Functional structure of the enterprise

According to the spheres of functioning of the organization, it is possible to distinguish many different structures that correspond to the types of activity. For example, at industrial enterprises it is possible to determine the main and specific functional structures: technological, organizational and managerial, economic and socio-psychological; structures of information, material, financial, human and other flows. Consider the main functional structures.

The technological structure of the organization is a set of connections of the technological process of manufacturing products, design and technological preparation of production, organization of production services. An example of a technological structure is shown in fig. 3.2.

The organizational and managerial structure is a set of vertical and horizontal links that ensure orderliness, coordination and regulation of the organization's activities to achieve "its goals. The basis of the organizational and managerial structure is the relationship of hierarchical subordination. They, in turn, affect the organizational and managerial relations of direct interaction , both on the vertical - between the higher and lower levels of management, and on the horizontal.

The organizational and managerial structure is informational. The main information flows are as follows:

Vertically "from top to bottom" - planned, normative "instructive, guiding information;

Vertically "from bottom to top" - analytical, advisory, accounting and statistical information, etc.;

Horizontally - information, provides mutual coordination and horizontal integration of activities.

A component of the organizational and managerial structure is the management structure of the organization. Along with the organization management structure, there may be structures for certain types of information flows. The structure of the main functional structures of the organization includes technological, organizational and managerial, economic and socio-psychological structures (that is, structures covering all aspects of the organization's activities) and the organizational and managerial component of the organization, it is advisable to present it in the form of a management system.

The economic structure is a set of relations of economic interaction of individual members of the organization with each other in terms of: fulfilling the mission, achieving goals, allocating resources, remuneration, distributing the income received between owners, managers, specialists and employees, and the like.

The socio-psychological structure of the organization is a combination of vertical and horizontal links that characterize the socio-psychological aspects. It includes:

The structure of relations of hierarchical subordination, establishing the social status of each member of the organization;

The structure of direct socio-psychological interactions between functional, professional, qualification groups, teams of departments, groups of informal communication, individuals.

Types of organizational structures of enterprise management

Organizational structure- this is a set of departments and services that carry out the construction and coordination of the functioning of the management system, the development and implementation of management decisions to implement a business plan, an innovative project.

The main factors that determine the type, complexity and hierarchy of the organizational structure of an enterprise are:

Scale of production and sales volume;

Nomenclature of manufactured products;

Complexity and level of unification of products;

The level of specialization, concentration, combination and cooperation of production;

Degree of infrastructure development in the region;

International integration of the enterprise, etc. The structure of the organization depending on these factors

can be linear, functional, linear with a headquarters control, linear with cross functions, matrix, problem-target.

The most clear form of the organizational structure of enterprise management is a linear system (Fig. 3.3), based on the principle of unity of assignment distribution formulated by A. Fayol. According to this principle, only a higher authority has the right to give orders. All other departments are included in the service line. Starting from the head of the enterprise and down to the lowest level of the hierarchical ladder, a single line of management is carried out, it has several intermediate steps. Work planning and control over their execution are carried out vertically from the manager to production units that perform managerial functions.

The use of such an organizational management structure is advisable for small enterprises. It allows you to create a clear and visible relationship between higher authorities and subordinates in enterprises, however, the use of this system leads to significant burdens for individual intermediate authorities.

The management of the enterprise is often overloaded, orders are executed and transmitted very slowly, since it does not have the ability to independently develop all decisions to the smallest detail and must transfer certain powers to lower levels or provide them with considerable freedom in decision-making.

The disadvantages of the linear system can be avoided if intermediate instances are reduced when transmitting orders for the regulation of certain processes and retained only for the transmission of instructions and instructions.

When using the functional structure of enterprise management, the transfer of orders is carried out not by instances, but depending on the type of tasks assigned (Fig. 3.4). This means that the planning of work and control over its implementation is carried out by the functional units, and the work is carried out by the production units for each function.

For the application of the functional structure, the principles of unity of management and distribution of tasks are violated, which leads to duplication of functions and powers. Such a control system is acceptable for a medium-sized enterprise.

The advantages of the functional structure of the organization of the enterprise are: stimulation of business and professional specialization; reduction of duplication of functions and consumption of material resources in functional areas; improved coordination in functional areas. The disadvantages of the functional structure include: an increase in the possibility of conflicts between functional areas; lengthening the chain of commands from the leader to the direct executor.

If it is necessary to maintain the unity of management and execution, which is lost in the functional system, and the long division of labor makes it necessary to single out certain tasks, then you can save the transfer of instructions by authority (linear structure) and instruct

separate functions to headquarters, which can take on certain tasks, but do not have the authority to issue an order. That is, it is necessary to introduce a linear system of organization for the headquarters management body, which is a combination of a linear system with a system for highlighting certain functions (Fig. 3.5).

The purpose of the headquarters in this system is to take over part of the powers of the head (preparation and information support of decisions made, operational adjustment and control over their execution), and all the rights for leadership and execution remain in the appropriate division of the organization.

The advantage of the linear system of organization by the headquarters management body is that the strict observance of the transfer of tasks is combined with the simultaneous use of the knowledge of specialists. The disadvantage is that such an organizational structure does not exclude the occurrence of conflicts. This is due to the preparation of the decision at the headquarters and its adoption by the line manager, while the headquarters, while preparing the decision, cannot control it and thus is not responsible for its implementation.

A linear system can be turned into such a form when cross (transverse) functions are formed (Fig. 3.6).

At the same time, the movement through the authorities is preserved, but certain functions throughout the enterprise (personnel policy, accounting and reporting, production preparation, planning, control) are assigned NOT to headquarters without the right to give orders, but to functional areas with the authority to give orders. This leads to the fact that the competencies of management for certain processes are divided. For example, the head of the personnel department (head of the line instance) and the head of the technical department (head of the functional department) have the right to jointly make decisions on hiring employees for the corresponding workshop of the enterprise, while in one of these instances they are not entitled to independently make decisions, and in the absence of agreements, a higher authority should intervene.

In the context of a combination of organizational structures focused on functions, matrix management structures arise (Fig. 3.7).

For example, in an industrial enterprise, products are developed by the design, production and development departments, cooperating with the purchasing, sales, and human resources departments in such a way that top management does not have to interfere with the activities of these departments. Each department at its level has full decision-making power. The advantage of the matrix system lies in the possibility of using the existing knowledge of specialists for the implementation of innovative processes.

Further development of the organizational structure in modern conditions is based on the influence of the following factors:

Development of specialization and cooperation of production;

Management automation;

Application of a set of scientific approaches to the design of the structure and functioning of the management system;

Compliance with the principles of rational organization of production processes (proportionality, direct flow, etc.);

Ensuring the mobility and adaptability of the structure to changes;

Providing marketers with coordination of solving problems to achieve the competitiveness of specific products.

Thus, the structure is determined by the quantity and detail of the development of the principles of requirements for its formation, the structure of the goal tree, the content of the regulations on departments and job descriptions. On fig. 3.8. the problem-target organizational structure is shown, taking into account the specified conditions. The number of departments, workshops and other divisions, their structure and number depend on the volume of sales, range, complexity and scale of products, the level of specialization, cooperation, concentration, combination of production and other factors. At the first level of the enterprise management hierarchy there is a deputy director for marketing, a technical director, a commercial director, a deputy for production, a deputy for social issues. At the second level of the structure, there can be various departments and workshops. At the third level, if necessary, bureaus or groups in departments are created for individual problems, functions, products or markets.

The proposed problem-target management structure has all the advantages of the previously considered structures and at the same time does not have obvious disadvantages. The problem-target structure provides a high level of specialization of employees performing a specific goal (task) of the goal tree. It is associated with the structure of the management system, simple to build and operate, has a body that coordinates the solution of problems to achieve the competitiveness of goods, adapted to changes.

Organizational structure - a set of organizational units and their relationships, within which management tasks are distributed between 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.

The distribution of tasks between departments and officials, the distribution of powers and responsibilities must remain stable for some 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 found to be ineffective from the point of view of the objectives of the strategy or economy, a 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

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 the result of management decisions made in specific market conditions, the above groups of competitive influences are at the same time the main elements of the strategy of competing firms. Different hierarchical levels are responsible for the implementation of these components of the strategy in the management structures: operational management, innovation and entrepreneurial (strategic).

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 those cases when the work of the enterprise involved the implementation of various functions of economic activity, such as research and development, production, marketing, finance, MTS, etc., the departmentalization of linear divisions occurred according to the functional principle. Thus, a kind of linear structures was formed, which began to be called a functional structure.

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

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

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

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

The second period of strategic change was associated with World War II. Since 1936, government purchases of military equipment began to increase significantly. At the same time, the production volumes of military equipment increased by 5-6 times. After the end of the war, military-industrial companies faced an unpredictable decline in government purchases, which was only slightly offset by growth in demand in the commercial sector. Faced with this constraint, firms began to actively use the strategy of diversification into unrelated areas of activity in order to reduce their dependence on state markets. 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. In the new information technology economy, the targeted priorities of industry have shifted in favor of creating commercial global communications. Starting in 1994, in order to remain competitive in the face of global markets and rising R&D costs, strategies of specialization and interconnected diversification began to be actively used in the United States and Europe. Formally, this group of strategies includes companies whose sales account for 70% or more of one type of product or 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 promising new areas become key strategic factors. These requirements are best met by strategies of specialization and interrelated diversification.

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

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

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

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

Companies with unrelated sets of activities, such as United Technologies and Textron, have several relatively independent divisions at the highest level of management integrated with a system of financial planning and control (see Figure 4). Such structures are called divisional. Their 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 a function into a centralized unit creates a synergistic effect. In the simplest version of the divisional structure, support and headquarters functional units, for example, finance, become centralized. In more complex variants of divisional structures, the main functions are centralized: R&D or production, or both of these functions. The centralization of production has become most active in the framework of the outsourcing system - the transfer of production to regions with cheap labor (China, Southeast Asia, India, etc.).

The choice of strategy is determined not only by the situation on the market, but also by the goals of the company. The goals of firms and key economic performance indicators 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. Those companies in which the influence of shareholders dominates are more inclined 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 stake in Aerospasial was sold to one of the integration partners - the private aerospace group of companies Lagiarder.

The development of strategies and structures of enterprises of the domestic aerospace industry is characterized by a number of features that have arisen due to the difference in the trajectories of the country's macroeconomic development from the trajectories of the development of the United States and economically developed countries of Western Europe. The closed national economy of the country and the universal state ownership in the USSR created a stable environment for the activities of enterprises. Under such conditions, the elements of strategies and management structures that ensure external efficiency did not develop. The closed 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. Enterprises had to solve these technical problems against the backdrop of rapid scientific and technological progress. The key to success in achieving the goals was the timely introduction of scientific achievements and the development of new technology. The development of science and technology, thus, has become the main factor in the instability of the external environment, influencing the choice of strategies and the formation of organizational structures of enterprises. Under the influence of these factors, project matrix organizational structures began to take shape in the industry. Depending on the complexity and novelty of products, as well as on the amount of resources involved, in each case, there was a variation in the level of integration of project and functional line management, the ratio of responsibilities and powers 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 R&D organizations and manufacturing enterprises were separated within the industry. Coordination was carried out by departments in the process of implementing programs for the creation and production of new technology.

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

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

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

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

In the sixties in the domestic military and aerospace industry, the competitive selection of contractors began to be replaced by the specialization of enterprises in the creation of a narrow range of products. Specialization was based not only on technological reasons. When distributing orders, political criteria began to be used. Unjustified duplication of projects appeared, which, in particular, took place during the implementation of the lunar program. In general, the 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 of technical systems increased 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. Thus, in design bureaus and design bureaus, the 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 strategic management systems did not allow for effective adaptation to a radical 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. Most Russian enterprises and the industry as a whole reacted to all external strategic changes that have taken place since 1987 as isolated and unrelated. And the period of developing a managerial reaction exceeded the period of development of changes.

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

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

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

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

The main feature of the current internationalization strategies is their lack of balance in terms of long-term effectiveness. For Russian enterprises, participation in international projects was a means of survival in the face of a significant reduction in state funding. But, 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 to improve business operations; the head is fully responsible for the work of his unit and must have unlimited decision-making powers; the organizational structure does not imply the existence of a staffing table and job descriptions, since everyone himself must create a place for himself in accordance with 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 the general organizational culture of a group of like-minded people. Gradually, technological advances became the property of many firms, which created a 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 types of 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 in 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 information compression and processing between management levels and provide effective 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, to group goals and transfer them to the responsibility of one unit, a sign of homogeneity of goals and resources (functional potential) allocated to achieve them 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. Product or regional branches, otherwise known as profit centers, were responsible for achieving these goals. 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 of a systematic approach was the work of J. Thompson and J. Galbraith on situational management, in which the need to adapt the organization of management depending on the specific state of the main situational variables, both external and internal, was substantiated. 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 substantiated, 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, what is characteristic, in organizational design, standard solutions level out the individual features of the strategy, which form the basis of the competitive advantages of firms and create 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 to a higher manager in the absence of a clear functional specialization of units. They were a classic bureaucratic organization and ensured effective management in a stable external environment. Functional structures were considered as some antithesis to linear structures. Their main difference from the linear ones was the functional specialization of units according to the types of work performed. Such a scheme, according to the authors, ensured a higher professional level of work performance and the quality of the final product. However, such a scheme was not rigid enough to create complex products that required departments to specialize not only in terms of functionality, but also in terms of product life cycle stages and work with individual subsystems. Therefore, the functional organizational structure was considered not suitable for large enterprises.

As a means of eliminating the shortcomings of linear and functional structures, linear-staff structures were proposed. Their peculiarity was that a number of auxiliary and support functions were allocated to separate centralized units that advise line managers in the development of management decisions. Headquarters units had consulting powers, and their decisions were implemented through a linear administrative vertical. The line-staff structures provided qualified management of large enterprises, but, due to the long chain of decisions, they remained insufficiently flexible.

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. Under the conditions of the monopolistic structure of the economy, which 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 characteristics of the classification of organizational structures in the USSR, various approaches to their design began to form. 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 factories, 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 promising tasks of the enterprise, focusing on past organizational experience and typical structural parameters. And the shortcomings of standard organizational solutions have already been mentioned earlier.

In general, the 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 occupied area, their spatial distribution represent the production structure, which is part of the overall structure of the enterprise.

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

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

Types of organizational structures

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

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

Functional connections are 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 departments of the same level of management (between the heads of different departments or functional departments of the enterprise).

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

Linear organizational structure

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

a 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 one 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 contradictions in the 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 is the personal characteristics and experience of managers, including, and above all, top management.

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Types organizational structures controls (4)

   Abstract >> Management

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

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

   Abstract >> Management

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

3. Types organizational structures controls (2)

   Abstract >> Management

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

Any enterprise or organization has an organizational structure developed at the stage of their creation and corrected in the practical process.

The organizational structure of the company or reflects the relationship between management and workers, gives a clear idea of ​​​​who in the enterprise is responsible for making decisions.

Any organizational structure can be represented as a diagram, the separate blocks of which will be the director or head of the enterprise, its structural divisions, individual management units and the links between them.

Understanding the organizational structure of the enterprise will allow you to instantly diagnose the problems of interaction between managing subjects and managed objects of the enterprise, see how they are arranged, evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.

The clearer the structure, the easier it is to overcome disagreements and ensure the movement of all members of the work collective towards the achievement of a unified one.

An ill-conceived, "concocted by eye" organizational structure is fraught with a significant increase in the timing of work or services, confusion in documents, shifting one employee's duties to another (in the absence of a normally formed division of duties).

Organizational structure of the enterprise- this is a system of relationships between the structural divisions of the enterprise in the production process.

The elements of such a system are:

• management relations;
• internal rules and regulations;
• personal responsibility of each unit for the performance of a particular work;
• distribution of powers of staff and managers.

A properly built, well-functioning and well-thought-out structure of the enterprise organization guarantees stable and dynamic development and full-fledged functioning of the institution as a whole.

The organizational structure is formed under the influence of many factors:

• legal form of the enterprise;
• activities;
• the scale of the enterprise and the volume of products;
• used and technologies;
• ways of selling goods and services;
• sizes, available, etc.

To create a high-quality enterprise structure, it is required to constantly analyze it and make timely adjustments based on the data obtained as a result of the analysis.

The general structure of the enterprise includes: production, service departments, as well as the management of the structure.

On the example of a garment factory, the following personnel units can correspond to the indicated elements:

• PRODUCTION: seamstresses, cutters, packers;
• SERVICE: , fabric suppliers, delivery of ready-made items, cleaners;
• MANAGEMENT: and his deputies.

A textual and graphic description of the organizational structure of an enterprise requires not only a thorough knowledge of the types of organizational structures, but also the ability to subtly notice the characteristic features, pluses and minuses of each of them.

Most often, enterprises implement the following types of organizational structures:

• linear;
• functional;
• line staff;
• matrix;
• design.

Each of these types is substantively discussed further in separate sections.

Less common types of organizational structures include:

• budgetary (built around the budgeting process and the enterprise);
• administrative (links the internal organizational structure of the enterprise with external subordinate management objects - branches, subsidiaries,; the heads of the structure can appoint and dismiss directors of subordinate organizations);
• divisional (grouping of positions - the formation of divisions - depends on the nature of the products, industry or regional focus of the production unit).

There are also economic, network, combined (mixed), technological, regular organizational structures of the enterprise, focusing on various aspects of the production and economic activities of the enterprise.

Often one structure passes into another, or there may be several structures in one institution (for example, linear and project).

Video about types of organizational structures:

This is an extremely simple and most demanded organizational structure, usually used in medium and large enterprises.

With a linear structure, subordinates are required to follow orders only from their immediate supervisor. Employees no longer report to anyone.

Even the founder does not have the right to command employees without the consent of the head of the enterprise.

The linear structure of the enterprise has a lot of advantages, which include:

• ease of implementation in a modern economy;
• clear and short connections;
• specific division of powers and responsibilities;
• the possibility of quick interaction between employees and management;
• maximum speed of order execution;
• the possibility of coordinated work and the creation of a regular or project organizational structure based on a linear one;
• ease of control of the actions of a subordinate, the possibility of instant adjustments "in the direction of travel";
• each employee or department is responsible for one issue, the personal responsibility of the employee motivates to perform tasks efficiently and professionally;
• high speed of work with clients in the provision of services.

The linear organizational structure of the enterprise also has disadvantages:

• recurring conflicts and misunderstandings due to the "inaccessibility" of top management;
• many intermediate management links do not allow the employee to quickly contact and get an answer to the question from the top management itself;
• it is difficult to create connections between employees in the presence of several branches and large departments (applies only to large companies);
• high workload of other senior and middle managers, whose mistakes lead to loss of profit and business reputation of the company;
• local problems become a priority for solving, and global tasks are relegated to the background, which greatly affects the quality of their implementation.

With proper adjustment of the organizational system, the presence of competent personnel and a competent leader, the linear structure can become ideal for any amount of work performed or services provided by the institution.

The functional structure of an enterprise is often referred to as multilinear due to the presence of several managers in ordinary performers who are responsible for different areas of production and economic activity.

The functional structure of the enterprise has undeniable advantages:

• the presence of a minimum number of links in the control system;
• elimination of duplication of duties and reduction of staff;
• vertical connections of the highest quality and "fast";
• ease of control over employees and tasks assigned to them;
• the ability to concentrate efforts on solving complex and energy-intensive tasks with high emotional stress and employee involvement;
• maintaining a high level of qualification and professional skills of specialists through constant communication and cooperation.

Among the shortcomings of the functional organizational structure of the enterprise include:

• incessant friction between "competing" units of the same level;
• the coordination of urgent issues and the adoption of managerial decisions are extremely slow, which is why all work processes in the company are slowed down;
• difficulties in establishing cooperation between employees at all levels;
• it is difficult or impossible to make changes to the organizational form of the company with this type of structure.

The choice of the type of organizational structure of the enterprise (linear, functional) depends on the production specifics, the number of employees, goals and industry affiliation of the enterprise and many other factors.

Ideally, the organizational structure should be flexible, easy to adapt to the new conditions of economic activity and at the same time contribute to the achievement of the company's predicted economic indicators.

It is characterized by the presence of line managers and departments, which in fact are not authorized to make independent decisions.

The main purpose of such units (headquarters) is to help the manager in managing and performing individual functions.

In fact, the headquarters is an expert council, which includes key experts on certain issues (lawyers, economists, personnel officers, and others).

This is a collegial body, of which the head of the enterprise is also a member.

First, the issue is submitted for discussion by the headquarters. In the process of debate, a solution to the issue is formulated, which the director of the enterprise or top manager must subsequently implement.

The advantage of this form of management is to reduce the burden on line managers. The disadvantages are the imperious “powerlessness” of the headquarters and the blurring of the responsibility of the head of the enterprise for the decisions made (in which case, everything can be “blamed” on the headquarters).

The project (team) organizational structure is created for a limited time period to solve a specific issue. Can be created in emergency situations.

Its existence is limited by the period of relevance of the problem.

The project structure usually involves only a part of the management personnel with the necessary knowledge and competence.

For the period of existence of the structure, the members of the group are not distracted to solve other tasks, due to which the necessary degree of concentration of efforts on one project is achieved.

This is the main advantage of the project organizational structure of the enterprise.

The disadvantages of the project structure are the difficulties with the targeted allocation of resources, ensuring the full workload of team members during the implementation process and their employment after its completion.

A variation of the design structure is the shop organizational structure, which is implemented, as a rule, in mass production.

It is characterized by a mixture of properties of the design and functional organizational structures of the enterprise.

A distinctive feature is the presence of two managers of the same level at once, one of whom is the direct leader due to the distribution of job responsibilities, the other is the manager responsible for the implementation of the project.

Project managers report to the top management of the enterprise.

The specialists involved in the project report directly to two managers: the project manager for everything related to the project, and the functional manager for everything else.

The advantage of such management relationships is excellent adaptability to difficult external conditions and the possibility of efficient allocation of resources for the benefit of the implementation of current projects.

The disadvantages of the matrix organizational structure of the enterprise lie in the violation of the basic principle of unity of command, which gives rise to interpersonal conflict situations (“who is more important”) and provokes disputes over the rights to.

Improving the organizational structure of the enterprise is a prerequisite for building a strong and growing company from year to year.

Optimization of production processes and maximization are possible only with a constant analysis of the effectiveness of the organizational structure and a comparison of the results of the analysis with specific economic results.

In the process of modernizing the organizational structure of the enterprise, the following tasks are solved:

• quantitative and statistical current state of the organizational structure of the enterprise;
• checking the functionality of the company as a whole and its basic structural units (departments, workshops, teams);
• simplifying the description and automation of repetitive tasks;
• allocation of strategically important tasks and determination of priority areas of production;
• delimitation of powers and responsibilities of each department, debugging their functional cooperation;
• maximum separation and functional simplification of the work of the managerial link - managers, heads of departments;
• designing the organizational structure of the enterprise in order to significantly improve the company;
• reorganization of the company structure taking into account the changed requirements;
• planned change in the organizational structure of the enterprise;
• assessment of the effectiveness of the interaction of all elements of the organizational structure;
• giving an opinion on the success of the measures taken to optimize and improve the organizational structure.

The introduction of innovative approaches to the management of production and personnel directly affects the quality of the organizational structure of the enterprise, creating conditions for business development and maximizing profits.

Organizational management structures

Mechanical organizational structures of management

The structure reflects the structure of the system, i.e. composition and interrelation of its elements. The elements of the system form a whole due to the connection between them. The following elements are distinguished in the organizational structure: links (divisions, departments, bureaus, etc.), levels (levels of management) and connections - horizontal and vertical. Horizontal links are in the nature of coordination and, as a rule, are single-level. Vertical links are links of subordination, their need arises when there are several levels or levels of management (hierarchy). Links in the structure can be linear and functional, formal and informal. Thus, the organizational structure is a set of management units, between which a system of relationships has been established, designed to ensure the implementation of various types of work, functions and processes to achieve certain goals.

Each organization is characterized by a greater or lesser degree of specialization, formalization and centralization. Their combinations significantly affect the efficiency of the work of individual employees, groups, as well as the organizations themselves. There are two main models of organization: mechanical and organic.

essence mechanical approach to building an organization is that the organization is seen as a system that resembles a machine. It works according to the established order, accurately and reliably. The work being done at any given time is pre-planned and can be foreseen. The technology for performing the work is quite simple. People perform repeatedly repeated operations, actions and movements brought to automatism. In such an organization, there is a high level of standardization, which extends not only to products, technology, raw materials, equipment, but also to the behavior of people. Mechanical organization management has the following characteristics:

– well-defined formal tasks;

- narrow specialization of work;

– centralized structure;

– strict hierarchy of powers;

- the predominance of vertical links;

- the use of formal rules and procedures, the impersonality of relationships;

- power is based on the position that the leader occupies in the hierarchy;

– resistance to change;

- Strict control system.

Usually an organization that works like a machine is called bureaucratic. The efficiency of its activities is ensured by saving time, high productivity and quality of work performance based on the specialization of labor, separation of functions and powers, training, rationalization, control, i.e. due to the high degree of organization of the system. The mechanical organizational structures of management include: linear, functional, linear-functional, divisional.

Linear organizational structure of management

This is the simplest organizational management structure (OSU). At the head of each production or management subdivision is a leader, endowed with all powers and exercising sole leadership of subordinate employees and concentrating all management functions in his hands. Decisions are passed down the chain top down. The head of the lower level of management is subordinate to the head of the higher one.

Rice. 4.1. The scheme of the linear organization of the management structure

This is how the subordination of managers of various levels along the vertical (line) develops, which carry out administrative and functional management at the same time (Fig. 4.1). Moreover, subordinates carry out the orders of only one leader. Each subordinate has a boss. Each boss has several subordinates. The linear control structure is logically more slender, but less flexible. Each of the leaders has full power, but relatively little ability to solve functional problems that require narrow special knowledge.

Let us note the main advantages of the linear OSU.

1. Unity, clarity and ease of management.

2. Consistency of actions of performers.

3. Speed ​​in decision making.

4. Personal responsibility of each leader for the final result.

However, this structure has its drawbacks.

1. The concentration of power in the upper levels of government.

2. High demands on the manager, who must have extensive versatile knowledge and experience in all management functions and areas of activity carried out by employees subordinate to him.

3. Information overload, a huge flow of paperwork, a lot of contacts with both subordinates and higher authorities.

4. Lack of links for planning and preparing decisions.

At present, linear OSU is not used in its pure form anywhere, except for the army, where such a structure exists at the lower levels of army organizations or in the management of small and medium-sized firms that carry out simple production in the absence of broad cooperative ties between enterprises. When the scale of production is larger, and the range of problems to be solved increases, both the technical and organizational level rise. The linear structure turns out to be inefficient, since the leader cannot know everything and therefore cannot manage well. At the same time, it is present as an element of the formal structure in all administrative organizations in which relations between the heads of production units are built on the basis of the principle of unity of command.

Functional organizational structure of management

Rice. 4.2. Diagram of the functional organizational structure

AND sometimes this OSU is called traditional, or classical, since it was the first structure to be studied and developed. Its essence lies in the fact that the performance of certain functions on specific issues is assigned to specialists. Specialists of the same profile unite in structural units and make decisions that are binding on production units. The overall task of managing the organization is divided, starting from the middle level, according to the functional criterion. Each governing body or executor is specialized in the performance of certain types of activities. Thus, a staff of specialists appears who are highly competent in their field and are responsible for a certain direction (Fig. 4.2).

The functional structure is based on subordination by areas of management activity. In fact, a particular unit has several senior managers. For example, the head of the shop with such a structure will be the heads of the departments of supply, sales, planning, remuneration, etc. But each of them has the right to influence only in his field of activity.

This functional specialization of the management apparatus significantly increases the effectiveness of the organization. The line manager has the opportunity to deal more with operational management issues, since functional specialists free him from solving special issues. Functional subdivisions acquire the right, within their powers, to give instructions and orders to subordinate subdivisions.

Benefits of a functional OSU:

1) high competence of specialists responsible for the implementation of specific functions;

2) release of line managers from resolving special issues;

3) reducing the need for generalists;

4) standardization and programming of phenomena and processes;

5) elimination of duplication in the performance of managerial functions.

The functional management structure is aimed at performing constantly recurring routine tasks that do not require prompt decision-making.

The disadvantages of functional structures include:

1) the difficulty of maintaining constant relationships between various functional services;

2) lengthy decision-making procedure;

3) lack of mutual understanding and unity between employees of functional services of different production departments of the company;

4) reducing the responsibility of performers for work as a result of depersonalization in the performance of their duties, since each performer receives instructions from several managers;

5) duplication and inconsistency of instructions and orders received by employees “from above”, since each functional manager and specialized unit puts their questions in the first place;

6) violation of the principles of unity of command and unity of management.

The functional organization aims to stimulate quality and creativity, as well as the pursuit of economies of scale in the production of goods or services. However, the implementation of different functions involves different time frames, goals and principles, which makes it difficult to coordinate activities and plan them. The logic of this organization is centrally coordinated specialization.

The functional organizational chart is still used in medium-sized companies. It is advisable to use such a structure in those organizations that produce a relatively limited range of products, operate in a stable external environment and require standard management tasks to ensure their functioning. However, in its pure form, the functional structure is practically not used. It is used in a close limited combination with a linear structure that operates along the management hierarchy from top to bottom and is based on the strict subordination of the lowest level of management to the highest.