• However, since managers are ultimately responsible for organizational endeavors, they should make a special effort to help ensure the development of useful systems and to
  make design activities an extension of the manager’s role rather than a separate function.

• More powerful change happens when there are clear design objectives driven by a new business strategy or forces in the market require a different approach to organize resources.

• An analysis must be completed relative to a specific business strategy.

• For example, when units are similar in nature and function but are also relatively independent, the manager must base their decision on the most appropriate way to group activities
  according to their past experience.

• Although the probability of success in implementation is enhanced considerably if management is vitally interested in the project, technical expertise and motivation for change
  are more likely to be found in staff groups.

• Other factors such as the influence of the environment, the availability of men and machines, the time schedule for design and operation, the cost of alternative designs,
  and the particular biases of the designers must be considered when establishing boundaries.

• Phase one is the definition of a business case, including a clear picture of strategy and design objectives.

• [8] Operating managers need to understand the organizational decision-making requirements and the information needed to support the system.

• In a general sense, managers engage in systems design on a day-to-day basis when they plan activities and organize systems to accomplish objectives.

• Leonard Sayles has expressed the manager’s problem as follows: “The one enduring objective is the effort to build and maintain a predictable, reciprocating system of relationships,
  the behavioral patterns of which stay within reasonable physical limits.

• When a system’s objective is to perform a certain mission regardless of cost, there can be no trade-off.

• Organization design may involve strategic decisions, but is properly viewed as a path to effective strategy execution.

• Milestone: The change is being executed and lead, and closely monitoring the changes to prepare for any adjustments Reshaping organization structure[edit] Galbraith’s Star
  Model of organizational design Organization design can be defined, narrowly, as the process of reshaping organization structure and roles.

• It also represents a concept which implies a connection between the organizational structure and other systems inside the organization in order to create a unique synergistic
  system that will be more than just the sum of its parts.

• Design Design process and approach[edit] Although the process of organization design isn’t necessarily linear, a five milestone process has been created to organize the approach.

• The solution to the apparent dichotomy would seem to be a team approach,[10] with specialists supporting operating managers who are responsible for the project’s success.

• In this approach, the network of human independence required to accomplish a given task is based on the shared responsibility of all members of the subsystem.

• A project involving an integrated system for the entire company might well require years to complete.

• [8] The systems approach suggests a new role for management.

• Goal: Determine what basic grouping of work will create the capabilities necessary to deliver the decided strategy.

• It can also be more effectively defined as the alignment of structure, process, rewards, metrics, and talent with the strategy of the business.

• This step is typically followed by “strategic grouping” decisions, which define the fundamental architecture of the organization – essentially deciding which major roles will
  report at the top of the organization.

• [7] The role of management Designers with imagination have the best chance to group people and machines into workable combinations having the greatest efficiency and effectiveness
  within the recognized constraints.

• Of course, the balance between technical efficiency and the human factors that determine organizational climate should be included in making this decision.

• [1] The goal of organizational architecture is to create an organization that will be able to continuously create value for present and future customers, optimizing and organizing
  itself.

• When a system’s objectives include achieving a particular task at the lowest possible cost, there must be some degree of trade-off between effectiveness and efficiency.

• The classic options for strategic grouping are to organize by: • Behavior • Function • Product or category • Customer or market • Geography • Matrix Each of the basic building
  block options for strategic grouping brings a set of benefits and drawbacks.

• It follows that the interface between managers and systems designers is critical, and mutual understanding must be fostered to maximize returns from design efforts.

• In the traditional view, the manager operated in a highly structured, rigid system having well-defined goals, clear-cut relationships, tight controls, and hierarchical information
  flows.

• The organization design process is often explained in phases.

• Instead of gearing participant activities to obedience to rules and closely structured behavior, the systems approach provides a basis for active cooperation in meeting task
  requirements.

• Organizational architecture, also known as organizational design, is a field concerned with the creation of roles, processes, and formal reporting relationships in an organization.

• The eventual success or failure of the project is somewhat predetermined by management’s attitude and the relationship between the designers and those who must implement the
  process.

• Many organizational experts argue for an integrated approach to these disciplines, including effective talent management practices.

• If the environment is dynamic or internal capabilities undergo change, it might be wise to rotate people from operations to systems design periodically, so that operating
  expertise is updated continually.

• It provides the infrastructure into which business processes are deployed and ensures that the organization’s core qualities are realized across the business processes deployed
  within the organization.

• Many companies fall into the trap of making repeated changes in organization structure, with little benefit to the business.

• Total systems often become complex because of the sheer size and nature of operations, but effectiveness and efficiency may still be achieved if each subsystem maintains its
  simplicity.

• An existing system should not be modified to accommodate a change in objectives, but every system should be sufficiently flexible to integrate changes that may occur either
  in the environment or in the nature of the inputs.

• Thus, systems theory lends a structure by which the concepts of motivation, leadership, and participation can be applied effectively within the organization.

• In addition, it suggests that leadership patterns must be modified, particularly when dealing with professionals and highly trained specialists, and motivation must take the
  form of active, willing participation rather than forceful subjugation.

• Jay Galbraith and Amy Kates have made the case persuasively (building on years of work by Galbraith) that attention to all of these organizational elements is necessary to
  create new capabilities to compete in a given market.

• Goal: Build a business case for the change; compare the current state to future state and implications that would be involved.

 

Works Cited

[‘Miroslav Žugaj & Markus Schatten (2005). Arhitektura suvremenih organizacija. Varaždinske Toplice: Tonimir. pp. 1–6. ISBN 953-7069-50-8.
2. ^ Baligh, Helmy H. (2006). “Structure, Performance, Cost, and Outcome”. Organization Structures. Information
and Organization Design Series. Vol. 5. Springer New York. pp. 1–31. doi:10.1007/0-387-28317-X_1. ISBN 978-0387258478.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b Kesler, Gregory (2011). Leading organization design : how to make organization design decisions to drive the
results you want. Kates, Amy. (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. pp. 9–10. ISBN 9780470912836. OCLC 693772818.
4. ^ Goold, Michael (2002). Designing effective organizations : how to create structured networks. Campbell, Andrew, 1950 August
3-. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass. pp. 49–57. ISBN 0787960640. OCLC 48783823.
5. ^ Goold, Michael (2002). Designing effective organizations : how to create structured networks. Campbell, Andrew, 1950 August 3-. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
p. 93. ISBN 0787960640. OCLC 48783823.
6. ^ Richard A. Johnson, Fremont E. Kast, and James E. Rosenzweig, The Theory and Management of Systems, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973), pp. 144-46.
7. ^ Jump up to:a b c Paul R. Lawrence; Jay William
Lorsch (1967). Organization and environment; managing differentiation and integration. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University. pp. 213–18. OCLC 229592.
8. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Richard Arvid Johnson
(1976). Management, systems, and society : an introduction. Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear Pub. Co. pp. 100–105. ISBN 0-87620-540-6. OCLC 2299496.
9. ^ Jump up to:a b c Leonard R. Sayles (1964). Managerial behavior; administration in complex
organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 100–105. OCLC 965259.
10. ^ Ackerman, Ben. “Organisation Design, why keep it a secret?”.
Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kittysfotos/8748266132/’]