Posts Tagged Software

MATRIX ORGANIZATION-2

 

This is the output or transaction side of the matrix. Depending on how many people holding a specialist orientation, either resource or output, the organization needs, these groupings can develop several echelons in response to the practical limits of the span of control of any line manager. At the foot of the matrix is the two-boss manager. This manager is responsible for the performance of a defined package of work. The manager is given agreed-upon financial resources and performance targets by superiors on the output side, and negotiated human and equipment resources from the resource manager. The two streams, taken together, constitute the work package. The manager is responsible for managing these resources to meet performance targets. To perform, the manager must handle high volumes of information, weigh alternatives, make commitments on behalf of the organization as a whole, and be prepared to be judge by the results. A manager of blinds company who are selling vertical blinds and roman shades online, need to use all information related to online business as well as the real customers. This form of organization induces the manager to think and behave like a general manager.

 

Even in a fully developed matrix organization, only a relatively small proportion of the total number of people in the organization will be directly in the matrix.

Advertisements

Leave a Comment

MATRIX ORGANIZATION

Matrix organization structure originated with the United states Aero Space Programme of the 1960s and the Aero space agency’s extraordinary and conflicting needs for system (for innovation) and order (for regulation and control). A matrix organization employs a multiple command system that includes not only a multiple command structure, but also related support mechanisms and associated organization culture and behaviour pattern. A matrix organization is not desirable unless (i) the organization must cope with two or more critical sectors (functions, products, services, areas); manufacturing of blinds and selling of roller shades, woven wood shades and paperless office management makes it complicated.

 

(ii) Organizational tasks are uncertain, complex and highly interdependent; industries like term life insurance, hotel and motels.

 

The structure involves the dual chains of command. The system must also operate along two dimensions simultaneously: planning, controlling, appraising and rewarding, etc., along both functional and product lines at the same time. Moreover, every organization has a culture of its own and, for the matrix to succeed the ethos or spirit of the organization must be consonant with the new form. Finally, people’s behaviour, especially those with two bosses and those who share subordinates, must reflect and understanding and an ability to work within such overlapping boundaries.

Leave a Comment

Product versus Functional Forms-5

If functional structure is adopted, projects may fall behind; if product/project organization is chosen technology and specialization may not develop optimally. Therefore, the need for a compromise between the two becomes imperative.

 

The possible compromises between product and functional bases include, in ascending order of structural complexity:

 

  1. The use of cross-functional teams to facilitate integration. These teams provide some opportunity for communication and conflict resolution and also a degree of common identification with product goals that characterizes the product organization. At the same time, they retain the differentiation provided by the functional organization.
  2. The appointment of full-time integrators of coordinators around a product. These product managers or project managers encourage the functional specialists to become committed to product goals and help resolve conflicts between them. The specialists will retain their primary identification with their functions.
  3. The “matrix” or grid organization, which combines the product and functional forms by overlaying one on the other. Some managers wear functional hats and are involved in the day-to-day, more routine activities. Naturally, they identify with functional goals and are more involved in the problem-solving activity required to cope with long-range issues and to achieve cross-functional coordination.

Leave a Comment

Product versus Functional Forms-4

The discussion in the preceding section and an overview of literature on function vs product choice, permits us to observe that both forms of organization design have their own set advantages and disadvantages. The functional structure facilitates the acquisition of specialized inputs. In permits pooling of resources and sharing them across products or projects.

 

The organization can hire, utilize and retain specialists. However the problem lies in coordinating the varying nature and amount of skills required at different times. The product or project organization, on the other hand, facilitates coordination among specialists; but may result in duplicating costs and reduction in the degree of specialization. For example, a blinds manufacturing company who manufacture roller shades and woven wood shades, need to adopt product forms not functional. It depend on the type of business company is doing. A term life insurance company can go with functional while a motels industry need to select product. Thus, if functional structure is adopted, projects may fall behind; if product/project organization is chosen technology and specialization may not develop optimally. Therefore, the need for a compromise between the two becomes imperative.

 

The possible compromises between product and functional bases include, in ascending order of structural complexity:

 

  1. The use of cross-functional teams to facilitate integration. These teams provide some opportunity for communication and conflict resolution and also a degree of common identification with product goals that characterizes the product organization. At the same time, they retain the differentiation provided by the functional organization.

We will discuss on two other structural complexity in next post.

Leave a Comment

PRODUCT VERSUS FUNCTIONAL FORMS-1

One of the issues in determining the form of an organization relates to the question of whether to group activities primarily by product or by function. Should all specialists in a given function be grouped under a common boss even if they deal in different products or should the various functional specialists working on a single product be grouped together under the same boss?

 

As with the problem of centralization versus decentralization, here too most managers find it difficult to say which choice will be the best one. We can understand this with example of gift shop. In gift shop there are birthday gifts, childrens gifts, get well gifts, holiday gifts. Each gift is having it’s own category but all fall under one heading gift.

 

Lawrence and Lorsch studies from a behavior point of view the criteria used in the past to make the choice to see whether a pattern emerges to provide meaningful clues to resolve the dilemma. Reviewing the literature they found that managers seem to make the choice based on three criteria:

 

1.      Maximum use of special technical knowledge.

2.      Most efficient utilization of machinery and equipment.

3.      The degree and nature of control and coordination required.

 

The major problem with each of these criterion concerns the trade-off involved in these decisions which may lead to unanticipated results and reduced effectiveness.

Leave a Comment

MECHANISTIC AND ORGANIC SYSTEMS

Burns and Stalker propose two contrasting forms of management systems to suit different conditions. These are called as mechanistic organic forms. A mechanistic management system is considered appropriate to stable conditions while the organic form is suitable to changing conditions.

 

It is observed that organic systems are not hierarchical in the same way as mechanistic systems and they remain stratified based on expertise. Also, people’s commitment to the cause of the organization is supposed to be more in organic than mechanistic systems. In an organic form the hierarchic command gives way to consensus based commitment. The two forms of systems represent two ends of a continuum than being dichotomous. The relation of one form to the other is elastic and an organization may oscilate from one en (mechanistic) to the other end (organic) as the transition occurs in its conditions from relative stability to relative change.

We have considered different types of organization structures which have evolved over time. In response to complex, changing requirements. The continuum of structures range from centralization to decentralization, vertical to horizontal, mechanistic to organic and product to function. The predominant mode is decentralization with centralized control and a certain type of matrix in complex organizations. Each form has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Compromises are possible in the context of organization’s environment, technology, culture and aspects of human behavior.

 

blinds, roller shades, woven wood shades

Leave a Comment

VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL STRUCTURE

The classical bureaucratic model of organization though pervasive, has been considered inappropriate to the changing requirements of modern times. A bureaucratic organization was considered to be too inflexible and hierarchical to adapt to the changes occurring in organizations and technology.

 

Parkinson’s laws and Peter Principle highlight the negative aspects of bureaucratic organizations. Whatever be the criticism against bureaucracies, it is realized that to some extent they have become essential. Therefore, writers and organizations began to explore ways to modify the bureaucratic organization structures. In essence these new structures reflect modifications to the classical principles of delegation of authority and standard of control.

 

Delegation extends the scope of the principle to the point of an abiding organization-wide philosophy of management. A tall organization structure means a series of narrow spans of control, and a flat one incorporates wide spans and limited layers of control at horizontal levels. Both the structures have their advantages and disadvantages. They should be viewed on relevant concepts and not as ideal absolutes.

 

A tall structure calls for control and close supervision over the subordinates. But close supervision may not necessarily produce better control. Similarly in a flat organization with wide spans, it may not be possible to keep close control over subordinates but it provides for decentralization, individual initiative and self-control. Tall structures are less favorably viewed it is held that self-control is better than imposed control. The choice in this regard however rests ultimately on management assumptions about individuals and groups in organizations.

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »