Business Organizational Structure

an article added by: Allan U. at 06062007


In: Root » Business » Strategic planning » Business Organizational Structure

French Spanish Portuguese Italian German Japanese Chinese Korean Russian Arabic

Astrategic planning system should provide answers to two basic questions: what to do and how to do it. The first question refers to selection of a strategy; the second, to organizational arrangements. An organization must have not only a winning strategy to pursue but also a matching structure to facilitate its implementation. The emphasis in the preceding articles has been on strategy formulation. This article is devoted to building a viable organizational structure to administer the strategy. As we enter the next century, principles of strategic analysis and planning have been fully integrated into corporate decision making at all levels. Yet, although these precepts now enjoy global acceptance, the need to translate strategic guidelines into long-term results and adapt them to rapidly changing market conditions continues to rank among the major challenges confronting today’s companies. Essentially, there are three aspects of implementation that, if properly organized, can lead to superior corporate performance and competitive advantage: organization planning, management systems, and executive reward programs.

Fitting these aspects to the underlying strategy requires strategic reorganization. There is no magic formula to ensure successful reorganization and, generally, no “perfect” prototype to follow. Reorganization is a delicate process that above all requires a finely tuned management sense. The discussion in this article focuses on five dimensions: (a) the creation of market-responsive organizations, (b) the role of systems in implementing strategy, (c) executive reward systems, (d) leadership style (i.e., the establishment of an internal environment conducive to strategy implementation), and (e) the measurement of strategic performance (i.e., the development of a network of control and communication to monitor and evaluate progress in achieving strategic goals). In addition, the impact of strategic planning on marketing organization is studied.

THE TRADITIONAL ORGANIZATION

Corporations have traditionally been organized with a strong emphasis on pursuing and achieving established objectives. Such organizations adapt well to growing internal complexities and provide adequate incentive mechanisms and systems of accountability to support objectives. However, they fail to provide a congenial environment for strategic planning. For example, one of the organizational capabilities needed for strategic planning is that of modifying, or redefining, the objectives themselves so that the corporation is prepared to meet future competition. The traditional organizational structure, based on “command and control” principles, resists change, which is why a new type of structure is needed for strategic planning:

The forces shaping organization today are dramatically different from those facing Frederick Taylor and Alfred Sloan. End-use markets are fragmenting, requiring faster and more targeted responses. Advances in the ability to capture, manipulate, and transmit information electronically make it possible to distribute decision making (“command”) without losing “control.” Gone is the abundant, primarily male, bluecollar workforce. Workers today are better educated, in short supply, and demanding greater participation and variety in their jobs. Individually all these changes are dramatic; collectively they shape a new era in organization and strategy. Strategies are increasingly shifting from cost- and volumebased sources of competitive advantage to those focusing on increased value to the customer. Competitive strength is derived from the skills, speed, specificity, and service levels provided to customers. The Command and Control organization is under strain. Indeed, many businesses are finding that C&C principles now result in competitive disadvantage.

CREATING MARKET-RESPONSIVE ORGANIZATIONS

As markets and technologies change more and more rapidly, organizations must respond quickly and frequently to strategic moves if they are to sustain competitive advantage. Although corporations have learned to make changes in strategy quickly, their organizations may lack parallel market responsiveness. One major reason for this failure is the conflict between scale economics, which is geared to the expansion and aggregation of resources, and the economics of vertical integration, which links differentiated functions and resources for maximum efficiency in responding to market changes. The opposing pressures fueling this conflict are both subtle and complex. On one side of the equation are all the forces contributing to the need to reap maximum scale advantage. On the other side of the equation, the accelerated pace of change environmental, competitive, and technological drives corporations toward increased flexibility, high levels of internal integration, and smaller operating units.

Although scale advantage has traditionally held high ground, evidence is mounting that highly integrated organizations can increase productive capacity through the efficient coordination of functions and resources while remaining highly adaptive and market sensitive. Such organizations respond to the strategic need for change more quickly, smoothly, and successfully than centralized, largeunit organizations oriented toward scale aggregation. Management has basically three options for resolving the conflict between scale and integration. First, a company can choose to centralize its functions in order to achieve scale at the expense of market responsiveness. Second, it can opt for market responsiveness over scale; that is, it can emphasize small, independent units. Third, it can adopt another, more difficult approach, exploiting the strengths associated with both large and small organizational units to achieve benefits of scale and market responsiveness simultaneously. The key to sustainable competitive advantage lies in successful pursuit of the third alternative. Exploiting the benefits of both large and small organizational structures involves creating market-responsive units within a framework of shared resources.

Such units can combine the strengths of a small company (lean, entrepreneurial management; sharp focus on the business; immediacy of the relationship with the customer; dedication to growth; and action-oriented viewpoint) with those of the large company (extensive financial information and resources; availability of multiple technologies; recognition as an established business; people with diverse skills to draw on; and an intimate knowledge of markets and functions). The creation of such units demands that planners determine, as precisely as possible, in what form and to what degree resources must be integrated to ensure the level of market responsiveness dictated by their business strategy. This process can be successful only when it is undertaken in the context of a rigorous analytical framework that links strategy to organization.

Procedure for Creating a Market- Responsive Organization  To create a market-responsive organization, management can use a three-phase process: (a) determine corporate strategic boundaries, (b) balance the demands of scale and market responsiveness, and (c) organize for strategic effectiveness.

Determine Corporate Strategic Boundaries. How successfully a corporation aligns its structure with its strategic objectives depends on its success in making a number of key decisions: determining the stage of the value-added process at which it will compete, identifying those activities in which it has a competitive edge, selecting the functions it should execute internally, and developing a plan of action for integrating those functions most productively. These decisions determine how resources should be allocated and how external and internal boundaries should be drawn. They define the company’s business its products, services, customers, and markets and determine both long- and short-term strategic potential. How well the company exploits its assets and the degree to which each division’s performance supports strategic objectives determine how close it will come to achieving that potential.

How strategic boundary setting reflects the trade-offs between scale and integration becomes clearer when one considers the case of an assembler facing a typical make-or-buy decision for components. As long as the components manufacturer is able to produce common components for several customers, the assembler among them, the components manufacturer enjoys scale advantage. As the products ordered by the assembler become more specialized in response to market demands or increased competitive pressures, however, the benefits the components manufacturer gains from scale begin to decline. At the same time, the cost of integrating operations with those of the assembler increases as technical specifications become more complex and as manufacturing operations become more interdependent. To continue their relationship and sustain their respective advantages, the components manufacturer and the assembler are required to make additional investments: the components manufacturer in capital equipment outlays and product design; the assembler in negotiating terms, research and development planning, quality control, and related areas.

As a result, a substantial “disruption cost” is incurred if the components manufacturer and the assembler decide to end their business relationship. Both parties attempt to guard against this potential loss through longer-term contracts, whether explicit or implicit. As interdependence increases, prices and contract negotiations become cumbersome and unresponsive. At some point, the economies of scale may decline enough and the integration costs climb high enough that the assembler finds it more cost effective to produce components internally to bring that particular function inside the assembler’s corporate boundaries.

In this classic make-or-buy example, economic trade-offs between scale and integration costs are direct and relatively clear-cut. As we move from simple makeor- buy decisions to issues of full-scale vertical integration, the economic impact can be far more subtle and far-reaching. Scale advantage is not expressed solely in terms of lower unit manufacturing costs but may also flow from the critical mass of skills gained or from the transferability of new product or process technologies. Valuable integration benefits, on the other hand, may be gained from the willingness to undertake more profitable research and development investments because vertical integration ensures a “market” in downstream operations.

legal disclaimer

Our website is not responsible for the information contained by this article. Web-articles is a free articles resource.
Suggestion: If you need fresh, daily updated content for your website, feel free to use our service. Click here for more information.

related articles

1. Forecast Gross Profit for a StartUp Business
For a new business, calculate the average gross profit for your business by following these steps: 1.For each product or service that you sell, list every individual item that goes into that product, including piece-rate labor and commissions. For example, Antoinette buys dresses from outside suppliers and resells them. The cost of the dress is the major component of the total product cost. She may add the cost of the pre-printed bag to derive the total cost of the sale. 2.Once you have a complete list of ...

2. Return on Equity Investments: What is Fair
Every investor has her personal requirements and every deal is different. The important thing is that both parties understand the risks and think it is a good deal. Here are some suggestions that have worked well for others in situations where the potential investors weren’t well acquainted with the entrepreneur. Obviously, if your investors are family members, close friends or people who wish to support your business for political or personal reasons, they may be willing to accept a lower rate of return. ...

3. If No One Will Finance Your Business Try Again
Let’s say that you’ve been unsuccessful in your attempts to raise money for your business from the primary sources listed in Sections C and D above, or you have raised some money, but still need more. What do you do next? The first step is to go back to the people who initially seemed interested but ultimately turned you down and find out why. This is not a waste of time. If you get the same answer from several people, you will know what you have to work on. And then there is the possibility that someone&rsq...

4. Importance of environmental scanning
An organization is a creature of its environment. Its very survival and all of its perspectives, resources, problems, and opportunities are generated and conditioned by the environment. Thus, it is important for an organization to monitor the relevant changes taking place in its environment and formulate strategies to adapt to these changes. In other words, for an organization to survive and prosper, the strategist must master the challenges of the profoundly changing political, economic, technological, social,...

5. Business environment types
Corporations today, more than ever before, are profoundly sensitive to technological, political, economic, social, and regulatory changes. Although environmental changes may be felt throughout an organization, the impact most affects strategic perspectives. To cope with a changing and shifting environment, the marketing strategist must find new ways to forecast the shape of things to come and to analyze strategic alternatives and, at the same time, develop greater sensitivity to long-term implications. Various...

6. Consumers and products
Given the scarcity of time and/or money to have products repaired or to buy new ones, consumers look for offerings that endure. Time has become the scarce resource as the result of the prevalence of dual income-earning households. Convenience is a critical source of differential advantage, particularly in foods and services. In addition, youth are making or influencing more household purchasing decisions than ever before. Moreover, as the population ages, time pressures become more w...

7. Environmental scanning and marketing strategy
The impact of environmental scanning on marketing strategy can be illustrated with reference to videotex technology. Videotex technology the merging of computer and communications technologies delivers information directly to the consumer. The consumer may instantly view desired textual and visual information from on-line databases on television screens or other video receivers by pushing the appropriate buttons or typing the proper commands. Possibilities for business and personal use of videotex are as endle...

8. Specific trends in the environment may be systematically scanned
Following, an attempt is made here to illustrate how specific trends in the environment may be systematically scanned. A search of the literature in the area of politics shows that the following federal laws were considered as we approach the next century: 1. Requiring that all ad claims be substantiated. 2. Publishing corporate actions that endanger the environment. 3. Disclosing lobbying efforts in detail. 4. Reducing a company’s right to fire workers at will. 5. Eliminating ...

9. The strengths and weaknesses of a business
Abusiness does not perform well by accident. Good performances occur because the people directing the affairs of the business interact well with the environment, capitalizing on its strengths and eliminating underlying weaknesses. In other words, to operate successfully in a changing environment, the business should plan its future objectives and strategies around its strengths and downplay moves that bear on its weaknesses. Thus, assessment of strengths and weaknesses becomes an essential task in the str...