Upload
caroline-paul
View
226
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-2
A Sample Organization Chart
C h ie fA cco u nta n t
B u dg etA n a lyst
V ice P re sid e n tF in an ce
P la n tS u pe rin ten de nt
M a in te na n ceS u pe rin ten de nt
V ice P re sid e n tM a nu fa c tu ring
T ra in ingS p e c ia list
B e ne fitsA d m in is tra to r
D ire c to rH u m an R e so u rces
C E O
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-3
Organizational Structures
Functional Functional + Cross-
Functional Linkages
Divisional Matrix Horizontal Modular Hybrid
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-4
Symptoms of Structural Deficiency Decision making
is delayed / poor quality:
Overloaded at top Insufficient
delegation to bottom Diagnosis:
Inadequate vertical (esp.) linkages
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-5
Symptoms of Structural Deficiency Lack of adaptive
response: departmental ‘walls’ internal focus Diagnosis:
Inadequate horizontal and external linkages
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-6
Symptoms of Structural Deficiency Too much
conflict is evident:
Lack of goal congruence
Sub-optimization Diagnosis:
Inadequate horizontal linkages
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-7
The Relationship of Organization Design to Efficiency vs. Learning Outcomes
Horizontal OrganizationDesigned for Learning (Exploration)
Vertical OrganizationDesigned for Efficiency (Exploitation)
DominantStructuralApproach
Horizontal structure is dominant• Shared tasks, empowerment• Relaxed hierarchy, few rules• Horizontal, face-to-face communication• Many teams and task forces• Decentralized decision making
Vertical structure is dominant• Specialized tasks• Strict hierarchy, many rules• Vertical communication and reporting systems• Few teams, task forces or integrators• Centralized decision making
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-8
Ladder of Non-Structural Mechanisms for Vertical Linkage and Coordination
HIGH
LOW
LOW
Hierarchical Referral
Rules & Plans
Vertical Information Systems
Am
ount
of
Hori
zonta
lC
oord
inati
on R
equir
ed
Information Capacity of Linkage Mechanism
H IGH
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-9
Ladder of Non-Structural Mechanisms for Horizontal Linkage and Coordination
HIGH
LOW
LOW
Information Systems
Direct Contact
Task Forces
Full-time Integrators
Teams
Am
ount
of
Hori
zonta
lC
oord
inati
on R
equir
ed
Cost of Coordination in Time and Human Resources
H IGH
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-10
Project Manager Locationin the Structure (Full-time Integrators)
President
FinanceDepartment
FinancialAccountant
BudgetAnalyst
ManagementAccountant
EngineeringDepartment
ProductDesigner
Draftsperson
ElectricalDesigner
MarketingDepartment
MarketResearcher
AdvertisingSpecialist
MarketPlanner
PurchasingDepartment
Buyer
Buyer
Buyer
Project ManagerNew
Product B
Project ManagerNew
Product A
Project ManagerNew
Product C
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-11
Teams Used for Horizontal Coordination at Wizard Software Company
VideogamesChief Engineer
Programming Vice Pres
Customer ServiceManager
Videogames Basic Research Supervisor
Research Vice Pres
Applications and Testing Supervisor
ProcurementSupervisor
Videogames Sales Manager
Marketing Vice Pres.
Memory Products International Manager
Advertising Manager
Memory Products Chief Programmer
Memory ProductsResearch Supervisor
Memory Products Sales Manager
President
Videogames Product Team
Memory Products Team
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-12
Structural Design Options for Grouping Employees into Departments
P ro du ctD iv is io n 1
P ro du ctD iv is io n 2
P ro du ctD iv is io n 3
C E O
Engineering Marketing Manufacturing
CEO
FunctionalGrouping
DivisionalGrouping
Source: Adapted from David Nadler and Michael Tushman,Strategic Organization Design (Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman, 1988), 68.
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-13
Strengths and Weaknesses of Functional Organization Structure
STRENGTHS: Allows economies of
scale within functional departments
Enables in-depth knowledge and skill development
Enables organization to accomplish functional goals
Is best with only one or a few products
WEAKNESSES: Slow response time to
environmental changes May cause decisions to
pile on top, hierarchy overload
Leads to poor horizontal coordination among departments
Results in less innovation Involves restricted view
of organizational goalsSource: Adapted from Robert Duncan, “What Is the Right Organization Structure? Decision Tree Analysis Provides the Answer,” Organizational Dynamics (Winter 1979): 429.
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-14
Geographical Structurefor Apple Computer
CEOSteve Jobs
AppleEurope
ApplePacific
France
AppleProducts
Asia
Japan
Australia
AppleAmericas
Canada
Latin America/Caribbean
SalesService andMarketingto Regions
Source: www.apple.com
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-15
Strengths and Weaknesses of Divisional Organization Structure
STRENGTHS: Suited to fast change in
unstable environment Leads to client satisfaction
because product responsibility and contact points are clear
Involves high coordination across functions
Allows units to adapt to differences in products, regions, clients
Best in large organizations with several products
Decentralizes decision-making
WEAKNESSES: Eliminates economies
of scale in functional departments
Leads to poor coordination across product lines
Eliminates in-depth competence and technical specialization
Makes integration and standardization across product lines difficult
Source: Adapted from Robert Duncan, “What Is theRight Organization Structure? Decision Tree AnalysisProvides the Answer,” Organizational Dynamics(Winter 1979): 431.
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-16
Reorganization from Functional Structure to Divisional Structure at Info-Tech
R&D Manufacturing Accounting Marketing
Info-TechPresident
FunctionalStructure
R & D M fg A c c tg M k tg
E le c tro n ic
P ub lis h ing
R & D M fg A c c tg M k tg
O ffi c e
A uto m a tio n
R & D M fg A c c tg M k tg
V irtua l
R e a lity
I n fo -T e c h
P re s ide n t
DivisionalStructure
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-17
Structural Design Options for Grouping Employees (Continued)
MultifocusedGrouping
CEO
ManufacturingMarketing
ProductDivision 2
ProductDivision 1
Source: Adapted from David Nadler and Michael Tushman, Strategic Organization Design (Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman, 1988), 68.
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-18
Product
Manager A
Product
Manager B
Product
Manager C
Product
Manager D
Directorof ProductOperations
DesignVice
President
MfgVice
President
MarketingVice
PresidentController
Procure-ment
Manager
President
Dual-Authority Structure in a Matrix Organization
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-19
STRENGTHS: Achieves coordination
necessary to meet dual demands from customers
Flexible sharing of human resources across products
Suited to complex decisions and frequent changes in unstable environment
Provides opportunity for both functional and product skill development
Best in medium-sized organizations with multiple products
WEAKNESSES: Causes participants to experience
dual authority, which can be frustrating and confusing
Means participants need good interpersonal skills and extensive training
Is time consuming; involves frequent meetings and conflict resolution sessions
Will not work unless participants understand it and adopt collegial rather than vertical-type relationships
Requires great effort to maintain power balance
Strengths and Weaknesses of Matrix Organization Structure
Source: Adapted from Robert Duncan, “What Is the RightOrganization Structure? Decision Tree Analysis Provides theAnswer,”Organizational Dynamics (Winter 1979): 429.
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-20
Structural Design Options for Grouping Employees (Continued)
HorizontalGrouping
CEO
FinanceHuman Resources
CoreProcess 2
CoreProcess 1
Source: Adapted from David Nadler and Michael Tushman,Strategic Organization Design (Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman, 1988), 68.
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-21
A Horizontal Structure
Team3
Team2
Team1
TopManagement
Team
Team3
Team2
Team1
Customer
Customer
ProcessOwner
ProcessOwner
Testing Product Planning
Research Market
Analysis
New Product Development Process
Distrib. Material
Flow Purchasing Analysis
Procurement and Logistics ProcessSources: Based on Frank Ostroff,The Horizontal Organization, (New York:Oxford University Press, 1999); John A. Byrne,“The Horizontal Corporation,” Business Week, December 20, 1993, 76-81; and Thomas A. Stewart,“The Search for the Organization of Tomorrow,”Fortune, May 19, 1992, 92-98.
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-22
Strengths and Weaknesses of Horizontal Structure
STRENGTHS: Flexibility and rapid response to
changes in customer needs Directs the attention of everyone
toward the production and delivery of value to the customer
Each employee has a broader view of organizational goals
Promotes a focus on teamwork and collaboration—common commitment to meeting objectives
Improves quality of life for employees by offering them the opportunity to share responsibility, make decisions, and be accountable for outcomes
WEAKNESSES: Determining core processes to
organize around is difficult and time-consuming
Requires changes in culture, job design, management philosophy, and information and reward systems
Traditional managers may balk when they have to give up power and authority
Requires significant training of employees to work effectively in a horizontal team environment
Can limit in-depth skill development
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-23
Modular Structure
Product Design
Manufacturing
HR Admin
Procurement & Distribution
Widgets Inc.
People ‘R’ Us
Cutting Edge Design
Build MastersAce Logistics
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-24
Strengths and Weaknesses of Modular Design
Strengths- Enables small org’s to
obtain talent & resources worldwide
- Gives immediate reach & scale without large investments in factories, equip, distribution
- Enables the org to be highly flexible & responsive to change
- Reduces administrative overhead costs
Weaknesses- Managers do not have hands-on
control of many activities and employees (Quality assurance)
- Requires time & skill to manage relationships and possible conflict with contract partners
- There is a risk of organizational failure if a partner fails to deliver or goes out of business
- Employee commitment weakened by divided loyalties and feeling that can be replaced
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-25
FunctionalStructure
Hybrid StructurePart 1. Sun Petrochemical Products
President
TechnologyVice
President
FinancialServices
Vice Pres.
HumanResourcesDirector
ChiefCounsel
ChemicalsVice
President
LubricantsVice
President
FuelsVice
President
ProductStructure
Sources: Based on Linda S. Ackerman, “Transition Management: An In-Depth Look at Managing Complex Change,” Organizational Dynamics (Summer 1982): 46-66;and Frank Ostroff, The Horizontal Organization, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), Fig. 2.1, 34.
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-26
Hybrid StructurePart 2. Ford Customer Service Division
Director andProcess Owner
Director andProcess Owner
Sources: Based on Linda S. Ackerman, “Transition Management:An In-Depth Look at Managing Complex Change,” Organizational Dynamics(Summer 1982): 46-66; and Frank Ostroff, The Horizontal Organization, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), Fig. 2.1, 34.
HumanResources
Strategy andCommunicationFinance
Vice President andGeneral Manager
Teams
Teams
Director andProcess Owner Teams
Technical Support Group
Vehicle Service Group
Parts Supply / Logistics Group
FunctionalStructure
Hori
zon
tal S
truct
ure
Teams
Teams
Thomson Learning© 2004 3-27
The Relationship of Structure to Organization’s Need for Efficiency vs. Learning
Horizontal
Structure
DominantStructuralApproach
Horizontal:• Coordination• Learning• Innovation• Flexibility
Vertical:• Control• Efficiency• Stability• Reliability
MatrixStructu
re
DivisionalStructure
Functional withcross-functional
teams, integratorsFunctionalStructure
Modular
Structure