Estructura Organizacional Orientada al Cliente /
Commercial Organizational Structure
En las discusiones estratégicas corporativas, el paradigma imperante en los 90's ha
sido la "orientación al cliente". Producto de esto, las compañías han intimado más con
sus clientes, los han comprendido y han innovado para ellos.
Sin embargo, muchas
empresas industriales han estancado sus ventas no obstante esta inclinación
sistemática al cliente.
¿Qué ha ocurrido?
Probablemente, la estructura
organizacional no les ha acompañado. Lamentablemente, una estructura
organizacional incorrecta puede pasar desapercibida como la causa de pérdida de
mercado.
La importancia de estructurar su organización adecuadamente cobra
importancia progresiva dependiendo de si su empresa ofrece pocos productos no
sinérgicos entre ellos, a muchos productos (o incluso líneas de productos) que
además muestran posible integración entre ellos mismos, quizás en un contexto de
internacionalización de la marca. Para determinar correctamente cuál debiera ser,
en caso particular, una estructura organizacional más centrada en el cliente, es
importante que su empresa determine su complejidad, y calibre su "centricidad
estructural" en uno de tres posibles escenarios: bajo nivel de centricidad, mediano,
alto.
El resultado, o estructura organizacional, será totalmente diferente en uno u
otro caso. Pero los beneficios serán favorablemente detectados por sus clientes.
http://www.mic-consulting.cl/servicios_detalle.php?cod=31
¿Qué es estructura organizacional?
La estructura organizacional es un medio del que se sirve una
organización cualquiera para conseguir sus objetivos con eficacia.
Concepto de estructura de la organización
Una organización es un grupo humano deliberadamente constituido
en torno a tareas comunes y en función de la obtención de objetivos
específicos.
Para poder alcanzar los objetivos propuestos, partiendo, en la casi
totalidad de los casos, de recursos limitados, resulta necesaria la
construcción de un esquema o modelo, que permita la interrelación
e interacción de sus elementos.
La estructura será entonces, la herramienta que le permita a la
organización alcanzar sus objetivos.
• Permite lograr una determinada disposición de sus recursos,
• Facilita la realización de las actividades y
• Coordinación de su funcionamiento
Según Henry Mintzberg (1998):
"La estructura organizacional puede definirse como el conjunto de
medios que maneja la organización con el objeto de dividir el trabajo
en diferentes tareas y lograr la coordinación efectiva de las mismas".
De esta manera, puede realizarse el esfuerzo coordinado que lleve a
la obtención de objetivos, definiendo las relaciones y aspectos más o
menos estables de la organización.
En la estructura, las partes están integradas, es decir que se
relacionan de tal forma que un cambio en uno de los elementos
componentes afecta y genera cambios en los demás elementos, en
las relaciones entre los mismos y en la conducta de la organización
en general.
Mintzberg, Henry.
Diseño de organizaciones eficientes.
El Ateneo, buenos aires, 1991
http://www.rau.edu.uy/fcs/dts/Sociorganizaciones/estructura.pdf (ARCHIVO
ANEXO)
Muchos de los problemas en el diseño de las organizaciones se
origina en la creencia de que todas son iguales: una mera
colección de partes, a las cuales se les puede agregar o quitar
elementos de su estructura.
Por el contrario: las organizaciones efectivas logran la
coherencia entre sus componentes, y nunca cambian un
elemento sin considerar las consecuencias sobre los otros.
Elementos como el alcance del control, las formas de
decentralización, los sistemas de planificación, etc. no son
seleccionados al azar, sino mediante agrupaciones consistentes,
tanto internamente como con la situación externa de la
organización (edad, tamaño, condición de la industria).
Una organización comienza con una persona que tiene una idea.
Esta persona es el ápice estratégico, la alta gerencia. Esta
persona contrata a otros para que hagan el trabajo básico, el
núcleo operativo. A medida que crece, se necesitan gerentes de
linea media entre el jefe máximo y los trabajadores.
Seguidamente, la organización necesita de dos tipos de personal
staff: analistas que diseñen sistemas relativos a la planificación
y control, la tecnoestructura, y aquellos que proveen servicios
indirectos para toda la organización (legal, relaciones públicas,
etc), el personal de apoyo. Estas cinco partes forman la
organización. No todas necesitan de todas las partes, y algunas
son más sencillas que otras. El propósito de la estructura es
coordinar el trabajo de las partes.
Las características de cada organización se ajustan a
configuraciones, cada una distinta en términos de estructura,
situaciones en las que se encuentra y hasta el período histórico
en el que surgieron. Existen cinco configuraciones básicas:
- Estructura simple: unos pocos gerentes generales y un grupo
de operadores que hacen el trabajo. La coordinación es lograda
por el ápice estratégico, que por supervisión directa da órdenes,
sin mucho personal de staff o gerencia media. Es la clásica
empresa emprendedora. Hay poca estandarización o formalidad.
No hay mayor planificación o entrenamiento. La estructura es
simple y flexible, ya que opera en ambientes dinámicos. Son
empresas jóvenes y pequeñas, en parte porque el crecimiento
las estimula a burocratizarse (si no lo hacen, se quedan en el
camino). Casi todas las empresas comienzan con esta
estructura.
- Máquina burocrática: es el resultado de la industrialización,
con su énfasis en estandarizar el trabajo como forma de
coordinación, resultando en trabajo no calificado y muy
especializado. Surge una gran jerarquía en las líneas medias,
para supervisar el trabajo y para resolver los conflictos que
surgen de la estricta departamentalización; esta línea media
usualmente se estructura funcionalmente. Tienden a funcionar
en un ambiente estable, por lo cual generan internamente todos
los servicios de apoyo que puedan necesitar. Tienden a
integrarse verticalmente, convirtiéndose en sus propios clientes
y proveedores. Sus principales problemas: trabajo aburrido y
repetitivo, empleados alienados, obsesión por el control, tamaño
excesivo, e inadaptabilidad. Son maquinarias ideales para
propósitos específicos, y no sirven para adaptarse a otros.
- Burocracia profesional: la coordinación depende de la
estandarización de las habilidades. Es la estructura común en
hospitales, universidades y empresas de contaduría. Cuenta con
un gran grupo de profesionales especializados, apoyados por
abundante personal de apoyo (pero poca tecnoestructura o
gerencia media). Como depende de los profesionales, la
organización les otorga a ellos, y a las organizaciones que los
seleccionan y entrenan, mucho control. El resultado es una
organización descentralizada, el poder sobre las decisiones
operativas y estratégicas fluye hacia abajo, en una especi de
democracia. Los procedimientos son complejos pero estándares,
por lo que cada quien puede trabajar en forma independiente.
La poca gerencia media o alta no dedican su tiempo a
supervisar, sino a vincular a su unidad con el exterior: buscando
ventas, financiamiento, etc. Es una estructura que está de
moda, por ser democrática y proveer autonomía.
- Divisional: la organización se divide en unidades operativas
paralelas, unidas por una débil capa administrativa, con
autonomía para los gerentes medios de cada una. La
coordinación se logra mediante la estandarización de los
“resultados” (output). Las divisiones son estructuras parciales
superimpuestas, cada una en forma de burocracia de máquina.
Las organizaciones se vuelven divisionales cuando sus líneas de
producto son diversas, lo que ocurre frecuentemente en
empresas a las que se le han acabado las oportunidades o se
han estancado. La diversificación incentiva la creación de
unidades basadas en mercados, con autonomía para atenderlos,
aunque no se trata de descentralización. La alta gerencia
controla la gestión de la división mediante sus resultados,
dejando los detalles operativos en manos de la propia división.
Esta forma fue creada para resolver el problema de
adaptabilidad de las “burocracias de máquina” – permitiendo
agregar y quitar divisiones como forma de adaptarse a las
nuevas condiciones del mercado; sin embargo, no resuelve el
problema, lo desvía. Al permitir el crecimiento, lleva a la
concentración de poder – que muchas veces no es utilizado en
la forma más responsable. Es la estructura más frecuente en las
grandes empresas de Fortune.
- Adhocracia: la estructura de las empresas de nuestro tiempo –
empresas aeroespaciales, petroleras, estudios cinematográficos,
etc. Es la forma más compleja, cuenta con especialistas
sofisticados de distintas áreas, que combinan sus esfuerzos en
equipos creativos de proyecto coordinados mediante ajuste
mutuo. Su necesidad principal es innovar, y hacerlo en formas
complejas y no estandarizada. Son estructuras fluidas en las
que el poder va pasando de unos a otros, y la coordinación se
logra mediante comunicación informal y la interacción de
expertos competentes; esto, sin embargo, no las hace menos
coherentes. Abundan los gerentes: funcionales, de proyecto, de
integración, etc, resultando en pequeñas áreas de control; el
control, sin embargo, no es el tradicional, de supervisión. Los
cinco componentes de la organización se fusionan en uno solo.
La estrategia se va desarrollando a medida que se aceptan y
terminan proyectos. Funcionan bien en ambientes complejos y
dinámicos. Pueden desarrollar proyectos para sus clientes, bajo
contrato (ej: agencia de publicidad) o por su propia cuenta (ej:
NASA).
Las configuraciones son ideales abstractos, estructuras de la
vida real y bloques para crear nuevas estructuras – todo a la
vez.
Las configuraciones mencionadas pueden servir una
herramienta efectiva para diagnosticar los problemas de diseño,
especialmente aquellos relacionados con el encaje de las
diferentes partes. Pregúntese:
- ¿Son los elementos internos consistentes?
- ¿Son los controles externos funcionales?
- ¿Existe alguna para que no encaje?
- ¿Será la estructura adecuada en la situación incorrecta?
La consistencia, coherencia y encaje (armonía), son factores
críticos en el diseño organizacional, pero tienen un precio. Una
organización no puede serlo todo para todos. Debe hacer bien lo
que sabe hacer bien, y sufrir las consecuencias. Una empresa no
puede ser una “burocracia de máquina” eficiente, e intentar ser
adaptable. Lo más importante no es cuál es su estructura, sino
lograr una estructura.
Publicado originalmente en Harvard Business Review, Ene-Feb
1981
http://www.derevistas.com/contenido/articulo.php?art=756
Organizational structure
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An organizational structure consists of activities such as task allocation,
coordination and supervision, which are directed towards the
achievement of organizational aims.[1] It can also be considered as the
viewing glass or perspective through which individuals see their
organization and its environment.[2]
Most organizations have hierarchical structures, but not all.[citation needed]
Organizations are a variant of clustered entities.[citation needed]
An organization can be structured in many different ways, depending on
their objectives. The structure of an organization will determine the modes
in which it operates and performs.
Organizational structure allows the expressed allocation of responsibilities
for different functions and processes to different entities such as the
branch, department, workgroup and individual.
Organizational structure affects organizational action in two big ways.
First, it provides the foundation on which standard operating procedures
and routines rest. Second, it determines which individuals get to
participate in which decision-making processes, and thus to what extent
their views shape the organization’s actions.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Operational organizations and informal organizations
2 History
2.1 Organizational structure types
2.1.1 Pre-bureaucratic structures
2.1.2 Bureaucratic structures
2.1.3 Post-bureaucratic
2.1.4 Functional structure
2.1.5 Divisional structure
2.1.6 Matrix structure
2.2 Organizational circle: moving back to flat
2.3 Team
2.4 Network
2.4.1 Virtual
2.5 Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of
Organizational Structure
3 See also
4 References
[edit]
Operational organizations and informal
organizations
See also: Informal organization and Formal organization
The set organizational structure may not coincide with facts, evolving in
operational action. Such divergence decreases performance, when
growing. E.g. a wrong organizational structure may hamper cooperation
and thus hinder the completion of orders in due time and within limits of
resources and budgets. Organizational structures shall be adaptive to
process requirements, aiming to optimize the ratio of effort and input to
output.
[edit]
History
See also: Hierarchical organization and Flat organization
Organizational structures developed from the ancient times of hunters
and collectors in tribal organizations through highly royal and clerical
power structures to industrial structures and today's post-industrial
structures.
As pointed out by Mohr (1982, pp. 102–103), the early theorists of
organizational structure, Taylor, Fayol, and Weber "saw the importance of
structure for effectiveness and efficiency and assumed without the
slightest question that whatever structure was needed, people could
fashion accordingly. Organizational structure was considered a matter of
choice... When in the 1930s, the rebellion began that came to be known
as human relations theory, there was still not a denial of the idea of
structure as an artifact, but rather an advocacy of the creation of a
different sort of structure, one in which the needs, knowledge, and
opinions of employees might be given greater recognition." However, a
different view arose in the 1960s, suggesting that the organizational
structure is "an externally caused phenomenon, an outcome rather than
an artifact."[3] In the 21st century, organizational theorists such as Lim,
Griffiths, and Sambrook (2010) are once again proposing that
organizational structure development is very much dependent on the
expression of the strategies and behavior of the management and the
workers as constrained by the power distribution between them, and
influenced by their environment and the outcome.[4]
[edit]
Organizational structure types
[edit]
Pre-bureaucratic structures
Pre-bureaucratic (entrepreneurial) structures lack standardization of
tasks. This structure is most common in smaller organizations and is best
used to solve simple tasks. The structure is totally centralized. The
strategic leader makes all key decisions and most communication is done
by one on one conversations. It is particularly useful for new
(entrepreneurial) business as it enables the founder to control growth and
development.
They are usually based on traditional domination or charismatic
domination in the sense of Max Weber's tripartite classification of
authority
[edit]
Bureaucratic structures
Weber (1948, p. 214) gives the analogy that “the fully developed
bureaucratic mechanism compares with other organizations exactly as
does the machine compare with the non-mechanical modes of
production. Precision, speed, unambiguity, … strict subordination,
reduction of friction and of material and personal costs- these are raised
to the optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic administration.”[5]
Bureaucratic structures have a certain degree of standardization. They
are better suited for more complex or larger scale organizations, usually
adopting a tall structure. The tension between bureaucratic structures and
non-bureaucratic is echoed in Burns and Stalker's[6] distinction between
mechanistic and organic structures.
The Weberian characteristics of bureaucracy are:
• Clear defined roles and responsibilities
• A hierarchical structure
• Respect for merit.
[edit]
Post-bureaucratic
The term of post bureaucratic is used in two senses in the organizational
literature: one generic and one much more specific.[7] In the generic
sense the term post bureaucratic is often used to describe a range of
ideas developed since the 1980s that specifically contrast themselves
with Weber's ideal type bureaucracy. This may include total quality
management, culture management and matrix management, amongst
others. None of these however has left behind the core tenets of
Bureaucracy. Hierarchies still exist, authority is still Weber's rational, legal
type, and the organization is still rule bound. Heckscher, arguing along
these lines, describes them as cleaned up bureaucracies,[8] rather than a
fundamental shift away from bureaucracy. Gideon Kunda, in his classic
study of culture management at 'Tech' argued that 'the essence of
bureaucratic control - the formalisation, codification and enforcement of
rules and regulations - does not change in principle.....it shifts focus from
organizational structure to the organization's culture'.
Another smaller group of theorists have developed the theory of the PostBureaucratic Organization.,[8] provide a detailed discussion which
attempts to describe an organization that is fundamentally not
bureaucratic. Charles Heckscher has developed an ideal type, the postbureaucratic organization, in which decisions are based on dialogue and
consensus rather than authority and command, the organization is a
network rather than a hierarchy, open at the boundaries (in direct contrast
to culture management); there is an emphasis on meta-decision making
rules rather than decision making rules. This sort of horizontal decision
making by consensus model is often used in housing cooperatives, other
cooperatives and when running a non-profit or community organization. It
is used in order to encourage participation and help to empower people
who normally experience oppression in groups.
Still other theorists are developing a resurgence of interest in complexity
theory and organizations, and have focused on how simple structures can
be used to engender organizational adaptations. For instance, Miner et
al. (2000) studied how simple structures could be used to generate
improvisational outcomes in product development. Their study makes
links to simple structures and improviseal learning. Other scholars such
as Jan Rivkin and Sigglekow,[9] and Nelson Repenning [10] revive an
older interest in how structure and strategy relate in dynamic
environments.
[edit]
Functional structure
Employees within the functional divisions of an organization tend to
perform a specialized set of tasks, for instance the engineering
department would be staffed only with software engineers. This leads to
operational efficiencies within that group. However it could also lead to a
lack of communication between the functional groups within an
organization, making the organization slow and inflexible.
As a whole, a functional organization is best suited as a producer of
standardized goods and services at large volume and low cost.
Coordination and specialization of tasks are centralized in a functional
structure, which makes producing a limited amount of products or
services efficient and predictable. Moreover, efficiencies can further be
realized as functional organizations integrate their activities vertically so
that products are sold and distributed quickly and at low cost.[11] For
instance, a small business could start making the components it requires
for production of its products instead of procuring it from an external
organization.But not only beneficial for organization but also for
employees faiths.
[edit]
Divisional structure
Also called a "product structure", the divisional structure groups each
organizational function into a division. Each division within a divisional
structure contains all the necessary resources and functions within it.
Divisions can be categorized from different points of view. One might
make distinctions on a geographical basis (a US division and an EU
division, for example) or on product/service basis (different products for
different customers: households or companies). In another example, an
automobile company with a divisional structure might have one division
for SUVs, another division for subcompact cars, and another division for
sedans.
Each division may have its own sales, engineering and marketing
departments.
[edit]
Matrix structure
The matrix structure groups employees by both function and product. This
structure can combine the best of both separate structures. A matrix
organization frequently uses teams of employees to accomplish work, in
order to take advantage of the strengths, as well as make up for the
weaknesses, of functional and decentralized forms. An example would be
a company that produces two products, "product a" and "product b".
Using the matrix structure, this company would organize functions within
the company as follows: "product a" sales department, "product a"
customer service department, "product a" accounting, "product b" sales
department, "product b" customer service department, "product b"
accounting department. Matrix structure is amongst the purest of
organizational structures, a simple lattice emulating order and regularity
demonstrated in nature.
▪ Weak/Functional Matrix: A project manager with only limited authority
is assigned to oversee the cross- functional aspects of the project.
The functional managers maintain control over their resources and
project areas.
▪ Balanced/Functional Matrix: A project manager is assigned to
oversee the project. Power is shared equally between the project
manager and the functional managers. It brings the best aspects of
functional and projectized organizations. However, this is the most
difficult system to maintain as the sharing power is delicate
proposition.
▪ Strong/Project Matrix: A project manager is primarily responsible for
the project. Functional managers provide technical expertise and
assign resources as needed.
Among these matrixes, there is no best format; implementation success
always depends on organization's purpose and function.
[edit]
Organizational circle: moving back to flat
The flat structure is common in enterprenerial start-ups, university spin
offs or small companies in general. As the company grows, however, it
becomes more complex and hierarchical, which leads to an expanded
structure, with more levels and departments.
Often, it would result in bureaucracy, the most prevalent structure in the
past. It is still, however, relevant in former Soviet Republics and China, as
well as in most governmental organizations all over the world. Shell
Group used to represent the typical bureaucracy: top-heavy and
hierarchical. It featured multiple levels of command and duplicate service
companies existing in different regions. All this made Shell apprehensive
to market changes,[12] leading to its incapacity to grow and develop
further. The failure of this structure became the main reason for the
company restructuring into a matrix.
Starbucks is one of the numerous large organizations that successfully
developed the matrix structure supporting their focused strategy. Its
design combines functional and product based divisions, with employees
reporting to two heads.[13] Creating a team spirit, the company empowers
employees to make their own decisions and train them to develop both
hard and soft skills. That makes Starbucks one of the best at customer
service.
Some experts also mention the multinational design,[14] common in
global companies, such as Procter & Gamble, Toyota and Unilever. This
structure can be seen as a complex form of the matrix, as it maintains
coordination among products, functions and geographic areas.
In general, over the last decade, it has become increasingly clear that
through the forces of globalization, competition and more demanding
customers, the structure of many companies has become flatter, less
hierarchical, more fluid and even virtual.[15]
[edit]
Team
One of the newest organizational structures developed in the 20th
century is team. In small businesses, the team structure can define the
entire organization.[14] Teams can be both horizontal and vertical.[16]
While an organization is constituted as a set of people who synergize
individual competencies to achieve newer dimensions, the quality of
organizational structure revolves around the competencies of teams in
totality.[17] For example, every one of the Whole Foods Market stores, the
largest natural-foods grocer in the US developing a focused strategy, is
an autonomous profit centre composed of an average of 10 self-managed
teams, while team leaders in each store and each region are also a team.
Larger bureaucratic organizations can benefit from the flexibility of teams
as well. Xerox, Motorola, and DaimlerChrysler are all among the
companies that actively use teams to perform tasks.
[edit]
Network
Another modern structure is network. While business giants risk
becoming too clumsy to proact (such as), act and react efficiently,[18] the
new network organizations contract out any business function, that can
be done better or more cheaply. In essence, managers in network
structures spend most of their time coordinating and controlling external
relations, usually by electronic means. H&M is outsourcing its clothing to
a network of 700 suppliers, more than two-thirds of which are based in
low-cost Asian countries. Not owning any factories, H&M can be more
flexible than many other retailers in lowering its costs, which aligns with
its low-cost strategy.[19] The potential management opportunities offered
by recent advances in complex networks theory have been demonstrated
[20] including applications to product design and development,[21] and
innovation problem in markets and industries.[22]
[edit]
Virtual
A special form of boundaryless organization is virtual. Hedberg, Dahlgren,
Hansson, and Olve (1999) consider the virtual organization as not
physically existing as such, but enabled by software to exist.[23] The
virtual organization exists within a network of alliances, using the Internet.
This means while the core of the organization can be small but still the
company can operate globally be a market leader in its niche. According
to Anderson, because of the unlimited shelf space of the Web, the cost of
reaching niche goods is falling dramatically. Although none sell in huge
numbers, there are so many niche products that collectively they make a
significant profit, and that is what made highly innovative Amazon.com so
successful.[24]
[edit]
Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of
Organizational Structure
Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of Organizational Structure
In the 21st century, even though most, if not all, organizations are not of a
pure hierarchical structure, many managers are still blind-sided to the
existence of the flat community structure within their organizations.[25]
The business firm is no longer just a place where people come to work.
For most of the employees, the firm confers on them that sense of
belonging and identity- the firm has become their “village”, their
community.[26] The business firm of the 21st century is not just a
hierarchy which ensures maximum efficiency and profit; it is also the
community where people belong to and grow together- where their
affective and innovative needs are met.[4]
Lim, Griffiths, and Sambrook (2010) developed the Hierarchy-Community
Phenotype Model of Organizational Structure borrowing from the concept
of Phenotype from genetics. "A phenotype refers to the observable
characteristics of an organism. It results from the expression of an
organism’s genes and the influence of the environment. The expression
of an organism’s genes is usually determined by pairs of alleles. Alleles
are different forms of a gene. In our model, each employee’s formal,
hierarchical participation and informal, community participation within the
organization, as influenced by his or her environment, contributes to the
overall observable characteristics (phenotype) of the organization. In
other words, just as all the pair of alleles within the genetic material of an
organism determines the physical characteristics of the organism, the
combined expressions of all the employees’ formal hierarchical and
informal community participation within an organization give rise to the
organizational structure. Due to the vast potentially different combination
of the employees’ formal hierarchical and informal community
participation, each organization is therefore a unique phenotype along a
spectrum between a pure hierarchy and a pure community (flat)
organizational structure."[4]P
[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_structure
organizational structure
Definition
The framework, typically hierarchical, within which an
organization arranges its lines of authority and
communications, and allocates rights and duties.
Organizational structure determines the manner and extent
to which roles, power, and responsibilities are delegated,
controlled, and coordinated, and how information flows
between levels of management.
An structure depends entirely on the organization's
objectives and the strategy chosen to achieve them. In a
centralized structure, the decision making power is
concentrated in the top layer of the management and tight
control is exercised over departments and divisions. In a
decentralized structure, the decision making power is
distributed and the departments and divisions have varying
degrees of autonomy. An organizational chart illustrates the
organizational structure.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organizational-structure.html
Organizational Structure Types and Design Strategy
Welcome to Organizationalstructure.net. Starting a new
organization can be a hard task, no matter how big or small it may
be. Whether you are starting a new company, business, or you're a
school board member, your organization needs a good structure to
keep it going. On our site, you can find information on strategies,
designs, and the implementation of different types of
organizational structure. We can offer examples for businesses,
companies, corporations, schools, restaurants, and more. The
structure of your business will act as the backbone and support
concerning decision making and other processes. Deciding early
what type of organizational system you want to implement will
help to ease the stress of the initial start-up. If each person in the
organization knows what he or she is supposed to be doing, there
is less room for confusion and poor judgment. Perhaps setting up a
management team would work the best for your organization, or
perhaps a hierarchy of decision makers would work better. Either
way, setting up a definite structure before important shots are
called makes a difference.
Organizational Structure Corporate Theory
The first step is determining what type of organizational structure
you would like to design and implement. Some examples of
structures would be, functional and hierarchical. Next, you should
develop a strategy to start organizing your business, company, or
group. How do you want it to run? From the top down, or by a
matrix of different people, such as a management department is a
big decision. Once you have a few options picked out, you can
decide which option will be optimal to produce the results you
desire. On this site, you can find assistance on the topics
above. Available to you are designs, models, alternative ideas, and
strategy examples for setting up the structure of your business.
Also available are different theories and opinions surrounding some
strategies discussed. As for smaller organizations, we can offer
some public resources to help you in your specific area.
Additionally, simple versions of structures can be found. If you
choose the options that best fit your organization then you're more
likely to succeed in your market. By having the right people in the
right place, it can lead to better networking opportunities, higher
sales, increased interest in your organization, and overall success.
Define or Definition
OS can be defined as the way or method through use of a
hierarchy that a group, business, organization, people or objects
collaborate to achieve success on one common goal.
OrganizationalStructure .NET Copyright 2008
http://organizationalstructure.net/