دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله طراحی صحیح سازمانی – SSRN 2006
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی طراحی صحیح سازمانی کدام است؟ به همراه ترجمه فارسی
| عنوان فارسی مقاله: | طراحی صحیح سازمانی کدام است؟ | |
| عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: | What is the Right Organization Design? | |
| رشته های مرتبط: | طراحی سازمان های دولتی و مدیریت دولتی، مدیریت، استراتژی های توسعه صنعتی، نوآوری تکنولوژی و مدیریت صنعتی | |
| فرمت مقالات رایگان | مقالات انگلیسی و ترجمه های فارسی رایگان با فرمت PDF میباشند | |
| کیفیت ترجمه | کیفیت ترجمه این مقاله پایین میباشد | |
| توضیحات | ترجمه این مقاله با کیفیت پایین انجام شده است. | |
| کد محصول | f338 | |
|
مقاله انگلیسی رایگان |
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی | |
|
ترجمه فارسی رایگان |
دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله | |
|
خرید ترجمه با فرمت ورد |
|
|
| جستجوی ترجمه مقالات | جستجوی ترجمه مقالات مدیریت |
|
بخشی از ترجمه فارسی مقاله: مقدمه |
|
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی: Introduction A startup company in Florida, called World Response Group (WRG), developed an unusual woven mat for the horticulture industry that was made from all-natural fibers. Horticulture growers in the U.S. produce hundreds of millions of potted plants each year. The product, called SmartGrow, dramatically reduced weed growth in potted plants and simultaneously provided important nutrients—all with no chemicals. SmartGrow materials and manufacturing expertise were available in China and India. As the company grew, the managers and board members talked frequently about organization structure. Two schools of thought emerged. One group wanted to import raw materials into the U.S. for manufacturing by WRG and thereby have direct control over manufacturing, marketing, and sales. These functions would be departments within WRG. The second group wanted to import already manufactured and packaged products from overseas, outsource marketing to an agency, and hire a horticulture distribution company to handle sales. The second group pushed the concept that no one within the company would ever touch the product. Nor would there be functional departments for manufacturing, marketing, and sales. That discussion of structure within WRG would not have occurred 30 years ago when Robert Duncan published his seminal article, “What is the Right Organization Structure?” in Organization Dynamics in 1979. At that time, organizations were thought to be selfcontained, and structure defined the reporting relationships among internal functional departments. Duncan’s article provided important insights about the conditions under which different internal arrangements would achieve a company’s mission. His insights are still referenced in management textbooks today. The purpose of this article is to present key developments in organization structure and design that have occurred since Duncan’s article and describe when each can be used for greatest effect. We will briefly review the important structural designs from 30 years ago and then describe key developments since that time. The concepts are organized into three eras, which reflect substantive changes in management thinking from vertical organization to horizontal organizing to open boundaries via outsourcing and partnering. Era 1: Self-Contained Organization Designs The first era of organizational design probably took hold in the mid-1800s and was dominant until the late 1970s. In Era 1, the ideal organization was self-contained in terms of having clear boundaries between it and suppliers, customers or competitors. Inputs arrived at the organization’s gate, and after a transformation process, left as a completed product or service. Almost everything that was required during the transformation process was supplied internally. Design philosophies from this era emphasize the need to adapt to different environmental and internal contingencies and the ability to control the 3 different parts of the organization though reporting relationship in a vertical chain of command. The structure of self-contained organizations can be thought of as: (1) the grouping of people into functions or departments; (2) the reporting relationships among people and departments; and (3) the systems to ensure coordination and integration of activities both horizontally and vertically. The first three structures—functional, functional with horizontal overlays (matrix), and divisional—are traditional approaches that rely largely on the vertical hierarchy and chain of command to define departmental groupings and reporting relationships. Functional. In a functional structure, activities are grouped together by common function from the bottom to the top of the organization (Figure 1a). Each functional activity— accounting, engineering, human resources, manufacturing,—is grouped into a specific department. Most small companies use this structure as do many large government organizations and divisions of large companies. Functional with Horizontal Matrix Overlays. Few organizations can be successful today with a pure functional structure because the resulting functional silos inhibit the amount of coordination needed in a changing competitive environment. Organizations break down silos by using a variety of horizontal linkage mechanisms to improve communication among departments. These coordination relationships are often drawn on organization charts as dotted lines (Figure 1b). Many organizations use full-time product managers, project managers, or brand managers, to coordinate the work of several departments. The brand manager for Planters Peanuts, for example, coordinates the sales, advertising, and distribution for that product. General Motors has brand managers who are responsible for marketing and sales strategies for each of GM’s new models. Organizations that need even stronger horizontal coordination may evolve to a matrix structure, which is illustrated in Figure 1c. The matrix combines a vertical structure with an equally strong horizontal overlay. While the vertical structure provides traditional control within functional departments, the horizontal overlay provides coordination across departments to achieve profit goals. This structure has lines of formal authority along two dimensions, such as functional and product or product and region. Some employees report to two bosses simultaneously. For example, after a regional marketing promotion went $10 million over budget, Nike managers engineered a matrix structure that assigned dual responsibility by product and region to manage the introduction of new products each year. Headquarters establishes which product to push. Then product managers determine how to do it, but regional managers have authority to modify plans for their regions. Nike’s matrix provides a counterbalance between product manager and regional manager ambitions. Divisional. The divisional structure occurs when departments are grouped together based on organizational outputs, as illustrated in Figure 1d. The divisional structure is sometimes called a product structure or profit centers. Most large companies have 4 separate divisions that use different technologies or serve different customers. People within each division have more product focus, accountability and flexibility than would be the case if they were part of a huge functional structure. For example, Microsoft has product divisions for Windows, server software, mobile software, office software, videogames, business software, and MSN Internet service. Each unit acts like a standalone company, doing its own product development, marketing, and finance. |
