A classification of concepts of technology as operations technology, materials technology, and knowledge technology, is proposed. The construction of scales measuring operations technology at an organizational level of conceptualization, makes it possible to test the broad hypothesis that organizational technology is strongly related to organizational structure, by linear and nonlinear correlational analysis. On a stratified sample of diverse organizations in the English midlands, and on a subset of manufacturing organizations, this sweeping technological imperative hypothesis was generally not supported in successive tests. Operations technology was, however, associated with some variables, which are similar in that all were job-counts denoting the proportions employed in specified categories. This result, together with a detailed comparison with Woodward's findings in south-east Essex, leads to a reinterpretation of the role of technology. Operations technology is shown to affect only those structural variables immediately impinged on by the workflow. Thus the smaller the organization the more completely its structure is pervaded by the immediate effects of this technology; the larger the organization the more these effects are confined to variables such as the proportions employed in activities that are specifically linked with workflow, and technology is not related to the wider administrative and hierarchical structure. This interpretation, it is suggested, offers a synthesis for the long-standing divergence in organization theory between statements by classical management writers of management principles irrespective of technology, and the stress by behavioral scientists on the relevance of technology.

The taxonomy of structures of work organizations presented is based on three previously established empirical dimensions: structuring of activities, concentration of authority, and line control of workflow. On the basis of a sample of 52 organizations in the English Midlands, clusters of organizations on these three dimensions are examined and a sevenfold classification of organization structures is developed. These are identified as full bureaucracy, nascent full bureaucracy, work flow bureaucracy, nascent workflow bureaucracy, preworkflow bureaucracy, personnel bureaucracy, and implicitly structured organizations, their characteristic contextual features as to size, technology, dependence on other organizations, and ownership are demonstrated, and a possible developmental sequence is suggested. The results indicate that the concept of a single bureaucratic type is no longer useful, since bureaucracy takes different forms in different settings.

Aspects of organizational context that have been held to be relevant to organizational structure were examined. Seven primary concepts of organizational context, viz.: origin and history, ownership and control, size, charter, technology, location and dependence on other organizations, were analyzed and operationally defined scales constructed. These were used as independent variables in a multivariate' regression analysis to predict three underlying dimensions of organization structure previously established. The size of the correlations obtained on a sample of 46 organizations in the English Midlands (0.75 with structuring of activities using size and technology as predictors; 0.75 with concentration of authority using dependence and location as predictors; 0.57 with line control of workflow, using the operating variability scale of charter as a predictor) indicates that these aspects of context are salient for structure. The framework of contextual and structural variables is seen as making possible processual studies on a much more rigorous comparative basis than before.'