this slideshare about SUCCESS AND FAILURES IN ORGANIZTAION DESIGN

1. Ragesh uk
RA1952001020057
MBA 1st Year “A”
SUCCESS AND FAILURES IN
ORGANIZTAION DESIGN

2. Organizational Design
Organizational design is a step-by-step
methodology which identifies
dysfunctional aspects of work flow,
procedures, structures and systems,
realigns them to fit current business
realities/goals and then develops plans to
implement the new changes. The process
focuses on improving both the technical
and people side of the business.

3. SUCCESS IN ORGANISATION DESIGN
•As technology and automation continue to have an
increasingly significant impact on the world,
organizations are being forced to rethink their strategies
and redesign their structures. The world of business is
growing more and more competitive; as a result,
organizations across all industries must find ways to
boost efficiencies and differentiate themselves from the
crowd.
•Effective organizational design is rapidly becoming a
fundamental aspect of enabling successful companies to
continue achieving good results. The very nature of work
is changing, and organizations that recognize this and
commit to analyzing and, if necessary altering their
organizational design have a good chance of remaining
both relevant and successful in the new age of business.

4. Thee are five keys to nimble, scalable organizational design,
accelerated by the new standard of measuring technology skills.
1. Build on your strengths
As Socrates, father of Western philosophy and arguably the original
disruptor, said, “Know thyself.” Go ahead and acknowledge upfront
that retooling your organization is a tough rock to tackle. Then, identify
who you are. Pinpoint the unique role that your company holds
against the competition. Define where these strengths will take you in
the new world order.
2. Go beyond lines and boxes
At the same time, building on your strengths doesn’t mean doing what
you’ve always done.
Start by asking how the company’s unique strengths shape how
people work and act. Balance that by asking where your company
structure isn’t currently serving your business goals.

5. 3. Know your roles
It’s expensive to find, develop and later (regretfully) let go of talent.
The best time to get your org design right is before you grow your
team. That’s right – expanding your team should happen after you’ve
clearly defined the impact you need from new roles.
But this is a challenge; many organizations lack definition around
technical roles.
4. Rock your roles
Equally important is the development of those hires – and all team
members – throughout their entire careers. Offer them ongoing
resources and training to ensure they continue to be innovative
thinkers and doers.
Design roles that work the muscle of the people in them — that goes
for both leaders and technology experts alike.
When you identify employee’s strengths, you can align them to the
projects and teams where they’ll be the most effective.

6. 5. Support a culture of learning
To keep employees learning, work learning into every day.
If it’s true that only 34 percent of U.S. employees are engaged at work,
and only half of them find meaning and fulfillment in their roles, then
there’s room for improvement when considering organizational design.
It’s small, continued efforts that make a difference.
Organizations that make professional development a high priority and
provide a range of flexible training options mapped to business needs
are the most successful at keeping their teams at peak performance and
skill level.

7. FAILURE IN ORGANISATION DESIGN
The design of an organization is often a critical enabler for the
achievement of a company’s strategy and goals, ongoing innovation, and
streamlined operations. During our years of experience helping clients
reorganize their operations, we have identified five mistakes made by
companies.
1. Not knowing what you are trying to achieve
Before moving boxes and lines on an organization chart, it is important to
know why you are doing the reorganization. Is it a result of a merger,
acquisition, or downsizing? Are you trying to reduce costs and improve
efficiencies? Are you struggling with performance issues? Are there too
many direct reports, which may be impeding both employee development
and innovation? Is the reporting structure too complex? Clear guidelines
that reflect what the goals of the new organization are will help companies
ensure that the redesigned organization will attain those stated goals.

8. 2. Structuring an organization for specific personnel
It is not uncommon for key people within an organization to have
tremendous influence due to their tenure, expertise, or importance to
certain client relationships. As a result, there is a risk that the
preferences of the individual will become a priority during organization
design rather than the objectives and requirements of the business. It
is incredibly important to separate the organization design component
from the actual selection of staff.
3. Causing more disruption than needed
ScottMadden sometimes encounters clients who view reorganization
as an opportunity to “clean house.” Although it is true that the need for
change usually provides a good opportunity to also address other
inefficiencies or problem areas, leaders should be cautious about
causing more disruption than necessary. Drastic staffing cuts or
process changes can result in reduced employee morale, the loss of
valuable talent, stagnated innovation, and an overall distraction from
the mission of the organization.

9. 4. Making decisions and/or having sidebar agreements outside of the
agreed-upon process
A sidebar or supplemental agreement that compromises the documented,
agreed-upon, communicated process threatens project success. These
actions can open the door to additional exceptions to the organization design
process and can result in an overall lack of trust in the organization’s
leadership going forward.
For example, management has set forth a process of evaluating and selecting
for all reorganized positions. Two managers have a sidebar discussion in the
hall that they really want “someone like Kim” in one of the positions. Both
managers agree and decide to put Kim in the position and determine who will
backfill her in her current position, despite already communicating that the two
positions will be posted and interviews will be conducted for final selection.
While it may seem harmless at the time to make minor adjustments to the
agreed-upon process, the act of doing so threatens the project by creating the
justification for making larger exceptions later on in the process, as well as
demonstrating to the end population that the process is not “fair.”

10. 5. Skipping current state assessment
Many organizations desire to jump directly to the organization design
stage before conducting a detailed current state assessment (CSA)
that includes current costs, volumes, and service levels of the
organization. It is imperative that a comprehensive CSA is completed
prior to the design, as the design is dependent upon many of the
metrics and standards that are established within the CSA. Gauging
improvements in efficiency and/or performance from the redesign often
depends on an organization’s ability to analyze and compare layers,
spans, and cost-to-manage to standards. A CSA forms the basis for
these and other analyses, without which decisions are not fully
informed.