Development (adjustment) of the organizational structure of the enterprise (organization)
Analysis of approaches to designing (improving) organizational structures . The problem of improving organizational structures is one of the most difficult problems of the economy. It is especially complicated nowadays, when enterprises and organizations are undergoing significant changes in accordance with the new conditions of the country's economic condition. A constantly changing market situation requires regular adjustment of the organizational structure, for which the enterprise (organization) needs to have the appropriate methodology and automated means of its support.
Many studies have been devoted to the study of forms and methods of designing organizational structures. Their analysis shows that in principle when presenting organizational structures for enterprises of different volumes using different management principles, any of the forms of structures shown in Fig. 1.10. At the same time, as a rule, mixed forms and principles of management are used in the theory and practice of organizational structures of modern enterprises and organizations, for the characterization of which a corresponding terminology is introduced.
The initial organizational forms of control are linear (Figure 8.7, a) and functional (Figure 8.7, b), which correspond to a tree-like hierarchical structure (see Fig. 1.10, b) and the limiting case of a hierarchy with weak links (see Figure 1.10, c) or the matrix structure (Figure 1.10, g),
in which there are all relationships between elements of adjacent levels of the hierarchy (forming the axis of the matrix).
These correspondences determine the properties of the linear and functional structures, the first of which implements the principle of one-man management and unity of government (ensuring the effectiveness of operational management), and the second - was proposed as a means to improve the professional skills of management staff (which increases the effectiveness of their management decisions on management functions), but with its long existence, the specific interests of functional subdivisions th that may conflict with the interests of the enterprise as a whole.
At present, these initial forms of organizational structures are not used in its pure form.
The most common form is the combination of linear and functional management principles. Such structures are called linear-functional.
In such structures (Figure 8.8), a division of labor is adopted in which the linear links of management are endowed with the principles of one-man management and perform the functions of management, while the functional ones provide linear assistance, but their immediate impact on the underlying links is carried out only after the technical, economic and other types of policies and plans for the repair of premises, equipment, distribution of resources (financial, personnel, computer, etc.) on the directorate (scientific and technical council) of the enterprise (or organization) that is traced in Fig. 8.8 by the dotted line, i.e. weakened connection (whence the term hierarchy with weak links has occurred).
The principles of linear and functional management are used in any organizational structure. Linear management is built on the basis of the production structure of the enterprise (organization). Functional units provide a unified policy and centralization of management for the main integrated functions of the organization of the production process (technical and technological preparation of production, material and technical support of the production process, financial, personnel and other types of enterprise support). At the same time, relationships within functional units are also built by
linear principle (deputy director for the corresponding type of activity - department - office).
At the same time, the increase in the dynamism of changes in the external and internal conditions of the enterprise (organization) revealed shortcomings of linear functional structures, which are the main organizational form of management at most enterprises and non-industrial organizations. Such a structure provides efficient management in stable conditions. When an enterprise (organization) is faced with tasks that are not related to the fulfillment of the plan, but new, large, one-time problems, this structure proves to be insufficient. Moreover, the better the linear-functional structure is, the more it will resist innovation (technical re-equipment, reconstruction of the enterprise, introduction of new management methods, etc.).
Therefore, various organizational forms of program-target management have emerged:
■ functional coordination, whereby an additional structural unit is introduced into the organizational structure, which coordinates functional and linear units to solve a new scientific and technical problem (usually with weak management rights and no additional staffing );
■ project or software control (as the second extreme limit), in which after the development and approval of the project, its leader (the chief designer) is endowed with all the necessary powers to execute it and acquires the status of deputy director, and sometimes becomes over him (which was the case when organizing the implementation of space projects).
Between these extreme forms there is a spectrum of organizational and legal forms with varying degrees of influence of program-objective principles on the organization of production and management.
Program-target bodies can be created for the period of implementation of complex programs or for some period of the enterprise (organization's) activity, permanent or temporary program-target groups that change the research or development subject within the framework of a specialization for example, to create flexible production complexes and other innovations in technology, technology, etc.).
An example of the program-target organizational structure of an enterprise is shown in Fig. 8.9.
In order to implement the principle of program-target management, the post of deputy director was introduced in it. Among the program-target units that carry out the development and implementation of innovations in technical support, new technologies, etc. - department of technical re-equipment and reconstruction of the enterprise, department for management of complex programs, temporary project units.
In the case of setting up program-target bodies in the organizational structure of an enterprise (organization), situations are possible where they are not given a special priority, but the allocation of resources, rights and responsibilities between the program-target and linear-functional spheres of management, taking into account specific programs and situations . Decisions are made at the scientific and technical council of the enterprise.
Such organizational structures, with a combination of equal spheres of three-linear, functional and program-oriented, represent the most flexible form of management, and in the practice of enterprise management are called three-dimensional matrix structures.
As the development of enterprises and scientific and production associations and the separation in them (along with the main ones considered as independent) of such spheres as information, social, etc., there arise multidimensional matrix structures which sometimes called tensor .
In large associations, including several enterprises and organizations and delegating significant independence to these enterprises, and sometimes to individual industries, the stratified representation of organizational structures is used.
This takes place, for example, in the association "AutoVAZ" (whose enterprises are located in different cities, and the territory of the main one - VAZ - is several dozen square kilometers).
Functions of different spheres of management are usually divided between the corresponding deputy directors. To perform the enlarged functions, departments are formed, in which sectors can then be allocated. The exception is only a small number of units that can not be combined with others because of their specifics - the legal office (YurB), the bureau of environmental protection (BOOS).
An example of a four-dimensional matrix structure is shown in Fig. 8.10.
The following organizational unit designations are adopted:
■ In the area of functional management, the chief engineer is subordinated to departments (services): technical training of CCI production, including design, technological, instrumental training and management of technical production training; department of technical and economic planning TEP; operational management of the main production of the OCOP (sometimes this department is included in the sphere of linear management); Department of Labor and Wages; department of management of technical level and quality of products of UTU -
IR; the Deputy Director for Production Assurance is subordinated to the technical support department, including maintenance and repair of the TOiRO equipment, the department performing the loading and unloading transport and storage operations of the PRTSO, the logistics departments of the logistics department; sales of SbP products, coordination and cooperation of KiK and EnS power supply; Deputy Director for Administrative and Economic Matters - Financial Accounting and Accounting Department of FBU, which is usually subordinated directly to the Director of the enterprise, the Administrative and Economic Support Service of the ACS, including the provision of ongoing administrative and economic activities of various kinds; departments for the provision of capital construction of the ACS, providing personnel with QA, legal support for the YuraO, environmental protection bureau of the BOOS;
■ in the field of program-target management, the following departments have been identified: the department for the management of production specialization and production capacities of the PSIPM (including the definition of the prospective specialization of the enterprise); Technical re-equipment and reconstruction department of TPiRP enterprise (including management of technical re-equipment and reconstruction of the enterprise, development of reconstruction projects); a department for the design (or improvement, transformation) of the organizational structure of the PPPSO enterprise (including the analysis of the goals and functions of the ACF); department of scientific organization of production and production structure of NOPiPS; service for the development of targeted and integrated CCP programs (including the management of the implementation of targeted programs, the formation of target groups or other temporary units, management of the participation of the enterprise in the implementation of sectoral, intersectoral, etc. complex programs); Department of Social Development of the collective of the enterprise SRKP; department of normative methods of management and standardization of NME & T (including providing with standards necessary for organization of production, and normative and methodical support of the system of organizational management of the enterprise);
■ As the fourth sphere in Fig. 8.10, a possible structure of the information support area is given: the department of production and regulatory reference information of PISNI, the statistical department of the StO, the department of scientific and technical information of the ONTI, the bureau (or department) of the rationalization and inventive activities of BREEZE , department of software and software maintenance.
The scope of information support by an enterprise should interact with all spheres, organizing the collection, storage, processing and presentation of relevant production, regulatory and reference, scientific and technical information in documentary and factographic forms. Therefore, for the convenience of illustrating the interaction of spheres, sometimes it is placed at the bottom of the image of the organizational structure.
In large associations, including several enterprises and organizations and delegating considerable independence to these enterprises, and sometimes to individual industries, a stratified representation of organizational structures is used.
In a market economy, echeloned forms of organizational structures are used, similar to those shown in Fig. 1.17. In structures of this kind, the structural units entering the association are given a different degree of independence and there is a different degree of coordination between enterprises and organizations within the concern, joint stock company, etc., and a different degree of interference in the activities of structural units located at the lower levels of the hierarchy of such species. This kind of organizational structures is used, for example, in holdings.
In a market economy, especially in the management of small and medium-sized enterprises, an organization form is used, consisting of intersecting working groups in which certain specialists play the role of connecting links (Figure 8.11) - the "pin chain."
Such a structure consists of intersecting working groups. Each leader belongs to groups of two different levels: to a group consisting of his subordinates and to a group that includes his superior.
This management system takes the typical form of standing committees made up of departmental representatives, temporary task committees, periodic meetings of representatives "interested" units. However, this organization can be wasteful and slow. This creates contradictions between the global goal of the organization and the local goals of the working groups. The main mechanism for coordinating the goals of units (working groups) with the goals of companies is the participation of workers in management.
In the case of a small enterprise, the functions of organizational management can be entrusted to employees engaged in core (production or other) activities, and a corresponding surcharge for their performance is determined (on the basis of assessments of the functions of the structure of the FT carried out during the implementation of previous stages).
A similar combination of the functions of the main activity and organizational management takes place in the university (the dean, deputy deans, heads of the department, etc., perform organizational functions without discontinuing the main teaching activity).
In the case of a large enterprise, it is possible to develop a methodology by which the distribution of functions is carried out in stages: first - between strata (when using them), or between deputy directors (president, rector, dean, etc.), and then units of branches of the organizational structure that participate in the performance of the corresponding group of functions.
The methodology depends on the specific features of the enterprise (organization). Different approaches and methods can be used in its development.Approaches to the design of organizational structures. The accumulated experience in designing organizational structures allows us to distinguish three approaches to solving this problem: normative-functional, functional-technological and system-target . They are not mutually exclusive, but they have a number of fundamental features.
The normative-functional approach is aimed at the unification of organizational forms of management within the industry. The development and implementation of standard organizational structures is the first step towards the introduction of the principles of their scientifically based construction. However, the orientation to the typical nomenclature of management functions and structural management divisions does not allow to take into account the specific features of specific enterprises and the conditions of their activities, to assess the impact of these features and conditions on the operation of the enterprise and on the characteristics of the organizational structure.
The functional-technological approach to the formation of the organizational structure is based on the rationalization of information flows and the technology of its processing. This approach provides an opportunity to sufficiently consider the features of a particular enterprise (organization), it is flexible and versatile. At the same time, it is characterized by high labor intensity, using a stable nomenclature of established management functions, subordinating the organizational structure to the workflow scheme.
The system-target approach is to build a structure of goals, determine on its basis management functions and their organizational design. The advantages of this approach are the ability to take into account the features of the management object and the conditions of its activities, change and expand the composition of functions, and design various organizational and legal forms of enterprises. Difficulties in using the approach are related to the problem of transition from a combination of goals and functions to the composition and subordination of structural links that ensure their implementation.It is also proposed in [56, 63] to single out a number of basic methods: the method of analogies, based on the use of experience in organizing the management of various enterprises; expert method, the weak side of which is the legitimacy of doubt in the reliability and objectivity of expert assessments (which can be helped by methods of organizing complex examinations); the method of structuring goals, for the implementation of which currently there are techniques to ensure the completeness of the analysis of goals and functions necessary for specific conditions (as discussed in Chapter 5); the task method which, unlike the structuring method ( top ), involves defining tasks using a management system survey and combining them into larger complexes based on proximity measures introduced (bottom-up approach) as a result, it is more laborious and difficult to implement (which is related to the introduction of "proximity measures"); method of organizational modeling, which is based on the use of mathematical models, allowing to take into account a greater number of different factors and relationships between them.
The classification of mathematical models of organizational structures is given in , in which two groups of models are distinguished: models in which the criterion of organizational structure efficiency reflects the final results of the enterprise's activity, and models based on the use of indirect efficiency criteria.
The methods developed by different authors for improving organizational structures are distinguished by the approaches chosen and the methods used.
Of the three approaches to designing the organization of the structures discussed above, the normative and functional approach developed under the leadership of was the most widespread under the previous conditions of the centralized system of government of the country, oriented to the typification of organizational structures of enterprises. E. Slesinger . He was put in the basis of the methodological recommendations of the Research Institute of Labor. In this approach, the analogy method is used, which allows to generalize and systematize the experience of managing advanced enterprises. To determine the characteristics of the organizational structure (the number of management personnel, the number of hierarchy levels, etc.), correlation dependencies of these characteristics on a number of factors are given. However, the norms of the number of employees calculated on the basis of their management functions are oriented toward a certain level of management organization in the industry. The actual number of managers on a particular enterprise, by virtue of its specifics, may differ significantly from the normative one. In addition, the Methodological Guidelines for the development of enlarged standards of numbers and model structures of the management apparatus of an industrial enterprise suggest "hard" a system of classification of management functions, within which it is difficult to take into account the specifics of a particular enterprise and which constrains the development of the enterprise management system.
The normative approach does not link the solution of the task of forming an organizational structure with the goals of the enterprise (organization). This provides a system-targeted approach, developed under the guidance of B. Z. Milner [56, etc.]. This approach was put in the basis of industry-wide scientific and methodological recommendations on the formation of organizational structures. For its implementation, it is necessary to develop a methodology for structuring goals and functions, taking into account the specifics of the enterprise, the methodology for calculating the volume of management work on management functions, and to solve the problem of transition from the structure of goals and functions to the structure of government.
In conditions of designing fundamentally new enterprises, with a significant change in the requirements of the environment in the new economic conditions, the emergence of new rights (for example, to conclude any contracts for the manufacture and sale of products, as well as its free implementation, the right to transform its organizational structure without orientation on typical structures), the appearance in connection with these changes of the need for the management system to implement fundamentally new functions (such as, for example, marketing, monitoring, institutional structures, etc.) of system-oriented approach is preferred regulatory functional and functional technology.
The normative-functional approach does not contain a method for designing the organizational structure proper (its variants) for the new business conditions of the enterprise. The functional-technological approach, based on the application of the method of structuring tasks, is convenient in the conditions of the operating enterprise, allows the best of the others to preserve specific features of the functioning of the management system and is considered unacceptable for the design of new enterprises.
However, the work With. A. Valuev and In. I. Samofalov (see the references in ) showed that if we combine the advantages of the functional-technological approach with the system-target approach, applying the latter at the initial stage of design and then carrying out more thorough modeling of organizational and technological procedures (TNAs) in terms of management functions, the resulting methods allow not only to justify the adjustment of existing organizational structures, but also to develop options for a new organizational structure for the projected enterprise. To analyze the organizational and technological procedures for the preparation and implementation of managerial decisions within a shorter timeframe without losing the completeness of the analysis, the automation of the process of forming options for organizational and technical procedures helps, for which the automation language of the OTP modeling will be proposed.
Of the methods considered for designing organizational structures, the most interesting is the method of organizational modeling. Let us dwell on it in more detail.The models of the first group outlined in the classification proposed in  are few in number and mostly of an abstract nature, which is explained by the fundamental difficulties arising in establishing formal dependencies between the indicators of the final effect of the functioning of the enterprise and the characteristics of the organizational structure. The problem with the use of optimization methods is the formation of criteria for the effectiveness of building and functioning of the organizational structure.
For example, in industry-wide scientific and methodological recommendations on the formation of organizational structures of associations and enterprises, it was pointed out that the criterion for the effectiveness of the organizational structure should be based on the final technical and economic performance indicators of the enterprise, but it did not offer a way to assess the effect of structural shifts in the management system on the final results of its activities.
It is extremely difficult to determine the relationship between the organizational structure and the efficiency of production. Even more difficult is the formalization of these relationships. Therefore, the effectiveness of the organizational structure is most often assessed on the basis of local criteria of an indirect nature: the number of hierarchy levels, the minimization of the interaction of structural management links, the costs of maintaining the management apparatus, etc.
In a number of works, it is proposed to use a complex quality criterion to evaluate the effectiveness of the organizational structure (see references in [10, 11]). For example, a set of performance indicators includes an assessment of productivity, economy, adaptability, efficiency and reliability of the structure.
In practice, as a rule, they are limited to the criterion of profitability, as there were no methods of determining other effectiveness estimates until recently. However, in existing methods, profitability, as a rule, reflects only a cost-effective part of the efficiency, without taking into account the results, which can lead to an increase in the hidden costs of maintaining the management apparatus, for example, due to an unjustified reduction in the number of management personnel.
The most complete complex quality criterion is proposed by L. A. Bazilevich (see references in [10, 11]). This criterion is an ordered set of particular criteria that allows one to justify their choice, developed a technique for reducing particular criteria to a complex one, characterizing the organizational structure in terms of productivity, economy and social development.
Analysis of the problem of designing organizational structures, approaches and methods proposed by different authors to solve it allows us to conclude that the task of designing (improving) the organizational structure can not be fully formalized, it is a qualitative and quantitative problem for the solution of which to combine the methods of formalized representation of systems and methods of activating intuition and the experience of specialists, which is due to the complexity of the task, the need to take into account a large number of heterogeneous factors in many of which are difficult to formalize.
To fully consider these factors, it is advisable to combine the methods of structuring goals and organizational modeling that complement each other, providing the possibility of analyzing qualitative and quantitative characteristics: the goal structuring method allows you to determine the composition and content of management functions, taking into account the external and internal conditions of the enterprise, and also ensure the completeness of the analysis of the factors characterizing these conditions and affecting the scope of management work; using the method of organizational modeling, you can quantify the extent of this influence and move from the structure of goals and functions to the structure of government.
Analysis of a large number of factors that affect the organizational structure makes it possible to carry out a method of simulation simulation that allows you to take into account and study the influence of various factors and the change of this influence over time.
In particular, the possibilities of simulation simulation were investigated in the works of M. I. Starovoitovoy (see [10, 81]) with reference to the modeling of the organizational structure of the future enterprise with flexible automated technology.
Technique of designing organizational structures of management systems. Based on the above analysis of existing approaches to designing (improving) organizational structures and methods, combining approaches and using different methods, a generalized methodology for designing the organizational structure was developed (Figure 8.12 ), which can be used to develop private methods for specific enterprises (organizations).
In the example shown in Fig. 8.12 the generalized method of designing organizational structures provides for the possibility of using different methods and models and choosing a method taking into account the specific conditions and preferences of the decision maker, a combination of the system-target and functional-technological approaches is used.
Traditionally, the improvement of the management system and its organization structure begins with a survey of existing or similar structures (for example, the organizational structure was adjusted during the implementation of the ACS). At the same time, the normative and functional approach prevailed, and the result was, in the main, the adjustment of the number and composition of subdivisions of the management apparatus. With significant changes in the enterprise, the transition to a new organizational and legal form, significant changes in the relationship with the environment in the context of the introduction of market principles of the economy, etc., it is necessary not only to make decisions on the adjustment itself
organizational structure, but also to analyze the impact of those or other functions performed by units on the achievement of the enterprise's objectives in the new conditions.
Therefore, in the generalized methodology under consideration, as a first step, it is proposed to take not the survey stage (although it is also envisaged and can be performed in parallel), but the stage of development of the concept of development (creation) of the control object and its control system (stage 1). When developing the concept, questions should be answered about the role of the organizational structure, the choice of its form, the principles for carrying out the reforms (for example, the so-called "zero" option may be adopted, which envisages, if possible, a minimum reduction in the number (which may be required in the provision of production units greater autonomy and less centralized management) due to the reorientation of the released employees to new functions (for example, related to changes the interaction of the enterprise with the marketing environment, with the analysis of factors affecting the operation of the enterprise, etc.).
The main methods that can be used to develop the concept are methods of activating the intuition and expertise of specialists: various forms of brainstorming (the creation of commissions, discussion at directorates, scientists and scientific councils, etc.), the preparation of variants of the concept in the form of a scenario . In necessary cases, especially when designing new enterprises, methods of organizing complex examinations, cluster analysis of factors can be used.
After the concept is developed, a survey of existing or similar management systems (stage 2) can be conducted. The survey can be conducted in parallel with the development of the concept, especially if the decision-takers have difficulty in performing stage 1.
The survey usually used archive (based on the analysis of documents of the existing management system) and survey (by questioning or interviewing employees of the management apparatus) methods. In both cases and with a combination of approaches, the representations received about the management system reflect the opinions (recorded in the documents or oral statements) about it of the employees of the management apparatus. However, the experience of such surveys has shown that they are associated not only with significant labor and time costs, not only with poor consistency of survey results obtained by different researchers, but also with the fact that the results reflect the views of the management staff of this organization, i.e. stakeholders, and this is a major drawback of archival and survey methods. The point is that with local analysis of functions, one can always justify their usefulness, and the study of hierarchical structures shows that the selected branches tend to self-preservation, i.e. when creating new units (or posts), it should be borne in mind that they will seek to seek work, increase the significance of their functions.
Given the shortcomings of passive survey methods (archive and questionnaire), an active approach based on the accepted concept can be used, and further the survey can be refined after the structure of the objectives and functions of the management system is formed using an automated procedure , based on the obtained structure of functions. This structure, which helps organize the survey, seems to overlap with the existing management system and its organizational structure, and it is possible to implement the organizational structure of the functions included in the structure of the FT. When conducting an active survey, the upper levels of the goal structure can be used when its development is not completely completed, in turn, referring to survey results can help in the formation of lower levels of this structure.
Thus, stages 1, 2 and 3 are interrelated and can be executed in parallel (see Figure 8.12).
Steps 3 and 4 (see Figure 8.12) are analogous to steps 1 and 2 of the procedure for the formation and analysis of the CF structures shown in Fig. 5.22, but with greater detail of functions, since they must be associated with specific performers.
In practice, usually with the application of a complex methodology (see Figure 5.22), the structure of goals and functions is formed up to 3-4 levels, i.e. up to the level of integrated functions, and when the stage under consideration is performed, the structure is detailed along branches up to 6-7 levels. When step 4 is performed, sub-step 2.2 in Fig. 5.22 can be omitted (in this case the form of the structure is not important, only the completeness of the functions is important), and this sub-step is replaced by a sub-step of the distribution of functions between the levels of the control system (strata, components of the echeloned structure), the number and type of which depends on the specific conditions and is determined by stage of development of the concept of organizational structure.Having obtained a lot of detailed functions after completing the stages 3 and 4, in principle you can proceed to the formation and analysis of organizational structure options, taking various ways of assessing the complexity of functions (from expert to regulatory), looking for "measures proximity between them for uniting into divisions or distributing functions by units of the existing (or proposed options) organizational structure (stage 6).
However, for large enterprises and organizations (or when creating new ones) it is advisable to first develop models on the basis of which it is possible to specify the complexity of the performance of functions, the costs of organizing their implementation and other characteristics necessary for the formation and evaluation of organizational structure options, . go to step 5 of .
Possible methods of modeling are characterized earlier. When designing new enterprises, the most preferable of these methods are simulation simulation and analysis of organizational and technological procedures.
In the application of simulation simulation in accordance with the developed ideology of the formation and analysis of IDM, the following sub-stages are supposed to be performed: an analysis of the verbal description (concept) of the management system and factors affecting the organizational structure and the definition of exogenous and endogenous model variables on this basis; the construction of a diagram of cause-effect relationships, the determination of their polarities and contours, and the allocation among variable levels and rates; building on the basis of a diagram of cause-effect relationships diagrams of flows and levels; translation of the flow diagram and levels into a mathematical form, i.e. writing finite-difference equations of the dynamics of the model; Carrying out computer experiments using one of the simulation language languages (preferably - the specialized language DYNAMO ), including verifying the model and obtaining the dependencies of some factors on the others; analysis of simulation results.
The greatest difficulty in the development of the IDM with respect to modeling the characteristics of the organizational structure is the definition of indicators assessing the scope of work, the degree of their complexity, for which the norms, average statistical data and expert estimates are used, and their combination increases the objectivity of the modeling results in comparison with purely expert methods of evaluation .
Simulation dynamic modeling combines a graphical language convenient for a person to form a diagram of cause-effect relationships and developed software tools for analyzing the equations of the IDM, i.e. means MAIS and IPPF, and is in fact a technique for translating a verbal description into a formal mathematical model.
However, the process of formation and analysis of the IDM is laborious and requires the participation of specialists from various fields of knowledge.
In addition, experimental applications of this type of simulation for small enterprises and organizations have shown that for such a type of objects it is redundant and the results obtained are sometimes quite trivial.Formation and analysis of organizational and technological procedures (OTP) for the preparation and implementation of management decisions allows you to most accurately from all approaches to modeling reflect the processes in the existing management system (or design options for performing functions in the system being created) and evaluate the laboriousness of their implementation, costs and Other indicators influencing the choice of the organizational structure option. However, the process of forming these procedures is very laborious. Therefore, to implement the functional and technological approach, it is useful to develop automated procedures for modeling TPRs (for operating enterprises) or automation languages for modeling (JAM) OTP (for newly created ones).
This problem requires more detailed consideration, is based on the normative and methodological support - the NMA), and will be discussed in more detail in a separate section, after considering the principles of the development of an NMD system.
When improving existing organizational structures, it is sometimes sufficient to apply expert methods, using as expert groups formed with regard to the regularity of communication (ie, the space of a complex environment).
The expert survey can be organized in several stages: first, interview the employees of the existing management system, based on questionnaires, the structure of goals and functions developed in the course of steps 3 and 4; then select from these questionnaires functions relating directly to subordinate units and prepare questionnaires for these units so that they assess the need (or degree) of centralized regulation for these functions; simultaneously select from the provisions on the subdivisions of the management apparatus the interrelations between them and present them for mutual evaluation; from the obtained results of the survey to select disagreements in the assessments and present them to the management of the enterprise (the commission of the decision maker) for making decisions on eliminating duplication of functions, coordinating the points of view of different subdivisions of the management apparatus, and their opinions on productions and workshops. When making these decisions, one can take into account the experience of other enterprises, reflected in various STI sources, and the NAP requirements.
If after coordination, it is not possible to obtain agreed views, then for functions for which differences have remained, it is possible to form and analyze the TNA. Automated procedures are being developed to select disagreements, obtain total labor-force estimates, and identify relationships.
The final step is the formation of options for organizational structures and the selection of the best (stage 6). When executing it, it is necessary to group the management functions in such a way as to distribute them to the organizational structure units created (or existing) for their implementation.
In the case of designing new enterprises, it is recommended that you introduce measures of connectivity ( proximity measures ) of functions and form subdivisions based on the selected connectivity principles. In evaluating connectivity, one can use expert procedures, graph theory, a classification approach. Such approaches are very laborious, and it is difficult to prove the legitimacy and objectivity of the choice of "proximity measures".
One of the methods that contribute to increasing the objectivity of connectivity estimates is the combinatorial topology method, and in particular, briefly considered in Ch. 2 a method based on the concept of a simplicial complex J. <40> (see paragraph 2.5), which provides information on possible options for combining elements in groups, quantitative estimates of the connectivity of elements and their significance for the system, rather than by direct peer review, but based on the matrix incidents describing the relationship between management functions and the resulting expert procedures, simple enough in this method and requiring expert assessments in the form of "yes" - no & quot ;, then converted, after the intended processing, into more differentiated eccentricity estimates. However, this approach is also rather laborious and rarely used in practice.
If the existing organizational structure is adjusted, the existing one is usually taken as a basis, the new functions are distributed to its divisions (Figure 8.13), the functions that are not performed by existing subdivisions (indicated in Figure 8.13 by the - about subdivisions or, if necessary, change their names, divide the overloaded ones, revise the distribution of subdivisions by subordination to deputy directors.
Such an approach can in principle be applied to the creation of new enterprises, forming options for their organizational structure on the basis of analysis of existing enterprises and recommendations accumulated in the theory of organizational design, and in particular, you can choose the type of organizational structure, using information about types of organizational structures (linear , functional, program-target, matrix), to offer options for organizational structure, to distribute functions by departments of organizational structure (for which you can apply ADPATSF).
The stage 6 should also include a sub-step for comparative analysis of options for the organizational structure in terms of its shape.
An organizational structure is created so that the manager can maintain a holistic view of the management system -
tion. To ensure this, the organizational structure must have a number of requirements (the main ones of which are briefly considered in Chapter 1):
■ organizational structure units must ensure that all necessary management functions are performed;
■ The dismemberment at each level must be commensurate, and the selected parts are logically independent; studies have shown that uniformly structured systems have greater integrity and stability;
■ the number of levels in all branches should be the same (follows from the previous requirement, but is allocated due to its special importance for the organization of effective management);
■ signs of decomposition (structuring) within a single level (or, at least, a node) should be unified; this provides better manageability;
■ in the structure there should not be so-called & deg; degenerated branches, i. branches that are not divided into at least two components, since otherwise unbranched branches subordinate to each other practically duplicate each other, reducing the effectiveness of the control system;
■ The number of hierarchy levels and the number of components at each node should be (by virtue of Miller's conjecture or the Kolmogorov number) K = 7 ± 2; Failure to comply with this requirement makes decision-making difficult; The content of the requirements of this hypothesis can be explained by the limitation of the capabilities of the human's operative memory, its ability to analyze in the operational memory no more than 7 + 2 components and connections between them (of the order of 140). Investigations of organizational structures of large corporations in the US have shown the expediency of even the lower boundary - 5.
These requirements are not always compatible (which is related to the specifics of specific organizations), and in practice one must seek compromises. However, if possible, we should strive to implement them and compare the proposed options for the organizational structure in terms of meeting these requirements.
Special attention should be paid to the comparative analysis of organizational structures in terms of ensuring integrity and sustainability, on the one hand, and providing freedom in manifesting initiatives to employees of the enterprise, on the other, that is, evaluation of options for organizational structure in terms of centralization - decentralization of management. An example of an approach to assessing the integrity of the system and the degree of freedom of manifestation of the properties of its elements are given below.
A comparative assessment of the integrity of the organizational structure options. The main problem of improving management efficiency in a multistructured economy is the search for ways to achieve a compromise between self-regulating market mechanisms and centralized regulation - at any level of government (state, regional). A similar problem of centralization - the decentralization of management complicates the management of any enterprise, any research or other organization. Therefore, when forming the organizational structure, it is useful to provide information assessments of the degree of integrity a and the coefficient of use of the components of the system p, which can be interpreted as stability assessments of the organizational structure when granting freedom to the subjects of activity or as an assessment of the degree of centralization - decentralization of management (see Ch. 3).
When developing orgstruktry can be obtained different options. The selection of the management spheres that is made at the initial stage of development helps to ensure the completeness of the analysis, but then, in real conditions, taking into account the reduction in the number of management personnel, clear allocation of spheres can be violated.
For example, in Fig. 8.14 shows the options for the organizational structure of a relatively small enterprise a, 6, c. Comparing these options from the point of view of centralization - decentralization of management (see the principles of assessment in Chapter 3, figure 3.3), we get the following results.
With the same number of subdivisions of the lower level for all options, the system complexity is the same
Cc = log 14 = 3.82.
Own and mutual complexity: for the variant of Fig. 8.14, a
for the variant of Fig. 8.14, b
for the variant of Fig. 8.14, e
Quantitative differences in the integrity coefficients a and the degree of use of the elements (3, as expected, are small, since both structures are two-level and do not differ much from each other.) However, as noted in Chapter 5, estimates are the basis for comparative analysis, and even small differences over time can significantly affect the performance of the enterprise.
Therefore, we can conclude that the original structure (Figure 8.14, a) provides greater centralization of control, and the transformed structure (Figure 8.14, b) - gives greater freedom to structural units.>
Accordingly, in a situation where the manager wants to introduce more democratic management principles, the second structure should be selected (see Figure 8.14, b). On the contrary, if the disintegration of the enterprise began and it is necessary to increase its stability, then the initial structure should be selected (see Figure 8.14, c), although it requires the introduction of the post of another deputy director.
When transforming the organizational structures of existing enterprises, it is useful to use the approach proposed in , which is based on the representation of the original version of the transformed structure in the form tensor ( multidimensional ), as independent spheres of new areas of activity, which are determined on the basis of a preliminary analysis of the structure of the objectives of the enterprise and the identification of the most significant new functions.
In this case (especially in the case of an increase in the number of such spheres), after a thorough analysis of the functions in the selected spheres, a comparison of these functions (using the OTP model) with the functions of the subdivisions of the existing organizational structure is carried out to identify proximity and the possibility of reorienting the subdivisions of the linear-functional structure to perform new functions, and the results of such analysis correct the functions of existing units, and new ones are created only by functions that are fundamentally different from the essence living. Such an approach allows combining the advantages of the system-target and functional-technological approaches without destroying the existing organizational structure, but ensuring its adjustment taking into account new conditions of the enterprise's functioning, which is especially important in the constantly changing market environment.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay