Hierarchical organizational structures for managing operational enterprises
3. Linear-functional organizational structure of management.
Hierarchical organizational structures for managing operational enterprises.
Rice.
Rice. 2. Line-staff organizational structure of management.
To manage departments involved in a full range of works on technical operation complex object, the manager must have knowledge and skills in the versatile fields of science and technology. But to choose a leader who knows the device, the principles of operation and the theory of setting up numerous complex engineering systems, the work of constructive schemes of modern buildings is extremely difficult. Therefore, a functional management structure is often preferred, in which the operation of the facility is performed by several highly specialized divisions.
The functional structure is based on the principle of specialization of organizational sub-structures according to functional characteristics (production of preventive and repair work, R&D, marketing, supply, etc., i.e. homogeneous types of activities). Each specialized functional substructure reports accordingly to the person of the Top Management responsible for this area of activity (Fig. 3). Each senior manager is delegated powers within the boundaries of the function performed. The performance of individual functions on specific issues is assigned to specialists. Specialists of the same profile are united in structural units of the management system and make decisions that are binding on production units. Thus, along with the linear, there is also a functional organization. The performers are in double subordination. So, the worker is obliged to simultaneously fulfill the instructions of his line manager and the functional specialist.
Thus, the functional organizational structure of management consists of several specialized linear structures subordinate to the first person of the company. At the same time, the fulfillment of the instructions of functional bodies (departments of planning, accounting, production maintenance, etc.) within their competence is mandatory for linear divisions.
Rice. 3. Functional organizational structure of management. solid horizontal lines show horizontal control (mandatory) links.
Rice. 4. Linear-functional control structure.
Rice. 5. Line-staff management structure.
The development and expansion of an operating facility may not be limited to a simple increase in the number of facilities to be serviced. In domestic and world practice, there are many examples when a large enterprise is simultaneously engaged in the design, construction and operation of its own buildings and structures.
The disadvantages of linear and functional management structures lead to the search for other organization options that provide more effective management. Possible Solution in such cases is a divisional structure. Basically, according to this model, rather large organizations build the structure, which, within the framework of their enterprises, began to create production departments, giving them a certain independence in the implementation of operational activities. At the same time, the administration reserved the right to strict control over corporate-wide issues of development strategy, design, research and development, investment, and so on.
The divisional structure directly follows from the functional one when delegating a significant number of powers to the managers who head the functional areas, granting them a certain independence (Fig. 6), leaving the development strategy, research and development, financial and investment policy, etc. to the management of the corporation.
Fig.6. Divisional (divisional) management structures. Dashed horizontal lines show horizontal control (recommendatory) links.
The modern market puts forward new conditions for the formation of enterprises. In organizations, the most common use of such management systems as:
Linear organizational structure It is characterized by a vertical control system, when one person has the main powers, who passes instructions to his deputy, the latter to his. In such enterprises there are several which are headed by middle managers and who report to the director.
Linear has the following advantages:
Linear is logically slender and defined, but it is not very flexible. Each leader has power, but little ability to resolve difficult situations.
Scientists highlight such shortcomings that a linear organizational structure has:
More modern and optimal is line-staff organizational structure. It includes the presence of specialized departments that do not have decision-making rights and the ability to lead any departments, but they must help a specific leader in performing a number of functions. We are talking about the functions of strategic analysis and planning. The rest of the system has the same features as the previous structure.
Advantages of the headquarters system:
The line-staff structure has the following disadvantages:
Linear-functional organizational structure implemented through a set of units that specialize in the performance of a number of specific responsibilities. They are necessary in the control system for optimal decision making.
In such a structure, a number of functions are assigned to employees. Specialists of a single profile should be united in structural subdivision. Thanks to this, a sales, marketing, and placement department is being formed.
System advantages:
Disadvantages of a functional structure:
Published with permission from Lanit
"The office reaches perfection just in time for the firm to decline."
12th Law of Parkinson
Under the management philosophy, we will understand the most general principles on the basis of which the organization's management structure is built and management processes are carried out. Of course, the philosophy of quality and the philosophy of management are interrelated - the philosophy of quality sets the goal and direction of the organization, the philosophy of management determines the organizational means to achieve this goal. The foundations of the philosophy of management, as well as the philosophy of quality, were laid by F. W. Taylor.
Both the Deming quality management program and the principles of Total Quality Management are actually aimed at changing the structure of the enterprise management system. Consider the main types of enterprise management structures in terms of their correspondence to the ideas modern management quality.
The term "organizational structure" immediately conjures up a two-dimensional tree diagram, consisting of rectangles and lines connecting them. These boxes show the work to be done and the scope of responsibilities and thus reflect the division of labor in the organization. The relative position of the boxes and the lines connecting them show the degree of subordination. The considered ratios are limited to two dimensions: up - down and across, since we operate with a limited assumption, according to which the organizational structure must be represented on a two-dimensional diagram drawn on a flat surface.
The organizational structure itself does not contain anything that would limit us in this respect. In addition, these constraints on organizational structure often have severe and costly consequences. Here are just four of them. First, between the individual parts of organizations of this kind, there is not cooperation, but competition. There is stronger competition within organizations than between organizations, and this internal competition takes on a much less ethical form. Secondly, the usual way of representing the structure of organizations makes it very difficult to define the tasks of individual departments and measure the corresponding indicators of performance due to the great interdependence of departments that are grouped in this way. Thirdly, it contributes to the creation of organizations that resist change, especially changes in their structure; therefore, they degenerate into bureaucratic structures that cannot be adapted. Most of these organizations learn extremely slowly, if at all. Fourth, the representation of the organizational structure in the form of a two-dimensional tree limits the number and nature of possible options for solving emerging problems. In the presence of such a limitation, solutions are impossible that ensure the development of the organization, taking into account technical and social changes, the pace of which is growing more and more. The current environment requires organizations to be not only ready for any changes, but also able to undergo them. In other words, dynamic balance is needed. Obviously, in order to achieve such a balance, the organization must have a sufficiently flexible structure. (While flexibility does not guarantee adaptability, it is nonetheless necessary to achieve adaptability.)
The construction of a flexible or otherwise meritorious organizational structure is one of the tasks of the so-called "structural architecture". Using the terminology adopted in architecture, we can say that this abstract sets out the main ideas on the basis of which various options for solving the problem of organizational structure can be developed without the restrictions associated with its graphical representation.
The above disadvantages can and should be overcome by building a multidimensional organizational structure. The multidimensional structure implies the democratic principle of governance.
Management structures in many modern enterprises were built in accordance with the principles of management formulated at the beginning of the 20th century. The most complete formulation of these principles was given by the German sociologist Max Weber (the concept of rational bureaucracy):
The organizational structure, built in accordance with these principles, is called a hierarchical or bureaucratic structure. The most common type of such structure is linear - functional (linear structure).
The basis of linear structures is the so-called "mine" principle of construction and specialization of the management process according to the functional subsystems of the organization (marketing, production, research and development, finance, personnel, etc.). For each subsystem, a hierarchy of services ("mine") is formed, penetrating the entire organization from top to bottom (see Fig. 1). The results of the work of each service are evaluated by indicators characterizing the fulfillment by them of their goals and objectives. Accordingly, a system of motivation and encouragement of employees is being built. At the same time, the end result (the efficiency and quality of the work of the organization as a whole) becomes, as it were, secondary, since it is believed that all services work to some extent to obtain it.
Fig.1. Linear control structure
Advantages of a linear structure:
Disadvantages of a linear structure:
Conclusion: in modern conditions, the shortcomings of the structure outweigh its advantages. Such a structure is poorly compatible with the modern philosophy of quality.
This type of organizational structure is the development of a linear one and is designed to eliminate its most important drawback associated with the lack of strategic planning links. The line-headquarters structure includes specialized units (headquarters) that do not have the right to make decisions and manage any subordinate units, but only help the relevant leader in performing certain functions, primarily the functions of strategic planning and analysis. Otherwise, this structure corresponds to a linear one (Fig. 2).
Fig.2. Linear - headquarters management structure
Advantages of a linear - staff structure:
Disadvantages of a linear - staff structure:
Conclusion: a linear - staff structure can be a good intermediate step in the transition from a linear structure to a more efficient one. The structure allows, although to a limited extent, to embody ideas modern philosophy quality.
By the end of the 1920s, the need for new approaches to the organization of management, associated with a sharp increase in enterprise sizes, diversification of their activities (diversification), complication of technological processes in a dynamically changing environment. In this regard, divisional management structures began to emerge, primarily in large corporations, which began to provide some independence to their production units, leaving the development strategy, research and development, financial and investment policy, etc. to the management of the corporation. In this type of structures an attempt was made to combine centralized coordination and control of activities with decentralized management. The peak of the introduction of divisional management structures occurred in the 60s - 70s (Fig. 3).
Fig.3. Divisional management structure
The key figures in the management of organizations with a divisional structure are no longer the heads of functional departments, but managers who head production departments (divisions). Structuring by divisions, as a rule, is carried out according to one of the criteria: by manufactured products (products or services) - product specialization; by focusing on certain groups of consumers - consumer specialization; on served territories - regional specialization. In our country, similar management structures have been widely introduced since the 60s in the form of the creation of production associations.
Advantages of a divisional structure:
Disadvantages of the divisional structure:
in departments, as a rule, a linear or linear-headquarters structure with all their shortcomings is preserved.
Conclusion: the advantages of divisional structures outweigh their disadvantages only during periods of fairly stable existence; in an unstable environment, they risk repeating the fate of dinosaurs. With this structure, it is possible to embody most of the ideas of the modern philosophy of quality.
Organic or adaptive management structures began to develop around the end of the 70s, when, on the one hand, the creation of an international market for goods and services sharply intensified competition among enterprises and life demanded from enterprises high efficiency and the quality of work and quick response to market changes, and on the other hand, the inability of structures of a hierarchical type to meet these conditions became obvious. The main property of organic management structures is their ability to change their form, adapting to changing conditions. Structures of this type are design, matrix (program-targeted), brigade forms of structures . When introducing these structures, it is necessary to simultaneously change the relationship between the departments of the enterprise. If, however, the system of planning, control, distribution of resources, leadership style, methods of staff motivation are preserved, and the desire of employees for self-development is not supported, the results of the introduction of such structures may be negative.
The basis of this management structure is the organization of work in working groups (teams). The form of the brigade organization of work is a fairly ancient organizational form, it is enough to recall the worker artels, but only from the 80s did its active use begin as an organization management structure, in many respects directly opposite to the hierarchical type of structures. The main principles of such a management organization are:
These principles destroy the rigid distribution of employees by production, engineering, economic and managerial services inherent in hierarchical structures, which form isolated systems with their own goals and interests.
In an organization built according to these principles, functional units can be preserved (Fig. 4) or absent (Fig. 4). In the first case, employees are under double subordination - administrative (to the head of the functional unit in which they work) and functional (to the head of the working group or team in which they are a member). This form of organization is called cross-functional , in many respects it is close to matrix . In the second case, there are no functional units as such, we will call it proper brigade . This form is widely used in organizations. project management .
Fig.4. Cross-functional organizational structure
Fig.5. The structure of the organization, consisting of working groups (brigade)
Benefits of a brigade (cross-functional) structure:
Disadvantages of the brigade (cross-functional) structure:
Conclusion: this form of organizational structure is most effective in organizations with a high level of qualification of specialists with good technical equipment, especially in combination with project management. This is one of the types organizational structures in which the ideas of the modern philosophy of quality are most effectively embodied.
The basic principle of building a project structure is the concept of a project, which is understood as any purposeful change in the system, for example, the development and production of a new product, the introduction of new technologies, the construction of facilities, etc. The activity of an enterprise is considered as a set of ongoing projects, each of which has a fixed start and end. For each project, labor, financial, industrial, etc. resources are allocated, which are managed by the project manager. Each project has its own structure, and project management includes defining its goals, forming a structure, planning and organizing work, and coordinating the actions of performers. After the project is completed, the project structure falls apart, its components, including employees, move to a new project or leave (if they worked on a contract basis). In form, the project management structure can correspond to brigade (cross-functional) structure, and divisional structure , in which a certain division (department) does not exist permanently, but for the duration of the project.
Benefits of a project management structure:
Disadvantages of the project management structure:
Conclusion: the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in enterprises with a small number of concurrent projects. The possibilities of implementing the principles of modern philosophy of quality are determined by the form of project management.
Such a structure is a network structure built on the principle of dual subordination of executors: on the one hand, to the direct head of the functional service, which provides personnel and technical assistance to the project manager, on the other hand, to the project or target program manager, who is endowed with the necessary authority to carry out the management process. With such an organization, the project manager interacts with 2 groups of subordinates: with permanent members of the project team and with other employees of functional departments who report to him temporarily and on a limited range of issues. At the same time, their subordination to the direct heads of subdivisions, departments, and services is preserved. For activities that have a clearly defined beginning and end, projects are formed, for ongoing activities - targeted programs. In an organization, both projects and targeted programs can coexist. An example of a matrix program-target management structure (Toyota) is shown in Fig. 6. This structure was proposed by Kaori Ishikawa in the 70s and, with minor changes, still functions today not only at Toyota, but also at many other companies around the world.
Target programs are managed at Toyota through functional committees. For example, when creating a functional committee in the field of quality assurance, an authorized quality management representative is appointed as the chairman of the committee. From the practice of Toyota, the number of committee members should not exceed five. The committee includes both employees of the quality assurance department and 1-2 employees of other departments. Each committee has a secretariat and appoints a secretary to conduct business. The main issues are considered by the committee at monthly meetings. The committee can also create groups working on individual projects. The Quality Committee determines the rights and obligations of all departments related to quality issues and establishes a system of their relationships. On a monthly basis, the quality committee analyzes the quality assurance indicators and understands the reasons for complaints, if any. At the same time, the committee is not responsible for quality assurance. This task is solved directly by each department within the framework of the vertical structure. The responsibility of the committee is to combine the vertical and horizontal structures to improve the performance of the entire organization.
Fig.6. Matrix management structure at Toyota
Advantages of the matrix structure:
Disadvantages of matrix structures:
Conclusion: the introduction of a matrix structure gives a good effect in organizations with a sufficiently high level of corporate culture and qualifications of employees, otherwise management can be disorganized (at Toyota, the introduction of a matrix structure took about 10 years). The effectiveness of the implementation of the ideas of the modern philosophy of quality in such a structure has been proven by the practice of Toyota.
Any organization is a purposeful system. In such a system, there is a functional division of labor between its individuals (or elements) the purposefulness of which is associated with the choice of goals, or desired outcomes, and means ( lines of conduct). One or another line of behavior involves the use of certain resources ( input quantities) to produce goods and provide services ( output quantities), which for the consumer should be of greater value than the resources used. Consumed resources include labor force, materials, energy, production capacity and cash. This applies equally to public and private organizations.
Traditionally, the organizational structure covers two types of relationships:
a responsibility(who is responsible for what) and subordination(who reports to whom). An organization with such a structure can be represented as a tree, while duties are represented by rectangles, the relative position of which shows authority level, and the lines connecting these rectangles are distribution of powers. However, such a representation of the organizational structure does not contain any information about at what cost and with the help of means the organization managed to achieve certain results. At the same time, a more informative description of the organizational structure, which can be the basis for more flexible ways of structuring an organization, can be obtained on the basis of matrices like costs - output or type means - ends. Let's illustrate this with the example of a typical private corporation producing some product.
Information about manufactured products can be used to determine the goals of the organization. To do this, for example, you can classify products according to their types or quality characteristics. The elements of the structure responsible for ensuring the production of products or the provision of services by the consumer outside the organization are called programs and are denoted by P1, P2,. . . , Pr. The funds used by programs (or activities) can generally be subdivided into operations and services.
Operation- this is a type of activity that directly affects the nature of the product or its availability. Typical operations (O1, O2, . . . , Om) are the purchase of raw materials, transportation, production, distribution and marketing of products.
Services are the activities necessary to support programs or carry out an operation. Typical services (S1, S2, . . . , Sn) are the work performed by departments such as accounting, data processing, Maintenance, department of settlement of labor conflicts, financial department, personnel department, legal services.
Activities, carried out within the framework of the program and within the framework of actions for its implementation, can be presented as in Fig. 7 and 8. The results of each individual activity can be used directly by the same activity, programs and other activities, as well as by the executive body and the external consumer.
General programs may be subdivided into private ones, for example, by type of consumer (industrial or individual), geographic area supplied or served, by type of product, etc. Private programs, in turn, can also be further subdivided.
| Programs / Activities | P1 | R2 | . . . | Rk |
| Operation Q1 | ||||
| Operation Q2 | ||||
| . . . . | ||||
| Operation Qm | ||||
| Service S1 | ||||
| Service S2 | ||||
| . . . . | ||||
| Service Sm |
Fig.7. Scheme of interaction between activities and programs
| Consumer divisions / Consumer divisions | Operation Q1 |
Operation Q2 |
. . . . | Operation Qm |
Service S1 |
S2 | . . . . | sn |
| Operation Q1 | ||||||||
| Operation Q2 | ||||||||
| Operation Qm | ||||||||
| Service S1 | ||||||||
| Service S2 | ||||||||
| . . . . | ||||||||
| Sn service |
Rice. 8. Scheme of interaction of activities
Similarly, you can drill down the types of activities of activities. For example, the manufacturing operations of a product may include the production of parts, assemblies, and assembly, each of which may be broken down into smaller operations.
If the number of programs and core and support activities (operations and services) is so large that the manager is not able to effectively coordinate, then there may be a need for coordinators within specific managerial functions (Fig. 9). Each line of action may require more than one coordinator or coordinating unit. In cases where the number of coordinators turns out to be too large, the use of higher coordinators or coordinating units ( in this context, "coordination" means precisely coordination but not management). To carry out coordination, a group consisting of the heads of coordinating departments and leaders is quite sufficient.
Fig.9. Structure of coordination in large organizations
Programs, as well as functional units, have certain requirements. Programs and functional units may be grouped by product, customer type, geographic area, etc. If there are too many and highly dispersed customers for a program unconventional the use of characteristics of geographical location as an additional dimension of the volumetric scheme of the organizational structure (Fig. 10). In this case, there is a need in regional representatives whose duty it is to protect the interests of those who consume the product or are affected by the activities of the organization as a whole. Regional representatives play the role of external intermediaries who can evaluate the programs and various activities of the organization in each particular region from the point of view of those whose interests they represent. In the future, this information can be used by the governing body, coordinators and heads of departments. By receiving such information simultaneously from all regional representatives, the manager can get a complete picture of the effectiveness of his program throughout the service area and in each region. This allows him to more rationally distribute the available resources across regions.
However, geographical location is not the only criterion for organizing the activities of external intermediaries; other criteria may be used. For example, an organization supplying various industries with lubricants, it is advisable to have representatives not by region, but by industry (this can be automotive, aerospace, machine tool building and other industries). The public service organization may determine the responsibilities of its representatives based on the socio-economic characteristics of the users.
Fig.10. 3D organizational chart
Sharing of responsibility. The considered "multidimensional" organization has something in common with the so-called "matrix organizations". However, the latter are usually two-dimensional and do not have many important features considered organizational structures, especially in matters of financing. In addition, all of them have one common drawback: employees of functional units are in double subordination, which, as a rule, leads to undesirable results. It is this most commonly noted deficiency in matrix organizations that is the cause of so-called "occupational schizophrenia".
A multidimensional organizational structure does not give rise to the difficulties inherent in a matrix organization. In a multidimensional organization, the functional unit personnel whose outputs are purchased by the program manager are treated as an external client and are accountable only to the functional unit manager. However, when evaluating the activities of his subordinates, the head of the functional unit, of course, should use the assessments of the quality of their work given by the program manager. The position of the person leading the functional unit team that does the work for the program is much like that of a project manager in a construction and consulting firm; he has no uncertainty as to who the owner is, but he has to deal with him as a client.
M multidimensional organizational structure and program funding. Usually practiced (or traditional) program financing is only a way of preparing cost estimates for the functional departments and programs. It is not about providing resources and choice for program units, or requiring functional units to independently conquer markets within and outside the organization. In short, program funding generally does not take into account the specifics of the organizational structure and does not affect its flexibility. This way of distributing funds between functional units guarantees only the execution of programs, while providing a more efficient than usual determination of the cost of their implementation. The multidimensional organizational structure allows you to keep all the advantages of the traditional method of financing and, in addition, has a number of others.
Benefits of a Multidimensional Organizational Structure
A multidimensional organizational structure allows you to increase the flexibility of the organization and its ability to respond to changing internal and external conditions. This is achieved by dividing the organization into units whose viability depends on their ability to produce competitively priced goods that are in demand and provide services that consumers need. This structure creates a market within the organization, whether it is private or public, commercial or non-profit (non-profit), and enhances its ability to respond to the needs of both internal and external customers. Since the structural units of the "multidimensional" are relatively independent of each other, they can be expanded, reduced, eliminated or changed in any way. The performance indicator of each division does not depend on similar indicators of any other division, which makes it easier for the executive body to evaluate and control the activities of divisions. Even work executive body can be evaluated autonomously in all aspects of its activities.
A multidimensional structure discourages the development of bureaucracy by preventing functional units or programs from falling prey to service units, whose procedures sometimes become an end in themselves and become an obstacle to achieving the goals set by the organization. Customers inside and outside the organization control the internal providers of products and services; Suppliers never control consumers. Such an organization is oriented towards ends rather than means, while bureaucracy is characterized by the subordination of ends to means.
Disadvantages of a Multidimensional Organizational Structure
However, a multidimensional organizational structure, although devoid of some significant shortcomings inherent in conventional organizations, nevertheless cannot eliminate all the shortcomings completely. By itself, such a structural organization does not guarantee meaningful and interesting work at lower levels, but it facilitates the application of new ideas that contribute to its improvement.
The introduction of a multidimensional organizational structure in the enterprise is not the only way to increase the flexibility of the organization and its sensitivity to changes in conditions, but a serious study of this allows you to "increase the flexibility" of people's ideas about the capabilities of organizations. It is this circumstance that should contribute to the emergence of new, even more advanced organizational structures.
The linear management structure is the most appropriate only for simple forms of organizations. A distinctive feature: a direct impact on all elements of the organization and the concentration in one hand of all management functions. The structure works well in small organizations with high professionalism and authority of the leader.
In small organizations with a clear distribution of functional responsibilities, structures in the form of a ring, a star and a wheel have also become widespread. organizational structure linear matrix
Linear control structure: ring
R - leader;
I - performer
Linear control structure: star
R - leader;
I - performer
Linear control structure: wheel
R - leader;
I - performer
The linear-functional management structure is based on the so-called "mine" principle of building and specializing the management process, depending on the duties assigned to the deputy heads - functional managers. These include: commercial director, deputy directors for personnel, production, heads of the information department, marketing department, etc.
Linear-functional management structure
The line-staff management structure is a combined structure that combines the properties of linear and linear-functional structures. It provides for the creation of special units (headquarters) to help line managers to solve certain problems. These headquarters prepare draft decisions on relevant issues for the head. Headquarters are not endowed with executive power. The leader himself makes the decision and brings it to all departments. The staff scheme is most appropriate if it is necessary to carry out linear management (one-man management) for the key positions of the organization.
Line-staff management structure
The matrix management structure is a lattice organization built on the principle of dual subordination of performers: on the one hand, to the direct head of the functional service, which provides personnel and technical assistance to the project manager, on the other hand, to the project (target program) manager, who is endowed with the necessary authority to implement the process management in accordance with the planned deadlines, resources and quality. The matrix scheme is used in complex, science-intensive production of goods, information, services, knowledge.
The program-target management structure provides for the creation of special management bodies for short-term and long-term programs. It is focused on ensuring the fullness of linear powers within the framework of ongoing programs.
Matrix control structure
The product management structure is one of the options for the program-target structure. It provides for the assignment to the manager responsible for the release program of a particular product, all responsibility for the quality and timing of the work. This manager is endowed with all the rights of disposal in terms of production, marketing and ancillary activities related to the manufacture of a particular product or range of products.
The project management structure is formed when the organization develops projects, which are understood as any processes of purposeful changes in the management system or in the organization as a whole, for example, the modernization of production, the development of new technologies, the construction of facilities, etc. Project management includes defining its goals, forming a structure, planning and organizing work, and coordinating the actions of performers. One of the forms project management is the formation of a special unit - a project team working on a temporary basis.
The functional-object structure of management provides for the allocation of the most qualified specialists in the functional units, who, in addition to their functional duties, are appointed as managers of specific works or objects in this unit. Within the unit, these specialists are senior in the performance of the assigned work, not only within the framework of the functions permanently assigned to them, but also on all other issues.
A variation of the hierarchical type of management organization is a very complex and branched structure, called the divisional management structure (from English word division - branch), the first developments of which date back to the 20s, and the peak of practical use - to the 60-70s of the twentieth century.
The need for new approaches to the organization of management was caused by a sharp increase in the size of enterprises, the diversification of their activities and the complication of technological processes in a dynamically changing external environment. The first to restructure the structure according to this model were the largest organizations, which, within the framework of their gigantic enterprises (corporations), began to create production departments, giving them a certain independence in carrying out operational activities. At the same time, the administration reserved the right to strict control over corporate-wide issues of development strategy, research and development, investment, etc. Therefore, this type of structure is often characterized as a combination of centralized coordination with decentralized management (decentralization while maintaining coordination and control).
The key figures in the management of organizations with a divisional structure are not the heads of functional departments, but managers who head production departments. The structuring of the organization by departments is carried out, as a rule, according to one of three criteria:
As a result of the expansion of the boundaries of operational and economic independence, departments can be considered as "profit centers", actively using the freedom granted to them to increase work efficiency.
At the same time, divisional management structures lead to an increase in hierarchy, i.e. vertical management associated with the need to form intermediate levels of management to coordinate the work of departments, groups, etc., in which management is based on a linear-functional principle. Duplication of management functions at different levels leads to an increase in the cost of maintaining the administrative apparatus.
The transition to a divisional OSU was a significant step forward in creating conditions for accelerating the scientific and technical development of production. Top managers began to pay more attention to the issues of long-term development of production. Decentralization of operational management of production began to be combined with a rigid system financial control and with the centralization of R&D. However, along with positive moments the negative aspects of divisional structures also appeared. The opportunities that have opened up for expanding the range of products have caused a number of firms to increase the diversification of production. This process, in its extreme form, has led to the emergence of conglomerate firms engaged in the production of completely different types of products, guided only by the desire to ensure the greatest profits. Many of them, in the face of a worsening general economic situation and increased competition, lost control and went bankrupt. Also, a serious drawback of the divisional OSU was the increase in the cost of maintaining administrative and managerial personnel. The experience of many large companies has shown that a divisional OSU can only improve management efficiency up to certain limits, after which more and more difficulties begin to be felt. Their main reason is the slowness of the process of preparation and decision-making, which is also typical for the linear-functional type of OSU. The process of formation of divisional structures in large companies was accompanied by the creation of divisions, which were endowed with significant economic independence.
Such subdivisions were called departments and were formed mainly on a product basis, less often on a regional or market basis. V American management this approach has been called "centralized coordination - decentralized administration". Such departments, gradually developing, served as the basis of modern centers. That is, first of all, profit centers, sales centers, investment centers, etc. With the development of the concept of strategic management, such centers gradually began to transform into strategic economic centers (SHC) - intra-company divisions that are simultaneously responsible for the development of future potential. The main problem in creating SCC is the distribution of responsibility, that is, organizations are responsible not only for planning and implementing the strategy, but also for the final result - making a profit.
One of the main problems of OSU gradually became the problem of flexibility. They tried to solve this problem by creating new variants of combined structures by introducing new elements into the main backbone (for example, a linear-functional) structure, which gave rise to new OSS, such as with temporary (created for a period) bodies, with committees, project management (product, object), matrix structures, etc. All these OSU options received common name program-target structures. At the same time, the role and place of the program manager varies depending on the conditions in which management is carried out. It is necessary to note the essential difference between the OSS of the program-target type and structures of the mechanistic type, which consists in the fact that, for example, the linear-functional one is based on the integrated management of objectively developing subsystems, while the program-target structures are based on the integrated management of the entire system in as a whole, as a single object focused on a specific goal.
Modern modifications of program-targeted OSU are venture and innovative ones. Large firms integrate such structures into their management. This is the most promising way to mobile respond to rapidly changing market conditions. The principles of construction and operation of the venture department in the company are the same as in an independent venture enterprise. Venture (innovative) structures in large firms have several varieties depending on a number of factors:
Thus, the evolution of OSU in the 20th century clearly shows that there is no perfect, universal structure, and the search process will continue into the new century. It should be noted that there is another point of view, which consists in the fact that there is no perfect, ideal OSU and cannot be. This is the so-called concept of "unfrozen system" or organization without OSU. The followers of this concept believe that the time of "organized organizations" has passed and that the modern economy in the 21st century is entering a stage where self-organization is of particular importance. Without denying the importance of self-organization, the task of finding effective OSUs remains relevant.
2) analysis of technical equipment and management methods.
An economic analysis of technical equipment and management methods characterizes the breadth of use in management of the achievements of scientific and technological progress, new methods and efficiency of organization management, the level of independence of departments.
Includes:
The objectives of the analysis of the organizational structure of management are:
identification of correspondence between production and organizational structures; compliance of the administrative staff with the nature and content of management functions. For this, the following are produced:
analysis of the production structure of the enterprise;
analysis of the structure of governing bodies;
analysis of the number of management apparatus;
analysis of specialization and centralization of managerial functions.
Depending on the nature of the links between the departments of the organization, the following types of organizational structures are distinguished: linear, functional, linear-functional (headquarters) and matrix.
Linear organizational structure of management. This is one of the simplest organizational management structures. It is characterized by the fact that at the head of each structural unit there is a single leader, endowed with all powers and exercising sole leadership of subordinate employees and concentrating all management functions in his hands.
With linear management, each link and each subordinate has one leader, through whom all control commands pass through one single channel. In this case, management links are responsible for the results of all activities of managed objects. We are talking about the object-wise allocation of managers, each of whom performs all types of work, develops and makes decisions related to the management of this object. Evaluation of performance results in a linear management structure has the form of a triangle.
Since in a linear management structure decisions are passed down the chain "from top to bottom", and the head of the lower level of management is subordinate to the head of a higher level above him, a kind of hierarchy of leaders of this particular organization is formed. V this case the principle of unity of command operates, the essence of which is that subordinates carry out the orders of only one leader. A higher management body does not have the right to give orders to any executors, bypassing their immediate superior, since that other is the chief of "my" boss.
In a linear management structure, each subordinate has a boss, and each boss has several subordinates. Such a structure functions in small organizations at the lowest level of management.
In a linear structure, the organization's management system is assembled according to production characteristics, taking into account the degree of concentration of production, technological features, the range of products, etc.
The linear management structure is logically more harmonious and formally defined, but at the same time less flexible. Each of the leaders has full power, but relatively little ability to solve functional problems that require narrow, specialized knowledge.
The linear organizational structure of management has its advantages and disadvantages.
Table 1
|
Advantages |
Flaws |
|
1) unity and clarity of command |
1) high requirements for the leader, who must be prepared comprehensively in order to provide effective leadership in all management functions |
|
2) consistency of actions of performers |
2) lack of links for planning and preparing decisions |
|
3) ease of management (one communication channel) |
3) information overload, many contacts with subordinates, superiors and shift structures |
|
4) clearly defined responsibility |
4) difficult connections between instances |
|
5) efficiency in decision-making |
5) concentration of power in the top management |
|
6) personal responsibility of the head for the final results of the activities of his unit |
Serious shortcomings of the linear structure to a certain extent can be eliminated by the functional structure.
Functional organizational structure of organization management. Functional management is carried out by a certain set of units specialized in the performance of specific types of work necessary for decision-making in the linear management system.
The idea is that the performance of individual functions on specific issues is entrusted to specialists, i.e. each governing body (or executor) is specialized in the performance of certain types of activities.
In an organization, as a rule, specialists of the same profile are combined into specialized structural units (departments), for example, a marketing department, a planning department, accounting, etc. Thus, the overall task of managing the organization is divided, starting from the middle level according to the functional criterion. Hence the name - functional management structure.
Functional management exists along with linear management, which creates double subordination for performers.
In this case, instead of universal managers who must understand and perform all management functions, there appears a staff of specialists with high competence in their field and responsible for a certain area (for example, planning and forecasting). Such functional specialization of the management apparatus significantly increases the effectiveness of the organization.
Like a linear structure, a functional structure has its advantages and disadvantages.
table 2
|
Advantages |
Flaws |
|
1) high competence of specialists responsible for the implementation of specific functions |
1) excessive interest in the implementation of the goals and objectives of "their" units |
|
2) release of line managers from solving some special issues |
2) difficulties in maintaining constant relationships between various functional services |
|
3) standardization, formalization and programming of phenomena and processes |
3) the emergence of tendencies of excessive centralization |
|
4) elimination of duplication and parallelism in the performance of managerial functions |
4) lengthy decision-making procedure |
|
5) reducing the need for generalists |
5) a relatively frozen organizational form that hardly responds to changes |
The shortcomings of both linear and functional management structures are largely eliminated by linear-functional structures.
Linear-functional (headquarters) structurepackmanagement. With such a management structure, the full power is assumed by the line manager, who heads a certain team. In developing specific issues and preparing appropriate decisions, programs, plans, he is assisted by a special apparatus consisting of functional units (departments, departments, etc.).
In this case, the functional structures of the unit are subordinate to the chief line manager. They carry out their decisions either through the chief executive officer or (within their authority) directly through the respective heads of executive services.
Thus, the linear-functional structure includes special units under line managers that help them carry out the tasks of the organization.
The linear-functional structure also has its advantages and disadvantages.
Table 3
|
Advantages |
Flaws |
|
1) deeper preparation of decisions and plans related to the specialization of employees |
1) lack of close relationships and interaction at a horizontal level between production departments |
|
2) release of the main line manager from deep analysis of problems |
2) insufficiently clear responsibility, since those preparing the decision, as a rule, do not participate in its implementation |
|
3) the possibility of attracting consultants and experts |
3) an overly developed system of interaction along the vertical, namely: subordination along the hierarchy of management, i.e., a tendency towards excessive centralization |
Matrix organizational structure of management. The matrix management structure is created by combining structures of two types: linear and program-targeted. During the functioning of the program-target structure, the control action is aimed at fulfilling a certain target task, in the solution of which all parts of the organization participate.
The whole set of works on the implementation of a given final goal is considered not from the standpoint of the existing hierarchy, subordination, but from the standpoint of achieving the goal provided for by the program. At the same time, the main attention is focused not so much on the improvement of individual units, but on the integration of all types of activities, creating conditions conducive to the effective implementation of the target program. At the same time, program managers are responsible both for its implementation as a whole and for coordination and high-quality performance of management functions.
In accordance with the linear structure (vertically), management is built for individual areas of the organization's activities: R&D, production, sales, supply, etc.
Within the framework of the program-target structure (horizontally), the management of programs (projects, topics) is organized.
The established linear-functional structure is introduced (temporarily or permanently) by special headquarters bodies (persons or groups of persons) that coordinate the existing horizontal connections for the implementation of a specific program (project), while maintaining the vertical relations inherent in this structure. The main part of the workers involved in the implementation of the program is subordinate to at least two managers, but on different issues.
Program management is carried out by specially appointed managers who are responsible for coordinating all program communications and achieving its goals in a timely manner. At the same time, top-level managers are relieved of the need to make decisions on current issues. As a result, at the middle and lower levels, the efficiency of management and responsibility for the quality of execution of specific operations and procedures increase, i.e. I noticeably the role of the heads of specialized departments in organizing work according to a clearly defined program.
With a matrix management structure, the program manager does not work with specialists who are subordinate. not directly to him, but to line managers, and basically determines what and when should be done for a specific program. Line managers decide who and how will perform this or that work.
The matrix structure also has its advantages and disadvantages.
Table 4
|
Advantages |
Flaws |
|
1) the ability to quickly respond and adapt to changing internal and external conditions of the organization |
1) a complex structure of subordination, as a result of which there are problems associated with setting the priorities of tasks and allocating time for their implementation |
|
2) increasing the creative activity of administrative and managerial personnel through the formation of program units that actively interact with functional structures |
2) the presence of the "spirit" of unhealthy rivalry between program managers |
|
3) rational use personnel through specialization various kinds labor activity |
3) the need for constant monitoring of the "correlation" of forces between the tasks of management by goals |
|
4) increase in motivation of activity due to decentralization of management and strengthening of democratic principles of leadership |
4) difficulty in acquiring the skills needed to work on the new program |
|
5) strengthening control over individual project tasks | |
|
6) reducing the burden on high-level managers by delegating a certain part of the authority | |
|
7) increasing personal responsibility for the implementation of the program as a whole and its constituent elements |
The creation of a matrix organizational structure for managing an organization is considered appropriate if there is a need to master a number of new complex products in a short time, to introduce technological innovations in a quick response to market fluctuations.
Matrix management structures, which supplemented the linear-functional organizational structure, opened up a qualitatively new direction in the development of the most flexible and active program-targeted management structures. They are aimed at raising the creative initiative of managers and specialists and identifying opportunities for a significant increase in production efficiency.
