to organizations who have not previously created a

web development process. It is intended for organizations that have multiple stakeholders such as an

internal marketing team, owner(s), manager(s), information technology (IT), etc. Therefore, a small

organization consisting of two or fewer employees may not find these tools beneficial in terms of

group decision-making. Also, the survey specifically narrows feedback to organizations that have

completed this process within the last three years. This timeframe encourages current feedback on

website processes, inhibiting outdated information. Another limitation of this study is the lack of

existing research in internal web development processes. While components such as group decision-

making and rational and non-rational decision-making are widely studied, their specific connection to

internal processes associated with website development is limited.

Another limitation of this method is the sampling group, as it is limited to marketing

professionals. It does not gather feedback from other stakeholder groups. The survey was sent out to

these individuals because of their high likelihood of being involved in the web development process.

The survey questions are designed to limit open-ended questions that gather qualitative results. The

questions, therefore, may not capture all the ways an organization is structured, for example the exact

titles of individuals in the organization. With the "other please specify" option, however, the survey

may limit the absence of this information.

37

Recommendations for Further Research

The topic of group decision-making can be extremely broad; the limitations of this literature

review are therefore framed around rational and non-rational decision-making and how a leader can

best facilitate a healthy, successful process. It is also assumed that when groups are managed by an

effective leader who facilitates open communication a positive work environment, the decision

making group operates more efficiently and the outcome is likely more successful.

Little or no research has been done on the topic of website development decision-making in a

complex corporate structure. Recommendation for further research would be to do an ethnographic

study into one of the qualifying firms who took the survey. Through this method, more detail could be

obtained as to how the process went in terms of interpersonal communications. Face-to-face

interviews with each team member, project manager, and ownership involved would help capture in

more detail the unique dynamic of their process.

Conclusion

In any organization when a problem or project arises decisions need to be made. Most of the

time, these decisions are not made alone. The process by which the organization achieves a successful

outcome depends greatly on positive interactions between team members, thus facilitating a rational

decision making process. Websites are vital to a company's marketing efforts and the standards for

having a quality site have never been higher. When a company has a complex structure creating

processes such as a new website requires a great deal of planning.

From the survey conducted, it was clear that having communication tools greatly influenced

the positive outcome of the group decision making process. However, several factors can affect the

38

way groups make decisions in a positive or negative way and a leader can make or break the process

by how they facilitate rational decision making. If the leader chooses to make decisions without group

input they risk creating dissention among group members leading to poor decision making. Therefore,

the value of face-to-face interaction is critical to achieving successful results. The intention of this

research project to provide tangible evidence that supports the need for a communication tools and a

rational decision making process when developing a new website.

39

REFERENCES

Berenson, M. & Levine, D. (1999).Basic business statistics: Concepts and applications. Upper Saddle

River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Bohman, J. & Rehg, W. (2011). Jürgen habermas, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved November 1, 2011,

fromhttp://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/habermas/

Bolton, S., Kim, R., & O'Gorman, K. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as a dynamic internal

organizational process: A case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(1), 61-74.

Bruce, P., & Shelley, R. (2010).Assessing stakeholder engagement. Communication Journal of New

Zealand, 11(2), 30-48. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Conrad, C., & Poole, M.S. (2005).Strategic organizational communication: in a global economy (6th

ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Denise, F. (n.d). Commentary: Tips for smooth, low-stress website development. Daily Journal of

Commerce. Portland, OR. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Dongsong, Z., Lowry, P., Lina, Z., & Xiaolan, F. (2007).The impact of individualism-collectivism,

social presence, and group diversity on group decision making under majority influence.

Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(4), 53-80. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Easen, P., &Wilcockson, J. (1996). Intuition and rational decision-making in professional thinking: a

false dichotomy?.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24(4), 667-673. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

40

Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pittman

Publishing.

Gladwell, M. (2005).Blink: the power of thinking without thinking. New York, NY: Little

Brown and Company.

Goll, I., & Rasheed, A. (1997). Rational decision making and firm performance: the moderating role

of environment. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 583-591. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Griffin, E. (2009).A First look at communication theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies,

Inc.

Howell, J., Miller, P. Park, H., Sattler, D., Schack, T., Spery, E., Widhalm, S., & Palmquist, M.

(2005).Reliability and validity. Colorado State University Department of English. Retrieved

October 31, 2011, from http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/relval/

Hoyle, R. Harris, M., & Judd, C. (2002).Research methods in social relations. United States of

America: Thomson Learning, Inc.

Kafetsios, K., Nezlek, J., & Vassious, A. (2011).A multilevel analysis of relationships between

leaders' and subordinates' emotional intelligence and emotional outcomes. Journal of applied

social psychology, 41(5), 1121-1144.Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Kouzes J., & Posner, B.(2007). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2003).Credibility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lewis, J. (2010). The advantages of having an internet presence. Hudson Valley Business Journal,

21(41), 8.Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

41

Lowry, P., Roberts, L., Romano Jr., C., Cheney, D., & Hightower, T. (2006). The impact of group

size and social presence on small-group communication. Small Group Research, 37(6), 631-

661. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Mayer, E. (1998). Behaviors leading to more effective decisions in small groups embedded in

organizations. Communication Reports, 11(2), 123-132. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

McLeod, P., & Kettner-Polley, R. (2005).Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Model consent statement for anonymous survey research.( 2008). Institutional Review Board.

Retrieved November 1, 2011,

fromhttp://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0

CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.valdosta.edu%2Fospra%2Fdocuments%2FAnonym

ousSurveyConsentStatement.doc&ei=sECsTviZMuSViQLc__isCw&usg=AFQjCNHdQ6mv7

UH3imdXppdSO7EtbnIIrg&sig2=jVx7Wy5ocXPZv6sFe03kLA

Nonrational.(2011). Collins english dictionary online. Retrieved November 1, 2011,

fromhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonrational

Petro, M. (2011).Plenty to consider when designing a new website. Buffalo Law Journal. Retrieved

from EBSCOhost.

Rational. (2011). Business directory.com. Retrieved November 1, 2011,

fromhttp://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/rational.html

42

Simões, C., Dibb, S., & Fisk, P. (2005).Managing Corporate Identity: An internal Perspective. Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 153-168. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Stewart, J. (2011). Website planning for small business. Enterprise/Salt Lake City, 40(29),

10.Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Vrontis, D., Ktoridou, D., & Melanthiou, Y. (2006). Website design and development as an effective

and efficient promotional tool: A case study in the hotel industry in cyprus. Journal of Website

Promotion, 2(3/4), 125-139.doi:10.1080/15533610802174995

Vroom, H., &Yetton, W. (1973).Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of

Pittsburg Press.

Welch, B. (2011). To build your business build a better website. Fairfield County Business Journal,

47(19), 21.Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Wieseke, J., Ahearne, M., Lam, S., & Dick, R. (2009). The Role of leaders in internal marketing.

Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 123-145.doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.2.123

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall.

43

APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS & RESULTS

Survey questions and results

Opening Statement: You are being asked to participate in a survey research project titled "Website

Development: A study of the communication and decision-making process associated with developing

an effective website within a complex corporate structure, which is being conducted by Leslie Hebert,

a graduate student at Gonzaga University. This survey is completely anonymous. No one, including

the researcher, will know your identity, and your participation is voluntary. You may choose not to

take the survey, stop responding at any time, or to skip any questions. These questions are not

mandatory. You must be at least 18 years of age to participate in this survey (Institutional Review

Board, 2008).

1) Has your organization completed a new website within the last three years?

Yes or No. If "no" the survey will be terminated.

2) What is the size of your organization?(numerical text box)

3) How many office locations does your organization have? (numerical text box)

4) If yes to answer #1, who was responsible (for example project manager) for managing the process

internally?(check all that apply)

a. CEO

b. Marketing Director

c. Business Developer

d. Human Resource Director

e. Other? Please specify

44

5) Was there more than one person working under the project leader internally to facilitate the web

development process? Yes or No.

6) If yes to question 5, what was the total size of the internal web development group?

a) 1-2

b) 2-5

c) 5-10

d) 10+

7) What was your role in the web development process? (check all that apply)

a) Owner in the company (final decision maker)

b) Project Manager

c) Member of the web development team

d) Junior staff member (encompasses those who are not a member of the decision making team)

e) other please specify

8) Which of the following personnel or individuals had input or influences in the website?

a) CEO

b) Managers

c) External website company

d) Other please specify

45

9) What communication tools were developed internally to help aid the website development

decision making process (check all that apply)

a) Internal Surveys

b) Internal Memos

c) Request for Qualifications document (to select the web company or any consultant

applicable to this process)

d) Scoring sheet when selecting the web development firm

e) Decision Making Matrix (i.e. organizational chart explaining the hierarchy of internal

decision making)

f) Meeting agendas

g) Other, please specify

10) Rank in order of importance the key factors in a successful decision making process in terms of

website development (1 being the least important and 5 being the highest importance).

a) A trustworthy & credible leader (project manager)

b) A clear decision making structure

c) Established goals and objectives

d) Owner involvement and support

e) Internal communication tools (for example - org. chart, agendas, etc.)

46

11 )Please rank the following statements on a scale of 1 strongly disagree and 5 strongly agree.

It is important to solicited feedback regarding the web development process from junior

members (junior members = not members of the web development decision making team) of

the organization.

Junior members of the organization were given sufficient opportunities to communicate their

ideas regarding the new website.

The project manager lead the website development team in an organized manner.

The project manager provided communication tools that facilitated the decision making

process.

The web development team communicated well with each other in order to make decisions in a

timely manner.

The web development team had regular meetings during the web development process.

The web development team felt they had adequate information to make informed decisions.

The web development team communicated well with ownership during decision making.

The web development team felt that ownership supported their decisions and

recommendations.

The web development team felt that they were empowered to make decisions on behalf of the

company.

Ownership communicated frequently and clearly with the web development team.

Ownership did not stifle opinions of the web development group.

Ownership viewed the web site development process a success.


47

12) I am over 18 years of age and I understand that this survey is anonymous; however, my answers will be used in a graduate studies research paper at Gonzaga University. Accept or decline.

Statistics:

Mean Median Mode Range Standard Deviation

Standard Error Confidence Interval

3.74 4 5 4 1.38 0.21 [3.37 ‐ 4.16] @ 95%

48

Statistics:



3.05 3 1,5 4 1.76 0.27 [2.52 ‐ 3.57] @95%

49

Statistics:



2.11 2 2 4 0.56 0.19 [1.93 ‐ 2.28] @95%

50

Statistics:



2.56 2 2 4 1.19 0.19 [2.19 ‐ 2.94] @95%

51

Other please specify responses:

1 Survey participant. The survey gathered data from employees to aide in developing a more effective and efficient intranet website.

2 None

3 Senior marketing leader

4 provided some content

Statistics:



2.38 2 2 3 0.81 0.13 [2.10 ‐ 2.64] @95%

52


1 Employees

2 Partners and internal designers

3 user group, business unit site administrators

4 Architects

5 Internal IT Manager

6 IT, Graphics Designer, Web Groups

7 Company Owners

8 Owners

9 PR Company

Statistics:



1.89 2 2 2 0.78 0.08 [1.73 ‐ 2.05] @95%

53


1 I am sure there was more involved; whoever, I do not all of the particulars.

2 Internal meetings and discussions

3 publication ‐ study of 10 best company intranet sites

4 Once a concept was developed we had a meeting to show the principals. But most decisions were made between two of us.

5 SWOT Analysis of current website

6 Customer input and feedback on current website

7 nothing, it was an unplanned effort

8 one on one conversations

9 Creative brief, work plan

10 External surveys

11 Had a website design committee

Statistics:



3.55 3 6 5 1.88 0.20 [3.15 ‐ 3.92] @95%

54

Statistics:

Answer Mean Median Mode Range Standard Deviation

Standard Error

Confidence Interval @95%

A trustworthy & credible leader (project manager) 3.33 4 4 4 1.24 0.23 [2.89 ‐ 3.78]

A clear decision making structure 3.67 4 4 4 0.88 0.16 [3.35 ‐ 3.98]

Established goals and objectives 3.94 5 5 4 1.24 0.21 [3.53 ‐ 4.35]

Owner involvement and support 3.03 3 2 4 1.35 0.22 [2.62 ‐ 3.45]

Internal communication tools (for example ‐ org. chart,

agendas, etc.) 2.05 2 1 4 1.29 0.20 [1.64 ‐ 2.44]

55

In regards to your internal website process please rank the following statements:

Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Somewhat

Neutral Agree

Somewhat Strongly Agree

N/A Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option.

5 4 3 2 1

It is important to solicited feedback regarding the web development process from junior members (junior members = not members of the web development decision making team) of the organization.

1 4 5 18 12 1

2% 10% 12% 44% 29% 2%

Junior members of the organization were given sufficient opportunities to communicate their ideas regarding the new website.

5 4 9 15 6 1

12% 10% 22% 38% 15% 2%


0 4 0 15 22 0

0% 10% 0% 37% 54% 0%

The project manager provided communication tools that facilitated the decision making process.

1 4 5 12 18 1

2% 10% 12% 29% 44% 2%

The web development team communicated well with each other in order to make decisions in a timely manner.

1 5 4 16 14 0

2% 12% 10% 40% 35% 0%


1 3 4 15 16 0

3% 8% 10% 38% 41% 0%


0 2 5 17 14 1

0% 5% 13% 44% 36% 3%


2 0 5 12 19 2

5% 0% 12% 30% 48% 5%

The web development team felt that ownership supported their decisions and recommendations.

0 2 7 15 15 1

0% 5% 18% 38% 38% 2%

The web development team felt that they were empowered to make decisions on behalf of the company.

1 5 4 18 13 0

2% 12% 10% 44% 32% 0%

Ownership communicated 3 5 5 18 8 1

56

frequently and clearly with the web development team.

8% 12% 12% 45% 20% 2%

Ownership stifled the opinions of the web development group.

10 12 6 11 1 1

24% 29% 15% 27% 2% 2%


0 2 4 15 18 2

0% 5% 10% 37% 44% 5%


1 1 4 15 16 4

2% 2% 10% 37% 39% 10%

Question 11.) Statistics:

Mean Median Mode Range

Standard Deviation

Standard Error

Confidence Interval @95%

It is important to solicited feedback regarding the web development process from junior members (junior members = not members of the web development decision making team) of the organization.

2.1 2 2 4 1.03 0.16 [1.78 ‐ 2.42]

Junior members of the organization were given sufficient opportunities to communicate their ideas regarding the new website.

2.67 2 2 4 1.24 0.2 [2.28 ‐ 3.06]


1.66 1 1 3 0.91 0.14 [1.38 ‐ 1.94]

The project manager provided communication tools that facilitated the decision making process.

1.95 2 1 4 1.11 0.18 [1.61 ‐ 2.29]

The web development team communicated well with each other in order to make decisions in a timely manner.

2.08 2 2 4 1.1 0.17 [1.74 ‐ 2.41]


1.92 2 1 4 1.04 0.17 [1.60 ‐ 2.25]


1.87 2 2 3 0.84 0.14 [1.60 ‐ 2.14]

57


1.79 1.5 1 4 1.04 0.17 [1.46 ‐ 2.12]

The web development team felt that ownership supported their decisions and recommendations.

1.9 2 1,2 3 0.88 0.14 [1.62 ‐ 2.17]

The web development team felt that they were empowered to make decisions on behalf of the company.

2.1 2 2 4 1.07 0.17 [1.77 ‐ 2.42]

Ownership communicated frequently and clearly with the web development team.

2.41 2 2 4 1.19 0.19 [2.04 ‐ 2.78]

Ownership stifled the opinions of the web development group.

3.48 4 4 4 1.22 0.19 [3.10 ‐ 3.85]


1.74 2 1 3 0.85 0.14 [1.48 ‐ 2.01]


1.81 2 1 4 0.94 0.15 [1.51 ‐ 2.11]

58

APPENDIX C: CHI SQUARES

Chi Square Ledged

Null hypothesis of no differences in the two population proportions Ho: p1 = p2

Alternative hypothesis that the two population proportions are different. Ho: p1 ≠ p2

Chi Square Degrees of Freedom

3-1 = 2 x 3-1 = 2

2x2 = 4 degrees of freedom (df)

Degrees of Freedom Equal 4

10.00% 7.8

5.00% 9.5

2.50% 11.1

1.00% 11.7

10.00% 13.2 99.99%

Table 1Chi Square Tabulations:

Q1 = The project manager provided communication tools that facilitated the decision making process

Q2 = The web development team felt they had adequate information to make informed decisions.

Allocation Table Questions 1 & 2

Question Agree Neutral Disagree Total

Q1 30 5 5 40

Q2 26 2 1 29

56 7 6 69

59


Question Agree

Observed ‐ fo Agree fe 1

Neutral fo

Neutral fe 2

Disagree fo

Disagree fe 3

Q1 30 32.46 5.00 4.06 5.00 3.48

Q2 26 23.54 2.00 2.94 1.00 2.52

Chi Squared Formula

Q1 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q2

Chi Squared = ∑ fo‐fe2 =

fo ‐ fe2 fo ‐ fe2 fo ‐ fe2 fo ‐ fe2 fo ‐ fe2 fo ‐ fe2

fe fe fe fe fe fe fe

Quotient Q1

Quotient Q1

Quotient Q1

Quotient Q2

Quotient Q2

Quotient Q2 Total

0.19

0.22 0.67

0.26

0.30

0.92 2.55

Chi or X2 = 2.55

The step to calculate Chi Square is to compare the Total to the Critical Values. In this case, 2.55 <13.20 (One -Tail Test), which means it's even more than 99.9% significant. Null hypothesis is rejected. Accept the null hypothesis that the two population proportions are the same.


Q1 = The project manager provided communication tools that facilitated the decision making process.

Q2 = Ownership viewed the website development process a success.



Q1 32 5 5 42

Q2 34 4 2 40

66 9 7 82

60


Question Agree


Neutral fo

Neutral fe 2

Disagree fo

Disagree fe 3

Q1 32 33.80 5.00 4.61 5.00 3.59

Q2 34 32.20 4.00 4.39 2.00 3.41

Chi Squared Formula

Q1 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q2




Quotient Q1

Quotient Q1

Quotient Q1

Quotient Q2

Quotient Q2

Quotient Q2 Total

0.10

0.03 0.56

0.10

0.03

0.59 1.41

Chi or X2 = 1.41

The step to calculate Chi Square is to compare the Total to the Critical Values. In this case, 1.41 < 13.20 (One -Tail Test), which means it's even more than 99.9% significant. Null hypothesis is rejected. Accept the null hypothesis that the two population proportions are the same.

61


Q1 = The web development team communicated well with each other in order to make decisions in a timely manner.

Q2 = The project manager provided communication tools that facilitated the decision making process



Q1 34 4 6 44

Q2 32 5 4 41

66 9 10 85


Question Agree

Observed ‐ fo Agreefe 1

Neutral fo

Neutral fe 2

Disagree fo

Disagree fe 3

Q1 34 34.16 4.00 4.66 6.00 5.18

Q2 32 31.84 5.00 4.34 4.00 4.82

Chi Squared Formula

Q1 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q2




Quotient Q1

Quotient Q1

Quotient Q1

Quotient Q2

Quotient Q2

Quotient Q2 Total

0.00

0.09 0.13

0.00

0.10

0.14 0.47

Chi or X2 = 0.47

The step to calculate Chi Square is to compare the Total to the Critical Values. In this case, .47 < 13.20 (One -Tail Test), which means it's even more than 99.9% significant. Null hypothesis is rejected. Accept the null hypothesis that the two population proportions are the same.

62


Q1 = The web development team had regular meetings during the web development process.

Q2 = The organization viewed the final website as a success.



Q1 33 4 4 41

Q2 32 3 2 37

65 7 6 78


Question Agree


Neutral fo

Neutral fe 2

Disagree fo

Disagree fe 3

Q1 33 34.17 4.00 3.68 4.00 3.15

Q2 32 30.83 3.00 3.32 2.00 2.85

Chi Squared Formula

Q1 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q2




Quotient Q1

Quotient Q1

Quotient Q1

Quotient Q2

Quotient Q2

Quotient Q2 Total

0.04

0.03 0.23

0.04

0.03

0.25 0.62

Chi or X2 = 0.62

The step to calculate Chi Square is to compare the Total to the Critical Values. In this case, 0.62< 13.2 (One -Tail Test), which means it's even more than 99.9% significant. Null hypothesis is rejected. Accept the null hypothesis that the two population proportions are the same.

63

Table 5 Chi Square Tabulations:

Q1 = Ownership communicated frequently and clearly with the web development team.

Q2 = Ownership stifled the opinions of the web development group.



Q1 28 5 8 41

Q2 12 6 22 40

40 11 30 81


Question Agree


Neutral fo

Neutral fe 2

Disagree fo

Disagree fe 3

Q1 28 20.25 5.00 5.57 8.00 15.19

Q2 12 19.75 6.00 5.43 22.00 14.81

Chi Squared Formula

Q1 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q2




Quotient Q1

Quotient Q1

Quotient Q1

Quotient Q2

Quotient Q2

Quotient Q2 Total

2.97 0.06 3.40 3.04

0.06

3.48

13.01

Chi or X2 = 13.01

The step to calculate Chi Square is to compare the Total to the Critical Values. In this case, 13.01 >13.20 (One -Tail Test), which shows that the Alternate Hypothesis is true and that the two populations proportions are different.

64

Table 6 Chi Square Tabulations:

Q1 = The web development team felt that they were empowered to make decisions on behalf of the company.

Q2 = The web development team felt that ownership supported their decisions and recommendations


Question Strongly Agree/ Somewhat Agree

Neutral/ Disagree Somewhat

Strongly Disagree/

N/A Total

Q1 32 4 6 42

Q2 32 7 2 41

64 11 8 83


Question Agree


Neutral fo

Neutral fe 2

Disagree fo

Disagree fe 3

Q1 32 32.39 4.00 5.57 6.00 4.05

Q2 32 31.61 7.00 5.43 2.00 3.95

Chi Squared Formula

Q1 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q2




Quotient Q1

Quotient Q1

Quotient Q1

Quotient Q2

Quotient Q2

Quotient Q2 Total

0.00

0.44 0.94

0.00

0.45

0.96 2.81

Chi or X2 = 2.81

The step to calculate Chi Square is to compare the Total to the Critical Values. In this case, 2.81 < 13.20 (One -Tail Test), which means it's even more than 99.9% significant. Null hypothesis is rejected. Accept the null hypothesis that the two population proportions are the same.

65

APPENDIX C: COMMUNICATION TOOLS

Website Decision Making Matrix Template

Each office (or singular office) will have a small website development group that will be used to solicit feedback and opinion, as needed, through the development process. These groups will help the respective representative gain broader input to bring to (X1) who is driving the overall project. The intent of these development groups is that each individual will being sharing an opinion that is representative of others in their office, not only their own voice. The goal is that the teams will represent the sentiments of the entire company so that we can see that the website adequately represents the rich diversity of the company. These development groups are as follows:

Office A Office B Office C Office D Office E

Names 1. 2. 3.

Names 1. 2. 3.

Names1. 2. 3.

Names1. 2. 3.

Names 1. 2. 3.

The web development team will be led by (X1). (X1) will act as the main point of contact (POC) for the project with the web developer. (X1) will be responsible for relaying communication from the developer to the web development team for response and action. Throughout the project, the web developer will work to identify tasks to be completed and needed input. At each solicitation for information, (X1) will pull the web development team together to discuss what is needed, and at that point (X1) will decide if it is necessary to poll the web development groups for perspective. At key milestones during the overall development, (X1) will be presenting the efforts made by the web development team to (X2) for feedback. (X2) will be responsible for mitigating any disagreement that may arise amongst team members in order to present clear feedback to (X1) at milestone phases. Should, at any point during the project, an issue arise due to conflicting input from the development groups that is unable to be resolved by the web development group, (X1) will take this issue to (X2). Together they will decide whether to take it to the larger group of owners for resolution, or (X2) will make the call as to what the decision will be. X 1 = Website Project Manager X 2 = Owner responsible for making final decisions or mitigating disagreements *This is only a template and suggestion for decision making. Each organization is different structurally.

66

Internal Survey (template)

This survey can be web based or in print form. The intent of this survey is to determine goals and objectives of the new site before the development of the Request for Qualifications to the web development firm.

* These questions depend on the type of organization - nonprofit, service firm, or a product company etc.; therefore, the questions can vary. Also the questions can vary if this is a revamp to the current site or a brand new site. The intent is to keep this survey short to gather as many completed survey's as possible, but still gather enough information to guide the RFQ process.

1. What message or impression do you want our audience to take away from our website?

Open ended answer box

2. What should be the primary purpose of the website?

Gain more business Recruit employees Sell more products Disseminate information Other please specify

3. What do you not like about our current website? (only if this is a revamp of a current site)

Design Function Other please specify

4. Please list websites you like here.


5. What do you think users will want most from our site?


6. Provide three adjectives that you should be conveyed through the website (for example fun, professional, tech savvy).


67

External Survey (template)

This survey can be web based or in print form. The intent of this survey is to determine goals and objectives of the new site before the development of the Request for Qualifications to the web development firm.

* These questions depend on the type of organization - nonprofit, service firm, or a product company etc.; therefore, the questions can vary. Also the questions can vary if this is a revamp to the current site or a brand new site. The intent is to keep this survey short to gather as many completed survey's as possible, but still gather enough information to guide the RFQ process.

1. What message or impression do you get from our current site?


2. What areas should be improved?

Design

Organization

Content

Functionality

4. Please list what elements you would like to see included in our site. (i.e. Social Media, Video, Blogs, etc.)


5. What do you want most from our site?


6. Provide three adjectives that should be conveyed through the website (for example fun, professional, tech savvy).


68

In House Memorandum (template)

Date: XX-XX-XXXX

To: Stakeholders, owners, board members, etc.

From:: Project Manager

Subject: Website Development

The following memorandum details the need for new website (or refresh of the current) in order to gain approval and funding.

Why a new website?:

In this section describe the reasons your organization should create this new site. For example:

"The website should look fresh and appealing, and promote an image of success and stability in order to attract and retain visitors on a daily basis."

"Creating a website will not only give us the chance to align it with our current message, it also gives us the opportunity to think about where we are heading and to plan for the future. It allows us to sit down and really work out a strategy, learn about your clients, our competition, and set new business goals and success criteria."

"We want a site that reflects where we are heading, not where we have been. This is what gives the impression of it being current and fresh."

Other items to consider mentioning in this section Benefits to the company Industry trends and best practices

Client Feedback:

Insert client feedback in form of quotes as to their impression of the organizations current website or lack thereof. Gathered either by surveys (see Appendix #) or informal conversations.

Competitors sites:

In this section list competitors sites that are well done to provide examples of the quality your organization is aspiring to be.

69

Budget:

List the anticipated budget determined by quotes from web developers. Include a detailed list of what this budget includes (design, photography, video,

social media, search engine optimization, etc.)

Timeframe:

List in this section the anticipated time frame in which the website process will take place

Evaluation of Success:

Determine a measurable outcome method. Survey gathering feedback from the organization. Hit rates from Google Analytics.

70

Sample Organizational Chart

71

Sample Organizational Chart II

72

Website Request for Qualifications (RFQ)

SECTION ONE This section is to give the website company an idea of who you are in order to better answer the RFQ questions.

Your Company’s Information: For Example:

Organization’s locations

Number of employees

Services or products provided

Markets

Vision

Mission

Values

Years in businesses

Branding elements (provide elements visually)

Tagline if applicable - with description of this tagline.

Current website - if applicable.

Competitors: List competitors sites in each market: Office 1

X X X

Office 2

X X X

Office 3

X X X

73

Cont. Website Request for Qualifications (RFQ) SECTION TWO

Target Audience

Current audience

Prospective new audience

Prospective new hires/recruits SECTION THREE

Goals Presently Identified By the Organization

(Insert name of your organization)hopes to accomplish thesegoals with the website.

* determined by the internal survey

X

X

X SECTION FOUR

Response Requirements:

Please incorporate the selection criteria in your responses(these questions are optional, this is

only a template).

Provide a description of your understanding of our project along with a lump estimate of hours needed to complete the project.

Outline your firm’s approach to developing and building this website as outlined to meet our purpose, goals, and proposed functionality. Incorporate your understanding of our industry’s needs.

Outline your firm’s approach to guiding (insert company name here) through the process of managing our internal process of collecting information from stakeholders from varying offices and from various levels of the company.

Demonstrate your firm’s ability to be responsive.

Provide a business overview of your company including: a. Years in business

74

Cont. Website Request for Qualifications (RFQ) b. Key audience c. Expertise in your industry and ours d.Statement of the organizations long-term outlook e. Business philosophy f. Demonstrate financial health by providing a copy of your current financials, which will be treated confidentially.

Display previous successful examples of your web design work and accompanying CMS systems along with a minimum of three reference names with phone numbers. Each example should have a reference, cite the cost of the site, and describe the functionality of the site.

Project team resumes for this project. a. Provide each team member’s name and position. b. Provide a concise biography of each team member. c. Describe the role they will play in working on our project. d. Provide location of key staff members.

Describe the project management methodology you will use for this project.

Demonstrate your ability to integrate with a changing network system.

Describe unique qualities, services or products your team will bring to the project.

Financial capability/stability, and terms of payment.

Selection Criteria *suggested criteria and weighted measure

Relevant Experience, Credentials, and Quality of Work: graphically pleasing, functional and easy to navigate, and CMS is easy to manage and update. Please provide examples of each. 20%

Expertise in our industry: knowledge of our markets, clients, and competitors. 10%

Demonstrated ability to organize, facilitate, and incorporate input gathered from five geographically and service diverse offices. 25%

Modular approach (ability to expand). 10%

Stability of proposer. 10%

Ability to work within a budget. 15%

Graphics, SEO, CMS, etc. - all project elements all in-house. Turn-key provider. 10%

Estimate of schedule to complete the entire project. 0%

75

(Insert company name here)intends to shortlist three qualified firms for oral interview before making a final consultant selection.

Budget

(Insert company name here)will determine the selection of the consultant based first upon qualifications to complete the work. Fees and the final scope of work issues will then be negotiated with the successful firm. Project Completion Date

(Insert company name here)is hoping to have this redevelopment completed within(insert timeframe range)notice to proceed is given. This is negotiable and a schedule will be agreed upon with the selected consultant at the outset of the project.

Example Sites The following are some sites that we recommend viewing to understand what it is that Organization prefers for sites. • X • X • X • X • X

(Insert company name here)reserve the right to modify the details of this RFQ at its discretion.

76

RFQ Scoring Sheet

Score (suggested) Definition

1 Didn't satisfy criteria set forth 2 Partially satisfied criteria set forth 3 Satisfied all criteria set forth

4 Met and exceeded all criteria set forth

Criteria # Item Score Weight Weighted

Score Remarks 1 x% 0 2 X% 0 3 X% 0 4 X% 0 5 X% 0

TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE 0

Perfect Score = X

Response Requirements: Please incorporate the selection criteria in each section listed below. 1. Section 1 2. Section 2 3. Section 3 4. Section 4 5. Section 5

website development: a study of the communication and decision

Documents