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

The relationship between an organization’s strategy and structure are extremely important because it “directly impacts a firm’s performance” (Rothaermel, 2013, p. 309). Also, as an organization grows, it should reevaluate the current strategy and structure to ensure that it remains the optimal choice for the organization (Rothaermel, 2013). The four types of organizational structures, listed in order of least to most complex according to Rothaermel (2013), are: (1) simple, (2)

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

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

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.

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.

(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.

Mintzberg (1981) added that centralisation tend to happen within the divisions as they hold the responsibility of their performances. However divisional structure is difficult to be dynamic because of the procedures and red tape they have to go though to make a change.

The structure and design of organizations have drastically changed over the last twenty-five years. Organizations develop new goals at the beginning of the year or after the completion of previous goals, and heavily depend on planning to help achieve these goals. Planning is an integral part of organizational success, as upper management receives substantial information on various needs such as risk uncertainty, available resources, employee development, and unforeseen changes in technology (Daft, 2013). Most importantly, successful planning allows management to make effective decisions when unforeseen events arise within the organization. Not participating in planning is equivalent to taking a road trip across the country without a

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.

The structures that subscribe to different organizations play a major role and determine how information flows throughout an organization as well as the reporting structure within the organization. In most organizations, the decisions are made within the upper management realm, but in other organizational groups, the responsibility of making decisions are distributed within their own group. The end factor for the most part amounts to a lateral structural arrangement where a variety of branches work together in accomplishing a universal organizational goal rather than functioning as separate groups or units. Lateral structural arrangements give a way to coordinate and correspondence between broadly diverse viewpoints inside an organization, and all the more regularly changing the way of

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.

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).

Deriving from this structure, with regard to separate businesses, each division demanded standardization and had an overall "Frankfurt is Orlando" mindset. However, it was recognized that each division was very different than the next and had varying distribution and selling methodologies. Hence, each division would have its own instance of the system to manage the customer fulfillment process, and a decentralized approach to implementation details (such as each division choosing its own partners). This minimized the risk of having the relative requirements of one organization driving the practices of another.

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).

According to Miles et al. (1978, p. 547), an organization is both its purpose and the mechanism constructed to achieve the purpose. It means that the concept of organization is embracing both goals and all the elements that represent unique combination. Miles et al. (1978, p. 553) draws the conclusion that structure and the processes taking place inside the organization are closely aligned; it is hard to speak about one without mentioning the other. It is important to understand the conclusion drawn by Miles et al. (1978). It illustrates how the