Digital transformation for chiefs and owners. Volume 2. Systems thinking. Dzhimsher Chelidze

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ style="font-size:15px;">      – flexibility – individual strategies and business processes can be developed for each product / region;

      – easy coordination and coordination of management decisions;

      – high speed of response to emerging problems;

      – high performance and management quality thanks to specialization.

      Cons:

      – as in previous models, there may not be a common goal, each for himself;

      – unhealthy competition between structures and directions, growing political differences;

      – different productivity;

      – low budget efficiency.

      Matrix

      It is a complex model designed primarily for project implementation. A staff member may have multiple supervisors, and project and resource management is entrusted to the project manager / office.

      Sometimes attempts are made to create hybrids of linear-functional and matrix models, where the implementation of projects is entrusted to functional managers. For example, an industrial safety system is being introduced and the head of the industrial safety department becomes.

      Pros:

      – is responsible for the implementation of a manager with high professional competence;

      – the project manager can influence the situation at his own discretion, without unnecessary control (but this is rare).

      Disadvantages:

      – complexity in the implementation of projects and allocation of responsibilities, conflicts of interest, requires a high level of competence at the manager;

      – low performance;

      – duplicate functions.

      I will give an example of the implementation of this approach.

      Integrated corporation with central apparatus in Moscow and a large number of regional units with linear-functional structure.

      The central office initiates the implementation of a complex IT system that covers a large number of business processes and requires the inclusion of both technical and financial and HR. In each regional division a responsible manager is appointed and fun starts… The manager is responsible for the whole project, but the resources and authority to manage other people’s (financial, HR) blocks are not, and the desire of others to change at will is even more so. The curator in the central apparatus is not all-powerful and is also located within the functional subdivision. In general, to implement such a project – a hell of a quest.

      Matrix structures can also be divided into weak, strong and balanced.

      The weak

      Weak matrix structures are used when there are many projects, but they are small and not routine, not critical for the company.

      In a weak matrix, the members of the project team are managed by functional managers (Chief of Industrial Safety, Repair Planning, Procurement) whose authority is limited: each is responsible for his or her direction.

      There has to be a project manager who reports to management or, in this case, central office, gets his tasks. Tasks are then decomposed into smaller tasks and assigned to functional staff. But in fact, it has no powers and no resources. It is fertile ground for conflict.

      It is also possible to have «forwarders». These are people in functional areas who disseminate information but have no authority – informal leaders of opinion.

      As we can see, this approach is not applicable to our large-scale project. Unless we have very charismatic and strong project managers on the ground.

      The strong

      Differ in that the implementation of such a project may not be one, but several managers, or the manager and team, and they have much more authority. They can now not simply hand over tasks, but also give orders, require tasks and project reporting from functional managers. In addition, the project team may not be a permanent part of the functions, that is, it is possible that they will deal only with the project, plus they can search for contractors or order raw materials.

      For our conditional IT system implementation project, this approach may be redundant. Although, perhaps, it will increase the chances of success, but such implementation comes out very expensive.

      Balanced

      In this case, the project manager is appointed from among the staff and, better, from the functional managers. Here he can set tasks and monitor their performance. However, it is likely not to be exempt from its operational tasks and to be unable to manage its own resources.

      It is worth noting that this is the most difficult option to implement, as it involves the largest number of assigned roles, moreover, there may also be issues with subordination and, consequently, matrix conflicts.

      Summary

      We have dismantled the main types of org. structures. It would seem, choose the right, suitable for your company, and everything will be fine. Alas, it is not so. It is important to distribute functions and powers correctly, to identify a key product of the activity, to choose the people for whom this work is suitable psychologically, and also to build communication between them. That is why I always speak of a systems approach: it is impossible to implement any one tool – integration is needed.

      Besides, as we can see, already at org level. The structure is related to the number and size of the projects implemented, that is, there is a close interweaving of work with the organization. structures and project management, they become inseparable.

      To consolidate all practice, I propose to look at one real example with two structures of the same type, but with a completely different substance. Since the organizational structure in the book is almost impossible to display, everything will be available via QR and the link below.

      Organizational Structures

      Additionally, it should be remembered that with the development and organization. structure, and distribution of functions should change.

      In addition, there is a trend in the world to avoid large bureaucratic structures. Why? In addition to economic factors and long transmission chains, this is a breeding ground of irresponsibility. As a result, there are a lot of people in charge, but all are formally covered up, and Ivan’s locksmith is to blame.

      Here is a practical example: the repair of industrial equipment has been exceeded due to a chain of events: could not form a brigade because one of its members failed the exam because the head of the service could not form a commission for the exam, because two people on the commission were on vacation… Additionally, nobody seems to blame, but in the end, the object is worth… Until the Chief Engineer, in a terrible curse, СКАЧАТЬ