Methods for building organizational structures of management. Methods for designing organizational structures of management. However, it can be seen that these problems are not intractable. Therefore, in spite of them, the method has a sufficiently high efficiency when

Allocate following methods building organizational structures:

· Separation by function.

· Separation by manufactured products.

· Separation by groups of consumers.

· Separation by stages of production.

· Separation by work shifts.

· Separation by geographic location.

Combined division.

1. Method of division by functions. According to this method, the formation of a management unit is carried out according to the functions of the enterprise. This means that for functions such as procurement, production, marketing, personnel and financial matters, etc., there is a management unit. Each such unit centrally performs its functions at the level of the entire enterprise, including internal divisions and remote branches. It should be noted that each enterprise has its own organizational names of the main functions. For example, in some enterprises, the functions of supply and production are carried out by a management unit called production management. In small enterprises, technical management may carry out the functions of production, supply, personnel, or the supply and sales functions are carried out by a unit called commercial management. On the large enterprises such a distribution is rare, since they create their own management unit for each function. In general, we can say that, taking into account the specifics of each enterprise, departments and management services are divided into the following main groups: technical, auxiliary, commercial, economic, administrative and management functions social development production team. As for the formation of management units, the same methods are used in this process, or some others that meet specific conditions and goals. For example, if the organization of a foreign trade branch is based on the fact that the execution of a foreign trade contract is the most important for an enterprise that produces simple technical goods, then you can use the functional principle to divide the functions of this department into three main groups: preparation for export and work in the market; export implementation; export regulation and control.

Undoubtedly, the nature of the enterprise, its goals and strategy determines the nature of the function and their number. For example, making a profit requires studying the market and competitors. To improve the quality of products, it is necessary to carry out technical research. The advantages of the split-by-function method are as follows:

highlighting the relative importance of each management function;

use of specialization and its advantages;

· a high degree of consistency and control within one specific function and the possibility of a unified approach to solving any problem associated with this function.

The disadvantages of this method are:

complication of consistency and coordination between different functional departments;

· the difficulty of centralized control over management functions, especially if they are distributed over different geographical areas;

The expansion of the areas of managerial function makes it difficult to select the appropriate leader, since he must have a wide specialization, which, in turn, will make it difficult for him to advance.

However, these problems, while not insoluble, do not detract from the value of the method.

When using the method of separation by function, it is necessary to take into account and solve the above problems, based on the specific conditions of a particular enterprise.

Thus, all structural subdivisions of the governing body are combined into a chain of main groups (blocks).

First- Structural subdivisions in charge of control objects. The main problem in this case is not to exceed the scale of control, on the one hand, and not to create dwarf units to manage a small number of objects, on the other.

Second- the main functional structural units (planning, control).

Third- a group of departments in charge of intersectoral economic functions (supply, sales, capital construction, scientific and technical progress, labor and personnel, finance, etc.).

Fourth- auxiliary and service units (office, archive, etc.).

Fifth- management (head of the body), his deputies, various management units of the body: collegium, presidium, council, etc.

2. The method of separation by manufactured products. Practiced by manufacturing enterprises specialized in manufacturing various kinds products using a variety of raw materials and equipment. The division according to the nomenclature of goods depends on technological, transport and functionality. Thus, each management unit specializes in a particular product or group of products. Such a unit performs the functions of production, supply, sales, financing, etc., but independently of other management units. The same method is used to form divisions within these units, and especially to form sales offices. For example, such a department in a machine tool plant may have specialized product groups for the export of universal and special machine tools, as well as for organizing their maintenance.

The main advantages of the method are the efficient execution and quality of production, coordination, coherence and the use of the advantages of specialization. The disadvantages of the method are as follows:

· the independence of one unit from others leads to duplication of functions and makes it difficult to coordinate their activities;

The advantages of specialization at the level of the entire enterprise are not used;

· the narrow specialization of the head of the management unit complicates the management of the various functions of the unit.

3. The method of separation by groups (categories) of consumers. It is used at the enterprises dealing with various groups of consumers. Each management unit specializes in certain group consumers and perform the necessary functions. Most often, this method is used to form management units that perform such functions as supply, product development, production, advertising, sales, etc. in accordance with the requirements of each consumer group. This method ensures effective marketing finished products enterprise, allows you to recruit specialists and plan their work in accordance with the requirements of any group of consumers, coordinate actions within one unit. This method also has such disadvantages as the difficulty of coordinating the activities of various management units, the impossibility of using the advantages of one function and the emergence of various kinds of contradictions.

4. Method of separation by production stages. It is used in manufacturing enterprises, where the production process of any product takes place in several stages. This makes it possible to form for each stage the appropriate management unit that performs all the necessary functions independently of another unit. For example, in a fabric manufacturing enterprise, the production process is divided into such stages as spinning, weaving, preparation for dyeing, dyeing. For each stage, it is possible to create a corresponding independent management unit. This method allows you to make the most full use of the capabilities of workers, equipment, machine tools, improve the production process and coordinate activities within a certain stage. A high degree of direct control is also achieved here. In the process of any stage, poor-quality work of the previous one is detected without direct control. The disadvantages of this method include the difficulty of coordinating the activities of management units of various stages due to the mutual independence of the stages from each other. The narrow specialization of the head of the unit makes it difficult for him to manage all the functions.

5. The method of division by work shifts. On most manufacturing enterprises applied shift work, especially in such enterprises where it is necessary for market requirements or due to the nature of the production process. The managerial functions of work shifts differ from each other to a greater or lesser extent. Work is divided into day, evening and night shifts. The work is led by the shift supervisor, who reports to to CEO. The administrators of each shift have their own functions and program of work, which may differ from other management units, depending on the specific working conditions of the shift and the requirements. This method is used in the organization of production management.

6. Method of separation by geographical location. In accordance with this method, each plant or branch of an enterprise is considered as an independent management unit that performs all the necessary functions. The administrative division and distribution of work is carried out on the basis of internal conditions, without the intervention of the central management, except in cases where the decision of certain issues falls within the competence of the central administration. Such issues can be supply, financing, advertising, etc. The advantages of this method include the following:

organization of work taking into account local conditions, which facilitates the performance of work and improves quality;

· coherence and speed of work of the branch;

· the absence of bureaucratic obstacles that are typical for the decisions of the central administration, which leads to unnecessary losses of time and money;

promotes the promotion of branch managers to higher positions.

Undoubtedly, this is the most appropriate method in the distribution of work by geographical area. However, the extremes in the application of this method lead to the fragmentation of the functions of the enterprise by branches, which is the reason for the weakening of the coordination of activities, the decrease in the role of the central office and its powers. The division of functions along geographical lines is more suitable for the formation of external trade branches. For example, you can thus divide the foreign trade branch into sales markets in various countries taking into account the specifics of the market in each particular country for a particular product.

7. Combined separation method. As the organization becomes larger, its managerial functions increase, and the scale of activities expands, the use of any one method becomes insufficient. In such cases, various methods are used. At the same time, they use the advantages of each method and, if possible, avoid its disadvantages, which ensures the most efficient functioning. organizational structure management. For example, along with the use of the method of separation by stages of production, such functions as financial and supply are in the competence of the central administration, which solves them at the level of the entire enterprise.

Most modern firms use various methods of separation when forming the management structure, which makes it possible to avoid the disadvantages of each method separately, effectively use their advantages and show greater flexibility in further adjusting the goals and strategy of the enterprise, changing conditions, etc. The separation of the management structure of any organization is based on such methods as division by geographical location, by type of product, by stages of production, by groups of consumers in accordance with the specific conditions of the enterprise. This allows you to use the scientific principles of building management structures.

http://de.ifmo.ru/bk_netra/page.php?tutindex=3&index=50

A wide variety of organizational and technical conditions of production, the possibilities of obtaining information, the qualifications of developers have led to various methods for performing work to improve organizational structures.

Consider the content of the most famous of them.

1. Expert method consists in a preliminary study of the current management structure, identifying its bottlenecks. For this purpose, a diagnostic examination of the management system is carried out in order to study its condition based on a comparison of the actual values ​​of the relevant indicators with their standard and planned values. The subsequent analysis of these indicators allows to establish shortcomings (reserves) in the activity of the management system, to make their accurate diagnosis. As a rule, this work is accompanied by the so-called. predictive analysis, whose task is to study the behavior operating system in dynamics, identifying trends in its change, as well as explaining the reasons for these changes.

The expert method in the practice of improving organizational structures is used quite widely. This is due to the insufficient development of quantitative methods of analysis, imperfection regulatory framework and other reasons. The advantage of the expert method is the relative speed of obtaining the results of the analysis and the development of recommendations to eliminate the shortcomings of the organizational structure.

2. Method of comparison and analogies is to use, when improving the organization of management, the elements of the management mechanism, organizational forms and solutions that have justified themselves in practice at enterprises with similar conditions (size, type of production, product complexity, etc.). The method of comparison and analogy provides for the development and use of standard management structures, manageability standards, the typical composition of management functions, various calculation formulas for determining the standards for the number of managerial employees. It should be noted that this method is currently the most common in the practice of industry design institutes, enterprises and associations. The widespread use of the method led to the unification of organizational management structures at enterprises of industries, streamlining staffing tables, regulation of administrative management activities. Of course, in the context of a wide variety of organizational structures, methods for determining the number of employees by management functions, and the lack of qualified specialists in organizing management, this approach was progressive and played a positive role. At the same time, it focuses on the average composition of management functions, puts severe restrictions on the choice of organizational structures.

3. Method of structuring goals is based on the presentation of the production and economic organization as a multi-purpose system. The method provides for the structuring of the goals (tasks) of the organization according to certain criteria, which serve as the basis for identifying types of activities, the composition of managerial work. Grouping management work by certain rules makes it possible to identify structural units and orient their activities towards achieving a specific production and economic goal.

4. Methods organizational modeling are based on the use of certain formalized representations (models) of the object and control system. Among the group of organizational modeling methods, the most well-known method is based on decomposition information process performance of administrative work. According to this method, in production processes allocate points, places that require control actions. Next, the nature and frequency of these impacts, the composition and amount of information required technical means and other components of the management process. The development of management processes is carried out taking into account the regulatory requirements for their organization. On the basis of the characteristics of the developed management processes (their frequency, labor intensity, etc.), the number of employees, their subordination in the course of management work, and the composition of the departments of the management apparatus are established.

Organizational modeling methods include methods that use parametric dependencies of the object and subject of management. The essence of these methods lies in establishing links between the parameters of the control system and production and technical factors, in determining the direction of action and the tightness of these links. The advantage of the parametric method lies in the study of quantitative characteristics to describe the control system and its structure.

In recent years, the possibilities of organizational modeling of the tasks of improving management systems have increased due to the wider and more thoughtful use of personal computers. With the help of computers and economic and mathematical models, it has become possible to simulate many situations of management activity, which expands the scope of system analysis, allows you to study and predict organizational changes in the management system in the near and long term, and provides a more effective solution to problems arising in the process of production development. The most important of them include the choice of a rational organizational structure of an enterprise, workshop, site, the determination of a reasonable level of centralization and decentralization of management, based on specific working conditions, distribution of responsibility between specialists of various levels for the adoption management decisions etc.

The choice of one or another method of carrying out work to improve management depends on the nature of the problems in this area, the availability of resources, qualified performers, the degree of validity of the regulatory and methodological framework, and other conditions. In practice, as a rule, a combination of the considered methods is used, which complement each other. For example, the use of the goal structuring method in many cases involves the involvement of experts and analytical information. On the other hand, the use of the expert method in improving the management system does not exclude the use of standard solutions, analogues that have successfully proven themselves in practice, etc.

This is one of the research methods based on a cybernetic model that allows for each level of management to distribute the powers and responsibilities of employees, which, in turn, are the basis for building and evaluating various options for the organizational structure. The advantages of this method are revealed by the following circumstances:

1. The method of organizational modeling allows you to solve problems, the main parameters of which are the direct characteristics of the organizational structure, for example, the task of grouping management decisions by levels, the task of forming the composition and list structural divisions, development of documentation regulating the activities of the unit and the system as a whole.
2. Organizational modeling is developing both in scientific and theoretical terms, and in applied terms. And can cover various aspects in the formation of the management structure: managerial, informational, socio-psychological. This creates an opportunity for a comprehensive consideration of issues that stand in the way of solving the problem, starting with the calculation of quantitative parameters and ending with the organizational regulation of subdivisions.
3. This approach makes it possible to model various variants of the organizational structure without resorting to full-scale experiments, which, as a rule, are associated with various financial and temporal difficulties in real conditions.

In this way, the method of organizational modeling is the most universal and modern for the design of the organizational structure and decision-making processes.

Let's take a closer look at how this is done.

The design of a management system in real conditions is based on typical management structures, in which the number of levels, names and numbers of functional units, etc. are always fixed. Therefore, the primary task at the initial stage of designing an organizational structure is the scientifically based choice of a typical management scheme as a theoretical model of the structure. To solve this problem, it is necessary to analyze the dialectics of the development of production and economic organizations as an object of management. As a result of this analysis, the following emerged. Any organization as an object of management is complex system which needs a clear and operational management in order to improve the efficiency of the functioning of all its elements. For a long time, the management system, which was based on a linear-functional structure, was quite able to cope with this task.

With the development and formation of market relations, new requirements are imposed on the object of management, the range of tasks is expanding, due to the constantly changing goals of functioning. The effectiveness of management in this case will depend on how quickly and timely the production apparatus is able to solve these problems. He copes with such tasks quite successfully. matrix-staff structure, because it allows you to manage the entire system as a single object, while maintaining a different target orientation of the structural links. Hence - universality, which is expressed in the fact that the matrix-staff structure combines all possible options for hierarchical subordination: linear, thematic, functional.

If necessary (for small organizations), the matrix-staff structure can be transformed into any of the generally accepted forms of management organization: matrix, linear-functional or linear.

On thefirst stage designing, a matrix-staff model is selected, which is subject to detailed consideration and is necessary for the implementation of subsequent stages. Thus, the first theoretical prerequisite, identified as a result of the pre-project survey, is realized. The sequence of stages in the design of the control structure is shown in fig. 2

Fig.2. Stages of designing a management system by organizational modeling

On thesecond stage management decisions are distributed by levels within the framework of the matrix-staff structure (see paragraph 6.2.)

Third stage- it is actually the process of designing the governance structure. It is based on the study of the possibility of designing one or another version of the structure for the selected control object. The question of the formation of any management structure will depend on how expedient the presence of functional, thematic or coordinating levels in it. In this case, expediency is understood as the degree of loading of the decision-maker. The load, in turn, we define as the total (total) labor intensity of managerial decisions made by the manager at the level during the study period according to the formula

where Qp- total labor intensity, h.

T i - laboriousness i th management decision, part;

K ij- number of repetitions i th decision on j-th level;

where Wed - estimated number of managers;

Qp- the complexity of making managerial decisions, hours;

F d - effective time fund of one employee, h

The resulting number of managers is compared with the allowable value. If the estimated number of managers is equal to or greater than the allowable value, this indicates that the workload of each is within the specified limits or is overestimated. In any case, the level of management is fixed here, and if the load is too high, the issue of forming an additional unit at this level is decided. If the calculated value of managers is less than the permissible value, therefore, the degree of loading is extremely small and does not even reach the minimum limit of the established limit. In this case, it is legitimate to talk about the exclusion of this level, to transfer powers to the head of another level, or to combine these powers. Such a load study is carried out in stages at the linear, functional, thematic and coordinating levels. The results of the study make it possible to substantiate the variant of the management structure.

Choice of structure option

Let us consider how the issue of choosing a variant of the structure is solved depending on the load on the control levels. The load calculation starts from the line level, since it is inherent in any management structure and, in a certain sense, is dominant. Studies have shown that the transition to the design of one form or another of the organization of management depends on the load of the linear level, which may be less than the established limit, be within the specified limits of the limit (TO 1 <Ср <К 2 ) and go beyond those boundaries.

(Cp > K 2) , where Cp is the estimated load value,

The basis for the formation of any of the existing options for the management structure is the model of the matrix-staff structure. Therefore, the choice of one or another form of management organization begins with a study of the possibility of a matrix-staff structure. This model provides (along with the linear and functional levels, which are also inherent in other structures) the presence of thematic and coordinating levels. Consequently, the question of the formation of a matrix-staff structure will depend on the expedient presence of these two levels in it. Let's consider how the choice of the structure variant takes place depending on the load of the linear control level.

Case 1 The load of the line manager is less than the established limit, i.e. Wed< К 1 . The selection algorithm in this case consists in the gradual combination of the levels inherent in the matrix-staff structure with the linear level in order to provide the line manager with a load. The unification begins with the coordinating level, since the process of transforming the matrix-staff structure into any other begins with the exclusion of this particular level. If loading is not achieved in the first step of the process, a thematic level is added, and then, if necessary, a functional one. With such a ratio, when the load of a line manager is made up of the combined load of managers of the coordinating, thematic and functional levels, i.e. Wed \u003d Sl,+ Sk+ +C t, + SF, it is possible to design only a linear control structure. In other cases, when the load of the line manager is reached at the first step of the iteration, i.e. Wed \u003d Sl + Sk; or on the second: Wed == Sl+Sk+St the possibility of designing a linear-functional or matrix control structure is created. Consequently, with insufficient loading of the linear level, depending on the initial calculated data and the functional, thematic and coordinating levels, three variants of the structure can be designed: linear, linear-functional and matrix.

Case 2 Line manager load is within limits K1>Wed<К2. In this case, the information about the linear level is sufficient and the choice of the structure variant will depend only on the load ratio of the subsequent levels. If loading is achieved at all levels, a matrix-template control structure is selected; under any other conditions, a linear-functional or matrix structure is selected.

Case 3 The load of the line level manager is more than the set limit limit, i.e. Wed K2. In the case of an excessive load on the line manager, an attempt is initially made to supplement the structure with a coordinating level so that the total load reaches the nearest integer. In this case, it is necessary to check the controllability rate every time. The controllability norm is an indicator of the optimal ratio of the number of subordinates per manager. This indicator is usually determined on the basis of experimental data. If the controllability norm is observed, it is possible to design a linear-functional or matrix control structure. If not, the linear level is fixed with the original initial data and further study of the load of the remaining levels leads us to the decision to form a linear-functional or matrix-staff structure.

Thus, the entire planned set of works on calculating the load on organizational levels precedes the analysis of the choice of a structure option. Such an analysis allows, based on the given parameters of the control object, to evaluate the possibility of forming coordination, thematic or functional levels (the linear level is always present), and depending on this, the possibility of designing a linear-functional, matrix or matrix-staff management structure.

Therefore, on fourth stage the final choice of the structure variant takes place and all further calculations are carried out within the framework of the selected structure.

On the fifthstage the issue of forming the composition of units at levels within the selected structure is being resolved. This task involves determining the composition and number of managers and performers necessary for the adoption and preparation of management decisions. The delivery of this task is related to the fact that the criterion for the creation of any organizational unit - department or service - is the norm of manageability. The formation of structural units will ultimately depend on how the resulting number of managers and executors corresponds to the rule of manageability. The initial data for this stage of work are:

• nomenclature of managers and performers (compiled on the basis of the staffing table);
• information on the complexity of making and preparing management decisions (obtained as a result of an expert survey);
• list of decisions assigned to:
• line level control;
• functional level of management;
• thematic level;
• coordination level;
• an effective fund of time for managers and performers.

The estimated number of performers is determined by the following formula:

where Csp - the number of performers providing the preparation of management decisions;

Q isp - the complexity of the preparation i-x decisions, hours;

F d - the actual fund of time of one performer, h.

After the number of performers and managers at each level is calculated, the issue of creating structural units is decided. This is achieved by adjusting the resulting population. All the data necessary for this are available: the estimated number of managers and performers, a typical management organization scheme (in this case, a matrix-staff structure scheme); allowable controllability for a given object. The correction of the received number is as follows. The accepted number of managers and executors is determined by rounding the estimated number and the controllability rate is checked. If the resulting ratio significantly exceeds the controllability rate, the issue of creating an additional control body is decided (if the possibility of separating the control function remains). Conversely, with a reduced rate of manageability, two controls that perform related functions can be combined into one. So, taking into account the typical management scheme, the formation of structural divisions takes place. The final documents of this stage of work are the adjusted lists of performers and managers by departments, and, consequently, the composition of departments at each organizational level.

On the sixth stage a decision is made to implement this structure and approve the management scheme.

The next three steps are seventh, eighth and ninth are organizational regulations on which the development of documentation regulating the activities of individual performers, departments and the management system as a whole is carried out.

An important task is to design a set of decision-making procedures (PPR) (block 7). This is dictated by the fact that the organizational procedure is one of the main elements of management technology, determines the sequence of stages of work, which ultimately regulate the process of managerial work. In other words, an organizational procedure is a complex of interrelated technological operations aimed at achieving a clearly fixed goal. Examples of procedures can be: “drawing up a report on the work done”, “issuing a travel certificate”, “registering an employee for work”, etc. Having a complete list of procedures adopted in the department, you can draw up a decision-making scheme that will allow you to judge the effectiveness of the functioning of the department . We will show how to do this in practice in Chapter 8. In addition, the use of the organizational modeling method at this stage of the process makes it possible, based on a complete list of procedures, to model the rules for the work of performers and managers in each procedure, and then for the department as a whole.

The entire process of designing the management structure is being completed by the development of the regulation on the organization. The implementation of this stage requires a comprehensive study and addition of a number of provisions (documents) conditioned by the requirements of economic legislation, such as: regulations on the enterprise, regulations on departments, job descriptions.

The regulation on the enterprise requires knowledge of the charter, strict adherence to the principles of construction; production processes, forms and systems of remuneration, requirements of the external environment.

Development department regulations is one of the independent tasks of organizational regulation of the management system. The decisive importance of this task is determined by the requirement of correct, efficiently organized work within the department, the need for a clear division of rights and duties between individual employees. Regulations on departments must also comply with the law. Much attention is paid to the construction of a single model structure that covers all aspects of the department's activities, since the regulation on departments to a certain extent determines the position on the positions of employees of the department, their duties, rights and responsibilities, which should also be strictly regulated. In this regard, the development of such instructions, which sequentially indicate the stages of work and specific performers responsible for the implementation of each stage, is of the utmost importance.

This method of building organizational structures allows you to design any form of management, clearly shows how the process of transformation of the matrix-staff structure into a linear structure and the irreversibility of this process takes place, and once again confirms the correct choice of the matrix-staff model as the basis for designing the management structure.

There are the following methods of building organizational structures:

1. division by function;
2. division by manufactured products;
3. division by consumer groups;
4. division by stages of production;
5. division by work shifts (shift method);
6. division by geographical location;
7. combined division.

1. Method of division by functions.

According to this method, the formation of a management unit is carried out according to the functions of the organization. This means that for functions such as procurement, production, marketing, personnel and financial matters, etc. has its own management unit. Each such unit centrally performs its functions at the level of the entire organization, including internal divisions and remote branches.

It should be noted that each organization has its own organizational names for the main functions. For example, in some enterprises, the functions of supply and production are carried out by a management unit called production management. In small enterprises, technical management may carry out the functions of production, supply, personnel, or the supply and sales functions are carried out by a unit called commercial management. In large enterprises, such a distribution is rare, since they create their own management unit for each function.

Strategic issues also include tasks related to the choice of the organizational structure, planning the behavior of the structure, analyzing the behavior of the system, evaluating the results of its functioning, technical management of production, labor organization, logistics, sales and financing of the organization, economic services, planning social and economic development by personnel, technical re-equipment and reconstruction, management of capital construction, etc.

It should be noted that the method of distribution of powers and responsibilities in the administrative apparatus occurs not in one, but in several directions, based on managerial functions and their needs. This is a guarantee of an optimal balance between centralization and decentralization within each administrative unit and at the level of the entire administrative apparatus. Such a balanced ratio allows you to assign the tasks and functions of management to those levels, sublevels and management bodies that have the greatest competence.

Thus, the ratio of centralization and decentralization should be considered from the standpoint of a rational combination of the autonomy of the activities of the management body and its coordination with other departments to ensure the development of the enterprise as a whole.

Controllability rate

The most important factor influencing the choice of the type of organizational structure of management and its formation is the norm of manageability (range of control, spheres of management).

An excessive increase in the number of subordinates leads to an increase in the manager's managerial responsibilities, which weakens control over the work of subordinates, makes it difficult to detect miscalculations in work, etc. Excessive narrowing of the norm of management is the reason for the increase in the number of managerial levels, over the centralization of power, the increase in administrative costs and the growth of problems as a result of the weakening of the relationship between the top and bottom levels of the pyramid of the organizational structure of management.

To determine the optimal controllability rate, two approaches are mainly used.

1. Experimental-statistical approach based on the method of analogies. It is carried out by comparing the headcount of the analyzed structure with the headcount of a similar structure that performs a commensurate amount of work, but has a smaller staff. This method is quite simple, does not require special labor costs and is widely used. With its help, model states are determined by analogy with advanced structures. At the same time, such a method cannot, strictly speaking, be attributed to scientifically substantiated methods. Therefore, calculation and analytical methods are used to develop scientifically sound, advanced structures.

2. Calculation and analytical methods are based on such factors as the nature of the work, the cost of working time, the amount of information, the number of relationships in the organization.

There are three types of work depending on its nature:

• creative (heuristic), which consists in the development and adoption of decisions;
• administrative and organizational, consisting of administrative, coordination and control and evaluation operations;
• performing (operator), consisting in the performance of work provided for by service instructions.

Note that the amount of work performed by personnel, due to the specifics of their work, is not always possible to express in standard hours.

The complexity of the work of individual specialists will depend on the specific weight in the total volume of their service activities is one or another type of work. The complexity and versatility of personnel work predetermines the complexity of its quantitative assessment. Creative work in this respect can be defined as the least quantifiable, it cannot be expressed, for example, in standard hours. Administrative work also falls under the category of complex labor, it may contain individual operations that can be measured, but the proportion of these operations is very small. Performing labor has a well-defined quantitative expression, and its costs can be measured in standard hours.

Rationing of complex labor can be carried out as follows:

- when rationing labor associated with the development of judgments, analysis and decision-making, it is advisable to time the activities of the relevant category of personnel for the study of documentation, cards, correspondence, reports, alternative options, for participation in meetings, business conversations, taking into account the experience, titles, interest of performers;

- when evaluating the work of performers, which is not of a routine nature, it is often possible, as experience shows, to use certain work patterns that appear after a while, stamps, sequences in actions and other elements that can be formalized.

Considering the psychological resistance of creative workers to the possible regulation of their work, it is useful to show them a delicate approach and, in particular, to try to involve them in the process of regulation.

When normalizing the cost of working time, the method of photochronometric observations is used. It is especially useful in the absence of norms and cost standards. The advantage of this method is the possibility of establishing the standard number of personnel, taking into account the specific features of the analyzed structure. However:

• the results of the analysis reflect the costs of working time only at the time of observation;
• obtaining reliable data requires a significant investment of time and money;
• subjective approach is excluded.

The definition of controllability norms by measuring the amount of information is carried out on the basis of the method of statistical tests, or the so-called Monte Carlo method.

The entire mass of documented information that entered the system and exited it, filed in the relevant cases and numbered in full, can be represented as a square divided into parts of equal area, which corresponds to the division of the entire mass of information into separate parts related to a particular service function . The hit of any service document in one or another part can be determined by random choice of the storage address of this document (case number and sheet number in this case). Knowing the total number of sheets of all documents and the number of random samples made, it is not difficult to determine the number of sheets passing during the year for each service function. Knowing the average annual amount of information that can be processed by one performer for the corresponding service function.

you can determine the required number of personnel for this function.

This method is applicable only to determine the standard number of personnel associated with the processing of information, and requires a significant investment of time. Its accuracy depends on the number of samples taken.

V. Greikūnas, a French mathematician and management consultant of Lithuanian origin, argued that the factor that determines the norm of manageability is the number of controlled relationships, relationships in an organization.

He noted that there are three types of relationships: the relationship of the head with individual employees, general relationships, relationships between subordinates. Greikūnas used the following equation to determine the total number of such bonds:

C \u003d N × ((2 N / 2) + N-1),

where C is the number of connections, N is the number of subordinates.

In accordance with this equation, with two subordinates, the number of bonds will be 6 units, with three - 18, with four - 44, with five - 110, with 10 - 5210, with 18 - 2,359,602. This analysis has been used by many scientists to argue that that the number of subordinates of one leader should not exceed six people. In this case, the number of connections will be 222 units. Mathematical analysis of potential relationships with a given norm of manageability, made by Greikūnas, shows that, firstly, numerous complex social processes occur during the interaction of a leader and subordinates, and secondly, an avalanche process of increasing the number and complexity of these connections for each successive subordinate. Fortunately, this does not happen in practice, but the conclusions made by Greikūnas are, as it were, a warning against an excessive increase in the number of subordinates or speak of the need to reduce the number of communications, primarily by providing greater independence to subordinates.

In the practical activities of organizations, the number of subordinates is not fixed. It varies within the organization itself depending on the management levels and the number of managers. The number of subordinates depends on many factors influencing the determination of the optimal rate of manageability associated with the specific conditions of the organization.

The American Council of the National Industrial Conference offers a list of factors that should be taken into account when determining the optimal number of subordinates. Let's call them.

1. The level of competence of the leader and subordinate.

2. The intensity of interaction between groups or individual subordinates.

3. The limits to which the manager performs non-managerial work, and the need for time for contacts with other people and organizational units.

4. Similarities or differences in the activities of subordinates.

5. The breadth of the new problems in the department headed.

6. Prevalence of standardized procedures within the organization.

7. Degree of physical differences in activities. Determining the number of subordinates, i.e. manageability norms is of great importance for the formation of the organizational structure of management, since on the basis of this the number of managerial levels, administrative workers, and managers is established.

It is known from a number of publications that in order for a top-level manager not to be overloaded and to have the opportunity to delve into the affairs of his subordinate units, as well as deal with promising issues, the average value of the controllability norm should be within 3-6 people. Controllability standards, taking into account the level of management and type of production, are given in Table. 10.1.

• for heads of organizations and their first deputies - no more than 10-12 people. (divisions);
• for functional departments - at least 7-10 people;
• for functional bureaus - at least 4-6 people;
• for design and technological departments - 15-20 people;
• for design and technological bureaus - 7-10 people.

Deputy heads of structural divisions are introduced, as a rule, when the controllability norm is exceeded by 1.5 times.

It must be emphasized once again that the determination of the quantitative values ​​of the controllability norm in each specific organization should be carried out on the basis of an analysis of all the factors influencing it, taking into account the industry specifics and characteristics of this production.

Unfortunately, in practice, when building organizational structures, the recommendations of scientists are often ignored, which leads to excessive loading of line managers.

In conclusion, we note that the introduction of manageability standards for line managers:

• creates a scientifically substantiated base for the correct planning of their numbers;
• creates conditions equal in tension for their work;
• allows you to identify the reserves of their numbers;
• ensures rational management of personnel.

The formation of an organizational structure should be considered as a solution to the problem of designing a system of a special socio-economic nature. The organizational system as an object of design is characterized by the fact that it consists of people and social groups and will function regardless of whether there is a detailed design of the management structure or not.

The content of the process of forming an organizational structure is largely universal. It includes the formulation of goals and objectives, the determination of the composition and location of units, their resource support (including the number of employees), the development of regulatory procedures, documents, regulations that fix and regulate the forms, methods, processes that are carried out in the organizational management system.

Stages of the formation process

organizational structure

Stage 1 Formation of a general structural scheme of the control apparatus (stage of "composition"). The stage is of fundamental importance, since the main characteristics of the organization are determined here.

Stage 2 Development of the composition of the main divisions and relations between them (the stage of "structuring");

Stage 3 Development of quantitative characteristics of the management apparatus and procedures for management activities (stage of "regulation").

Methods for the formation of organizational structures

Basic Methods

formation of organizational structures:

1) the method of analogies;

2) expert-analytical method;

3) method of structuring goals;

4) method of organizational modeling.

On the first stage the process of forming the organizational structure - the stage of "composition", are carried out:

Ø linking the formed structure with the goals of the production and economic system and the problems solved by changing the structure;

Ø general specification of functional and program-target subsystems that ensure the achievement of the main goals;

Ø determination of the number of levels in the management system;

Ø determination of the degree of centralization and decentralization of powers and responsibilities at different levels;

Ø use of group action organs

Ø determination of the main forms of relations of this organization with other economic organizations, government bodies and local self-government;

Ø formulation of requirements for the economic mechanism, forms of information processing, staffing of the organizational system.

The starting point of the "composition" stage is the establishment of the type and legal status of the organization, the degree of its independence in relation to the higher body; internal production units, the number of levels in the organization’s management apparatus, etc. All subsystems identified in the organizational management structure are either directly realizing the achievement of the final production, economic, scientific, technical, social goals of the organization, or creating conditions for achieving the established goals, or to developing the organization, adapting it to changing conditions.

At the “composition” stage of the organizational structure, the number of levels in the management system and the main ratios of decision-making centralization in each linear-functional or program-target subsystem are also determined. The number of such levels is characterized by the number of subordinate line managers in the management hierarchy and is determined for the organization as a whole and for each subsystem in an expert-analytical way, based on the following principles:

Ø completeness of coverage of all necessary functions by the administrative apparatus (taking into account its interaction with higher authorities);

Ø ensuring the minimum number of levels in the management hierarchy;

Ø elimination of duplication of divisions and tasks at different levels in the management apparatus;

Ø reducing the length of communications between departments based on the elimination of intermediate links;

Ø allocation of independent units, based on a rational combination of administrative and economic forms and methods of management;

Ø creation of organizational conditions for more efficient use of advanced information and computer technology;

Ø observance of rational norms of manageability (the maximum number of subordinates for one boss);

Ø ensuring rational throughput of the information processing system;

Ø minimization of administrative and management expenses.

On the second stage the process of designing the organizational structure of management - stages development of the composition of the main divisions and the links between them (the stage of "structuring")- Organizational decisions are being developed for large linear-functional, product, territorial and program-target blocks, as well as for independent (basic) divisions of the management apparatus, including the distribution of specific tasks between them and building intra-organizational relations.

As a result of the implementation of the “structuring” stage, organizational charts of subsystems of the management apparatus should be developed, as well as provisions on basic units, target programs, heads of linear target systems (deputy directors, chief specialists, heads of structural divisions and target programs, etc.) .

The analysis shows that most of the options for identifying departments in the management apparatus, as well as organizational forms and mechanisms for their coordination, can be reduced to a set of standard organizational decisions that correspond to certain conditions of production and economic activity, which are amenable to unification or typification both in the sectoral and in the intersectoral scale.

Despite the specifics of building each individual control subsystem, there are some principles and criteria common to the entire control apparatus. First of all, they include:

Ø the orientation of each unit to one or a group of homogeneous and interrelated goals;

Ø ensuring compliance with the sub-goals assigned to the basic units of the linear-functional block (service) corresponding to the higher-level goal;

Ø concentration in the unit of full responsibility for the final results for the goals assigned to it and the necessary powers for their implementation;

Ø priority of functional and technological specialization of subdivisions as the most universal and stable over object-specific (subject) specialization;

Ø comprehensive linkage of interrelated activities based on the rational distribution of powers and responsibilities for achieving intermediate and final results;

Ø organizational support for the specialized performance of analysis and evaluation functions to improve the efficiency and quality of the relevant types of production and economic activities; maintaining the integrity of the decision - making process ;

A methodologically difficult task is to build intra-organizational relationships. It is most important to ensure:

Ø the optimal combination of "vertical" (between levels) and "horizontal" (between links) ways of making connections;

Ø minimization of the number of intermediate links in the implementation of communications in the most economical and efficient way;

Ø implementation of the needs for additional control and coordination of the content of links;

Ø use of advanced technology for the implementation of management processes.

Ø preference for links within linear functional blocks to interfunctional links;

Ø strengthening direct links between the participants in the process of developing and making decisions of an interfunctional nature by creating coordinating and advisory bodies and problem groups for special purposes;

Ø mediation of communications on document flow through the system of automated information processing.

On the third stage- stages "regulation" of the organizational structure- the development of quantitative characteristics of the management apparatus and procedures for management activities is carried out, that is:

Ø the composition of the internal elements of the basic units (bureaus, groups and positions) is determined;

Ø tasks and work are distributed among specific performers;

Ø establishes responsibility for solving problems and performing work;

Ø the design number of units, the labor intensity of the main types of work and the qualifications of performers are determined;

Ø procedures for the implementation of managerial work in departments are being developed;

Ø the order of interaction of divisions is developed in the performance of interconnected work packages;

Ø management costs and performance indicators of the management apparatus for the projected organizational structure are calculated.

At the “regulation” stage, the project of the organizational management structure is developed in its entirety and two main regulatory documents are approved:

Ø staffing of divisions;

Ø diagrams of the internal structures of the base units corresponding to this schedule.

A number of more specific working documents are also being developed, such as technological maps for the implementation of management processes and organizational models for their implementation, job descriptions, operational maps for the development and use of documents, etc.

Determining the nature and scope of the regulation of organizational activities in various subsystems of the management apparatus is built in accordance with their specification:

Ø for activities characterized by clear information and material flows, the repetitive nature of the work performed and the requirements for them, the proven technology for their implementation, the most detailed regulation of both the required results and the processes for obtaining them, the development of norms and standards for a wide range of characteristics, maximum automation of information processing and decision-making processes.

Ø for activities related to the identification and solution of non-recurring tasks, the high proportion of creative solutions, the novelty of the technology for their search and justification, the great importance of the qualifications and experience of specialists, it is advisable to regulate, first of all, goals and results, and not the processes for obtaining them, establishing evaluation systems and stimulation of work depending on the final results, the use of modern information technologies.

Characteristics of methods for designing organizational structures

The process of organizational design consists in a consistent approach to the model of a rational management structure. In this process, design methods play an auxiliary role for the selection, development and analysis of effective options for organizational decisions proposed for consideration, evaluation and adoption for practical implementation.

analogy method

This method consists in applying organizational forms and management mechanisms that have justified themselves in organizations with similar organizational characteristics (goals, type of technology, specifics of the organizational environment, size, etc.) in relation to the projected organization. The method of analogies includes the development of standard structures for managing industrial and economic organizations and the determination of the boundaries and conditions for their application.

The use of the analogy method is based on two complementary approaches:

1. Revealing for each type of production and economic organizations and for various industries the values ​​and trends of changes in the main organizational characteristics (goals, technology, scale of activity, etc.) and the corresponding organizational forms and management mechanisms, which, based on specific experience or scientific rationales, prove their effectiveness for a certain set of initial conditions.

2. Typification of the most general fundamental decisions on the nomenclature, nature and relationships of the links of the management apparatus and individual positions in clearly defined conditions for the work of organizations of this type in specific industries, the development of individual regulatory characteristics of the management apparatus for these organizations and industries.

Typical organizational decisions can be classified according to the following general features:

Ø types of control objects;

Ø types of management structures;

Ø management level (highest, middle, lowest);

Ø industry-wide features (engineering, chemistry, mining and raw materials industries, construction, etc.);

Ø the scale and nature of production (mass, serial, single production, mixed);

Ø types of production and economic activities and management functions.

Typification of solutions is a means of increasing the level of organization of production management through standardization and unification of organizational forms of management, accelerating the introduction of rational forms. But typical organizational decisions should be:

Ø variant, not unambiguous;

Ø reviewed and adjusted at regular intervals;

Ø Tolerant of deviations in cases where the operating conditions of the organization differ from the clearly defined conditions for which the appropriate standard form of the organizational management structure is recommended.

Expert-analytical method

It consists of research organization by qualified specialists with the involvement of its managers and other employees in order to:

Ø identify specific features, problems, "bottlenecks" in the work of the management apparatus;

This method is flexible and comprehensive, it is used in close combination with others (with the methods of analogy and goal structuring) and has a variety of forms of implementation. The variety of forms concerns the implementation of a diagnostic analysis of features, problems, and the identification of bottlenecks in the management system of a particular production and economic organization. This also includes the variety of forms of conducting expert surveys of managers and members of the organization to identify and analyze individual characteristics of the construction and functioning of the management apparatus, and the variety of methods for processing the obtained expert assessments by statistical and mathematical methods.

Expert methods should also include the development and application of principles for the formation of organizational management structures, since principles are rules derived from management experience and scientific generalizations, following which will ensure the development of recommendations for rational design and improvement of organizational management systems.

A special place among expert methods is occupied by the development of graphical and tabular descriptions of organizational structures and management processes that reflect recommendations for their organization.

Goal Structuring Method

The method provides for the linkage of strategic planning, where the system of organization goals is developed, including their quantitative and qualitative formulation, and the analysis of organizational structures in terms of their compliance with the system of goals. Its implementation is usually carried out in three stages:

1. Development (research) of a system ("tree") of goals, which is a structural basis for linking all types of organizational activities, based on the final results, regardless of the distribution of these activities among organizational units and program-target subsystems in the organization.

2. Expert analysis of the proposed options for the organizational structure in terms of organizational security for achieving each of the goals, fulfilling the principle of homogeneity of goals assigned to each unit, determining the relationship of leadership, subordination, cooperation between units, based on the relationship of their goals, etc.

3. Drawing up maps of rights and responsibilities for achieving goals both for individual departments and for complex cross-functional activities, which regulates:

Ø area of ​​responsibility (products, resources, workforce, production and management processes, information);

Ø concrete results for the achievement of which responsibility is established;

Ø the rights that the unit is given to achieve results (to approve and submit for approval, agree, confirm, control).

Organizational Modeling Method

The method is the development of formalized mathematical, graphical, computer and other representations of the distribution of powers and responsibilities in an organization, which are the basis for building, analyzing and evaluating various options for organizational structures. There are several main types of organizational models:

1. Models of hierarchical management structures that describe organizational connections and relationships in the form of systems of mathematical equations and inequalities or with the help of simulation models (for example: models of multi-stage optimization; models of systemic, “industrial” dynamics).

2. Graph-analytical models of organizational systems, which are network, matrix and other tabular or graphical displays of the distribution of functions, powers, responsibilities, organizational relationships, making it possible to analyze their focus, nature, causes of occurrence, evaluate various options for grouping interrelated activities into homogeneous divisions, "lose" options for the distribution of rights and responsibilities between different levels of management, etc.

3. Full-scale models of organizational structures and processes that provide an assessment of their functioning in real organizational conditions. These types of models include:

Ø organizational experiments - pre-planned and controlled restructuring of structures and processes in real organizations (in this case, the organization is considered as a model);

Ø laboratory experiments - artificially created situations of decision-making and organizational behavior similar to real organizational conditions;

Ø managerial games - actions of practitioners (game participants) based on pre-established rules with an assessment of their current and long-term consequences;

4. Mathematical and statistical models of dependencies between the initial factors of organizational systems and the characteristics of organizational structures, built on the basis of the collection, analysis and processing of empirical data on organizations operating in comparable conditions (for example, regression models of the dependence of the number of engineers and employees on the production and technological characteristics of the organization dependence of indicators of specialization, centralization, standardization of managerial work on the type of organizational tasks, etc.).

1. The process of designing the organizational structure of management should be based on the joint use of the methods described above.

2. At the stages of "composition" and "structuring" of the organizational structure, the method of structuring goals, the expert-analytical method and the identification and analysis of organizational prototypes are of the greatest importance.

3. More formalized methods should be used for in-depth study of the organizational forms and mechanisms of individual subsystems at the "regulation" stage.

4. For the design of organizational structures of new organizations, the role of formal analytical methods and models is higher, for the improvement of existing ones - diagnostic surveys and expert study of the organizational system.

5. The choice of solution method depends on:

Ø the nature of the organizational problem being solved;

Ø on the possibilities of conducting an appropriate study (availability of a methodology, necessary information, qualified developers) on the timing of the submission of recommendations.

Therefore, the efficiency of the functioning of the entire system depends on the correctly chosen form of the organizational structure and its consistency with other elements. In management theory, there are three main methods for designing organizational structures.

Normative-functional method

It is intended to generalize and implement the management experience of advanced enterprises in the industry. By means of econometric calculations (construction of multivariate regression), the norms for the number of working and managerial personnel, the number of hierarchy levels and other characteristics of the organizational structure are determined. Often, a typical range of functions performed in the enterprise is also evaluated.

The undoubted advantage is the mathematical basis of this method. The good development of the theory of constructing regression estimates allows obtaining interesting results and assessing their consistency.

This method of building an organizational structure statistically captures trends in the industry, but does not take into account the nuances of the activities of a particular organization, which is its disadvantage. Also, in view of the low actual variability of organizational structures in small organizations, the use of this method for such companies is very limited.

A certain difficulty in using the normative-functional method is the construction of a mathematical model of the organization's activities. The correct generalization of the data used requires a good understanding of the theory of building business processes and has a significant impact on the quality of the result.

The normative-functional method of building organizational structures is good at the stage of business planning and analysis of industry trends, as well as at the stage of internal benchmarking, especially for medium and large companies.

Functional-technological method

Based on the optimization of information flows and procedures for its processing in terms of ensuring the implementation of technology ( note that technology does not necessarily mean production technology, it can be warehousing technology, IT service delivery technology, sales technology, etc.).

The method allows to take into account the peculiarities of the business processes of the enterprise, is flexible and universal. However, in the conditions of an already functioning business, there is a high probability of subordinating the organizational structure to the established workflow scheme. When designing a new enterprise, difficulties can arise due to the non-standardization of business processes and the information flows that support them.

When building an organizational structure using the functional-technological method, functions directly related to technology are identified in the company's business process, and an organizational structure is developed that ensures maximum compliance with this technology. The method is most effective for manufacturing enterprises.

The disadvantages of the method include a focus on technology: the processes of optimizing and adapting technology to the conditions of the business environment are outside the main field of vision. In modern conditions (and especially for non-manufacturing enterprises), control and management processes can have a greater impact on the result of activity than the technology itself.

The advantage of the method, in addition to those listed at the beginning of the section, is its basis on the process approach - the construction of an organizational structure "from the business process", i.e. based on the specific functions performed by each official.

System target method

It consists in the initial construction of the structure of goals and the definition of work functions on its basis. The method is applicable both for building the organizational structure of a new enterprise, and for optimizing the existing organizational structure.

The name itself indicates the dependence of the result on the formulated goals of the company. The organizational structure built according to this method, first of all, provides effective control and management.

The complexity of the functional-technological method of building organizational structures is determined by the close connection of control and management processes with other elements: management and control processes require the distribution of responsibility in the organization, the creation of a KPI system and motivation, and the organization of workflow.

The method is ideal for companies operating in the service or knowledge industries, i.e. industries where "technology" is not strictly regulated. The advantage of this method is also the process approach, but unlike the functional-technological method, it relies primarily not on technological processes, but on management and control processes. The last feature makes this method not effective enough in relation to companies with more or less rigid technology.

Most often, when working with small and medium-sized businesses, the last two methods are used. In fact, they are similar, both are based on a process approach, but the methods are focused on different sections of the management system. The mixed application of both methods makes it possible to design organizational structures that take into account both the specifics of the technology and the requirements for control and management.

Regardless of the choice of construction method, the organizational structure must meet the following requirements:

provide the manager with a holistic view of the organization's management system;

divisions must ensure the performance of all functions necessary for the functioning of the business;

the rules for delegation of authority should be the same for all levels of the hierarchy - this ensures better manageability of the company;

in the organizational structure there should not be “degenerate” branches that are not divided into at least two components - this allows you to avoid duplication of functions and thereby increase the efficiency of the management system;

in the organizational structure there should be no dual subordination, conflicts of authority, exclusive competencies, because this leads to loss of control;

the distribution of control over key processes should not lead to the loss or transfer of control by the head of the company;

the number of hierarchy levels and the number of branches at one level should not exceed 5-7, otherwise the decision-making process becomes more difficult.

The implementation of these rules will allow you to build a coherent, sustainable and effective organizational structure.