Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT TOOLS - Coggle Diagram

- - - - The authors undoubtedly refer to the systematic attempt to redesign the organization in such a way that the new structure helps to adapt to significant changes in the environment and to set and achieve new goals.
        
        In the first place, it is considered that environmental changes threaten, in many cases, the very survival of organizations.
        In Second Term, changes in the environment seem to always be offering opportunities for growth and development.
        Finally, it may happen that the structure of the organization is to some extent delaying its adaptation to changes in the environment.
        
        The concept of strategic change suggests that the organization in general, and the manager in particular, can identify gaps between desired conditions in dimensions such as.
        
        Effectiveness, Efficiency
        
        Staff Satisfaction
        
        In general, strategic change efforts should be related to the idea of how to achieve a more effective and efficient organization, which offers, at the same time, an optimal and satisfactory climate or environment for productive and creative work.
- - - - The first phase occurred in the 1980s, when several companies made a radical turnaround in their businesses by redesigning their processes.
        This was the time when this approach was emerging and its application was limited to a few North American corporations.
        The second phase began in 1993, when the cases of companies that had successfully redesigned their processes and the way in which they had achieved it were published. Michael Hammer and James Champy, through the book Reengineering, allowed the massive and rapid dissemination of the redesign.
        
        Starting in 1995, the fourth phase begins: the strong criticism of reengineering. consultants, university researchers and executives began to accumulate experiences that showed some limitations of the original version of this approach and detected the factors that undermined its success.
        The fifth phase begins to emerge at the end of the nineties and will take hold at the beginning of this new century, rethinking redesign in a climate less influenced by fashion and leaving aside the superficial detractors of reengineering. The principles on which reengineering is based, far from responding now to one more fashion, radically revolutionize the way in which work has been designed in the 20th century, constituting a permanent alternative of organizational effectiveness for executives.
        
        Reengineering, according to Hammer and Stanton, is fundamentally rethinking business processes and radically redesigning them for dramatic performance gains. The key factors of the concept are: the orientation towards the processes, the radical change and the great magnitude of the expected results.
        For Hammer and Champy "the only absolutely indispensable element in any reengineering project is that it addresses a process and not a function. As long as this requirement is fulfilled, practically everything else boils down to technical - which is to say that it is good if it works for you, bad if it doesn't. "
        
        Radical process redesign means that reengineering departs from the traditional concept of making improvements to existing processes. Radical means going to the root of things. Reengineering is not about improving what already exists, but about discarding what is current to start over, that is: reinventing how we can do our job.
        Davenport notes, "Continual improvement involves less risk, but its payoffs are also relatively lower. Process innovation must set ambitious goals, vary structures, redistribute power, and mobilize people and resources significantly, all of which it naturally causes a high level of resistance to change and risk. "
        
        The original concept of reengineering has been harshly criticized from various angles. Most of these criticisms correspond to reengineering processes that have failed. Without a doubt, reengineering offers us excellent possibilities to significantly improve the productivity of an organization, but the design of the change and its implementation must take into account the experience generated in the business world in recent years.
        
        "I wasn't smart enough," admits other reengineering pioneer Michael Hammer, adding that: "Because of my engineering background, I didn't pay enough attention to the human dimension.
        Another widespread criticism is that reengineering has served as a managerial excuse to lay off staff and overload the work of those who remain in the company. In practice, a significant number of companies announce reengineering processes, but apply something else: restructuring or "organizational thinning", usually accompanied by dismissal of personnel. Sometimes it is done on purpose, in order to confuse public opinion and staff, but at other times it is because of a lack of knowledge of what reengineering really is. This has caused workers to fear him and his very name can cause suspicion, withdrawal, resistance and discouragement.
- - - - Another ideological reason could also be the belief that public companies and services provided by the State limit the choice of consumers, by enjoying monopoly positions within the market. And finally, it could also be considered as an ideological reason, the desire and intention expressed by many governments to promote a "popular capitalism", making their employees share in the ownership of the privatized companies. This intention has paid off very well in some cases, and has been a complete failure in others.
        
        Another second group of reasons could be grouped under the name of economic reasons. These reasons are of different scope and claim, depending on the different countries. Thus, in England the aim is to achieve, through privatization, a definitive change in the structures of the economy.
        In France between 1986 and 1988, on the other hand, the aim is to achieve a change in the rules of the game of the economy. In both cases, the aims are very ambitious and very general in scope. It is about proceeding to a liberalization of practically all markets and thus achieving competitiveness in all companies, avoiding monopolies, and achieving greater efficiency.
        
        Another type of reason to privatize is constituted by factors of a financial nature. It is evident that the sale of assets belonging to state companies constitutes a very important source of income, which can be entered in the Treasury areas. In any case, it is a very sensitive subject, which requires rigorous administration.
        
        However, ideally, certain objectives or ends to be achieved in any privatization program can be established, which are clearly self-evident.
        These would be the following, very schematically outlined:
        1) That the direction and management decisions of the privatized companies are completely depoliticized.
        2) Achieve greater efficiency in the performance of privatized companies.
        3) Achieve a higher degree of competitiveness in companies, liberalizing the market, precisely in order to obtain greater efficiency.
        4) Ensure that the goods and services provided by the privatized companies express the real costs.
        5) That the investments made reflect the true cost of the capital used.
        
        Situations in which an Absorption is recommended:
        
        TO ACHIEVE OPERATING ECONOMY
        
        ACQUISITION OF TRAINED PERSONNEL
        
        DIVERSIFICATION
        
        Vertical
        
        horizontal
        
        Conglomerate
        
        INCREASE
        
        TAX
        
        NEGOTIABILITY OF THE SHARE
        
        FINANCING
        
        OTHERS.
- - - - In order to transform a company, there must be clarity on what the trigger for change is and where it leads; There must be a vision and the necessary elements must be articulated to achieve it from the present situation.
        The effort to transform has the advantage of duration over time (regardless of size), via the generation of a new business structure.
        To transform, we must emphasize the business model, culture, rules of the game, technology and people.
        
        The new business model must be able to capture the essential characteristics of the new vision.
        
        Culture is like the glue of all the pieces of the model.
        
        The Laws of the Game are the language and communication of the organizations.
        
        Any action must go through identifying the Technological Architecture.
        
        The fifth concept is people.
- - - - Companies contributing to the Education and Health Area
        
        Eastman Chemical Company,
        
        Special Plastics
        
        Fibers
        
        Plastics for packaging
        
        Coatings, Adhesives
        
        Intermediate and performance chemicals.
        
        This company won the 1993 "Malcom Baldrige" National Quality Award in the large-scale manufacturing category.