1. Faculty of Computing and Information Science Organizational Design Options Faculty of Computing and Information Science Presented by Chester C. Warzynski Director, Organizational Development Services Lecturer, Department of Human Resource Studies Cornell University

2. 2 Presentation Objectives 1. 1. To examine the criteria for organizational design and their application in contemporary organizations; 2. 2. To identify some basic principles and processes of organizational design, including six basic organizational options and their implications; 3. 3. To outline a methodology for organizing Computing and Information Science.

3. 3 The Concept of Sustainability* Efficient resource use Product stewardship Health & safety Environment policy & Management Stakeholder engagement Social Responsibility Business ethics Reputation Management Strategic & financial planning Knowledge management Quality management Risk management Effective governance Sustainability Environmental Value Added Social Value Added Economic Value Added Sustainability is about engaging stakeholders Sustainability is about decision-making for the long term Sustainability is about Responsiveness and flexibility Sustainability is about capturing value from environmental, social and economic factors *Adopted from Owain Franks and Ann Lemmon, “Global HR Strategies and Trends”, presented at Saratoga Conference, March 18, 2002, Monterey, CA.

4. 4 Collaborative Organizational Design Methodology* Education & Planning Team Development Definition & Analysis Definition & Analysis Mission & Vision Organization Design Implementation Planning Implementation Planning Implementation & Evaluation Feedback Learning Adjustments Feedback Learning Adjustments Performance Management System *Adapted from Gelinas, J. & Akiyoshi, Collaborative Organization Design, Oakland, CA: James Gelinas Organizational Consultants, 1993.

5. 5 Principles of Collaborative Design 1. 1. Those who create tend to support. 2. Make the purpose of the change process explicit and understandable. 3. Involve input from representative points of view of all key stakeholders. 4. Key decision makers must agree to be active sponsors of the process and either lead the process or participate directly at key points. 5. The process must include, from the beginning, a commitment to build and follow through on an implementation plan.

6. 6 C.O.D. Process - Key Questions  What is design? What’s involved?  How will your team approach this task of design?  How will your team build understanding and support?  Who are your customers? What do they need?  What’s going on in the environment that is, or will, affect you? Your customers?  What do you deliver to your customers?  Do the deliverables meet customer needs?  Which deliverables should you continue to provide?  What do you need to produce these deliverables?  Do your inputs meet your needs?  How do you produce these deliverables?  What works in your work process(es)? Why does not? Why?  Do you receive the feedback you need?  Which aspects of your organization encourage commitment and performance? Which do not? Education & planning Definition & analysis

7. 7 C.O.D. Process Key Questions  Why does your organization exist?  What is your picture of the future state of your organization? What are you doing? Accomplishing?  How are you going to move from your present organization to your new one?  What do you want to accomplish through this design effort? How will you know if you have accomplished it?  Is your new organization doing what you want it to be doing in the manner you want?  What impact is the new organization having on your customers, deliverables, work processes, and your ability to perform and be committed to this organization? Mission & vision Design Implementation planning Implementation & evaluation  How do you want to design your organization to best serve your customers and achieve your mission and vision?  What areas do you hope to impact through this design effort?

8. 8 Factors in Organizational Design – Criteria 1. 1.Alignment – aligning products & services with customer expectations (customer satisfaction) 2. 2.Specialization – determining functional & technical expertise for quality (quality) 3. 3.Scale economies – increasing returns to scale (cost) 4. 4.Autonomy – establishing & maintaining individual & group self determination (initiative) 5. 5.Communications/Collaboration – sharing ideas, information, and coordinating functions (coordination & creativity) 6.Learning – collecting, developing & distributing information & knowledge (growth) 7. Trust – establishing & maintaining exchange relationships (loyalty/solidarity) 8.Esprit de corps – establishing & maintaining identity, spirit & cohesiveness (morale) 9. Agility – responding and adapting quickly, creatively and flexibly to external & internal change (customer satisfaction) 10.Leadership – establishing & maintaining direction, & guiding performance (resource efficacy)

9. 9 Functional Structure* Dean Alumni AffairsOutreachResearchTeaching SystemsHRFinance * *Structures adapted from Cummings, T. & Worley, C., Organization Development and Change, Cincinnati, Ohio: Southwestern Publishing, 2001.

10. 10 Functional Structure Advantages   Promotes skill specialization   Reduces duplication of scarce resources and uses resources full time   Enhances career development for specialists within large departments   Facilitates communication and performance because superiors share expertise with their subordinates   Exposes specialists to others within same specialty – facilitates growth Disadvantages  Emphasizes routine tasks and encourages short time horizons  Fosters parochial perspectives by managers and limits capacity for top-management positions  Multiplies interdepartmental dependencies and increases coordination and scheduling difficulties  Obscures accountability for overall results

11. 11 Product/Service Structure - Admissions Dean - Admissions Operations College Liaison Alumni International & Transfer Recruitment

12. 12 Product/Service Structure Advantages   Permits growth without loss of control   Permits accountability of performance   Divisional goals are clear   Decision authority closer to problems.   Develops more well-rounded managers   Promotes decentralization of decision making   Greater flexibility in responding to new opportunities Disadvantages  Duplication of resources between organizations  Reduces job specialization. Lose track of “state-of-the-art”  Encourages competition among divisions  Encourages suboptimization  Focus on good of own organization rather than good of whole organization  Cross-divisional planning and coordination drain resources

13. 13 Customer/Geographical Structure - Recruitment Recruitment Manager International Division Eastern Division Central Division Western Division

14. 14 Customer/Geographical Structure Advantages   Recognizes interdepartmental interdependencies   Fosters an orientation toward overall outcomes and clients   Allows diversification and expansion of skills and training   Ensures accountability by departmental managers and promotes delegation of authority and responsibility   Heightens divisional cohesion and involvement in work Disadvantages  May use skills and resource inefficiently  Limits career advancement by specialists to movements out of their departments  Impedes specialists’ exposure to others within same specialties  Puts multiple-role demands upon people and creates stress  May promote divisional objectives as opposed to overall organizational goals

15. 15 Matrix Structure V.P. Admin. Facilities Human Resources Info. Tech.Finance Project Management Project Manager Facilities Human Resources Info. Tech.Finance

16. 16 Matrix Structure Advantages   Makes specialized, functional knowledge available to all projects   Use people flexibly, since departments maintain reservoir of specialists   Maintains consistency between different departments and projects by forcing communication between managers   Recognizes and provides mechanisms for dealing with legitimate, multiple sources of power in the organization   Can adapt to environmental changes by shifting emphasis between project and functional aspects Disadvantages  Can be difficult to implement  Increases role ambiguity, stress, and anxiety by assigning people to more than one project  Performance is lowered without power balancing between projects and functions  Makes inconsistent demands and can promote conflict and short-term crisis orientation  May reward political skills over technical skills

17. 17 Process-Based Structure – IT

18. 18 Process-Based Structure Advantages   Focuses resources on customer satisfaction   Improves speed and efficiency   Adapts to environmental change rapidly   Reduces boundaries between departments   Increases ability to see total work flow   Enhances employee involvement   Lowers costs do to overhead Disadvantages  Can threaten middle managers and staff specialists  Requires changes in command-and- control mindsets  Duplicates scarce resources  Requires new skills and knowledge to manage lateral relationships and teams  May take longer to make decisions in teams  Can be ineffective if wrong processes are identified

19. 19 The Network Organization The Traditional Hierarchy Customers/Partners Middle-Level Capability Developer Frontline Entrepreneurs Top-level institution builders The Individualized Organization * From: Christopher Bartlett, and Sumantra Ghoshal, The Individualized Corporation. New York: Harper Business, 1999.

20. 20 Network Structure Advantages   Enables highly flexible and adaptive response to dynamic environments   Creates a “best of the best” organization to focus resources on customer and market needs   Each organization can leverage a distinctive competency   Permits rapid global response   Can produce “synergistic” results Disadvantages  Managing lateral relationships across autonomous organizations is difficult  Motivating members to relinquish autonomy to join network is difficult  Sustaining membership and benefits can be problematic  May give partners access to proprietary knowledge and technology

21. 21 Group Discussion 1. 1. Which organizational design criteria are most for Computing and Information Science? Why? 2. 2. What design options would best meet your criteria? Why?

22. 22 Key Factors in Service Performance 1. 1. Engagement/Participation/Involvement 2. 2. Collaboration and learning 3. 3. Autonomy and freedom 4. 4. Shared values and beliefs 5. 5. Resource availability and flexibility (slack) 6. 6. Connections with/between experts and staff 7. 7. Access to knowledge base & opportunities to contribute 8. 8. Organization development activities, e.g., strategic planning, network development, team building, etc. 9. 9. Forums for civic engagement and social activities 10. 10. Trust

23. 23 Implications for Change   Create opportunities for collaboration, e.g., strategic planning, team building, etc.   Invest in developing collaborative technologies.   Invest in developing communities of practice.   Map social capital ties that are relevant to tasks.   Engage in collaborative organization design   Build influence networks and allow some slack.   Allow each individual to enter knowledge into the organization.   Give everyone access to the knowledge base and experts.   Engage employees in social and design activities.

24. 24 Selected References Adler, P. & Kwon, S. Social capital: prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, January 2002, pp. 17-40. Coleman, J. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1994. Cohen, D. & Prusak. L. In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001. Cohen, S. & Fields, G. Social capital and capital gains in the Silicon Valley, California Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1999, pp. 108-130. Coleman, J. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, supplement, 1988. Cummings, T. & Worley, C. Organization Development and Change, Cincinnati, Ohio: Southwestern Publishing, 2001. Gelinas, J. & Akiyoshi, A. Collaborative Organization Design, Oakland, CA: James Gelinas Organizational Consultants, 1993. Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett. C. The Individualized Corporation. New York: HarperBusiness, 1997. Nohria, N. and Ghoshal, S. The Differentiated Network. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997. Putman, R. Making Democracy Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. Sobel, C. Studied trust: building new forms of cooperation in a volatile economy. In Richard Swedberg, ed., Explorations in Economic Sociology, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1993. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W. Cultivating Communities of Practice, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.