Organizational structures of enterprises and their features. Types of organizational structures (2) - Abstract. Examples of the organizational structure of an enterprise

Published with permission from Lanit

"The office reaches perfection just in time for the firm to decline."
12th Law of Parkinson

By management philosophy we mean 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.

Hierarchical type of control structures

Management structures on 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 principle of hierarchy of management levels, in which each lower level is controlled by a higher one and is subordinate to it;
• the principle of correspondence of powers and responsibilities of management employees to their place in the hierarchy, which follows from it;
• the principle of division of labor into separate functions and specialization of workers according to the functions performed; the principle of formalization and standardization of activities, ensuring the uniformity of the performance of their duties by employees and the coordination of various tasks;
• the principle of impersonal performance by employees of their functions arising from it;
• the principle of qualification selection, in accordance with which hiring and dismissal from work is carried out in strict accordance with qualification requirements.

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).

Linear organizational structure

Basics linear structures constitutes 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:

• a clear system of mutual relations of functions and divisions;
• a clear system of unity of command - one leader concentrates in his hands the management of the entire set of processes that have a common goal;
• clear responsibility;
• quick reaction of the executive departments to direct instructions from superiors.

Disadvantages of a linear structure:

• lack of links dealing with strategic planning; in the work of managers at almost all levels, operational problems ("churn") dominates over strategic ones;
• a tendency to red tape and shifting responsibility when solving problems that require the participation of several departments;
• low flexibility and adaptability to changing situations;
• criteria for the efficiency and quality of work of departments and the organization as a whole are different;
• the tendency to formalize the assessment of the effectiveness and quality of the work of departments usually leads to the emergence of an atmosphere of fear and disunity;
• a large number of "management floors" between workers producing products and the decision maker;
• overload of top-level managers;
• increased dependence of the results of the organization's work on the qualifications, personal and business qualities of top managers.

Conclusion: in modern conditions the disadvantages of the structure outweigh its advantages. Such a structure is poorly compatible with the modern philosophy of quality.

Linear - headquarters organizational structure

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:

• deeper than in the linear, study of strategic issues;
• some unloading of top managers;
• the possibility of attracting external consultants and experts;
• in empowering headquarters units with functional leadership, such a structure is a good first step towards more effective organic management structures.

Disadvantages of a linear - staff structure:

• insufficiently clear distribution of responsibility, since the persons preparing the decision do not participate in its implementation;
• tendencies towards excessive centralization of management;
• similar to a linear structure, partially - in a weakened form.

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 the ideas of the modern philosophy of quality.

Divisional management structure

By the end of the 1920s, the need for new approaches to the organization of management became clear, associated with a sharp increase in the size of enterprises, the diversification of their activities (diversification), and the 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:

• it provides management of diversified enterprises with a total number of employees of the order of hundreds of thousands and territorially remote divisions;
• provides greater flexibility and faster response to changes in the enterprise environment in comparison with the linear and linear - staff;
• when expanding the boundaries of the independence of the departments, they become "profit centers", actively working to improve the efficiency and quality of production;
• closer relationship between production and consumers.

Disadvantages of the divisional structure:

• a large number of "floors" of the management vertical; between the workers and the production manager of the unit - 3 or more levels of management, between the workers and the company's management - 5 or more;
• disunity of headquarters structures of departments from company headquarters;
• the main connections are vertical, therefore, there are shortcomings common to hierarchical structures - red tape, congestion of managers, poor interaction in resolving issues related to departments, etc.;
• duplication of functions on different "floors" and as a result - very high costs for the maintenance of the management 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 type of management structures

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 quality of work and a 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.

Brigade (cross-functional) management structure

The basis of this management structure is the organization of work in working groups (teams). The form of brigade organization of work is quite ancient organizational form, it is enough to recall the workers' 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:

• autonomous work of working groups (teams);
• independent decision-making by working groups and horizontal coordination of activities;
• replacement of rigid managerial ties of a bureaucratic type with flexible ties;
• involvement of employees from different departments to develop and solve problems.

These principles destroy the intrinsic hierarchical structures rigid distribution of employees among production, engineering, economic and management services, 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 working group or the team they belong to). 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:

• reduction of the administrative apparatus, increase in management efficiency;
• flexible use of personnel, their knowledge and competence;
• work in groups creates conditions for self-improvement;
• the possibility of applying effective methods of planning and management;
• reducing the need for generalists.

Disadvantages of the brigade (cross-functional) structure:

• complication of interaction (especially for a cross-functional structure);
• difficulty in coordinating the work of individual teams;
• high qualification and responsibility of personnel;
• high communication requirements.

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 of organizational structures in which the ideas of the modern philosophy of quality are most effectively embodied.

Project management structure

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, go into new project or quit (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:

• high flexibility;
• reduction in the number of managerial personnel in comparison with hierarchical structures.

Disadvantages of the project management structure:

• very high qualification requirements, personal and business qualities of the project manager, who must not only manage all stages of the project life cycle, but also take into account the place of the project in the company's project network;
• fragmentation of resources between projects;
• the complexity of the interaction of a large number of projects in the company;
• complication of the process of development of the organization as a whole.

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.

Matrix (program - target) management structure

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:

• better orientation to project (or program) goals and demand;
• more efficient day-to-day management, the ability to reduce costs and increase the efficiency of resource use;
• more flexible and efficient use of the organization's personnel, special knowledge and competence of employees;
• the relative autonomy of project teams or program committees contributes to the development of decision-making skills, managerial culture, and professional skills among employees;
• improving control over individual tasks of the project or target program;
• any work is organizationally formalized, one person is appointed - the "owner" of the process, serving as the center of concentration of all issues related to the project or target program;
• the response time to the needs of the project or program is reduced, since horizontal communications and a single decision-making center have been created.

Disadvantages of matrix structures:

• the difficulty of establishing clear responsibility for the work on the instructions of the unit and on the instructions of the project or program (a consequence of double subordination);
• the need for constant monitoring of the ratio of resources allocated to departments and programs or projects;
• high requirements for qualifications, personal and business qualities of employees working in groups, the need for their training;
• frequent conflict situations between heads of departments and projects or programs;
• the possibility of violating the rules and standards adopted in the functional units due to the isolation of employees participating in the project or program from their units.

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.

Multidimensional organizational structure

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, materials, energy, production capacity and cash. This applies equally to public and private organizations.

Traditionally, the organizational structure covers two types of relationships:

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 responsibilities 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. Results of each separate species activities can be used directly by the same type of activity, programs and other types of activities, as well as by the executive body and an 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 main and ancillary 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 structure

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 lack many of the important features of the considered organizational structures, especially in terms of funding. 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 output is 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 financing. 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 the work of the 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 organization's goals. 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, the multidimensional organizational structure, although it is devoid of some significant shortcomings inherent in organizations of the usual type, 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.

Introduction 2

Types of organizational structures 3

Linear organizational structure 3

Functional organizational structure 4

Functional-linear structure 6

Line-headquarters organizational structure 7

Divisional management structure 9

Matrix organizational structure 10

Conclusion. 12

References 13

Introduction

Structure - a set of elements that make up the system and stable relationships between them. An enterprise is a complex system, within which several interacting structures can be distinguished - sections, workshops, and other divisions.

All production shops and sections of the enterprise, the divisions that manage the enterprise, as well as the employees involved in its maintenance, form the general structure of the enterprise.

The composition of the production links of the enterprise (shops and sections) interacting in the process of manufacturing products, the size of the production links and their ratio in terms of the number of employees, the cost of funds, the occupied area, their spatial distribution represent the production structure, which is part of the overall structure of the enterprise.

The totality of interrelations and relationships between business units that arise in the management process forms organizational structure. The main function of the organizational structure is to ensure control and coordination of the activities of all departments of the enterprise. The organizational structure of the enterprise reflects the level of authority of various functional and linear divisions of the enterprise.

The organizational structure can be formed both in accordance with the functions of the enterprise (planning, accounting, finance, personnel, marketing, production, etc.), and with the features of its activities - the range and range of products, the specifics of the market, etc.

Types of organizational structures

In the organizational structure, each element occupies a specific place. It is characterized by links through which their interaction (direct and reverse) occurs in the process of management. Relationships of elements within the organizational structure can be linear, functional and cross-functional.

Linear connections arise between departments and heads of different levels of management and appear where one head is administratively subordinate to another (director - shop manager - foreman).

Functional connections are typical in the interaction between departments and managers related to certain activities on different levels management. At the same time, there is no administrative blueing between them (for example, the formation of the production program of the workshop: the head of the workshop - the production and dispatch department).

Cross-functional links arise between departments of the same level of management (between the heads of different departments or functional departments of the enterprise).

The nature of the listed links determines the type of organizational structure of management.

Linear organizational structure

Linear organizational structure(Fig. 1) - is based on the principle of unity of distribution of orders, according to which only a higher authority has the right to issue orders. Compliance with this principle should ensure the unity of management. Such an organizational structure is formed as a result of building a management apparatus from mutually subordinate bodies in the form of a hierarchical ladder, i.e. each subordinate has one leader, and the leader has several subordinates. Two leaders cannot directly contact each other, they must do this through the nearest higher authority. Such a structure is often referred to as a single-line structure.

The advantages of such a structure are:

Simple construction

Unambiguous limitation of tasks, competence, responsibility

Rigid leadership of the governing bodies

Efficiency and accuracy of management decisions

Disadvantages:

Difficult communications between instances

The concentration of power at the top

The linear management structure is used by small and medium-sized firms that carry out simple production, in the absence of broad cooperative ties between enterprises.

Functional organizational structure

Functional organizational structure(Fig. 2) - based on the creation of units to perform certain functions at all levels of management. These functions include research, production, sales, marketing, etc. Here, with the help of directive guidance, hierarchically lower levels of management can be connected to various higher levels of management. The transfer of instructions, instructions and messages is carried out depending on the type of task.

For example, a worker in a workshop receives instructions not from one person (foreman), but from several staff units, i.e. The principle of multiple subordination applies. Therefore, such an organizational structure is called multilinear.

The functional structure of production management is aimed at performing constantly recurring routine tasks that do not require prompt decision-making. Functional services usually include highly qualified specialists who perform specific activities depending on the tasks assigned to them.

The advantages of such a structure include:

Reduction of coordination links

Reducing duplication of work

Strengthening vertical links and strengthening control over the activities of lower levels

High competence of specialists responsible for the performance of specific functions

To the disadvantages:

Ambiguous distribution of responsibility

Difficult communication

Lengthy decision-making process

The emergence of conflicts due to disagreement with directives, as each functional leader puts his questions first

Functional-linear structure

Functional-linear structure(Fig. 3) is based on the "mine" principle of construction, specialization of the management process by functional subsystems.

Features of this structure:

for each subsystem, a hierarchy of services (“mine”) is formed, penetrating the entire organization from top to bottom;

each element has a clearly defined task and responsibilities;

it is expedient to use at enterprises producing a limited range of products, operating in stable conditions and requiring the solution of standard management tasks.

Advantages:

a clear system of mutual relations of functions and divisions;

clear system of unity of command;

clear responsibility;

quick reaction of executive departments to direct instructions from higher-level ones;

reducing duplication of effort.

Disadvantages:

lack of links involved in strategic planning;

a tendency to shift responsibility when solving problems that require the participation of several departments;

low flexibility and adaptability to changing situations;

a large number of "management floors" between workers producing products and the decision maker;

overload of top-level managers;

Line-headquarters organizational structure

Line-headquarters organizational structure(Fig. 4) is based on a linear organization of management.

Peculiarities:

along with line managers, the management apparatus includes headquarters units;

the main task of headquarters units is to assist line managers;

headquarters units do not have the right to make decisions and lead subordinate units;

headquarters units include controlling, marketing, network planning groups, legal services, etc.

a good intermediate step when moving from a linear structure to more efficient ones.

Advantages:

more meaningful and competent preparation of managerial decisions;

release of line managers from solving specific tasks;

opportunity to attract highly qualified specialists.

Disadvantages:

insufficiently clear responsibility, tk. preparing decisions is not involved in their implementation;

tendency to over-centralization;

increasing demands on the top decision-making level of management.

Divisional management structure

In industrialized countries, there is a move away from the linear functional structure(its classical type has been preserved in medium and small enterprises in traditional business areas). The majority of large companies divisional type of organizational structure(Fig. 5).

The divisional organizational structure is characterized by decentralization of management functions - production units are given autonomous structures that implement the main management functions (accounting, planning, financial management, marketing, etc.). this allows the production departments to independently solve the problems associated with the development, production and marketing of their own products. At the same time, the top management of the enterprise can focus on setting and solving strategic problems.

The transition to this type of organizational structure was determined by:

growing diversification of business activities;

management specialization;

international division of labor;

increase in awareness, self-esteem and expectations of middle managers.

The divisional structure differs from the linear-functional structure in greater flexibility, which ensures the speed of decision-making and is its advantage in a rapidly changing market environment and technological innovations.

The main advantages of the divisional structure:

Flexibility (most effective in a dynamic environment);

Efficiency of decision-making;

Interdisciplinary approach;

Quick solution of complex cross-functional problems;

Focus on new technologies and markets;

Focus on non-price competition.

The disadvantages of the structure include conflicting interests of individual departments and the enterprise as a whole, duplication of management functions (growth of the administrative apparatus and low efficiency). With the growth of the enterprise, this can lead to loss of control.

Matrix organizational structure

Matrix organizational structure arises in conditions of diversified production, when an enterprise develops and produces heterogeneous types of products, implements several investment projects, etc. such a structure is a synthesis of linear-functional and divisional structures.

General instructions are given to performers by line managers, and specific instructions are given by managers of individual projects. The latter are endowed with special powers, make decisions, combine and interpret information coming from functional units, monitor the progress of projects. Orders of line managers are agreed in writing with the managers of individual projects in cases where they relate to work on this particular project.

The main advantages of the matrix structure are flexibility, dynamism, guarantees for the preservation and expansion of technological capital and innovative activity. The personal interest of the project manager in his success, due to the desire for professional growth and the identification of individual and collective goals, stimulates team cohesion and ensures the growth of labor productivity. Therefore, such a structure is often used in the implementation of projects that are limited in time.

The disadvantages of the matrix structure include the fact that its implementation is not accompanied by the observance of the principle of one-dimensionality in management, as a result of which each subordinate has not one, but several leaders, whose orders can often be contradictory.

Conclusion.

An analysis of the essence, advantages and weaknesses of a particular organizational structure provides serious grounds for justifying the choice of its specific type for a really functioning or emerging enterprise. However, this factor cannot be limited when making adequate management decisions. The following must also be taken into account:

First of all, the choice of organizational structure is influenced by the size of the enterprise - the size of capital, fixed assets, the number of employed personnel.

A very rigid determinant condition for the organizational structure of an enterprise is the technology used by it.

The territorial size of the market served by one company also predetermines the features of its organizational structure.

The most important factor in the structural dynamics of an enterprise is the nature external environment- the degree of its uncertainty, predictability and the rate of change.

Finally, one of the reasons for choosing the type of structural organization of the organization is the personal characteristics and experience of managers, including, and above all, top management.

Bibliography

Avrashkov L.Ya., Adamchuk V.V., Antonova O.V., etc. Enterprise Economics.- M., UNITI, 2001

William J. Stevenson Production Management. - M., CJSC "Publishing House BINOM", 2000

Gruzinov V.P., Gribov V.D. Enterprise economy. Textbook.-M.: IEP, 2004

Kalacheva A.P. Organization of the work of the enterprise.-M .: PRIOR, 2000

Semenov V.M., Baev I.A., Terekhova S.A. Enterprise Economics: Textbook - M .: Center for Economics and Marketing, 2000

Sergeev I.V. Enterprise Economics: Proc. allowance. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: Finance and statistics, 2004

structure types organizational structures controls: - linear; - functional; - linear-functional...

1. Types organizational structures controls (4)

   Abstract >> Management

   Types organizational structures management Organizational structure management apparatus - a form of division of labor ... the nature of the connections, several main ones are distinguished types organizational structures controls: - linear; - functional; - linear-...

2. Types organizational structures management Basic principles of construction organizational structures

   Abstract >> Management

   Is an type organizational structures, which matches type enterprises and includes certain types organizational structures. 3. Methodical approach to the formation organizational structures ...

3. Types organizational structures controls (2)

   Abstract >> Management

   The nature of the connections are distinguished by several main types organizational structures controls: linear; functional; linear- ... develop and implement new, more flexible types organizational structures, which, in comparison with the bureaucratic ones, were ...

Organizational managment structure - a form of system management that determines the composition, interaction and subordination of its elements using linear, functional and cross-functional relationships in the process of communication.

Linear connections arise between subdivisions and heads of different levels of management, where one head is subordinate to another.

Functional links characterize the interaction of managers who perform certain functions at different levels of management, and there is no administrative subordination between them.

Cross-functional links take place between subsections of the same level of control.

From the whole variety of organizational management structures, two large groups are very clearly distinguished. These are hierarchical and adaptive organizational structures (Figure 3.1).

Let's see what their difference is.

Hierarchical organizational structures (they are also called formal, mechanistic, bureaucratic, classical, traditional) are characterized by a firm hierarchy of power in the enterprise, formalization of the rules and procedures used, centralized decision-making, narrowly defined responsibility in activities.

Adaptive organizational structures (organic, flexible) are characterized by vagueness of the management hierarchy, a small number of management levels, flexibility of the power structure, weak or moderate use of formal rules and procedures, decentralization of decision-making, widely conditioned by responsibility in activities.

Hierarchical management structures have many varieties. They are formed in accordance with the principles that were formulated at the beginning of the 20th century. At the same time, the main attention was paid to the division of labor into separate functions.

Modern organizational structures of a hierarchical type are derived from elementary structures. Elementary organizational structure displays a two-level division that can only exist in small enterprises. With such a structure in the organization, an upper level (manager) and a lower level (performer) are distinguished. The elementary structures are linear andfunctional organizational structures of management. These types of structures as independent are not used by any large enterprise.

Linear control structure very simple in its essence: the main principle of its construction is a vertical hierarchy, that is, the subordination of management links from top to bottom. With a linear management structure, the principle of unity of command is very clearly implemented: at the head of each subsection is a head endowed with all powers, who exercises sole leadership of subordinate units, and also concentrates all management functions in his hands.

The heads of the subdivisions of the lower levels are directly subordinate to only one head of the highest level of management, the highest management body does not have the right to give orders to any performers, passing their immediate head. This type of structures is characterized by one-dimensional connections: they develop only vertical connections.

To advantages of a linear organizational structure management can include:

1) unity of command, simplicity and clarity of subordination;

2) the full responsibility of the head for the results of the activities of subsections subordinate to him;

3) efficiency in decision-making;

4) coordination of actions of performers;

5) receipt by subordinate units of orders and tasks agreed upon among themselves.

disadvantages This simplest kind of control structure can be called:

1) a large information overload of the head, a huge flow of documents, a plurality of contacts with subordinates, higher and adjacent levels;

2) high requirements for the manager, who must be a highly qualified specialist who has versatile knowledge and experience from all management functions and areas of activity that are carried out by employees subordinate to him;

3) the structure can only be adapted to the solution of operational and current tasks;

4) the structure is inflexible and does not make it possible to resolve tasks that depend on the operating conditions that are constantly changing.

The linear organizational structure of management is used, as a rule, only in the lower production units (in groups, brigades, etc.), as well as in small enterprises in the initial period of their formation.

For functional management structure characteristic creation, structural units, each of which has its own well-defined, specific tasks and responsibilities. Consequently, under the conditions of this structure, each governing body, as well as the performer, is specialized in the performance of certain types of management activities (functions). An apparatus of specialists is being created who are responsible only for a certain area of ​​work.

The functional structure of management is based on the principle of complete management: the implementation of the instructions of the functional body within its competence is mandatory for subsections.

Benefits of a functional management structure can be reduced to the following:

1) high competence of specialists who are responsible for performing specific functions;

2) specialization of subsections in the performance of a certain type of management activity, the elimination of duplication in the execution of tasks for the management of individual services.

disadvantages This type of organizational management structure can be called:

1) violation of the principle of full control, the principle of unity of command;

2) lengthy decision-making procedure;

3) difficulties in maintaining constant relationships between different functional services;

4) reducing the responsibility of performers for the work, since each performer receives instructions from several managers;

5) inconsistency and duplication of instructions and orders that the performers receive "from above";

6) each functional manager and functional subsection put their questions in the first place, not coordinating them with the need to achieve the goals set for the enterprise.

To some extent, contribute to the elimination of the shortcomings of the linear and functional organizational structures linear staff and linear functional management structures that provide for the functional division of managerial work into subsections of different levels and a combination of linear and functional management principles. In this case, the functional subdivisions can carry out their decisions either through line managers (under the conditions of a linear-headquarters structure), or, within the limits of special powers, directly bring them to specialized services or individual performers at a lower level (under conditions of a linear-functional management structure).

At the core line-staff management structure there is a linear structure, but with line managers special subsections (headquarters services) are created that specialize in performing certain managerial functions. These services do not have the right to make decisions, but only provide their specialists with a more qualified performance of their duties by the line manager. The activity of functional specialists in these conditions is reduced to the search for the most rational options for solving tasks. The final adoption of the solution and its transfer to subordinates for implementation is carried out by the line manager.

Under the conditions of this type of management structures, the principle of unity of command is preserved. At the same time, an important task for line managers is to coordinate the actions of functional services and direct them into the mainstream of the general interests of the enterprise.

In contrast to the line-staff, in linear functional structure, the most common structure of a hierarchical type, which is still widely used throughout the world, functional subsections can give the most watts of disposal to lower levels, but not from all, but from a limited range of issues that are due to their functional specialization.

The basis of linear-functional structures is, in addition to the linear principles of management, the specialization of management activities for the functional subsystems of the enterprise (marketing, research and development, production, finance and economics, etc.), as well as the "mine" principle of construction. This principle means that each functional subsystem forms a hierarchy of services ("mine") that permeates the entire enterprise from top to bottom.

Advantages of a linear-functional management structure:

1) stimulation of business and professional specialization in the conditions of this management structure;

2) high production response of the enterprise, because it is built on a narrow specialization of production and a narrow qualification of specialists;

3) reduction of duplication of efforts in functional areas;

4) improving the coordination of activities in functional areas.

Despite the greatest distribution of linear-functional management structures, they have a number of disadvantages:

1) "blurring" of the developed strategy for the development of the enterprise: subdivisions may be interested in the implementation of only their local goals and tasks to a greater extent than the entire enterprise as a whole, that is, setting their own goals higher than the goals of the entire enterprise;

2) lack of close relationships and interaction at the horizontal level between subsections;

3) a sharp increase in the volume of work of the head of the enterprise and his deputies through the need to coordinate the actions of different functional services;

4) an overdeveloped system of vertical interaction;

5) loss of flexibility in the relationship of employees of the administrative apparatus through the use of formal rules and procedures;

6) weak innovative and entrepreneurial response of the enterprise;

8) complicating and slowing down the transfer of information, which affects the speed and timeliness of making managerial decisions; the chain of commands from the leader to the performer becomes too long, which complicates communication.

Divisional structure - a structure based on the separation of large autonomous production and economic subdivisions (departments, divisions) and their corresponding levels of management, with the provision of these subdivisions with operational and production independence and with the transfer of responsibility for the final financial result to this level.

Operational level management, which focuses on the production of a specific product or on the implementation of activities in a certain territory, was finally separated from strategic, responsible for the development of the enterprise as a whole.

The supreme governing body of the enterprise reserves the right to control corporate-wide issues of development strategy, research and development, finance, investment, and the like. Consequently, divisional structures are characterized by a combination of centralized strategic planning in the upper echelons of management with decentralized activities of departments at the level of which operational management is carried out and who are responsible for making a profit. In connection with the transfer of responsibility for profit to the level of departments (divisions), they began to be regarded as "profit centers".

Divisional structures management is usually characterized as a combination of centralized coordination with decentralized management (decentralization while maintaining coordination and control).

Divisional Approach provides a closer connection between production and consumers, significantly speeding up its response to changes that occur in the external environment.

Divisional structures are characterized by the full responsibility of the heads of departments for the results of the activities of the subsections they head. In this regard, the most important place in the management of enterprises is occupied not by the heads of functional subdivisions, but by the heads who head the production departments.

The structuring of an enterprise by departments (divisions) is carried out, as a rule, according to one of three principles:

1) for grocery products - taking into account the characteristics of the products that are produced or the services that are provided;

2) by groups of consumers - depending on their specific needs;

3) by regional - depending on the territory that is served.

In this regard, distinguish three types of divisional structures: grocery, focused on consumer groups, regional.

Advantages this type of structures:

the use of divisional structures enables enterprises to pay as much attention to a specific product or consumer of a geographical region as a small specialized enterprise pays, as a result of which it is possible to quickly respond to changes that occur in the external environment, adapt to changing conditions;

this type of management structure focuses on achieving the final results of the enterprise (production of specific types of products, meeting the needs of a specific consumer, saturation of a specific regional market with goods);

reducing the complexity of management that occurs in senior managers;

separation of operational management from strategic, as a result of which the top management of the enterprise concentrates on strategic planning and management;

shifting responsibility for profit to the level of divisions; decentralization of operational management decisions.

At the same time, there are limitations considered type of organizational structures:

1) divisional management structures led to an increase in hierarchy, that is, a management vertical, which led to the formation of intermediate levels of management to coordinate the work of departments, groups, etc.;

2) contrasting the goals of the departments with the general goals of the development of the enterprise, the disagreement of the interests of the "tops" and "bottoms" in a multi-level hierarchy;

3) the possibility of interdepartmental conflicts, in particular 1 time shortage of key resources that are distributed centrally;

4) low coordination of the activities of departments (divisions), headquarters services are separated, horizontal ties are weakened;

5) inefficient use of resources, the inability to use them fully due to the assignment of resources to a specific subsection;

6) an increase in the cost of maintaining the administrative apparatus as a result of duplication of the same functions in subdivisions and, accordingly, an increase in the number of personnel.

An analysis of the varieties of organizational structures of a hierarchical type testified to the transition to more flexible, adaptive management structures, adapted to dynamic changes and production requirements, was objectively necessary and natural.

For adaptive organizational structures a characteristic lack of bureaucratic regulation of the activities of management bodies, the absence of a detailed division of labor by type of work, blurring of management levels and a small number of them, flexibility in the management structure, decentralization of decision-making, individual responsibility of each employee for the overall performance results.

In addition, adaptive organizational structures are usually characterized by such features:

the ability to relatively easily change its shape;

focus on the accelerated implementation of complex projects and comprehensive programs;

limited action in time;

creation of temporary government bodies.

To varieties of structures of adaptive type include: design; problem-targeted; structures based on a group approach (team, problem-group, brigade) and network organizational structures.

Design structures - these are management structures for complex activities that, due to their crucial importance, need to provide unceasing coordinating and integrating influence with severe restrictions on costs, timing and quality of work.

Traditionally, a department head in any large enterprise within a hierarchical organizational structure has many different responsibilities and is responsible for different aspects of several different programs, issues, projects, products and services. Of course, under these conditions, even a handsome leader will pay more attention to some types of activities, and less to others. Due to the fact that it is impossible to take into account all the features, all the details of projects, this can lead to the most serious consequences. Therefore, in order to manage projects, and primarily large-scale ones, special project management structures are used.

Project structures at enterprises, as a rule, are used when it becomes necessary to develop and implement an organizational project of a complex nature, which covers, on the one hand, the solution of a wide range of specialized technical, economic, social and other issues, on the other hand, the activities of various functional and linear subsections. To organizational projects any processes of purposeful changes in the system can be attributed, for example, the reconstruction of production, the development and development of new types of products and technological processes, the construction of facilities, and the like.

Project management structure - this is a temporary structure, created to solve a specific complex task (project development and its implementation). The content of the project management structure is to bring together the most qualified employees of different professions into one team to implement a complex project on time with a given level of quality and within the material, financial and labor resources allocated for this purpose.

Main benefits These types of governance structures are:

integration of different types of enterprise activities in order to obtain high-quality results from a specific project;

an integrated approach to project implementation, problem solving;

concentration of all efforts on solving one task, on the implementation of one specific project;

greater flexibility of project structures;

revitalization of the activities of project managers and executors as a result of the formation of project teams;

strengthening the personal responsibility of a particular manager both for the project as a whole and for its elements.

To shortcomings The project management structure includes the following:

1) in the presence of several organizational projects or programs, project structures lead to a fragmentation of resources and significantly complicate the support and development of the production and scientific and technical potential of the enterprise as a whole;

2) from the project manager it is necessary not only to manage all stages of the project life cycle, but also to take into account the place of the project in the network of projects of this enterprise;

3) when using the project structure, difficulties arise with the prospective use of specialists in this enterprise;

4) there is a partial duplication of functions.

One of the most complex adaptive-type control structures is recognized matrix structure . It arose as a response to the need for rapid technological change with the most efficient use of a highly skilled workforce.

Matrix structure displays the consolidation in the organizational structure of the enterprise of two directions of leadership, two organizational alternatives. Vertical direction - management of functional and linear structural divisions of the enterprise. Horizontal - management of individual projects and programs, for the implementation of which human and other resources of various subdivisions of the enterprise are involved.

With such a structure, a division of the rights of managers who manage subdivisions and managers who manage the implementation of the project is established. The most important task of the top management of the enterprise in these conditions is to maintain a balance between the two organizational alternatives.

Consequently, a distinctive feature of the organizational structure of matrix-type management is the presence of two managers at the same time, who have equal rights.

There is a system of dual subordination, which is based on a combination of two principles - functional and project (product).

Matrix control structures can be of two types. In the first case, the project manager interacts with two groups of subordinates: with permanent members of the project team and with other employees of functional subsections who report to him on a temporary basis for a limited range of issues. At the same time, the subordination of performers to the direct heads of subsections, departments, and services is maintained. In this case, only performers from the relevant functional subsections can temporarily report to the project manager.

Benefits matrix structure are:

1) integration of different types of activities of the enterprise within the framework of implemented projects, programs;

2) obtaining high-quality results from a large number of projects, programs, products;

3) a significant increase in the activity of employees of the management apparatus as a result of the formation of project (program) teams that actively interact with functional subsections, strengthening the relationship between them;

4) attraction of managers of all levels and specialists in the field of active creative activity from the implementation of organizational projects and, first of all, from the accelerated technical improvement of production;

5) reducing the burden on top managers by delegating authority, making decisions to the middle level while maintaining the unity of coordination and control over key decisions at highest level;

6) strengthening the personal responsibility of a particular leader both for the project (program) as a whole and for its elements.

But the development of matrix structures is very often seen as an achievement of development. management theory which is very difficult to implement in practice.

To shortcomings matrix structures include:

1) the complexity of the matrix structure. For practical implementation, for its implementation, the necessary long-term training of employees and the appropriate organizational culture;

2) in connection with the system of dual subordination, it explodes the principle of unity of command, which often leads to conflicts, within this structure, an ambiguity in the role of the performer and his leaders is generated, which creates tension in relations between members of the labor collective of the enterprise;

3) within the framework of the matrix structure, there is a tendency towards anarchy, since in its conditions rights and responsibilities are not clearly distributed among its elements;

4) the struggle for power, because within this structure there are no clearly defined powers of authority;

5) the presence of additional costs for the maintenance of a larger number of managers, as well as for resolving conflict situations;

6) ambiguity and loss of accountability hinder the achievement of high quality results;

7) there are difficulties with the prospective use of specialists in this enterprise;

8) there is a partial duplication of functions;

9) managerial decisions are made untimely, as a rule, their characteristic group adoption;

10) the traditional system of relationships between subsections is violated;

11) complicates full-fledged control by management levels. At the same time, it should be noted that the transition to matrix structures, as a rule, does not cover the entire enterprise, but only some part of it, and the scale of application of individual elements of the matrix approach at enterprises is quite significant.

Organizational structure - a set of organizational units and their relationships, within which management tasks are distributed among the units, the powers and responsibilities of managers and officials are determined. The organizational structure is built, on the one hand, in accordance with the tasks that its strategy sets for the organization. On the other hand, the structure at different levels ensures the use of economies of scale to save the resources of the organization. Thus, the structure links external - strategic - efficiency with internal efficiency - economy.

Distribution of tasks between departments and officials, the distribution of powers and responsibilities must remain stable over time in order to ensure the reproduction and maintenance of the strategy. Therefore, the structure sets the static system properties of the organization's management.

In cases where the strategy changes, or when the structure is recognized as ineffective in terms of strategic objectives or economy, reorganization occurs. Reorganization can be both global in nature and change the principle of building a structure, and solve local problems of individual units and their relationships. Any reorganization should help to improve the orderliness and efficiency of the structure. Which, unfortunately, is not always the case.

At the same time, the structure is constantly subjected to a kind of degradation and corrosion, unnecessarily simplifying and blurring the distribution of tasks, powers and responsibilities. Thus, in parallel with the process of organizing and increasing efficiency, a process of disorganization and destruction takes place in the structure. Therefore, any formal organizational structure is always different from the actual structure. And any reorganization requires an analysis of both the formal structure and the actual one, and their comparison.

The evolution of organizational structures

As A. Chandler showed in his works, the organizational structure is formed under the influence of the enterprise strategy. The structure is a configuration of the management system, within which the tasks established by the strategy are distributed among organizational units, the powers and responsibilities of managers are determined, and a system of job relationships is established.

tab. 1 Classification of types of impact on the enterprise

Market changes	Depth of change	Type of managerial response in strategy	Competitive changes
New markets, changing social values ​​and macroeconomic policy priorities	Strategic	strategic	New technologies, the destruction of the usual technological and product boundaries of areas of activity, the organization of the management system
Market segmentation, changing consumer preferences	Marketing	innovative	Changeability of products, technologies, optimization of sets of product-market segments
-	-	Operational	Improvement of existing products and technologies, price competition

As a result of the study of the strategies of companies in countries with a developed market economy, all the most important impacts were divided into market and competitive ones. Market ones include those that are caused by changes in consumer preferences and the structure of market demand. Among the competitive - caused by the actions of competitors. According to the depth of impact on the firm, market changes are classified as marketing and strategic. Competitive change - both operational, innovative and strategic. Content characteristics of these species external influences is given in table. 1. Since the actions of all competitors are the result of management decisions made in specific market conditions, the above groups of competitive influences are at the same time the main elements of the strategy of competing firms. Different hierarchical levels are responsible for the implementation of these components of the strategy in the management structures: operational management, innovation and entrepreneurial (strategic).

First on business enterprises began to be used linear and functional organizational structures. Linear structures came from traditional social institutions such as the army. Structures based on line reporting with vertical connections allowed for leadership in a stable business environment in growing markets with stable technology. In cases where the work of an enterprise involved the implementation of various functions of economic activity, such as research and development, production, marketing, finance, MTS, etc., the departmentalization of linear divisions occurred according to the functional principle. Thus, a kind of linear structures was formed, which began to be called a functional structure.

The production and improvement of existing products within the framework of operational activities, the creation of new equipment using innovative management were originally inherent in a number of industries. There have been several strategic external influences requiring changes in previously established strategies and management structures both at the level of firms and at the industry level in the history of Western industry. The first of these was connected with the world economic crisis called the Great Depression. This crisis has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the old leadership principles applied in the previous cycle of economic growth for new high technology industries. At the stage of mastering new industrial technologies, a vertical integration strategy was widely used, in which the company controlled the entire production process from the early stages of processing raw materials to deliveries to the end consumer.

rice. 1. An example of a project-matrix structure

Source. Star S.-H., Corey E.-R. Organization Strategy. - Boston, 1971

New, relatively small firms could not cope with the growing diversity and scale of production within the framework of the existing flexible management structures. The result was the formation of project-matrix management structures (see Fig. 1). Such structures are still preserved in manufacturing and development companies that have become structural units of modern large corporations.

The second period of strategic change was associated with World War II. Since 1936, government purchases of military equipment began to increase significantly. At the same time, the production volumes of military equipment increased by 5-6 times. After the end of the war, military-industrial companies faced an unpredictable reduction in government purchases, which was only slightly offset by growth in demand in the commercial sector. Faced with this constraint, firms, in order to reduce their dependence on public markets began to actively use the strategy of diversification into unrelated areas of activity. They began to form conglomerative divisional and multiple management structures.

But, starting in 1949, the state, in order to prevent a sharp decline in the industry, began to increase the volume of its orders. At first, through the purchase of civilian equipment, and after the start of the Cold War and the unwinding of the arms race, missile and space programs were launched, and arms purchases increased. This trend continued until 1987, when global changes in the world economy led to a new cardinal transformation of the markets.

The end of the Cold War opened the way for the processes of globalization of the world economy. AT new economy information technologies the target priorities of the industry have shifted in favor of creating commercial global communications. Starting in 1994, in order to remain competitive in the face of global markets and rising R&D costs, strategies of specialization and interconnected diversification began to be actively used in the United States and Europe. Formally, this group of strategies includes companies whose sales account for 70% or more of one type of product or a group of products that are interrelated. common market marketing or technology.

At different stages of each industry development cycle, the effectiveness of company strategies changes. During periods of stability, when firms reach industry growth limits, unrelated diversification is preferred. In times of expanding markets and new growth opportunities, flexibility and the ability to focus resources on promising new areas become key strategic factors. These requirements are best met by strategies of specialization and interrelated diversification.

rice. 2. An example of the structure of a specialized firm

Governance structures turned out to be tightly connected with the strategy. Companies that followed similar strategies had similar types of organizational structures. For example, the Boeing and Lockheed Martin companies, which have retained industry specialization, use multi-level, complex matrix management structures (see Fig. 2). In particular, they retained only those electronic and engine building companies that are necessary to implement elements of a vertical integration strategy for the production of core products.

Companies engaged in interrelated diversification based on electronic technology, have structures with differentiated operational profit centers and strong strategic and innovation centers. These centers in the framework of innovation provide promising developments for several operational profit centers (see Fig. 3). An example is the structures of the corporations "Texas Instruments" or "General Electric".

rice. 3. An example of a company structure of interconnected diversification

Companies with unrelated sets of activities, such as United Technologies and Textron, have several relatively independent divisions, at the highest level of management integrated by the system financial planning and control (see Fig. 4). Such structures are called divisional. Them characteristic feature is the formation in the composition of departments - divisions, a complete set of functions of economic activity. Depending on the specific variety of the divisional structure, the departments in its composition may have a set of functions necessary for independent conduct of only operational activities, or both operational and innovative. Separate functions of economic activity within the framework of a divisional structure can become centralized, serving all divisions. This happens when the integration of some function into a centralized unit creates a synergistic effect. In the simplest version of the divisional structure, support and headquarters functional units, for example, finance, become centralized. In more complex variants of divisional structures, the main functions are centralized: R&D or production, or both of these functions. The centralization of production has become most active in the framework of the outsourcing system - the transfer of production to regions with cheap labor (China, Southeast Asia, India, etc.).

The choice of strategy is determined not only by the situation on the market, but also by the goals of the company. Firms' goals and key economic indicators activities are determined by influence groups, the most important of which are shareholders interested in the growth of market capitalization, and the state, as the main consumer of the industry's products. Companies dominated by shareholder influence are more likely to increase economic efficiency. Where government influence is stronger, firms are more likely to generate scale even at the expense of temporary losses. rice. 4. An example of a company structure of unrelated diversification.

However, as the experience of the French company Aerospasial shows, when the need to choose an effective strategy conflicts with the current system of goals, the company can change the composition and significance of influence groups. Aerospasial had the government of France as its main shareholder. However, potential partners in the European integration of the aerospace complex feared that after the merger with them, Aerospasial would act based not on the interests of the united European company, but on the basis of the interests of the French government. As a result, before the creation of a single European aerospace company, a significant part of the state-owned Aerospasial shares was sold to one of the integration partners, the private aerospace group of companies Lagiarder.

The development of strategies and structures of enterprises of the domestic aerospace industry is characterized by a number of features that have arisen due to the difference in the trajectories of the country's macroeconomic development from the trajectories of the development of the United States and economically developed countries of Western Europe. The closed national economy of the country and the universal state ownership in the USSR created a stable environment for the activities of enterprises. Under such conditions, the elements of strategies and management structures that ensure external efficiency did not develop. Closeness of the Soviet economic system and fierce competition with the West led to the formation of a priority nature of the defense and aerospace industries, designed to ensure the security and prestige of the state. This priority was manifested primarily in the provision of practically unlimited amounts of economic resources to enterprises in these industries. Suffice it to point out that, according to various sources, up to 60% of domestic industry worked for defense and space, and unified national economic plans ensured economic stability and guaranteed demand for products. In addition to the state, an important place in the goal-setting of the activities of defense and aerospace enterprises was occupied by their creators - the main designers who were interested in translating their technical and scientific ideas. Under these conditions, the main goal of defense and aerospace enterprises was the development and production of advanced technology that would help solve national problems and satisfy the scientific and technical ambitions of top management. These technical tasks enterprises had to decide against the backdrop of rapid scientific and technological progress. The key to success in achieving the goals was the timely introduction of scientific achievements and the development of new technology. The development of science and technology, thus, has become the main factor in the instability of the external environment, influencing the choice of strategies and the formation of organizational structures of enterprises. Under the influence of these factors, project matrix organizational structures began to take shape in the industry. Depending on the complexity and novelty of products, as well as on the amount of resources involved, in each case, there was a variation in the level of integration of project and functional line management, the balance of responsibility and authority of functional / line and project managers. (See Fig. 5) A characteristic feature of these organizational structures was a rigid administrative hierarchy, which made it possible to carry out management on the basis of setting influences from a higher-level system - an industry or a large intersectoral program. The need for such rigidity arose as a result of highly centralized macroeconomic planning, concentration and specialization of production, which led to the functional differentiation of structures at the sectoral level. This means that within the industry, organizations engaged in R&D and manufacturing enterprises. Coordination was carried out by departments in the process of implementing programs for the creation and production of new technology.

rice. 5. An example of the structure of a developing / pilot enterprise.

At enterprises, general / chief designers or their deputies were responsible for the implementation of projects. In research and development organizations, projects appeared as topics. Leading designers and topic managers, depending on the complexity, importance and novelty of the projects, had the authority of either line or coordinating managers. The formation of these structures took place without a theoretical basis, spontaneously, by the method of successive trials and errors. Organizational decisions were often influenced by political motives. Therefore, as a rule, the organizational structures of enterprises were not optimal in terms of the criterion of internal efficiency. There was unjustified duplication of work, the specialization of departments was not clearly defined, management standards were not observed, etc. But all the shortcomings of the organization were fully compensated by the excess of resources attracted by the state for the production of products, especially military equipment, aviation, space systems and the implementation of space exploration programs. A feature of the practical structures of enterprises was that linear divisions were allocated on the basis of either large projects or subsystems of a complex product. Our design structures were distinguished from the structures of Western companies by great rigidity. The project itself did not exist as a temporary division. Project managers were permanent elements of a rigid linear structure, occupying the positions of Chief Designers, coordinating in turn the execution of work on the creation / production of the next product. As a result, design structures were formed that in their pure form did not correspond to any of the types described in the theory. The enterprises responsible for the production of serial technologically interconnected products have formed structures with a linear subordination of subdivisions formed according to product subsystems or stages of the production process. In parallel, functional divisions developed, which were responsible for coordinating the use of the homogeneous most important functional resources of the enterprise: personnel, energy, development of technological processes, supply, etc. These divisions had coordinating powers in relation to the line management. (See Fig. 6).

rice. 6. An example of the structure of a serial production enterprise

Elements of competition were used in the contractor selection system. In the early stages of development, several enterprises took part in the projects, each of which offered its own alternative version of the product. Of these options, one was selected, and the company that offered it became the contractor. Such a system made it possible, when selecting projects, to preserve the diversity of generated technical solutions and eliminate unnecessary duplication of projects at the most expensive late stages of creating new technology.

In the sixties in the domestic military and aerospace industry, the competitive selection of contractors began to be replaced by the specialization of enterprises in the creation of a narrow range of products. Specialization was based not only on technological reasons. When distributing orders, political criteria began to be used. Unjustified duplication of projects appeared, which, in particular, took place during the implementation of the lunar program. On the whole, industry suffered more and more from the absence of a coherent state development program. With market mechanisms inoperative, total state control and full state financing, the lack of program goals has deprived enterprises of long-term guidelines. A coordinated selection of promising areas of activity and the allocation of resources between them proved to be impossible. The developments of individual enterprises began to be fragmented and did not allow the development of organizational and technical potential.

As a result of the development of this trend, later, already in the seventies, the principle of rivalry prevailed in the management strategies of industries and enterprises. Whereas in the US the strategies of, for example, NASA and aerospace firms were oriented toward market commercial and government needs, our strategies were oriented toward the only surviving reference point - the competitor, i.e. to achieve technical parity with a potential adversary. For example, the Americans created their own reusable space system to reduce the cost of servicing increasing cargo flows both into orbit and in the opposite direction. The need for such a decision was dictated by the deployment of SDI and peaceful space research programs. When creating the Energy-Buran system in the USSR, they proceeded from the need to maintain technical parity with a competitor. From the point of view of the tasks of modern domestic cosmonautics, this system turned out to be ineffective.

In the advanced industrial sectors of the economy of the USSR in the seventies, crisis tendencies were clearly outlined. To overcome them, Chairman of the Council of Ministers Kosygin A.N. tried to implement soft economic reform. However, the political leadership ignored proposals for the gradual liberalization of the economy and began to pursue a policy of economy at the state level. The slogan "The economy must be economical" became the symbol of this policy.

At the same time, at the state level, they tried to solve the problem of accelerating the introduction of technical innovations in production. This was especially necessary to achieve in a number of branches of the new technological wave: the modern defense industry, the radio-electronic industry, the aerospace industry, etc., in which the rate of renewal and complication technical systems grew most rapidly. An attempt to solve these problems was the integration of enterprises through the creation of research and production associations. The associations included cooperative serial plants and design bureaus with pilot production. This provided additional economies of scale, and also destroyed intra-departmental barriers between the R&D and production functions. Project management was to become end-to-end, and the development and implementation of new products was to be reduced.

At the same time, the basis of economic relations in society did not change, the social status of enterprises and their form of ownership, and, consequently, the system of goals, remained the same. In practice, the merger of manufacturing enterprises with design bureaus and design bureaus was often mechanistic. Another level of management appeared in the system, to which the old structures of research and development and production were subordinate. Traces of these mergers in enterprises can still be found. For example, in design bureaus and design bureaus, topic managers usually had linear authority, while functional managers (heads of complexes and departments) were coordinators. In production, which was most often focused on one product or a group of closely related products, the priority in the distribution of powers remained with functional managers. Project managers were at best part of the headquarters planning units.

rice. 7. An example of the structure of an aerospace NGO

After the formation of the NPO, project management did not become end-to-end and a new product, developed under the guidance of the chief designer in the design bureau, was transferred to production at the plant, where other people were already involved in it. With another version of the organization, the chief designer acted as a line manager at the development stage, and at the production stage he became a coordinator. That is, the differences in the management structures of design bureaus and production remained (see Fig. 7). At the level of organizational cultures, the mutual hostility of workers in factories and design bureaus often persisted.

At the same time, the Government of the USSR, trying to solve the problem of saturating the market with consumer goods, began, in the order of conversion, to create anew or transfer the production of civilian products to enterprises in the military-industrial complex and the aerospace industry. At the enterprises, according to the established management practice, they tried to integrate new areas of activity into the old matrix structures by introducing the position of Chief Designer for conversion products. This was done even in cases where there was a negative relationship between consumer goods and traditional products of enterprises. As a result, such integration, along with the insensitivity of the organizational culture to such non-prestigious innovations, most often did not allow the creation of sufficiently cheap and high-quality civilian products.

The strategies and structures of Russian defense and aerospace enterprises corresponded to the tasks of innovation management and made it possible to use technologically active innovation strategies. But the underdevelopment of systems strategic management did not allow for effective adaptation to a fundamental change in the conditions of economic activity caused by economic reform and the beginning of Russia's integration into the international economy.

It would be wrong to attribute the reasons for the changes that have taken place to the influence of market reforms and a decrease in the volume of state financing, which, since 1989, has decreased by several dozen times. These factors are only part of more complex global processes that have been unfolding in the world economy since the 1970s. The opening of Russia to the international economy, the acceleration of the globalization of world industry required our enterprises to form fundamentally new strategies and management structures. Majority Russian enterprises and industries as a whole have responded to all external strategic changes since 1987 as sporadic and unrelated. And the period of developing a managerial reaction exceeded the period of development of changes.

So, in fact, even Kosyginskaya, the program for the transition to self-supporting (budget-orders phase transition) began to be implemented only in 1989, when the state conversion program (orders-market phase transition) was already beginning. The conversion plan was prepared and implemented until 1992, when the inevitable economic reforms had already begun in the country. A plan for a new reorganization, adequate to the ongoing processes, existed and was implemented only at some enterprises. The most successful in the context of globalization for enterprises was the strategy of internationalization of activities (international regional diversification). After the liberalization of foreign economic activity in Russia, only individual enterprises of the manufacturing industry and enterprises of export-oriented raw materials industries, which had technological advantages over foreign competitors, were able to use its opportunities.

For enterprises in the high-tech sector, the main difficulty was the backwardness of technology and the lack of direct access to the most promising markets of Western countries. The solution to the problem of market access for enterprises with a competitive level of technology was the entry into strategic partnerships with leading foreign competitors. Thanks to this, our enterprises gained access to orders, and foreigners - to our advanced technologies. We are talking about such projects as "Sea Launch", with the participation of RSC Energia and the Boeing Corporation, a joint project of the GKNPTs im. Khrunichev with Lockheed Martin, projects of Perm Motors JSC with Lockheed Martin and Prite & Whitney. In order to gain the freedom of action necessary for independent work in the foreign market, leading enterprises needed to increase their independence in making managerial decisions. The most striking example of increasing the independence of economic activity is the privatization of NPO Energia, which in 1994 became a rocket and space corporation.

rice. 8. Typical scheme of the organizational structure of the industrial complex

In the sector of the aviation and defense industries, traditionally closed to foreigners, internationalization took place through the promotion of products to the markets of third world countries. For the successful implementation of this strategy, aviation companies needed to maintain their previous cooperation. The solution to this problem was the creation of specialized groups of companies MAPO Mig and AVPK Sukhoi, which included development and production enterprises in their structure (see Fig. 8). However, due to a number of subjective reasons, it was not possible to carry out a complete restructuring in this sector.

The main feature of the current internationalization strategies is their lack of balance in terms of long-term effectiveness. For Russian enterprises, participation in international projects was a means of survival in the face of a significant reduction in state funding. But going out to international market through Western partners, our enterprises did not get the opportunity to form their own infrastructure for independent promotion of their products. After Western partners gained access to the Russian technologies they were interested in, mutual interest in cooperation and cash flows from foreign markets were reduced.

The evolution of organizational structure design methods

The development of theoretical concepts for designing strategies and management structures took place in accordance with the evolution of the tasks of practical management. Using the experience of leading companies, the theory at each stage of economic development created a new "social technology" of management, effective for changing operating conditions. During the formation of basic technologies mass production and large industrial companies of the fourth great economic cycle, management was not functionally separated from technical and engineering leadership. The key factor in competitiveness at that time was the speed of mastering technical innovations and organizing the production process. The high importance of innovation to ensure the effectiveness of management strategies led to the emergence of flexible structures in enterprises that did not correspond to the traditions of hierarchical rigidity of large state and financial institutions of that time.

The principles of building flexible strategies and structures were outlined by G. Ford during the emergence of the car market. He argued that: excessive rigidity and over-regulation create red tape and hinder the rapid implementation of ideas for improvement business transactions; the head is fully responsible for the work of his unit and must have unlimited decision-making powers; organizational structure does not imply the existence staffing and job descriptions for each one must make for himself a place according to his ability, and perform the duties necessary at the moment; service relations are not based on a formal hierarchy, but on the freedom to establish any necessary contacts between employees. Structures built in accordance with these principles ensured the required speed of decision-making and effective management of small enterprises, the management of which was based not on the clarity of the division of tasks, but on a common organizational culture groups of like-minded people. Gradually, technological advances became the property of many firms, because of which competitive environment. Those who succeeded in these conditions were those who ensured the growth of scale by standardizing business operations, reducing costs and increasing product reliability. Such competitors easily absorbed rivals. The means of survival for the weaker ones was to merge into larger corporations.

Entrepreneurial activity that required investment of capital is a thing of the past. The overwhelming majority of enterprises remained single-product and single-market. Medium and, especially, large industrial companies have a need for professional management. So, for example, all the companies of T. Edison, having reached medium size, failed, because he "did not even try to create a management link on them." General Electric and Westinghouse Electric survived only by removing their founder from management and hiring professional managers. For the effective management of fast-growing enterprises in a stable external environment, that method of organizational construction was formed, which in the DuPont company was called "association of homogeneous activities", and in management theory - a functional organizational structure. The basis of this method of organization was the specialization of the divisions of the enterprise in the performance of homogeneous types of work - the functions of economic activity.

In management theory, the rules for building structures to ensure the efficiency of companies were formulated by the classics of management A. Fayol, F. Taylor, G. Emerson. Briefly, these rules can be summarized as follows: no duplication of functions of departments, compliance of the hierarchy of goals of departments with the goals of the entire company, unity of leadership for each employee, compliance with the controllability standard, minimization of the number of hierarchy levels, centralization that ensures decision-making at the lowest level of the hierarchy with the necessary competence .

At Lockheed, these principles were implemented in the so-called control coverage model. Its developers, in order to optimize the number of levels of the management hierarchy and the manageability standard in the structure, used a comprehensive assessment of the workload of each manager according to five variables: the geographical proximity of subordinates, the complexity of functions, the activity of management, the breadth of coordination and the degree of uncertainty in planning. Thus, the emergence of the scientific theory of management has consolidated the formation in the practice of management of the level of management of operational economic activities, which ensures the internal efficiency of companies.

The founders of scientific management theory were among the technological innovators who were faced with the need to organize management in their fast-growing companies. Therefore, in their works, in addition to the presentation of the principles of operational management, there was a description of the elements of strategic management, which ensured the process of adaptation of firms to the new tasks set by the industrial revolution. However, during the period of optimization of operations and growth of the scale of companies, this side of their theory turned out to be unclaimed. Principles functional organization, starting from 1927, were supplemented by socio-psychological elements, the study of which was begun by E. Mayo, and later continued by M.R. Follet, K. Argyris, M. Weber, D. McGregor, etc. . These studies have shown that in teams there must be a psychological compatibility of employees. The motivation system should take into account the managerial culture of the staff. Individual and group value systems of managers and employees should correspond to their tasks within the framework of the structure and the overall goals of the enterprise. In general, the combination of the described functional and psychological principles ensured the effective management of industrial giants during the period of active industrial growth and the wide spread of vertical integration strategies.

The period of time after the Second World War in management theory was characterized by the development of system concepts. One of the first was the theory of information by N. Wiener and K. Shannon, formulated in 1949. In it, divisions of firms were considered as subjects that receive, process and transmit information. The firm, thanks to information connections, became an integral system. The task of designing the structure of this system was to optimize information links and distribute the tasks of compressing and processing information between management levels and ensuring efficient feedback.

Within the framework of the concept of an enterprise as a purposeful system, it was proposed to carry out organizational structuring through hierarchical decomposition and synthesis of a tree of goals. By analogy with the functional principle of organization, for grouping goals and transferring them to the sphere of responsibility of one unit, a sign of homogeneity of goals and the resources allocated to achieve them (functional potential) was used. This concept theoretically substantiated the possibility of designing various types of organizational structures according to a single methodology based on the use of systemic laws common to all organizations. So the functional structure became a special case of the target organization, which was based on the sign of the homogeneity of work.

For the divisional management structures that were widespread by this time, the differentiation of goals at the top level of management took place on the principle of full responsibility for the profitability of activities in separate, unrelated areas of activity. For the achievement of these goals, food or regional branches otherwise known as profit centers. At the next level of the hierarchy of goals within the profit centers, the distribution of tasks was carried out according to the functional principle. However, the divisional structures were not simply the sum of several functional profit center substructures. In a divisional structure, centralized functional units can be formed that provide the company with common types of resources for all departments: finance, personnel, supply, energy, etc.

The most comprehensive approach to the design of structures was developed within the framework of the system concept of enterprise management, formulated in the works of Simon, Marg and others. Here, the structure is optimized in accordance with a set of other internal and external variables: demand, competitors, institutional environment, business objectives, production technology, planning and control system, interests of shareholders, management and personnel of the enterprise.

In the theory of organizations of this period, the development systems approach began the work of J. Thompson and J. Galbraith on situational management, which substantiated the need to adapt the organization of management depending on the specific state of the main situational variables, both external and internal. Moreover, the necessary changes can range from changing the areas of authority of managers to changing the type of organizational structure. Subsequently, these ideas were developed in the works of M. Porter and G. Mintzberg. The situational approach justified, in particular, the principles of designing the so-called multiple structures, in which each department, depending on the specific conditions of activity, can have different functional or matrix substructures of management.

The next fundamental breakthrough in the theory and practice of leadership occurred in the mid-seventies, when the evolutionary concept of management was formulated. Its authors were researchers who, starting from the second half of the forties, studied the dynamics of the development of enterprises and the role of organizational and technical innovations in these processes. It is generally accepted that the beginning of the evolutionary concept was laid by A. Chandler, when his book "Strategy and Structure" was published in 1962. Further development of the theory was continued by I. Ansoff, R. Nelson and others. In many ways, P. Drucker considered the development of practical and theoretical management from similar positions. The evolutionary concept is based on the studies of the natural logic of the development of macroeconomic processes by N. Kondratiev and J. Schumpeter. In the context of this development, economic sectors, strategies, and company structures naturally evolve. At the same time, the random nature of the interdependencies of situational variables was replaced by a more rigid logic of evolution based on the study of the historical retrospective of the activities of Western firms. Thus, if the situational approach assumed the existence of static strategies and structures of firms that are optimal for a particular situation, then the evolutionary approach implies the need for continuous adaptation and development.

This theoretical concept, which has been developing since the management revolution of the late forties, gained recognition in the mid-seventies, when the pace of development of the external environment of companies began to increase rapidly. P. Drucker called this time "an era without patterns", and D. Bell - "post-industrial era". The evolutionary concept of management theory theoretically substantiated the emergence of complex multidimensional matrix management structures used, in particular, in the aerospace industry. Thus, the appearance in the management structures of the so-called strategic economic centers, which are responsible for the development of long-term projects by the company as part of an innovative and strategic response, providing these developments at once with several technologically interconnected profit centers, was explained.

Within the framework of the evolutionary concept, a typification of the management structures of firms was carried out and a model of their evolution associated with the complication of the conditions of economic activity was built. But, which is typical, in organizational design, standard solutions level out individual characteristics strategies that form the basis competitive advantage firms and creating the basis for further development. This violates the principle of continuity in the development of strategies and management structures in the context of systematic and continuous external changes that are characteristic of the process of globalization.

In the USSR, the appearance of the first studies on the organization of enterprise management, including the problem of developing strategies and structures, dates back to the sixties. In total, in theory at that time it was customary to distinguish the following types of organizational structures: linear, functional, linear - functional, linear - staff, matrix. Linear organizational structures assumed a clear organizational hierarchy with administrative subordination of employees senior manager in the absence of a clear functional specialization of units. They were a classic bureaucratic organization and ensured effective management in a stable external environment. Functional structures were considered as some antithesis to linear structures. Their main difference from the linear ones was the functional specialization of units according to the types of work performed. Such a scheme, according to the authors, ensured a higher professional level of work performance and the quality of the final product. However, such a scheme was not rigid enough to create complex products that required departments to specialize not only in terms of functionality, but also in terms of product life cycle stages and work with individual subsystems. Therefore, the functional organizational structure was considered not suitable for large enterprises.

As a means of eliminating the shortcomings of linear and functional structures, linear-staff structures were proposed. Their peculiarity was that a number of auxiliary and support functions were allocated to separate centralized units that advise line managers in the development of management decisions. Headquarters units had consulting powers, and their decisions were implemented through a linear administrative vertical. Linear - staff structures provided qualified leadership large enterprises, but, due to the long chain of passing solutions, remained not flexible enough.

The problem of flexibility began to be solved by establishing direct managerial links between headquarters functional and line units at all levels. This implied a clear distribution of responsibilities between line and functional managers. Most often, the line manager was responsible for the implementation of the work program and the allocation of resources for the unit, and the functional manager provided the necessary level of profile potential: staff qualifications, novelty and performance of equipment. Such structures are called linear - functional. In general, the above theoretical classification of organizational structures corresponds to the typology adopted in Western management theory. The qualitative difference lies in a higher degree of abstraction and theoretical conventionality of the classification adopted in our country. In practice, linear and functional structures do not occur in their pure form. Moreover, the meaning of their differences disappears as soon as the differentiation of the divisions of the enterprise begins to occur on the basis of the functions of economic activity. Linear and functional subordination are mixed. Therefore, the above concepts of linear and functional structures are related not so much to the classification types of organizational structures, but to the types of powers of the head: linear (administrative) or functional (staff, coordination). Both types of authority have a place in any organizational structures.

The typology of organizational structures should be based on the feature by which divisions are differentiated: functional, project, product, market, technological, regional, etc. If we follow this logic, then, indeed, functional and linear structures in the above understanding do not exist. And linear-headquarters and linear-functional structures are in our case varieties of functional structures according to the classification adopted in Western theory.

Features of the domestic classification of structures can be easily explained. In conditions monopolistic structure economy, which used economies of scale at the microeconomic level, enterprises for the most part remained mono-product and mono-market. Therefore, the variety of signs of internal differentiation was absent. The only significant sign was functional. And secondary classification features came to the fore. Based on the signs of the classification of organizational structures in the USSR, they began to form different approaches to their design. At first, the functional approach prevailed, which optimized structures based on the rules of internal efficiency outlined above when it came to the functional approach to designing structures in Western theory. After the consolidation and creation of NPOs on the basis of developing enterprises and serial plants, the complexity of the tasks of practical guidance began to exceed the possibilities of solving them when organizing management within the framework of functional structures. As a result, new approaches to organizational design were formulated: target, system, situational and evolutionary. But if the first three of them corresponded to similar Western theories, then the evolutionary concept had some specifics.

tab. 2. Chronology of the development of theoretical methods for developing strategies and management structures Period Formation of practical structures of aerospace enterprises Formation of theoretical methods

1900s - 1930s Shaping the Industry Vertical Integration Strategies. Functional structures and large projects. Flexible functional and project structuring. 1940s - 1950s Market differentiation, rapid growth and reduction of military orders (single strategic changes) Product upgrade. Unrelated diversification. Project-matrix and divisional structures. Functional and psycho-logical methods of designing structures. 1960s - 1980s Stable development of all market sectors, technological differentiation. Multi-competitive environment of national markets. Interconnected diversification. Multidimensional matrix structures. System and situational concepts of management. Target design methods. 1990s – Globalization of the world economy. Strategic transformation of markets. Consolidation of companies in the conditions of international competition. Formation of multidimensional structures with departments in all significant technological, product and market areas. Evolutionary concept of development of economy and management

1970s - 1980s The beginning of economic changes, later - the instability of orders Consolidation and integration of developing and manufacturing enterprises into NGOs. Elements of divisional structures in conversion areas, Program-targeted, situational and evolutionary design methods 1920s - 1960s. Stable growth in a deterministic economic environment Development, production and renewal of products. Linear-functional and design-matrix structures. Functional and system design methods

Within the framework of this approach, in domestic management practice, it was customary to single out the formal parameters of structures and establish possible typical values ​​for these parameters. On the basis of such a parametric model, a structure classifier with a cipher system was created. By observing and fixing the values ​​of the parameters of practical structures, conclusions were made about the stable trends in their development and the optimal values ​​of the parameters. So, in 1972-1975. 18 out of 24 research institutes have changed their classification codes. The advantage of this approach is its dynamism and practicality. The disadvantages are related to the fact that a structure designed according to this principle will solve new problems. promising tasks enterprises, focusing on past organizational experience and typical structural parameters. And the shortcomings of standard organizational solutions have already been mentioned earlier.

In general, an analysis of the concepts of designing strategies and management structures shows that the development of the theory provided a solution to problems that arise in practical activities companies and enterprises. This is also evidenced by the chronological correspondence of the evolution of management tasks, advanced practical solutions and theoretical concepts (see Table 2). The generalization of advanced practical solutions forms the basis of theoretical management models, which are subsequently replicated by everyone who wants to solve similar problems.

--Nikolay alekseev 10:35, 7 September 2011 (MSD)

The structure of the organization is a way of building the relationship between the levels of management and functional areas, which ensures that the goal of the organization is optimally achieved under the given conditions.

A functional area is a list of work performed by a specific department of an organization. This concept is related to the category "management function", but is not identical to it. For example, in the performance of such a function as planning, both the planning department and other divisions of the organization, in particular, line managers of production divisions, take part.

The main factors influencing the structure of the organization are its scale, nature of work (narrow specialization or conglomerate), market position (leader or outsider), manufactured products (high-tech, traditional, etc.). Taking into account these factors, departmentalization is carried out, i.e. allocation in the structure of the main parts, departments and blocks, departments and divisions, services, bureaus.

Functional organizational structure:

Traditionally, the functions of direct production, circulation (supply of resources and sale of finished products, services), financial and investment spheres. This approach was also acceptable for the structure of territorial governments.

Depending on the scale of the organization, further allocation of elements is carried out. A large factory, university, hospital has a large number of specialized units. Comparatively small organizations of the same profile, the number of subdivisions is smaller, and the functions they perform are more complex.

The advantages of the functional structure are: the specificity of the responsibility of the units; business stimulation and professional growth performers; reduction of duplication, and therefore - rational use resources, improved coordination.

The advantages of a functional structure are clearly manifested with a limited number of functions. With the expansion of their spectrum, the chain of commands lengthens, and the likelihood of conflicts increases. With the growth of the concentration of production, its inversification and internationalization, the need for other bases for building a structure increases.

The functional structure involves the specialization of units for individual management functions at all levels. Such an organization significantly improves the quality of management due to the specialization of managers; instead of universal managers, there are specialists who are competent in their fields.

The activity of the enterprise can be considered as a combination in various functional areas. The activity of these areas is reflected in the functional processes. Table 1 presents the functional areas of the enterprise, identified by functional feature and the processes that take place in them.

Table 1: Functional areas management and the processes taking place in them

	Functional control area	Processes occurring in the functional area
	Operation management	1.1. Development of strategic plans. 1.2. Connections with the external environment. 1.3. Making managerial decisions. 1.4. Formation of orders and instructions.
	Production preparation management	2.1. Calculation of standards. 2.2. Work quality management. 2.3. Technology control. 2.4. Production capacity planning.
	Manufacturing control	3.1. Service quality management. 3.2. Boiler equipment management. 3.3. Drawing up reports and schedules of work performed.
	Planning and economic planning management	4.1. Production capacity planning. 4.2. Drawing up a workforce distribution plan. 4.3. Determining the mode of operation of the enterprise. 4.4. Analysis of reserves of economic activity. 4.5. Financial planning. 4.6. Capital investment management. 4.7. Enterprise fund management.
	Personnel management	5.1. Planning the number of employees. 5.2. Staffing. 5.3. Vacation planning. 5.4. Drawing up a staffing table. 5.5. Preparing orders. 5.6. Accounting for the movement of personnel.
	Accounting	6.1. Crediting, debiting. 6.2. Cash flow. 6.3. Production accounting. 6.4. Profit analysis. 6.5. The movement of material and commodity values. 6.6. Executive budget reports. 6.7. Payroll. 6.8. Preparation of reports for the tax service.
	Raw material management	7.1. Determining the needs for materials, resources and components. 7.2. Control over the storage and quality of materials. 7.3. Preparation of reports and documentation. 7.4. Purchasing activity. 7.5. Accounting for the movement of materials and equipment. 7.6. Communication with suppliers. 7.7. Conclusion of contracts.
	Automation of management tasks	8.1. Setting goals. 8.2. Development of tasks. 8.3. problem solving.