ISM 158 Lecture 4 • Organizational structure (1st half) • Case: Learning from Leapfrog (2nd half)
Project • Analyze a major business, and how they have used information to gain competitive advantages • Due Friday (by email): • Members of team (2 or 3) • Company you plan to study
ISM 158: IT and organization • Main idea: Companies used to be hierarchical, whereas today the relationships are more like a network
Challenges • How does a small (startup) company become an organized enterprise? • Is it really possible to operate without a hierarchy of roles? • “We want to be global and local, big and small, and radically decentralized with centralized reporting and control. If we resolve thoe contradictions, we create real competitive advantage” (Percy Barnevik, ABB, page 59)
Fig 2.1 Organizational Design Challenge
Fig 2.2 Building Lean, yet agile enterprises
Core Issues / Strategies • Speed of • Executing strategy • Releasing products • Cutting costs • Supervision / Accountability • Ability for one employee to take huge company risks • Incentives for acting in best interests of company or stake holders • Clarity • Corporate goals, priorities • Reporting, updating • Generalists vs. specialists • Many people in narrow/well defined roles can improve productivity and efficiency
Fig 2.3 Streamlining operating and management processes
Fig 2.4 redefining control systems © Lynda M. Applegate, 2005
Hierarchical Enterprises vs. networked enterprises
Problems with Networked Structure • Matrix style leadership has been tried and failed before: • Lacking clear chain of command • Difficult dissemination of information • Corporate strategy difficult to unify • Duplication of processes
Building a management team • Understand multiple functions • Relate interdependencies between processes • … learning and integrative approach (page 68) • ‘information literate’
Accountability and Collaboration • Teams • Defining structures, responsibilities and incentives • See figure 2.5
Fig 2.5 Building Authority Systems
Does redefining roles create or remove clarity? • Boards and teams become responsible for end-to-end process performance • However, individuals still need to be evaluated for their roles • Is this really much different?
Networked Computing to compliment networked organizations • Scalability • Computing resources can be scaled up quickly to match increasing demand • These need to be networked appropriately • Administration • Who owns and operates each application and infrastructure supporting it? • Salaries are a significant cost! • Sometimes makes sense to over-provision support to simplify and protect
Administrative justifications for networked computing • Specialization • Each department administers own dedicated infrastrastructure • Compartmentalization • When 2 companies collaborate, it is generally to have each company manage own hosts • Locality • Information where it is captured and presentation where it is needed • Sharing • Maintaining multiple versions and copies becomes complex • Security • Reliable, available information easier to manage and protect • Availability • Organizations often set objectives for availability of whole network. Use redundant hosts for backup
Characteristics Summary (Appendix) • Process integration and synchronization • Process cycle time • Process complexity • Management cycle time • Scope and granularity of business understanding • Information and business Literacy • Boundaries and values • Units of work and chain of command • Span of management • Corporate headquarters • Coordinating mechnisms • Roles • Career Progression
Compare organizational models • General Motors vs. IBM
General Motors • Multidivisional structure • “Decentralization with coordinated control” • Coordination = efficiencies • Decentralization = initiative, responsibility, development
General Motors • One general manager per car division • Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, etc. • Each as an autonomous company • Self-contained functions for engineering, assembly, production, sales • Assembly plants in 15 countries • Divisions aggregated into groups, headed by executive • CEO and committee above executives • Management committee had policy groups to set standards and policies • Eg. Plant design, new technologiies, grades for materials, labor contracts etc. • Each division as a profit center • Major expenditures through formal reviews
Why did this not work into 1990s? • Major duplication of functional areas • Tighter regulations from government added to complexity • Couldn’t move resources quickly between divisions • Goal of market share led to proliferation of car platforms, models, components, brand confusion
Large but Flexible: IBM • 1990: • 2nd most profitable company in world • $6 billion profit on $69 billion sales • BUT • Deep structural problems • Products not making profit long term • 1991 – 1993 • Loss of $16billion
Early signs of trouble • Profits high but returns on sales, assets and equity going down • Leasing business becoming sales business • Previously sell a system for $100,000 per month • Now sell $5 million system plus $10,000 per month in support
IBM Response • Initially, make managers more responsible for results, and decentralized authority • Accelerating decision-making • Strategic planning cycle cut in half • Voluntary retirements
Ongoing challenges • Losing demand for mainframe computers • Revenues going down, costs not getting much less • “At the heart of the company’s problems was its evolved complexity… • 20 separate business units • 5000 hardware, 20,000 software products • Different designs serving same purpose • 125 separate data centers worldwide, and 128 CIOs • 31 private and separate networks • Hundereds of different configurations of PC installations • Data processing cost 3 times industry average.
IBM’s managerial traditions • CEOs always came from within company • Brought in circle of associates • Senior management decisions made by committee – needed unanimous agreement • Each executive had large staff who did presentations at each meeting • Meetings preceded by pre-meetings
Lou Gerstner, CEO 1993 • Renewed CEO role as customer-focused • Involved people in decision recommendations • Hired key people to handle cost cutting • Focused on IBM delivering whole solutions for customers – not just software
Organizational Change • Sales started local generalists with slow response time to make a bid • Moved to sales organization with both customer relationship managers (geographical) and product specialists • “Matrix” now aligned to products, industries and global processes
Questions, Break, Presentation
