Critically examine the architecture, routines, and culture (ARC) framework of organisational design as proposed by Saloner, Shepard and Podolny in Strategic Management.

The design of an organization is a “formal, guided process for integrating the people, information, and technology of an organization” (Glickman et al., 2007). A good organizational design increases the likelihood that an organization will succeed; that its’ values will be realized and its mission will be attained. An organization begins with a strategy or a purpose, is followed by its philosophy or values, then identifies the mission and finally evaluates the environment and its’ strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the organization (Kelly & Crawford, 2008).

Organisation Design Ensures that the organisation is appropriately designed to deliver organisation objectives in the short term and long term and that structural change is effectively managed.

One the impact of such functional structure is that the effective communication and synchronization among division might be limited due to organizational restriction for having several divisions that will work individually (www.business2000, 2016).

The impact of structure on an organization can be basically observed on how strategies are developed (Gitman & McDaniel, pp. 190). In the case of centralized structures, the top management is the decision factor in the decision making process, and not involved other management layers in this process. The decision is communicated to lower management layers. In such cases, lower management layers are under the control and monitoring of top management.

The strategic design lens assumes organizations are deliberate, goal-achieving entities (Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen, & Westney, 2005: M-2, 10). In this view, managers can achieve organizational goals by understanding the fundamentals of design and fitting design to strategy, as well as to the larger organizational environment (Ancona et al., 2005: M-2, 12). In this paper, I discuss the five major elements of strategy – environmental fit, strategic intent, strategic grouping, strategic linking, and alignment – and identify two specific elements as causes of the problems Dynacorp is experiencing with its redesign. These elements are strategic linking and alignment.

This work will focus on organizational design as an important aspect for all businesses and an essential ingredient for success in international businesses given the high level of complexity and operational diversity that must all maintain cohesion. It also analyses the small-scale and large-scale methods by which international businesses achieves appropriate organizational design. The nature of the specific legal entities or contracts under which the company engages (or is engaging) in its international business activities needs to be decided, as the use of strategic alliances is typical for many international concerns and the type of alliance can greatly influence other aspects of organizational design, development and operation. The work will elaborately analyze the three primary areas of knowledge that should be considered when developing an organizational design scheme or plan, all of which are

An organization must align its strategy and structure to allow itself to achieve performance improvements over time. The four different structures, simple, functional, multidivisional, and matrix, are all suited to allow companies with different strategies to succeed but the company must decide which of these is correct for itself. A small start-up company will overburden itself with excessive cost if it seeks to implement a functional structure because it clearly will not have the talent on hand to create whole departments of HR employees or accountants. On the other hand, a company that grows to become a large multi-national

Structure is the basis through which an organization seeks to create control the direction of an organization. This is completed through clear definitions of the allocation of work, differentiation, and the coordination of having those responsibilities working together towards the efforts of the organization, integration (Bolman & Deal, 1993, pp). Through these methods, the organization is able to devise a division of labor that collaborates to bring about the missions and goals of an organization. The structure that comes about from this can be varied in their rigidness and flexibility it allows, and to an extent this is a great contribution to its success.

Organizational theory is the study of how organizations work and how they impact and are impacted by the environment. Organizational theory relates to organizational structure, culture, and design. (Fig. 1.4) Organizational structure is the formal setup of task and authority relationships. Structure controls the coordination of activities and employee motivation to attain goals. Structure must be continually evaluated. Organizational culture, a set of shared values and norms, shapes and controls behavior in an organization. Q: What determines culture?

Organisation Design – This area of the map concentrates on shaping the organisation structure to the business

This structural form allows for an organization to be divided into various divisions where people with diverse skills are kept together in the form of groups that focus on particular customers or services. Each division has its own finance, health services, human resources and marketing staff. Each division has its own knowledge, abilities, expertise and resources required to function properly and handle tasks on its own. Changes in the environment do not affect the HCO. With a decentralized authority, departments under the divisional form are able to monitor themselves and adjust accordingly, and make faster

(10 pts.) Discuss how organizational architecture and corporate culture are related. Use an example of a real-life firm and discuss how its corporate culture blends with its organizational architecture.

At Johnson & Johnson, the depth and breadth of global operations demands an extensive division organizational structure. In a division organizational structure the central corporate office governs the divisions of the company, but the operating segments have

Alternative structures such as grouping by output/product or grouping by market are not options as they would result in “duplication of activities and resources, the erosion of deep technical expertise, missed opportunities for synergies and learning” (Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen, & Westney, 2009, p. M2-19). The matrix structure provided a potential positive aspect in that it would provide a needed cross-functional linking mechanism by mixing the functional structure with grouping by output/product, but the complexity, cost, dual systems, and dual roles resulting from the matrix structure historically resulted in either the functional or the output/product system becoming more powerful than the other.

Organizational design is defined as a guided process that integrates people, information and technology of an organization (Carpenter et al., 2014). In an era where organizations are constantly competing to be the best, decisions on organizational design are vital to achieve overall performance. This is evident from the studies by Child (2005) which suggest that the strength of organizational structure increases efficiency. This essay will explore the classical and contingency theories and critically evaluate the contributions and limitations of these theories with the emergence of contemporary practices in organizational design.