Introduction
The organizational structure of management is internal structure any production and economic system, that is, a way of organizing elements in a system, a set of stable connections and relationships between them. The management structure is a form within which changes occur, prerequisites appear for the transition of the system as a whole to a new quality.
Management structures are constantly supplemented with new varieties, allowing any enterprise to choose for itself the most effective structure or their combination.
The problem of choosing and applying management structures is especially relevant for the Republic of Belarus at the present time. This is due to several reasons. First, the majority of domestic enterprises are in need of significant restructuring or, at least, improvement and improvement of management.
Secondly, the Belarusian economy for a long time was isolated from Western experience in the field of management, and now it is difficult for companies to switch to new management standards, introduce management structures latest type because of their unpreparedness and lack of access to modern information and communication technologies.
Thirdly, a serious problem for Belarus is the lack of qualified managers who are able to best manage the enterprise and maximize the efficiency of management structures.
This control work is the study of the functional structures of managerial activity, the definition of the principles of their formation. To achieve this goal, the following tasks will be solved:
Determine the value of functional management structures in the system of organizational building;
To study the features of functional structures;
Identify the disadvantages and advantages of functional structures;
Determine the scope of functional structures;
Designate the principles of formation of functional structures.
The set goal and objectives determined the structure of the test, which consists of an introduction, three sections and a conclusion. Completes the list of used sources.
To write the control work, such methods of scientific research as dialectical, system analysis, synthesis and historical method, survey method, document analysis, comparative analysis were used.
For a full disclosure of the topic of the work, we used study guides, general and special literature on management and economics, as well as periodicals. It should be noted that the topic of the control work is disclosed in the literature in sufficient volume.
1. Functional organizational structures management activities
The organizational structure of management is the internal structure of any production and economic system, that is, a way of organizing elements into a system, a set of stable connections and relationships between them.
Hierarchical (bureaucratic) management structures are the first systematically developed models of organizational structures and still remain the main and dominant forms. The bureaucratic organizational structure is characterized by a high degree of division of labor, a developed management hierarchy, a chain of commands, the presence of numerous rules and norms of personnel behavior, and the selection of personnel according to their business and professional qualities. Bureaucracy is often referred to as the classical or traditional organizational structure. Majority modern organizations are variants of hierarchical structures. The reason for such a long and widespread use of the bureaucratic structure is that its characteristics are still quite well suited to most industrial firms, service organizations and all types of government agencies. The objectivity of the decisions made allows an effectively managed bureaucracy to adapt to the ongoing changes. Promotion of employees on the basis of their competence allows for a constant influx of highly qualified and talented technical specialists and administrative workers into such an organization.
Hierarchical management structures have many varieties. During their formation, the main attention was paid to the division of labor into separate functions. Hierarchical include linear and functional organizational management structures.
Let's take a closer look at functional structures.
For functional structure management is characterized by the creation of structural units, each of which has its own well-defined, specific task and responsibilities. Consequently, under the conditions of this structure, each governing body, as well as the performer, is specialized in the implementation certain types 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 units. Functional management is carried out by a certain set of units specialized in the performance of specific types of work necessary for decision-making in the linear management system.
The idea of functional structures is that the performance of individual functions on specific issues is assigned to specialists, i.e. each governing body (or executor) is specialized in the performance of certain types of activities.
In an organization, as a rule, specialists of the same profile are combined into specialized structural units(departments), e.g. marketing department, planning department, accounting department, etc. Thus, the overall task of managing the organization is divided, starting from the middle level, according to the functional criterion. Hence the name - functional management structure.
Functional management exists along with linear management, which creates double subordination for performers.
As can be seen from fig. 1.1., instead of universal managers (with a linear management structure), who must understand and perform all management functions, there is a staff of specialists with high competence in their field and responsible for a certain area (for example, planning and forecasting). Such functional specialization of the management apparatus significantly increases the effectiveness of the organization.
The organizational structure, which is a certain ordering of tasks, roles, powers and responsibilities, creates the conditions for the enterprise to carry out its activities and achieve the established goals. It develops and changes under the influence of the peculiarities of the enterprise strategy, its internal complexity and changes in the external environment. A wide range of structures extends from stable monolithic formations to dynamic multifaceted structures of modern organizations.
The variety of organizational structures is associated with differences in the field of activity, the nature and complexity of the products produced, the size, degree of differentiation and territorial location of enterprises. Thus, the structure of a small trade organization or a repair shop cannot have anything in common with the structure of a large machine-building enterprise producing a wide range of machinery and equipment. In turn, the organizational structure of a transnational corporation and a financial and industrial group is incomparable with it. In small enterprises, there are no complex problems with the organizational structure. If the functions in such an enterprise are carried out properly (without an excessive number of services and unnecessary hierarchical constructions), then their implementation requires such a limited number of employees that structural problems fade into the background before problems related to the personal characteristics of managers (their knowledge, experience , work style, organizational skills, responsible performance of duty).
At the same time, problems of organizational structure arise not only at large enterprises. The organization of vertical and horizontal connections, project management is also necessary in medium-sized enterprises. This is directly related to all cases where there is an intermediate management team between the top management of the organization and the personnel performing direct work, and also when it is generally possible to implement a certain division of labor. Under all conditions, the problem arises of choosing one or another type of organizational structure that is adequate to the real requirements of the external and internal environment, the tasks of meeting consumer demand, technological and social development, and achieving cost-effective results. The main types of organizational structures that have developed to date are discussed below.
Relationships between elements of the management structure are supported by links, which are usually divided into horizontal and vertical. The first are in the nature of coordination and are single-level. The second is the relationship of subordination. The need for them arises when the management system is built hierarchically, that is, when there are different levels of management, each of which pursues its own goals. With a two-level structure, upper levels of management (management of the organization as a whole) and lower levels (managers who directly supervise the work of performers) are created. With three or more levels in the OSU, the so-called middle layer is formed, which in turn can consist of several levels.
Linear organizational structure of management
This is one of the simplest organizational management structures. It is characterized by the fact that at the head of each structural unit of any level is a one-man manager who performs all management functions and exercises sole leadership of subordinate employees.
With linear management, each link and each subordinate has one leader, through whom all control commands pass through one single channel. In this case, management links are responsible for the results of all activities of managed objects. Since in the linear management structure decisions are passed down the chain "from top to bottom", and the head of the lower level of management is subordinate to the head of a higher level above him, a kind of hierarchy of leaders of this particular organization is formed. In this case, the principle of unity of command applies, the essence of which is that subordinates carry out the orders of only one leader. A higher management body does not have the right to give orders to any executors, bypassing their immediate superior.
The linear organizational structure of management has its advantages
a very clear system of relationships such as "boss - subordinate";
express responsibility;
quick response to direct orders;
ease of construction of the structure itself;
a high degree of "transparency" of the activities of all structural units.
lack of support services;
the inability to quickly resolve issues that arise between various structural divisions;
high dependence on the personal qualities of managers at any level.
Functional organizational structure of management
The idea is that the performance of individual functions on specific issues is entrusted to specialists, i.e. each governing body (or executor) is specialized in the performance of certain types of activities.
The performers are in double subordination. So, the worker is obliged to simultaneously fulfill the instructions of his line manager and the functional specialist. With a functional management structure, the line manager has the opportunity to deal more with operational management issues, because. functional specialists free him from dealing with special issues.
But control commands come from many functional services to one production unit or to one performer, and therefore the problem of mutual coordination of these commands arises, which creates certain difficulties. In addition, the responsibility of performers for the performance of their duties is reduced.
The functional structure has its advantages and disadvantages:
removal of most of the load from the highest level of management;
stimulating the development of informal ties at the level of structural blocks;
reducing the need for generalists;
it becomes possible to actively include various service services in the OSU - improving the quality of products;
strengthening vertical links and strengthening control over the activities of lower levels
it becomes possible to create headquarters substructures.
significant complication of communications within the enterprise;
the emergence of a large number of new information channels;
the emergence of the possibility of transferring responsibility for failures to employees of other departments;
lengthy decision-making process;
difficulty in coordinating the activities of the organization;
the emergence of a tendency towards excessive centralization
Under the line management, specialists form a headquarters that prepares data for them in order to competently solve special problems. In this case, the functional bodies are subordinate to the line manager. Their orders are given to production units only after agreement with the latter. This makes it possible to resolve issues more competently. But with a linear-functional management structure, the load on the line manager increases sharply, who must play the role of an intermediary between functional services and production units subordinate to him. He perceives information flows from subordinate units, gives tasks to functional services, develops decisions, issues commands from top to bottom.
The linear-functional structure also has its positive and negative sides:
The functional organization is aimed at stimulating the quality of work and the creative potential of workers, as well as economies of scale due to the increase in the scale of production of goods or services. However, maintaining interaction between different functions is a difficult task. The implementation of different functions involves different time frames, goals and principles, which makes it difficult to coordinate activities and schedule them. In addition, functional orientation is associated with a preference for standard tasks, the promotion of narrowly limited perspectives, and performance reporting.
The functional structure is not suitable for organizations with a wide range of products operating in an environment with rapidly changing consumer and technological needs, as well as for organizations operating internationally, simultaneously in several markets in countries with different laws. The logic of this form is centrally coordinated specialization. It is difficult to track the contribution of each element of resources to the final result and the overall profitability of the organization. In fact, the current trend towards disintegration (i.e. buying rather than manufacturing components, etc.) reflects the realization by many firms that the necessary coordination of costs and resources used is reflected in performance. A functional organization can fail due to improper modification, because the logic of this organization is centralized control, which does not easily adapt to product diversification.
In its pure form, the functional structure is practically not used. It is used in organic combination with a linear structure (Fig. 2), built on the basis of a vertical hierarchy of management and based on the strict subordination of the lower management to the highest. With such a construction, the performance of highly specialized functions is intertwined with a system of subordination and responsibility for the direct execution of tasks for designing, manufacturing products and supplying them to consumers.
Advantages: Opportunity to obtain a high degree of professional specialization of employees. Accurately identify locations and required resources (especially personnel). Contributes to the standardization, formalization and programming of the process. Disadvantages: Makes horizontal alignment difficult. Difficulty responding to change
The main figure is the manager in charge of the department. He is subordinate to a number of assistants who perform the function of coordinating individual functional services. Thanks to this combination, a fairly successful compromise between vertical and horizontal relationships within a unit or organization as a whole is provided. Units are allocated on the basis of one criterion; it can be either the production of a certain type of product, or the service of a region, or work with a certain type of consumer, or another sign. The heads of functional services depend on the manager in charge of the unit and report to him.
The divisional structure also has its advantages and disadvantages:
Decentralization of management within the framework of a linear functional structure leads to the fact that the division of rights and responsibilities is split up between different bodies that manage technical development, purchase of raw materials and materials, production, marketing, etc. This process is most typical for enterprises that produce a huge the number of homogeneous products and economies of scale in production are significant. One of the conditions for the decentralization of the structure can be a situation where the market is a single entity and is characterized by a high degree of concentration of consumption.
At the same time, the development of diversification of production, the sharp complication of internal and external relations, the dynamism of the introduction of technical innovations, the fierce struggle for markets for products lead to serious difficulties and in many cases completely exclude the use of functional forms of management. With the growth in the size of corporations, the expansion of the range of manufactured products and markets for their sales, the functional management structures, due to the disunity of rights and responsibilities for individual functions, lose their ability to respond to ongoing changes. In the management process, conflicts arise in the choice of priorities, decision-making is delayed, lines of communication are lengthened, and the implementation of control functions becomes difficult.
The construction of an organization according to a linear-functional principle (with grouping by type of management) is shown in fig. 9.4. This type includes structures that are formed either on a product or on a territorial basis. Such structures are more often used by large diversified corporations that produce a wide range of products for various markets. The most typical for them is the product management structure, in which the central headquarters of the organization are subordinated to departments specialized in types of products with independent economic activities.
With a divisional structure, departments can also be specialized in sales markets.
The divisional form can be viewed as a combination of organizational links serving a specific market and managed centrally. Its logic is to combine the autonomy of departments with a centrally controlled process of resource allocation and evaluation of results. While divisional firms can easily infiltrate related industries, there is a danger of over-expansion. Thus, many such firms, expanding their activities in new markets, were unable to properly assess its results and make investment decisions. Divisional firms are also at risk of modifications that violate the chosen logic of the organization.
tendencies towards decentralization;
high degree of independence of divisions;
unloading managers of the base level of management;
high degree of survival in today's market;
development of entrepreneurial skills in managing divisions.
emergence of duplicating functions in divisions:
weakening of ties between employees of different divisions;
partial loss of control over the activities of divisions;
Matrix organizational structure of management
The matrix structure combines two types of structures: linear and program-target. Vertically (linear structure), the board is built in separate areas of activity (production, supply, sales). Horizontally (program-target structure) management of programs, projects, topics is carried out. When determining horizontal links, a program or project manager and his deputies for individual topics, a responsible executor in each specialized unit are appointed, and a special program management service is organized.
The work is ensured through the creation of target units, where leading specialists are brought together to jointly develop the program. The program manager determines what and when should be done, and who and how will perform this or that work is decided by the line manager.
Thus, the matrix management structure supplemented the linear-functional organizational structure with new elements. This created a qualitatively new direction in the development of program-targeted and problem-targeted forms of management. These forms contribute to the rise of the creative initiative of managers in the matter of increasing the efficiency of production. Matrix management structures contribute to the restructuring of production based on the latest technological processes and more productive equipment.
The matrix structure contributes to the collective expenditure of resources, which is essential when the output is associated with the need to use rare or expensive types of resources. At the same time, a certain flexibility is achieved, which, in essence, is absent in functional structures, since in them all employees are permanently assigned to certain functional units. Since employees in a matrix organization are recruited from different functional departments to work on a specific project, labor resources can be flexibly reallocated depending on the needs of each project. Along with flexibility, the matrix organization opens up great opportunities for effective coordination of work.
The matrix structure has its advantages and disadvantages:
allows you to overcome intra-organizational barriers without interfering with the development of functional specialization
the principle of centralized leadership is not violated
more efficient current management, the possibility of reducing costs and improving the efficiency of resource use;
the relative autonomy of project teams or program committees contributes to the development of decision-making skills, managerial culture, and professional skills among employees.
Difficulty in establishing clear responsibility for work on the instructions of the unit and on the instructions of the project or program (a consequence of double subordination);
high requirements for qualifications, personal and business qualities of employees working in groups, the need for their training.
With this structure, the manager of the production department is obliged to conduct production preparation, rationally organizing labor, with the optimal use of raw materials, material and energy resources, and to exercise control over the work of subordinates.
Characteristics of the organizational structure of JSC "PIiNII VT "Lenaeroproekt"
Open Joint Stock Company "Design and Survey and Research Institute of Air Transport "Lenaeroproekt" was established in accordance with the Federal Laws of December 21, 2001 No. 178-FZ "On the Privatization of State and Municipal Property", of December 26, 1995 No. 208-FZ "On joint-stock companies" by reorganizing the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Design and Research and Research Institute of Air Transport "Lenaeroproekt" on the basis of the order of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 25, 2006 No. 1184-r and the order of the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management of October 18, 2006 No. 208.
The Company's founder is the Russian Federation represented by the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management.
Society is legal entity- a commercial organization, the authorized capital of which is divided into a certain number of shares, certifying the obligations of shareholders in relation to the Company.
The Company owns separate property recorded on its independent balance sheet, can acquire and exercise property and personal non-property rights on its own behalf, incur obligations, be a plaintiff and defendant in court, in arbitration and arbitration courts. The Company shall be liable for its obligations with all its property.
The Company is not liable for the obligations of its shareholders. Shareholders are not liable for the obligations of the Company and bear the risk of losses associated with the activities of the Company, within the value of their shares.
The state and its bodies are not liable for the obligations of the Company, just as the Company is not liable for the obligations of the state and its bodies.
The main activity of JSC "PIinii vt" Lenaeroproekt "is the design of airport complexes of various classes in full, including runways, technical support facilities, buildings and structures for passenger service and cargo handling, hangars and aircraft repair enterprises.
The modern "Lenaeroproekt" is a comprehensive research and design institute capable of solving problems of any complexity in the field of designing air transport facilities and civil engineering. The enterprise is developing dynamically, striving to meet all technical requirements, while maintaining the achievements of previous years, constantly expanding the scope of its interests not only on the territory of the Russian Federation, but also abroad.
All types of pre-project, survey, design, research, regulatory and other works are carried out to ensure capital construction (technical re-equipment, reconstruction, expansion, new construction) and major repairs of buildings and structures of airports, aircraft repair enterprises, flight and technical schools, objects of construction organizations, structures for housing and social and cultural purposes and other objects, buildings and structures.
When analyzing and designing organizations, one should consider the relationship of their elements, the structure, as well as the mechanism of interaction of these elements within the framework of certain goals and a given structure of the organization. The organizational structure and the organizational mechanism in all the variety of their manifestations form the organizational forms of management.
The organizational structure of enterprise management reflects the composition and subordination of linear and functional levels of management;
With this type of organizational structure of the enterprise, the line manager, who reports directly to the director, is assisted in the development of specific issues and the preparation of appropriate decisions, programs and plans by a special management apparatus, consisting of functional units (departments, groups). Such divisions carry out their decisions either through the top manager, or directly bring them to specialized services or individual performers at a lower level. Functional divisions do not have the right to independently give orders to production divisions.
Management of the current activities of the Company is carried out by the General Director of the Company (sole executive body), who is accountable to the Board of Directors and general meeting shareholders of the Company.
If the General Director of the Company is unable to perform his duties, the Board of Directors has the right to decide on the formation of a temporary sole executive body of the Company and on holding an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders to resolve the issue of early termination of powers Director General and on the formation of a new sole executive body of the Company.
Under the current management structure, the following are directly subordinate to the General Director:
Chief Engineer;
Legal Counsel;
Department of registration and release of projects;
Financial and Economic Department;
office;
Department for the Protection of State Secrets;
Human Resources Department.
The first deputy director is the chief engineer. The main function of the chief engineer is to manage the entire technical side of the enterprise's activities: technical preparation for production, research, design and experimental work, the introduction of advanced equipment and technology, the organization of development, development in production of new types of products; safe conditions labor, providing production with technological equipment and repair services, develops plans for the development of the enterprise, reconstruction and modernization, monitors compliance with design, engineering and technological discipline, coordinates work on patent and inventive activities, standardization and unification, certification and rationalization of jobs, metrological security.
The chief engineer is subordinate to:
Deputy Chief Engineer;
Chief project engineers;
Marketing department;
Department of Airfields and General Plans;
Department of Aircraft Maintenance and Repair Technology, Aviation Fuel Supply, Fire Fighting, Environmental Protection, Freight Transportation Technology;
Technical department;
Department of power supply, lighting equipment, automation and instrumentation;
Architectural and construction department;
Department of Radio Engineering, Meteorological Flight Support, Air Traffic Control and Communications;
Department of heat supply, ventilation, water supply and sewerage;
Department of estimates and organization of construction;
Department of engineering-topographic and engineering-geological surveys, geophysical and land management works;
Research Department;
Department of automation of design work.
A unified vertical line of leadership and a direct path of active influence on subordinates has been created at JSC "PIiNII VT "Lenaeroproekt". The advantage of such a control structure is simplicity, reliability and economy. The head in this case should cover all aspects of the enterprise.
Functional divisions carry out all the technical preparation of production, prepare options for solving issues related to the management of production processes, relieve line managers from planning financial calculations, logistics of production and other issues.
Like any organizational structure, the linear-functional management structure has its advantages and disadvantages.
The advantages of the organizational structure of management of JSC "PIiNII VT "Lenaeroproekt" include:
a clear division of labor (skilled specialists in each area);
high hierarchy of management;
existence of standards and rules of activity;
recruitment in accordance with qualification requirements.
The main disadvantages are:
the development of rather "narrow" specialists - techies, rather than managers (managers). For OJSC “PIiNII VT “Lenaeroproekt”, this led to the fact that highly qualified and experienced technical specialists worked in almost all managerial positions, but not all of them have mastered a new specialty for themselves - a manager (professional manager);
responsibility for financial results the enterprise as a whole is borne solely by the head of the enterprise, and the criterion for evaluating the activities of the heads of most structural divisions is the physical volume of manufactured products, for non-production - the solution of engineering and technical problems, etc. At the same time, they tend to distance themselves from responsibility for the financial and economic results of the unit's activities, and, in addition, the traditional system of intra-company accounting simply does not allow these results to be objectively assessed;
the structure "resists" the expansion of the diversification of activities;
heads of specialized divisions are focused on routine current work.
The rights and obligations in the management of the enterprise are clearly distributed, and are recorded in job descriptions and other documents regulating this area. There is no practice of reducing management costs at the enterprise. A rigid hierarchy allows you to organize effective interaction between various structural units to achieve the goals of the enterprise development.
The composition of the management of JSC "PIiNII VT "Lenaeroproekt" is quantitatively and qualitatively provided with personnel, the level of education, qualifications, work experience of executives meet the requirements of the enterprise. A trend to replace executives with higher levels of education and qualifications is not required.
Conclusion
Thus, the study allows us to draw the following conclusions.
It is possible to characterize the structure of an organization in terms of its complexity, degree of centralization, formalization and configuration of the organization. In terms of complexity, it is necessary to note the differentiation and integration of the organization. In this case, differentiation can be both vertical and horizontal.
Describing the organizational structure as a whole, it can be noted:
1) there are no ideal, perfect structures, but each structure can be quite effective under certain circumstances, so it is necessary to constantly weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each organizational structure before using them;
2) the structure of any organization or its part must correspond to the goals of the organization, moreover, it must be formed on the basis of a tree of goals;
3) the social structures of the organization depend not only on the goals, but also on other organizational components - organizational technology, composition of participants production process, the culture of the members of the organization.
Organizational management structures are needed, because. they contribute to organizational effectiveness. The lack of an organizational management structure creates chaos in the enterprise: employees do not understand what they should do, how they should do it and with whom they should work; heads of various departments have no idea how their work is combined with the work of other departments. OSU is the connecting element that allows all disparate departments to carry out their work in a coordinated manner, in a single vein of the task assigned to the organization.
List of sources used
Bowman K. Fundamentals of strategic management. - M.: Academy, 1997;
Vikhansky O.S. Strategic management. - M.: Gardarika, 1998;
Organization management. Textbook / Ed. e. n.A.G. Porshnev. Moscow: INFRA-M, 2000;
Efremov B.C. Business strategy. Moscow: Finpress, 1998;
Management: Textbook for universities / M.M. Maksimtsov, A.V. Ignatieva, etc. - M .: Banks and exchanges, UNITI, 1998
Electronic resources
http://www.inventech.ru/lib/
http://www.marketing.spb.ru/lib/
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. The content characteristics of these types of external influences are given in Table. 1. Since the actions of all competitors are a consequence management decisions taken in specific market conditions, then 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).
The first to be used in business enterprises 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 the enterprise involved the implementation of various functions economic activity, such as R & D, production, marketing, finance, MTS, etc., the departmentalization of linear divisions took place 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 began to increase significantly military equipment. 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 conditions of servicing global markets and rising costs of R&D, strategies of specialization and interconnected diversification began to be actively used in the USA and Europe. Formally, this group of strategies includes companies whose sales account for 70% or more of one type of product or group of products that are interconnected by a common market 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 new promising directions. 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 highest level integrated system management 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 most simple version divisional structure become centralized providing and headquarters functional units, for example, finance. 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 groups of influence, 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 development trajectories 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 of instability 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 equipment.
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 constant elements of the rigid linear structure, holding the positions of Chief Designers, coordinating in turn the implementation 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. These are projects such as sea launch”, with the participation of RSC Energia and the Boeing Corporation, a joint project of the GKNPTs named after. Khrunichev with Lockheed Martin, projects of Perm Motors JSC with Lockheed Martin and Prite & Whitney. To gain the freedom of action necessary for independent work on 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, entering the 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 the basic technologies of mass production and large industrial companies of the fourth large 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, since each one must create a place for himself according to his abilities 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 to replace him. 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. The principles of 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. MacGregor, 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 offices 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 the 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 face 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 specialization of departments not only in terms of functionality, but also in stages. life cycle products 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 In an economy that used economies of scale at the microeconomic level, enterprises for the most part remained single-product and single-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 the problems that arise in the practical activities of 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)
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 area occupied, 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 characteristic of the interaction between departments and managers related to certain activities at different levels of 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 units of the same level of management (between the heads of different workshops or functional units 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 communicate directly with 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
Flaws:
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.
Flaws:
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.
Flaws:
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 departure 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 the enterprise is the nature of the 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 are personal characteristics and the experience of managers, including, and above all, top management.
Bibliography
Types organizational structures controls (4)
Abstract >> ManagementTypes 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-...
Types organizational structures management Basic principles of construction organizational structures
Abstract >> ManagementIs type of organizational structures, which matches type enterprises and includes certain types organizational structures. 3. Methodical approach to the formation organizational structures ...
Types organizational structures controls (2)
Abstract >> ManagementThe 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 ...
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...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, the nature of the 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; stimulation business activity 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 |
|
|
|
Production preparation management |
|
|
|
Manufacturing control |
|
|
|
Planning and economic planning management |
|
|
|
Personnel management |
|
|
|
Accounting |
|
|
|
Raw material management |
|
|
|
Automation of management tasks |
|
How to disable ads on Android: remove pop-up ads
The Russian received a term and a million fine for "piracy Negative consequences of the law
Identification of key factors
The criteria for classifying organizations and individual entrepreneurs as small and medium-sized businesses have changed
See what "Royalty" is in other dictionaries Pitfalls of legislation