FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION

Branch of the State Educational Institution

higher professional education

"Altai State University" in Slavgorod

Faculty of Economics

Department of Economic Disciplines

Course work

in the subject: "Theory of organization"

On the topic: "Analysis of the organizational structure of management"

Is done by a student

2 courses, group No. 61

_____________________

(signature)

scientific adviser

Senior Lecturer

_____________________

(signature)

Job protected

«___»__________ 2008

Grade_______________

Slavgorod 2008

ABSTRACT 3

INTRODUCTION 4

1 Analysis and formation of organizational management structures based on a systematic approach 6

1.1 The concept of a systematic approach, its main features and principles. 6

1.2 The concept and formation of the organizational structure 11

2 Analysis of the organizational structure on the example of Brücke LLC 27

2.1 Characteristics of the enterprise 27

2.2 Organizational structure of management of Brücke LLC 28

2.3 The main directions for improving the organizational structure of the management of LLC "Brücke" 33

CONCLUSION 36

REFERENCES 38

ESSAY

To achieve this goal, the following tasks were set in the work.

When writing the work, the following methods were used: comparison, analysis, observation, graphic, method of expert assessments, etc.

INTRODUCTION

The performance of work to improve the organizational structure of management requires the involvement of specialists in the field of management, information technology of the industry to which the enterprise belongs.

Changes in the organizational structure of the enterprise are made through the formation, abolition, merger and separation of structural units (positions), their reassignment, changes in the functions of structural units (officials), the formation of regulations and procedures for management processes. No less important are the measures regulating the information exchange at the enterprise, in particular the management accounting system, internal document flow. Such regulations, as a rule, are also fixed in the internal standards of the enterprise.

Changing the organizational structure is often a complex and painless process. An indispensable condition for its implementation is the will and direct participation of the top management of the enterprise. In order to overcome the alertness of middle management personnel and maintain the stability of the enterprise, changes in the organizational structure are usually not declared as the goal of ongoing activities at the start of work. On the contrary, at the survey stage, the goal of the work is usually called the study of information exchange between departments, preparatory measures for the introduction of management automation, etc. technical problems. If the reorganization is seen as inevitable, then, as a rule, new employees who are not involved in stable relations within the enterprise are involved in its implementation.

This topic is more relevant than ever in our days, because. the problems of choosing and building an organizational structure in an enterprise are of concern to many. This topic is also relevant in that an economic situation is brewing in Russia that forces the organization to change, but most organizations have not been able to adapt to changes in the external environment and this has caused such a crisis situation for many enterprises in our country.

The subject of the research is the consideration of the organizational structure of management at the enterprise.

The object of the study is Brücke LLC.

The purpose of this course work is to improve the organizational structure of management at the enterprise LLC "Brücke".

To achieve this goal, the following tasks were set in the work.

form an idea of ​​the systematic approach, its features and peculiarities;

give the concept of organizational structure and consider its classification;

to analyze the organizational structure of Brücke LLC;

suggest ways to improve the structure of Brücke LLC in accordance with a systematic approach.

When writing the work, the following methods were used: comparison, analysis, observation, graphic, method of expert assessments, etc.

The sources of information are the works of such authors as B.Z. Milner, O.S. Vikhansky, M.Kh. Meskon, and others, as well as the management documents of Brücke LLC.

1 Analysis and formation of organizational management structures based on a systematic approach

1.1 The concept of a systematic approach, its main features and principles.

There is no unambiguous concept of a system. In the most general form, a system is understood as a set of interrelated elements that form a certain integrity, a certain unity. The study of objects and phenomena as systems caused the formation of a new approach in science - a systematic approach.

The system approach as a general methodological principle is used in various branches of science and human activity.

Let's define the features of a systematic approach:

A systematic approach is a form of methodological knowledge associated with the study and creation of objects as systems.

A systematic approach requires considering the problem not in isolation, but in the unity of relations with the environment, to comprehend the essence of each connection and individual element, to make associations between general and particular goals.

In view of the foregoing, we define the concept of a systematic approach:

A systematic approach is an approach to the study of an object (problem, phenomenon, process) as a system in which elements, internal and external relations are identified that most significantly affect the results of its functioning, and the goals of each of the elements, based on the general purpose of the object .

It can also be said that a systematic approach is such a direction in the methodology of scientific knowledge and practical activity, which is based on the study of any object as a complex integral socio-economic system.

Integrity, which allows considering the system at the same time as a whole and at the same time as a subsystem for higher levels.

Hierarchy of the structure, i.e. the presence of a plurality (at least two) of elements located on the basis of the subordination of elements of a lower level to elements of a higher level. The implementation of this principle is clearly visible in the example of any particular organization. As you know, any organization is an interaction of two subsystems: managing and managed.

Structuring, which allows you to analyze the elements of the system and their relationships within a specific organizational structure. As a rule, the process of functioning of the system is determined not so much by the properties of its individual elements, but by the properties of the structure itself.

Multiplicity, which allows using a variety of cybernetic, economic and mathematical models to describe individual elements and the system as a whole.

Any organization is considered as an organizational and economic system that has inputs and outputs and a certain number of external links.

An organizational system is a certain set of internally interconnected parts of an organization that forms a certain integrity.

The main elements of the organizational system (and hence the objects of organizational management) are:

production;

marketing and sales;

• information;

  personnel, human resources - have a system-forming quality, the efficiency of the use of all other resources depends on them.

These elements are the main objects of organizational management. But the organizational system has another side:

People. The task of the manager is to promote the coordination and integration of human activities.

Goals and objectives. The organizational goal is an ideal blueprint for the future state of the organization. This goal contributes to the unification of the efforts of people and their resources. Goals are formed on the basis of common interests, so the organization is a tool for achieving goals.

Organizational structure. A structure is a way of organizing the elements of a system. Organizational structure is a way of connecting various parts of an organization into a certain integrity.

Specialization and division of labor. It is also a control object. The fragmentation of complex production processes, operations and tasks into components that require the specialization of human labor.

Organizational power is the right, ability (knowledge + skills) and willingness of the leader to pursue his own line in the preparation, adoption and implementation of managerial decisions.

Organizational culture is a system of traditions, beliefs, values, symbols, rituals, myths, norms of communication between people inherent in the organization. Organizational culture gives an organization its own identity. Most importantly, it brings people together, creates organizational integrity.

Organizational boundaries are material and non-material constraints that fix the isolation of this organization from other objects located in the external environment of the organization. A manager must have the ability to expand the boundaries of his own organization.

Organizational systems can be divided into closed and open:

A closed organizational system is a system that has no connection with its external environment (i.e., does not exchange products, services, goods, etc. with the external environment). An example is subsistence farming.

An open organizational system has connections with the external environment, i.e. other organizations, institutions that have connections with the external environment.

Thus, an organization as a system is a set of interrelated elements that form integrity (ie, internal unity, continuity, interconnection). Any organization is an open system, because interacts with the external environment. It receives resources from the environment in the form of capital, raw materials, energy, information, people, equipment, which become elements of its internal environment. Part of the resources with the help of certain technologies is processed, converted into products and services, which are then transferred to the external environment.

Any enterprise is a system that turns a set of resources invested in production - costs (raw materials, machines, people) - into goods and services. It functions within a larger system - a foreign policy, economic, social and technical environment in which it constantly enters into complex interactions. It includes a series of subsystems that are also interconnected and interact. Disruption of functioning in one part of the system causes difficulties in other parts of it.

The value of a systems approach is that managers can more easily align their specific work with that of the organization as a whole if they understand the system and their role in it. This is especially important for the CEO, because the systems approach encourages him to maintain the necessary balance between the needs of individual departments and the goals of the entire organization. It makes him think about the flow of information going through the whole system and also emphasizes the importance of communication. A systems approach helps to identify the reasons for making ineffective decisions, it also provides tools and techniques for improving planning and control.

A modern leader must have systems thinking, because:

the manager must perceive, process and systematize a huge amount of information and knowledge that are necessary for making managerial decisions;

the manager needs a systematic methodology with which he could correlate one direction of his organization's activity with another, to prevent inconsistencies in management decisions;

the manager must see beyond the private - the general, rise above everyday life and realize what place his organization occupies in the external environment, how it interacts with another, larger system, of which it is a part;

a systematic approach to management allows the manager to more productively implement his main functions: forecasting, planning, organization, leadership, control.

Systems thinking not only contributed to the development of new ideas about the organization (in particular, special attention was paid to the integrated nature of the enterprise, as well as the paramount importance and importance of information systems), but also provided the development of useful mathematical tools and techniques that greatly facilitate managerial decision-making, the use of more advanced planning and control systems. Thus, a systematic approach allows us to comprehensively evaluate any production and economic activity and the activity of the management system at the level of specific characteristics. This will help to analyze any situation within a single system, to identify the nature of the input, process and output problems. The application of a systematic approach allows the best way to organize the decision-making process at all levels in the management system.

Despite all the positive results, systems thinking has still not fulfilled its most important purpose. The claim that it will allow the application of the modern scientific method to management has not yet been realized. This is partly because large-scale systems are very complex. It is not easy to grasp the many ways in which the external environment influences the internal organization. The interaction of many subsystems within the enterprise is not fully understood. The boundaries of systems are very difficult to establish, too broad a definition will lead to the accumulation of costly and unusable data, and too narrow - to a partial solution of problems. It will not be easy to formulate the questions that will arise before the enterprise, to determine with accuracy the information needed in the future. Even if the best and most logical solution is found, it may not be feasible. Nevertheless, a systematic approach provides an opportunity to better understand how the enterprise works.

1.2 The concept and formation of the organizational structure

The organizational structure of enterprise management is traditionally understood as a complex characteristic, including: the composition and linear subordination of structural units within the enterprise; normative and actual distribution of functions between structural divisions; functional subordination and jurisdiction of structural divisions; regulations and procedures for the interaction of departments developed for special cases.

The optimal organizational structure is one that fulfills the following general principles

The fixed functions of structural divisions fully cover the needs of managing business processes carried out at the enterprise;

The fixed functions of the units coincide with the actual ones;

The functions assigned to each division do not come into conflict with each other when evaluating performance;

Duplication of functions of various departments is minimized;

The functions of each division are provided in terms of resources (including administrative resources);

The functions of each division are provided in terms of information;

Control procedures have been developed and are in place. Each organization is a rather complex technical, economic and social system, which reflects its individuality and specificity. In order to describe this system, it will first be necessary to determine the nature of interaction at each of its levels: the interaction of the organization with the external environment, between organizational units, between groups of people, and, perhaps, the interaction between an individual and the entire organization as a whole. The ways in which these parties interact allow us to view the system in a certain way, and also allow us to judge how effectively it copes with its main task. The structure of the organization is not unimportant.

Scientifically substantiated formation of organizational management structures is an urgent task of the modern stage of adaptation of economic entities to a market economy. Under the new conditions, it is necessary to widely use the principles and methods of designing a management organization based on a systematic approach.

Significance and tasks of organizational design

Without the development of methods for designing management structures, it is difficult to further improve management and increase production efficiency, since:

=> First; in the new conditions, in a number of cases, it is impossible to operate with old organizational forms that do not meet the requirements of market relations and create a danger of deformation of the management tasks themselves;

=> Secondly, in the sphere of economic management of technical systems. An integrated approach to improving the organizational mechanism was previously largely replaced by work on the introduction and use of automated control systems;

=> Thirdly, the creation of a structure should be based not only on experience, analogy, habitual schemes and intuition, but also on the scientific methods of organizational design;

=> Fourthly, the design of the most complex mechanism - the control mechanism - should be entrusted to specialists who own the methodology for the formation of organizational systems.

When developing principles and methods, designing a structure as a frozen set of organs corresponding to each specialized management function, it first of all includes a system of goals and their distribution between various links. This includes the composition of units that are in certain connections and relationships with each other; distribution of responsibility. Important elements of the management structure are communications, information flows and document flow in the organization.

An organizational structure is a behavioral system, these are people and their groups constantly entering into various relationships to solve common problems.

Such versatility of the organizational mechanism is incompatible with the use of any unambiguous methods - either formal or informal. Therefore, it is necessary to combine scientific methods and principles for the formation of structures (a systematic approach) with a large expert-analytical work, the study of domestic and foreign experience. The entire methodology for designing structures should be based first on the goals, and then on the mechanism for achieving them.

The systematic approach to the formation of the structure is manifested in the following:

Do not lose sight of any of the management tasks, without which the implementation of the goals will not be complete;

To identify and link, in relation to these tasks, the entire system of functions, rights and responsibilities along the management vertical - from the general director of the enterprise to the site foreman;

Investigate and organize all connections and relationships along the horizontal management;

Provide an organic combination of vertical and horizontal management.

Study of the influence of the external environment on the design of the organization

Stage - identification and description of elements of the external environment (input, output, technology, knowledge)

Stage - identification of the main relationships between elements of the external environment, including elements of direct impact

Stage - determining the degree of diversity of elements of the external environment (changes, certainty, feedback)

Stage - the design of each element of the organizational structure, taking into account the external environment in which this element will function.

Stage - the formation of a management mechanism, taking into account the specifics of the elements of the organizational structure and its external environment.

Basic methodological principles

Until recently, the methods of building management were characterized by an excessively normative nature, insufficient diversity, which led to a mechanical transfer of organizational forms used in the past to new conditions. Often the administrative apparatus at various levels repeated the same schemes. From a scientific point of view, the initial factors in the formation of structures themselves were interpreted too narrowly: the number of personnel instead of the goals of organizations; a constant set of organs instead of changing their composition and combination under different conditions.

One of the main shortcomings of the methods used was their functional orientation, strict regulation of management processes, and not their results. Therefore, the goals and interrelations of various parts of the management system become more important than the strict establishment of their functional specialization. This is especially evident when solving problems related to the creation of corporations, joint-stock companies, financial and industrial groups, orders and contracts at the request of consumers, with a comprehensive solution to product quality problems.

A systematic approach, attaching great importance to the scientifically based definition of the management function and headcount standards as part of the overall process of forming an organizational and managerial structure, orients researchers and developers towards more general principles for designing organizations. Those. it involves the initial definition of the system of goals of the organization, which determine the structure of tasks and the content of the functions of the management apparatus.

The main purpose of most production organizations from the point of view of society is determined by the goals of satisfying the market demand for products and services. At the same time, the correspondence between the system of goals and the organizational structure of management cannot be unambiguous.

In a single system, various methods of forming organizational management structures should also be considered. These methods are of a different nature, each of them separately does not allow solving all practically important problems and must be used in organic combination with others.

The effectiveness of building an organizational structure cannot be assessed by any one indicator. On the one hand, it should be taken into account to what extent the structure ensures the achievement of results by the organization that correspond to the production and economic goals set for it, on the other hand, to what extent its internal structure and functioning processes are adequate to the objective requirements for their content, organization, properties.

The ultimate criterion of effectiveness when comparing different options for organizational structure is the most complete and sustainable achievement of goals. However, as a rule, it is extremely difficult to bring this criterion to practically applicable simple indicators. Therefore, it is advisable to use a set of normative characteristics of the control apparatus: its performance in processing information; efficiency in making managerial decisions; reliability of the control apparatus; adaptability and flexibility. When problems arise, it is necessary to formulate the number of personnel as a criterion of economic efficiency, in accordance with which the maximization of results in relation to management costs should be ensured. The size of the management apparatus must be objectively justified in order to fully ensure the solution of problems arising from the goals of the organizational system.

The process of forming an organizational structure.

The process of forming the organizational structure includes the formulation of goals and objectives, determining the composition and place of units, their resource support (including the number of employees), the development of regulatory procedures, documents, provisions that fix and regulate the forms, methods, processes that are carried out in the organizational management system .

This whole process can be organized into three major stages:

The formation of a general structural diagram in all cases is of fundamental importance, since it determines the main characteristics of the organization, as well as the directions in which more in-depth design should be carried out, both the organizational structure and other most important aspects of the system (the ability to process information).

The development of the composition of the main divisions and the links between them consists in the fact that it provides for the implementation of organizational decisions not only in general for large linear-functional and program-target blocks, but also up to independent (basic) divisions of the management apparatus, the distribution of specific tasks between them and building intra-organizational relationships. Basic subdivisions are understood as independent structural units (departments, bureaus, departments, sectors, laboratories), into which linear-functional and program-targeted subsystems are organizationally divided. Base units may have their own internal structure.

Regulation of the organizational structure - provides for the development of quantitative characteristics of the management apparatus and procedures for management activities. It includes: determination of the composition of the internal elements of the basic units (bureaus, groups and positions); determination of the design number of units; distribution of tasks and work between specific performers; establishing responsibility for their implementation; development of procedures for performing managerial work in departments; calculations of management costs and performance indicators of the management apparatus in the conditions of the designed organizational structure.

Structure design methods.

The organizational structure combines both technological, economic, informational, administrative and organizational interactions that lend themselves to direct analysis and rational design, as well as socio-psychological characteristics and connections.

The specificity of the problem of designing the organizational structure of management lies in the fact that it cannot be adequately represented as a problem of formally choosing the best variant of the organizational structure according to a clearly formulated, unambiguous, mathematically expressed criterion of optimality. This is a quantitative-qualitative, multi-criteria problem solved on the basis of a combination of scientific, including formalized, methods of analysis, evaluation, modeling of organizational systems with the subjective activity of responsible managers, specialists and experts in choosing and evaluating the best options for organizational decisions.

The organizational design process consists in a sequence of approaching the model of a rational management structure, in which design methods play an auxiliary role in considering, evaluating and adopting the most effective options for organizational decisions for practical implementation.

There are complementary methods:

The method of analogies consists in the application of organizational forms and management mechanisms in relation to the projected organization. The analogy method includes the development of standard management structures for production and economic organizations and the definition of the boundaries and conditions for their application.

The use of the analogy method is based on two complementary approaches. The first of these is to identify for each type of production and economic organizations and for various industries the values ​​and trends of changes in the main organizational characteristics and their corresponding organizational forms and management mechanisms. The second approach represents the typification of the most general fundamental decisions about the nature and relationships of the links of the management apparatus, and individual positions in clearly defined working conditions of organizations of this type in specific industries, as well as the development of individual regulatory characteristics of the management apparatus for these organizations and industries.

Typification of solutions is a means of increasing the overall level of organization of production management. Typical organizational decisions should be: variant, not unambiguous; reviewed and adjusted at regular intervals; allowing for deviations in cases where the conditions of the organization's work differ from clearly formulated conditions for which an appropriate standard form of the organizational management structure is recommended.

The expert-analytical method consists in the examination and analytical study of the organization by qualified specialists with the involvement of its leaders and other employees in order to identify specific features, problems in the work of the management apparatus, and also to develop rational recommendations for its formation or restructuring based on quantitative assessments of the effectiveness of the organizational structure, rational management principles, expert opinions, as well as generalization and analysis of the most advanced trends in the field of management organization. This includes 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, processing the obtained expert assessments by statistical and mathematical methods.

Expert methods should also include the development and application of scientific principles for the formation of organizational management structures. The principles of formation of organizational structures of management are the specification of more general principles of management (for example, unity of command or collective leadership, specialization). Examples of the formation of organizational management structures: building an organizational structure based on a system of goals, separation of strategic and coordinating functions from operational management, a combination of functional and program-targeted management, and a number of others.

A special place among expert methods is occupied by the development of graphical and tabular descriptions of organizational structures and management processes, reflecting recommendations for their best organization. This is preceded by the development of options for organizational solutions aimed at eliminating the identified organizational problems that meet the scientific principles and best practices of management organization, as well as the required level of quantitative and qualitative criteria for assessing the effectiveness of organizational structures.

The goal structuring method involves the development of a system of organization goals, including their quantitative and qualitative formulations. When using it, the following steps are most often performed:

1. Development of a system (tree) of goals, which is a structural basis for linking all types of organizational activities based on the final results;

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

   Drawing up rights and responsibility maps for achieving goals for individual departments, as well as for complex cross-functional activities, where the area of ​​​​responsibility is regulated (products, resources, labor, information, production and management resources); concrete results, for the achievement of which responsibility is established; the rights that are given to achieve results (to agree, confirm, control).

The method of organizational modeling is the development of formalized mathematical, graphical, machine 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 by the relationship of their variables. There are several main types of organizational models:

mathematical-cybernetic models of hierarchical management structures that describe organizational connections and relationships in the form of systems of mathematical equations and inequalities;

graphic-analytical models of organizational systems, which are network, matrix, and other tabular and graphic representations of the distribution of functions, powers, responsibilities, organizational relationships. They make it possible to analyze their orientation, nature, causes of occurrence, evaluate various options for grouping interrelated activities into homogeneous units, “lose” options for the distribution of rights and responsibilities between different levels of management, etc.

full-scale models of organizational structures and processes, which consist in assessing their functioning in real organizational conditions. These include organizational experiments - pre-planned and controlled restructuring of structures and processes in real organizations; laboratory experiments - artificially created situations of decision-making and organizational behavior; management games - actions of practical workers;

mathematical-statistical models of dependencies between the initial factors of organizational systems and the characteristics of organizational structures. They are based on the collection, analysis and processing of empirical data on organizations operating in comparable conditions.

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

The choice of a method for solving a particular organizational problem depends on its nature, as well as the possibilities for conducting an appropriate study.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of organizational decisions

Efficiency evaluation is an important element in the development of design and planning decisions, which makes it possible to determine the level of progressiveness of the current structure, projects under development or planned activities, and is carried out in order to select the most rational variant of the structure or a way to improve it. The effectiveness of the organizational structure should be assessed at the design stage, when analyzing the management structures of existing organizations for planning and implementing measures to improve management.

A comprehensive set of criteria for the effectiveness of the management system is formed taking into account two areas for assessing its functioning:

according to the degree of compliance of the achieved results with the established goals of the production and economic organization;

according to the degree of compliance of the process of the system functioning with the objective requirements for its content of the organization and results.

The criterion of efficiency when comparing different options for the organizational structure is the possibility of the most complete and sustainable achievement of the ultimate goals of the management system at relatively lower costs for its operation.

Of fundamental importance for evaluating the effectiveness of a management system is the choice of a basis for comparison or determining the level of efficiency, which is taken as normative. One of the differentiation approaches is reduced to comparison with indicators that characterize the effectiveness of the organizational structure of the reference version of control systems. The reference version can be developed and designed using all available control system design methods and tools. The characteristics of this option are accepted as normative. It can also be compared with the performance indicators and characteristics of the management system chosen as a benchmark that determines the acceptable or sufficient level of efficiency of the organizational structure.

Often, instead of methods, an expert assessment of the organizational and technical level of the system being analyzed and designed, as well as its individual subsystems and design and planning decisions, or a comprehensive assessment of the management system based on the use of a quantitative and qualitative approach is used, which allows evaluating the effectiveness of management by a significant combination of factors.

The indicators used in assessing the effectiveness of the management apparatus and its organizational structure can be divided into the following three interrelated groups.

A group of indicators that characterize the effectiveness of the management system, expressed through the final results of the organization's activities, and management costs. When evaluating efficiency based on indicators characterizing the final results of the organization's activities, volume, profit, cost, volume of capital investments, product quality, timing of the introduction of new technology, etc. can be considered as an effect due to the functioning or development of the management system.

A group of indicators that characterize the content and organization of the management process, including the immediate results and costs of managerial work. As management costs, current expenses for the maintenance of the management apparatus, the operation of technical facilities, the maintenance of buildings and premises, the training and retraining of management personnel are taken into account.

When evaluating the effectiveness of the management process, indicators are used that can be evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively. These indicators acquire a normative character and can be used as a criterion for the effectiveness of restrictions when the organizational structure changes in the direction of improving one or a group of performance indicators without changing (worsening) the rest. The following can be attributed to the regulatory characteristics of the control apparatus: productivity, efficiency, adaptability, flexibility, efficiency, reliability.

A group of indicators characterizing the rationality of the organizational structure and its technical and organizational level. The structures include the linkage of the management system, the level of centralization of management functions, the accepted standards of manageability, the balance in the distribution of rights and responsibilities.

To assess the effectiveness of management, it is important to determine the compliance of the management system and its organizational structure with the management object. This finds expression in the balance of the composition of the functions and goals of management, the correspondence of the number of employees to the volume and complexity of work, the completeness of providing the required information, the provision of processes for managing technological means, taking into account their nomenclature.

Important requirements are the ability to adequately reflect the dynamism of controlled processes, balance and consistency of indicators. When evaluating the effectiveness of individual measures to improve the management system, it is allowed to use the basic requirements for their choice - the maximum compliance of each indicator with the target orientation of the event and the completeness of the reflection of the achieved effect.

Adjustment of organizational structures.

In most cases, decisions to adjust structures are made by the top management of the organization as part of their core responsibilities. Significant organizational undertakings are not carried out until there is a firm adjustment of the structure or the development of a new project.

Unsatisfactory functioning of the enterprise. The most common reason for the need to develop a new organization project is failure to reduce cost growth, increase productivity, expand ever-shrinking domestic and foreign markets, or attract new financial resources. Usually, first of all, changes are made in the composition and level of qualifications of workers, the development of special programs. But the reason for the unsatisfactory activity of the enterprise lies in certain shortcomings of the organizational structure of management.

Top management overload. If measures to change the methods and procedures of management do not reduce the burden, do not lead to lasting relief, then a very effective means of solving this problem is the redistribution of rights and functions, adjustments and clarifications in the forms of organization.

Lack of perspective orientation. The future development of the enterprise requires more and more attention from top managers to strategic tasks. At the same time, many managers still continue to devote most of their time to operational issues. Which will lead to a simple extrapolation of current trends in the future. The top manager must be aware that his most important responsibility is to enable the enterprise to develop and implement a strategic program.

Disagreements on organizational issues. Every experienced leader knows that stability in the organizational structure of an enterprise also depends on whether there is internal harmony. This structure makes it difficult to achieve goals, allows for an unfair distribution of power, and so on. When there are deep and enduring disagreements about organizational structure, the only way out is to study the structure carefully. A change in leadership often prompts a decision to reorganize. The replacement group may find this form completely inconsistent with its approach to the problems of the enterprise.

As experience shows, the process of making adjustments to the organizational structure of management should include:

Systematic analysis of the functioning of the organization and its environment in order to identify problem areas. The analysis may be based on a comparison of competing or related organizations representing other areas of economic activity;

Development of a master plan for improving the organizational structure;

Ensuring that the innovation program contains the most simple and specific proposals for change;

Consistent implementation of planned changes. The introduction of minor changes has a greater chance of success than major changes;

Encouraging employees to raise their level of awareness, which will allow them to better assess their ownership and, therefore, increase their accountability for the planned changes.

2 Analysis of the organizational structure on the example of Brücke LLC

2.1 Characteristics of the enterprise

LLC "Brücke" was founded in 1995 and is located on the territory of the village of Shumanovka, German National Region. The company is engaged in meat processing and production of meat products - this is the main activity. In addition, it is additionally engaged in the production of dairy products, and there is also a mill.

The enterprise has been operating on the market for the ninth year and during this period certain successes have been achieved. First, they occupy a certain position in the market. Secondly, the products are made only of high quality and excellent taste characteristics. These indicators make it possible to attract an increasing number of new customers and develop settlement systems for regular customers.

The production of sausages is carried out according to German technology, according to which raw materials are not salted and this ensures high quality products that do not contain soy and synthetic additives.

The company sells its products through retail stores in nearby areas, as well as in Barnaul and Novosibirsk. To meet such a large number of consumer requests, the company switched to two-shift work.

The financial condition is stable, which allows the company to expand, develop new types of products.

An important role in ensuring this state of affairs is played by the management structure at the enterprise, which we will get acquainted with in paragraph 2.2.

2.2 Organizational structure of management of Brücke LLC

The purpose of the organizational structure is to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the organization.

When creating the enterprise, an organizational management structure was developed (Fig. 2.1.), In which the organization was divided horizontally into broad blocks corresponding to the most important areas of activity: deputy director, chief technologist, engineer.

DIRECTOR

W deputy director

G master technologist

Downhole

Sausage

Expedition

Engineering service

Fig.2.1. Linear management structure of Brücke LLC

The ratio of powers of various positions is established. In doing so, management establishes the purpose of the teams and makes further divisions into smaller organizational units in order to use specialization more effectively and avoid overloading management.

Thus, the deputy director is subordinate to the downhole shop, as he is engaged in the supply of raw materials. The chief technologist has a slaughter shop, deboning, a sausage shop, an expedition, that is, production technology is controlled.

An engineer has an engineering service, that is, ensuring the uninterrupted operation of equipment. So, this control structure is linear. This management in its "pure" form assumes that the general decisions of the first manager are concretized by specialists: the chief technologist, engineer. They give the production links in their areas of mandatory tasks. In conditions when the company was just entering the market, and with a small number of employees, this approach ensured the high quality of decisions made.

Having occupied its niche in the market, the company began to produce more products, more customers appeared in the face of suppliers and buyers. As a result, it became clear that the current management system does not cope with the tasks assigned to it due to too much work. But there was another reason as well. Having applied this system at the enterprise, they did not think about the consequences, and in practice, functional management turned out to be not viable. Independent decisions of specialists, no matter how good they are in themselves, inevitably come into conflict with each other. As a result, specialists began to fight with each other to ensure that their decisions were carried out in the first place, all this brought disorganization into the management of society.

As an example, one can imagine a situation where the deputy director found profitable suppliers of raw materials, and the technologist rejected the supplies, considering the quality of the imported meat to be inappropriate, that is, there was clearly a mismatch of opinions of specialists.

Thus, we can conclude that this structure did not turn out to be an ideal model for management. Over time, it showed its advantages and disadvantages in a clear form.

The advantages of this management structure are as follows:

The head was personally responsible for the final results of the activities of his unit;

Obtaining by executors of interconnected orders and tasks provided with resources;

A clear system of mutual relations between the leader and the subordinate;

Responsiveness to direct instructions.

But all these positive aspects are suppressed by negative factors, which ultimately led to the need to revise the structure. These include the following:

Inconsistency in the actions of the heads of departments, a tendency to red tape when solving issues related to departments;

High requirements for the manager, who must have extensive, versatile knowledge and experience in all management functions and areas of activity carried out by subordinates, which limits the manager's ability to effectively manage;

Overload of top-level managers, a huge amount of information, a flow of paperwork, multiple contacts with subordinates and managers;

Lack of links for planning and preparation of management decisions.

Therefore, in 2000, the question arose about changing the structure, about the relationship of management links. A new governance structure has been developed and is currently in place (Figure 2.2.)

DIRECTOR

Deputy Director for Finance

Chief technologist

Management for supply and marketing

Head economist

Chief Accountant

Legal. the Department

AND engineering service

Procurement Department

Marketing department

Downhole shop

Sausage shop

Figure 2.2 - Linear-functional management structure of Brücke LLC

The following arguments have been put forward in favor of this structure:

Now each governing body is specialized in performing individual functions at all levels of management;

Compliance with the instructions of each functional body within its competence is mandatory for production units;

Decisions on general issues are taken collectively;

The functional specialization of the management apparatus significantly increases its effectiveness, since instead of universal managers who must understand the performance of all functions, highly qualified specialists appear;

The structure is aimed at performing constantly repetitive tasks.

An analysis of the current management system and a study of the enterprise's activities allows us to draw the following conclusions:

Firstly, in order to coordinate tasks between the main departments, a close relationship has been established. This is manifested in the following: to make a decision, all leading experts confer and develop a common decision for further production activities;

secondly, in connection with the increased volume of production, it became necessary to create additional departments at the enterprise. Department functions include:

Deputy Director for Finance - provides production with working capital for the smooth operation of the enterprise;

Lawyer - provides the legal basis for the activities of the enterprise;

Chief technologist - controls the production process by workshops, ensuring that products comply with quality standards;

Engineer - his duties include monitoring the smooth operation of equipment;

The Purchasing and Sales Manager, who is in charge of the procurement department and the marketing department, is responsible for ensuring the uninterrupted supply of raw materials, as well as monitoring the process of marketing products and working with customers.

This system has shown its effectiveness in the management process. The benefits of this governance structure include:

High competence of specialists responsible for the implementation of specific functions;

Releasing line managers from solving many special issues and expanding their capabilities for operational management of production;

The basis for the use of experienced specialists in the work of consultations is being created, the need for generalists is reduced.

But along with the advantages, there are also disadvantages of this management structure:

Difficulties in maintaining constant relationships between various functional services;

Lengthy decision making process;

Lack of mutual understanding and unity of action between functional services;

Reducing the responsibility of the performer for the work as a result of the fact that each performer receives instructions from several managers;

Duplication and inconsistency of instructions and orders received by employees, since each functional head and specialized unit puts its issues in the first place.

But it is impossible to successfully operate in the market without applying something new, the past results achieved are just a stepping stone to the next achievements. Our proposals, after studying the activities of LLC "Brücke", we offer in the next section.

2.3 The main directions for improving the organizational structure of the management of Brücke LLC

The systems approach involves considering the organization as an open system. So, it is influenced by external factors, both positive and negative. The task of the management of Brücke LLC is to take advantage of its advantages by changing the organizational structure and minimize the negative impact of shortcomings.

In the previous chapter, we studied how changes occurred in the management system at the enterprise. And a lot in this system depends on the leader, because it is he who must organize the work, choose the structure of the organization.

In a broad sense, the task of managers in this case is to choose the management structure that best suits the goals and objectives of the organization, as well as external and internal factors interacting with it.

Having studied the state of affairs at Brücke LLC, we propose the following changes in the current management structure, based on the fact that the company intends to expand its activities by January 2005. New types of products will appear (bakery products, pasta, etc.), production areas will expand, and all this requires the introduction of a divisional management system (Figure 2.3.).

G

The structuring of subdivisions by departments is carried out, as a rule, according to one of the criteria, namely, by products (bread, sausages, pasta);

Heads of secondary functional services report to the manager of the production unit (technologist of the downhole shop to the chief technologist);

Assistants to the head of the production department control the activities of functional services in all departments of the company, coordinating their activities horizontally.

In general, this system will allow the company to continue growing, as well as effectively manage various types of activities and in different markets. The heads of the established departments will be able to coordinate activities not only “along the line”, but also “by functions”, making their activities even more efficient and efficient. Thus, a good personnel reserve will be created for the strategic level of the enterprise, since the division of decisions by levels speeds up their adoption and improves their quality.

Along with the features of this management structure, I would like to dwell on the advantages of this management structure:

First, a closer connection between production and consumers will be established, as well as a faster response to changes that may occur in the external environment, that is, in the market. A change in demand, a decrease in one of the types of manufactured products, the enterprise will not put on the verge of bankruptcy, since it is possible to switch to another type of product and, moreover, very quickly with this structure.

The second point is the improvement of coordination of work in departments, due to subordination to one person.

Thirdly, the emergence of divisions of the competitive advantages of small firms. Each division will try to be the main one, and for this, it is possible that the quality of products will be improved, a search will be made for possible reserves to reduce costs, and as a result, the possibility of increasing profits not only for the division, but for the entire company as a whole, which is not so few.

No economic phenomenon is possible only as positive. Management is no exception, and therefore this structure has as a disadvantage the growth of the vertical of management, but this is still due to the expansion of production, which plays a more significant role in activities.

The organizational structure that emerged as a result of the development is not a frozen form, similar to the frame of a building, but a process that clearly responds to changes in the market, plans and requires further reorganization if necessary, that is, this process, like all functions of the organization, is endless.

CONCLUSION

The organizational structure of the enterprise is created as something that ensures the stable operation of the enterprise, puts in order all the ideas for the organization of the enterprise, therefore it is sometimes difficult for the manager to realize that in the modern world the organizational structure, being, on the one hand, the embodiment of orderliness and stability of the company, on the other hand , is the most dynamic structure of the enterprise.

According to the experience of developing projects to improve the organization of management, typical problems of organizational structures that traditionally develop in enterprises are: the lack of a clear distribution of the areas of activity of the first managers, violation of manageability standards, duplication of functions, lack of regulation of a number of functions vital for the enterprise, etc. In general, this indicates the absence of a systematic approach to the development of the organizational structure, leads to non-optimal business processes and reduces the efficiency of the company.

The organizational structure of the enterprise should be:

Firstly, it should correspond to the enterprise itself, reflect its scale, products, territorial dispersion, take into account the efficient use of resources, both internal and external.

Secondly, the effective organizational structure of the enterprise makes it a well-developed relationship with the mission, strategy of the company.

Thirdly, the organizational structure should ensure the optimality of doing business, i.e. optimal flow of business processes.

Fourthly, it must integrate in itself as a meta-structure all vital structures: functional structure, resource structure, financial, information and other structures.

Fifthly, it should contribute to the development of the enterprise's competencies, the fuller use of the abilities of its employees.

Sixthly, it must correspond to the organizational culture of the enterprise, contribute to its improvement.

The study of the forms of organization of enterprises allows us to conclude that the principle of diversity is gradually being recognized. The search for a single concept, an ideal structure adapted to any organization, is replaced by a desire for a diverse concept, in relation to which the idea of ​​an optimal model is completely absent.

Thus, we examined the improvement of the management structure based on a systematic approach using the example of Brücke LLC, analyzed the sources of information. proposed ways to improve, in general, the goals and objectives were fully implemented.

We hope that the organizational structure proposed by us will be in demand.

In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that experimentation with the development and introduction of new management structures has become a characteristic feature of the last decade of the 20th century. In the course of these experiments, the most diverse combinations of known types and types of structures are often used, adapted by organizations to the specific conditions of their functioning. But still, the main trend is that each subsequent structure becomes simpler and more flexible than the previous ones.

There is no doubt that in the near future there will be an even greater variety of structures, each of which will meet the needs of a particular organization.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vesnin V.R. Practical personnel management: A manual for personnel work. - M .: Yurist, 1998. - 496 p.

Vikhansky O.S., Management: Textbook for economics. specialist. universities. / Vikhansky O.S., Naumov A.I. - M.: Higher. school., 1994.- 224 p.

Vladimirova I.G. "Organizational structures of company management" // Management in Russia and abroad. - 1998. - No. 5 - p.5-8

Kabushkin N.I. Fundamentals of management: Proc. allowance.- 3rd ed.-Mn.: New knowledge, 2OOO.- 336 p.

Meskon M.X., Fundamentals of management: per. from English. / Meskon M.X., Albert M., Hedouri F. - M.: Delo, 2OOO.- 704 p.

Milner B.3. Organization Theory: Textbook. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: INFRA - M, 2OOO. - 480 s.

Paturel Robert, Creation of network organizational structures // Problems of theory and practice of management. - 1999. - No. 2. - p.6-9

Russian Internet weekly http://www.consulting.ru/

Trenev N.N. Enterprise and its structure: Diagnostics. Control. Improvement: Textbook for universities. - M.: PRIOR, 2OOO. - 240 s.

management …………………………………….….. 10 2.2. Analysis organizational structures management in order to determine...

1. General characteristics of software "BelAZ", analysis organizational structures management and manufactured products

   Abstract >> Economics

   GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS RUE "BelAZ", ANALYSIS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT AND MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS" MINSK, 2009 ... Improvement of social and personnel support. 3. Organizational structure management The main site is carried out by the management and...

2. General characteristics and analysis organizational structures management JSC "Mozyr Oil Refinery"

   Abstract >> Economics

   SUMMARY on the topic: "General characteristics and analysis organizational structures management OJSC "Mozyr Oil Refinery" "MINSK, 2008 ... by the General Meeting of Shareholders of the Audit Commission. Analysis organizational structures management enterprise Today, the staff of OJSC "Mozyrsky ...

3. Organizational structure management (4)

   Abstract >> Management

   system, organizational structure management is a subsystem in the system management enterprise. In this way, organizational structure management and system management are...

Analysis of the organizational structure of management

Analysis of the organizational structure involves identifying the compliance of its parameters with the requirements of the conditions for the functioning of the enterprise. In market conditions, the greatest importance is attached to the parameters of the external environment. There are many, but the most important of them include: predictability, complexity, diversification and hostility.

Predictability of the environment determined by the degree of predictability of the development of events. Environment complexity- a variety of tasks of the enterprise, the possibility of standardizing methods for solving them, the level of qualification of the personnel necessary to perform the work. Diversified environment is determined by the variety of decisions that an enterprise has to face in the course of its activities. Environment hostility determined by the rigidity of the conditions that oppose the development of the enterprise.

The selection of parameters by which the compliance of the management structure with the external environment is assessed takes into account the specifics of the enterprise. They are listed below.

Table 1

Characteristics of the relationship between some parameters of the external environment and the structure of enterprise management

Wednesday	Organizational structure
1. Predictability	adaptability
The lower the level of predictability of the environment, the higher the requirements for the adaptive capabilities of the structure. Parameters
-Change of suppliers; - contractual discipline; - the rate of change in the structure of demand; - the number of framework conditions for the activities of the enterprise, regulated by law; - stability of the political and economic situation; - the speed of updating the assortment structure; - the dynamics of the technical characteristics of products, their consumer properties under the influence of scientific and technical progress, fashion ....; - dynamics of changes in transportation, packaging, storage technologies, etc.	-Level of process standardization (number of existing rules, procedures); -the presence of direct control (the number of vertical connections within the framework of control functions); -mutual agreements (number of horizontal connections)
2. Difficulty
The more complex the environment, the greater the level of vertical and horizontal decentralization of the structure. Parameters
- The volume and complexity of information needed for decision making; -qualifications required for decision-making and implementation of actions; - the presence and scope of activities in new areas, experience in which there is no	-Distribution of power (number of key decisions made at each level of management, functional specialization)
3.Diversified environment	Structure specialization
The higher the degree of diversification of the environment, the higher the degree of specialization of functions and structural units. Parameters
-Degree of activity diversification; -number of suppliers; -number of sales markets; -number of external links; - the number of regions where the goods come from; - the number of regions in which the goods arrive; -number of wholesale buyers; - the ability to segment the range of goods by market	-Number of market-oriented specialists and departments; -number of functional divisions; - the level of horizontal decentralization (the number of specialized functions being implemented); - the intensity of supporting relationships (the number of decisions made by line managers on the basis of consultations with functional specialists in the total volume of decisions made); -number of commodity groups in a structural unit;
4. Hostility	Concentration of power
The more aggressive the environment, the higher the level of vertical centralization Parameters
-Number of direct competitors: -indicators characterizing their activities; - frequency and probability of conflict situations with representatives of the external environment; - expert opinion and generalization of publications in the media	-Number of key decisions made at the highest levels of government; -completeness and speed of information passing through the management levels; -the presence of direct control; -time of development and decision-making; - the time from the moment the decision is made to the start of its implementation

The organizational structure of management is also influenced by such internal factors as the age of the enterprise, the size and specifics of its activities. The age and size of the enterprise determine the degree of formalization of the systems of interaction and implementation of processes. With an increase in the size of the organization, the specialization and size of structural units deepen.

To assess the organizational structure, it is proposed to use several approaches.:

1) Evaluation of the structure based on indicators that summarize the results of the enterprise (for example, sales, profit, profitability). However, the dynamics of these indicators does not allow us to identify the parameters of the structure that influenced the results obtained.

2) Evaluation of the structure based on indicators that reflect the organization's ability to seize market opportunities. These indicators include:

The degree of compliance of the range of goods (services) sold with the structure of demand;

The degree of satisfaction of consumer demand for a particular product;

Terms of commodity supply (time from the moment demand arises to its satisfaction, time from the moment an idea arises to its implementation);

Development of new sales markets and dynamics of penetration into target market segments;

Responsiveness to changes in the external environment.

But even this approach does not allow revealing the directions of structural transformations.

3) Assessment of the state of the structure based on taking into account its individual characteristics. The list of indicators reflecting these characteristics is given below.

Table 2.

List of indicators characterizing the structure of a trade enterprise

Structure Characteristics	Indicators
Elements of the structure and their ratio	1.Number of management levels. 2. The number of structural units at each level. 3. The number of structural units (positions) of each level. 4. The ratio of the number of personnel at each level. 5. The ratio of the number of personnel of linear, functional, staff and support units of the enterprise.
Information Support	Amount of information used to make decisions / total amount of information. The time it takes for information to travel from top management to lower levels and back.
Distribution of rights and responsibilities	The ratio of rights and responsibilities by elements of the organizational structure.
Structure rigidity	1. The number of regulations, formal rules and procedures in force in the organization. 2. Volume of regulated actions.
The relationship of structure elements	1. The number of cross-functional and target groups. 2. The number of joint decisions made by representatives of several departments. 3.Number of connections between structural divisions (linear, functional, providing). 4. The number of links that perform the functions of coordination.
Level of specialization of managerial personnel	1. The number of specialized functions (tasks) implemented at each level. 2. The number of functions (tasks) implemented by the structural unit. 3. The number of functions (tasks) implemented by the structural unit that are not characteristic of its specialization.
Decision centralization level	1. The ratio of the number of decisions made at each level in the total number of decisions. 2. The degree of importance of decisions made at each level: - affecting the performance of the entire enterprise4 - affecting the performance of the unit. 3. The number of decisions of a strategic nature. 4. The number of decisions of an administrative nature. 5. The number of operational decisions. 6. The share of the number of personnel in the management apparatus in the total number of personnel.
Structure mobility level	1. The number of changes in organizational structures carried out per year. 2. The number of major structural reforms carried out over 3-5 years. 3. The number of innovations introduced at the enterprise for a certain period of time.
Level of executive discipline	1. The share of implemented decisions in the total number taken at each level of management. 2. The number of actually implemented functions / standard number of functions.
Control apparatus costs	1. Costs for the functioning of one employee of the administrative apparatus. 2. The share of costs for the management apparatus in the overall cost structure. 3. The share of expenses for the management apparatus in the volume of sales.

The calculated indicators are compared with standards (norms), the definition of which is a laborious task, therefore, in practice, the organizational structure is often assessed taking into account the costs of the operation of the management apparatus, using the following indicators:

The amount of net profit (gross profit, sales proceeds) attributable to one employee of the management apparatus;

The amount of net profit (gross profit, sales proceeds) per 1 rub. costs incurred by management personnel.

Similar calculations can be made for various departments (commercial service, marketing service, etc.), categories of personnel. Based on the results of the assessment of the organizational structure of management, the directions of its reorganization are determined. The developed organizational structure is fixed in the regulatory documentation: Regulations on structural divisions, job descriptions, staffing, rules, regulations for the performance of individual work. They begin to operate after approval by the head of the enterprise.

An organization is a complex system that includes many interrelated elements of varying degrees of importance, impact on the organization, resource intensity, productivity, and so on. The analysis of any firm allows you to get an idea of ​​​​how this organization operates, identify weaknesses in the organizational structure and take measures to eliminate them.

In order to understand how any mechanism works, you need to understand how it works. This is exactly what is done with the firm when they analyze the organizational structure. The result of this analysis is a company management scheme that gives a clear idea of ​​who reports to whom and to whom. After conducting such a study, it becomes much easier to manage the organization, as well as introduce any changes regarding the management structure.

As a rule, when conducting an analysis, they come to one and three types of structures: linear, matrix and functional. The linear structure implies strict subordination from top to bottom: there is a boss, there are subordinates, and the same employees always report to the same boss. A functional organization, on the other hand, takes a slightly different approach: in an organization with a functional structure, subordinates report to different bosses depending on what kind of work they do. The matrix structure combines the features of the two previous structures, and each subordinate has two bosses - one direct in the hierarchy, and one functional. This structure is typical for the analysis of the organizational structure of which is the most difficult to carry out.

Analyzing the structure of the company, you can determine which parts of its structure are inefficient, and how you can improve the work of certain problem areas. This is precisely the purpose of such a procedure as analysis. The following types of sites may be ineffective:

A subordinate who has three or more bosses will not work effectively, because he cannot satisfy the requirements of everyone and everyone at the same time, and he also receives too many tasks.

An employee who submits only formally, while the boss does not have significant leverage - this employee is not motivated to work more efficiently, which means that he will slow down the development of the company.

Departments with too few employees - the so-called "bottlenecks" - sections of the organizational structure that, due to their low throughput, cannot cope with the full volume of duties assigned to them.

Departments with too many employees do an excellent job, but are characterized by inefficient use of resources. In such departments, there is almost always one or two notorious lazy people, whose working day is reduced to browsing social networks and endless tea parties. As a rule, such employees are transferred to departments in which there is a shortage of personnel, where they perfectly join the work and begin to work for the benefit of the company. Such a translation rarely causes dissatisfaction among employees - usually people try to be useful to the company, and normally perceive the translation.

The sooner and the more detailed the analysis of the organizational structure is carried out, the sooner all problem areas are found and eliminated, the faster the company will develop, and the more profit it will bring. Good luck, efficient work and high profits, dear entrepreneurs!

There is no sufficiently developed methodology for analyzing the organizational structures of enterprise management in market conditions, which could serve as the basis for the project of the necessary organizational changes. The need to develop strategically effective solutions that maximize the adaptation of the enterprise to the external environment, the development of tactical tasks based on them requires consideration as an object of analysis not only the existing results of work, but also development prospects, justification of goals, strategies for achieving them. The effectiveness of the organizational structure depends on the conformity of its system with the goals of the enterprise, the adopted strategies and the mechanism for distributing the minimum but necessary resources. In this sense, the analysis of the organizational structure of management is promising and is the most important information-forming aspect of the system as a whole. The formation of an adequate organizational structure of management and the content of management activities ultimately depend on the quality of strategic analysis. In this regard, experts note two main features of analysis in modern conditions: the promising nature of analytical work and the functional orientation of the analysis.

The functional orientation of the analysis implies its organic relationship with the implementation of management functions, helps to determine the role of individual links and their relationships in the process of achieving the organization's goal, which turns it into the basis of management technology. A qualitative forecast regarding possible directions for the development of an enterprise is made on the basis of scanning, monitoring and forecasting, which requires special information-analytical, legal, organizational and technical support. This is the so-called strategic decision support system. The set of external in relation to the organization predictive factors , significant for the purpose of the forecast are called the forecast background. Analysis of the forecast background and potential of the organization is the essence predictive analysis , the result of which is the development of a direction of development, provided with the potential that an enterprise can count on in a competitive struggle in the process of achieving its goals.

The system of indicators in the form of DPE OS contains information blocks that reflect the essence of economic phenomena related to the effectiveness of the organizational structure of management in its structural (organizational structure) and dynamic (organizational mechanism) aspects. Such a systematization of performance indicators predetermines the performance analysis model, branched by levels and types (direction and main stages of the analysis methodology), which should serve to solve three main tasks:

a) identifying and evaluating the predictive capabilities of the management system, which through its structural blocks provides a promising direction, stability of the organization's development based on an adequate response to changes in the external environment, develops real goals and strategies for achieving them;

b) identifying the degree of influence of the organizational structure of management on the implementation of the enterprise's goal;

c) substantiation of measures to improve the organizational structure of management and its individual links (elements).

The control of indicators of DPE OS allows to reveal the facts of a critical discrepancy between their given and observed values. In the context of this study, problem is understood as a critical mismatch between the real and desired state of the system, when there is a threat to the implementation of the goals. Diagnostics of the problem involves identifying the causes of its occurrence, determining the magnitude of the mismatch of indicators due to the influence of external and internal factors (5.2). There are correlations between the change in the degree of influence of factors, their combinations and the mismatch between the given and observed values ​​of the indicators. Diagnostic analysis of performance indicators provides information on the positive or negative dynamics of certain aspects of the management system and shows whether it was able to identify all the impacts that are significant for it and how appropriate and conscious the response to them was. It also creates a field for a detailed analysis of its individual links, which characterizes the individual state of each block of the control system and solves the following tasks:

a) identification of block problems;

b) discovery of reserves and development of directions for their mobilization;

c) substantiation of options for the development of management links;

d) ranking them according to the degree of influence on the development processes, depending on the factors of the external and internal environment of the enterprise.

As a result of a detailed analysis, “pain points” are identified, characterized by a mismatch between costs and the quality of performance of functions, which makes the analysis the basis not only for optimizing a number of production and management parameters, but also for restructuring. Partial performance indicators carry some information about the positive or negative dynamics in the activities of individual blocks of the control system and show their contribution to achieving the main goal of the system. The identification of problems, their investigation and solution can be done within the framework of specific programs or problem-oriented organizational structures. The most common method for identifying problems is diagnostic interviews, the number of which for average organizations is about 30, which helps to identify 40-50 problems.

The generalizing indicator of the effectiveness of the control mechanism K mu characterizes the degree of achievement of the system's goal with the actual costs of maintaining the control apparatus. Particular indicators of the block To mu - the degree of implementation of the targets of individual links with the actual costs of their implementation. The solution of the identified problem lies in the field of adjusting the values ​​of indicators (adjusting the control mechanism), clarifying the goals of the blocks and the main goal of the system (adjusting the goal-setting system), increasing the efficiency of the organizational management structure (the degree of rationality of structuring the system into elements and rationalizing the structure of relations between them). The problem can be solved at the stage of adjusting the values ​​of indicators of the management mechanism and clarifying the goals of the blocks, which does not require restructuring of the organizational structure, and hence significant resources. The relationship between individual types of analysis and their results, which are used to justify the development plan for the organizational structure of management, is shown in Scheme 9.

Generalizing information can be obtained on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of indicators K MC and indicators of the goal-setting mechanism K mu.

It is expedient to carry out an analysis of the organizational structure of the enterprise management in the sequence presented in Scheme 10.

Stage 1. Analysis of the organizational and regulatory support of the management system.

Purpose of the analysis: assessment of the level of organizational and regulatory support (classification of available regulatory and methodological documents), the degree of its compliance with the theory and practice of management, the degree of influence on the formulation of regular management.

Analysis method - normative. Of the main structure-forming documents that are the basis for setting up regular management at the enterprise, the most common are the staffing table and job descriptions. At domestic enterprises, the Regulation on the organizational structure is an extremely rare document. The lack of basic organizational and regulatory documents does not allow building an effective system of control over the activities of the management apparatus and creates great difficulties in identifying defects in the organizational structure of management.

The most common linear-functional management structure cannot ensure the effective functioning of a production organization without the development of appropriate regulatory and regulatory documents that define the tasks of each structural unit, its functions, communications that form rational information flows, the correspondence between the responsibilities and powers of managers at different levels within the allocated resources etc.

Stage 2. Analysis of the integrity of the control object.

Purpose of analysis- assessment of the degree of interrelation and interdependence of the divisions of the production organization, which ensure their interaction in achieving the goal of the system, the formation of information on the feasibility of identifying target economic objects.

Scheme 9. The relationship of individual types of analysis and their results

Scheme 10. Methodology for analyzing the organizational structure of management

Analysis methods: projection method (correspondence matrix), goal structuring method.

Only compatible elements can interact, therefore, a matrix analysis of the expedient compatibility of various activities in the performance of the main function of the system, which determines the mission of the organization, its long-term and short-term goals, as well as ways to achieve them, is necessary. Based on this analysis, incompatible elements of the system receive autonomy, legally fixed by the appropriate organizational and legal form. Interdependence is revealed at the stage of building a tree of system goals.

Stage 3. Analysis of the effectiveness of the goal-setting system.

Purpose of analysis- assessment of the predictive capabilities of the management system, characterized by its ability through its organizational structures to develop a set of real goals and objectives provided by the potential of the organization.

Analysis methods: comparison method, questioning, interviewing, ranking method.

Since the concept of "goal" is fundamental in system analysis and 90% of all errors in management stem from errors in the formulation of goals, the analysis and evaluation of K mts, which characterizes the predictive capabilities of the management system and the quality of planning, is of great importance. To develop goals and strategies to achieve them, ensure the implementation of goals and strategies, as well as adjust them if necessary, the organizational structure should include a predictive block.

The goal tree is not developed by most domestic enterprises with an adequate system of indicators. The main goal of the enterprise as a system is not defined. Planned indicators that are not systematically ordered do not agree with the structure of economic objects, do not correspond to the directions of using resources and obtaining material and material results, therefore it is impossible to evaluate the contribution of each block to the target efficiency of the system.

Stage 4. Analysis of the external effectiveness of the organization (analysis of the degree to which the organization uses external opportunities).

Purpose of the analysis: assessment of the degree to which the management system uses the capabilities of the external environment, taking into account threats, identifying the reasons for the mismatch between the result and the goal in the problem areas discovered at the second stage, the degree of compliance of the organizational structure of management with the entire set of conditions for its functioning in the external environment.

Analysis methods: all methods of analysis and forecasting of the external space of the enterprise from the arsenal of strategic planning.

At this stage, the main environmental factors that most significantly affect the final results of the functioning and development of the organization are specified, the factors that limit the achievement of private indicators included in the generalizing indicator K MC DPE OS are determined, the gaps between the actual and planned indicators are identified, the reasons for the discrepancy are identified, which can lead to a crisis.

The initial economic standards used in the development of the marketing, financial, supply and sales, pricing, accounting, production, technical, and innovation policies of the enterprise, analyzed as a whole, make it possible to identify specific problems and make a forecast of their development, clarify the model of the organization's relationship with the external environment. If an enterprise can afford to build a tree of performance indicators for manufactured products, which is somewhat difficult, but well covered in the literature, the quality of the analysis increases.

Allocate:

a) liquidity crisis (real loss of solvency);

b) crisis of success (deviation of actual performance indicators from planned ones);

c) a strategic crisis (diagnosed emerging gap between the likely and desired outcomes).

The external environment of domestic enterprises is characterized by a high degree of complexity, mobility, and uncertainty. The low competitiveness of products makes many enterprises so unstable that any negative changes in the external environment can cause a "collapse of the system", which, even under normal conditions, is not capable of developing a set of reactions aimed at self-preservation. The main characteristic of the external environment of domestic enterprises should be considered its uncertainty, which is a function of the quantity and quality of incoming information. Consequently, enterprises must have structural prerequisites both for obtaining reliable information about the external environment and for processing it, which affects the effectiveness of decisions made. The lack of reliable information about the external environment is one of the reasons for the formation of an inefficient goal-setting system.

The position of enterprises in the market of manufactured products characterizes their commodity and market potential. The main problems affecting the formation of commodity and market potential are:

insufficient information about the forecast and current state of the market, significant efforts required to obtain the required information;

discrepancy between the type and structure of the production program and the structure of demand;

wrong marketing and sales policy;

the emergence of high-tech and high-quality competitive products on the market;

instability of logistics conditions.

The degree to which an organization uses external capabilities also characterizes its resource and market potential. The situation of domestic enterprises in the resource and commodity markets is quite difficult, since their financial condition in the vast majority remains difficult. Accounts receivable burden falls on the financial and economic condition of the enterprise. A high percentage of settlements by barter remains, and the quality of supplies is declining.

Stage 5. Analysis of the internal efficiency of the organization (analysis of the degree of use by the organization of its internal capabilities, characterizing the potential of the organization).

Purpose of the analysis: assessment of the ability of the organizational management structure to ensure the achievement of the set goals at the minimum and necessary costs (correspondence of the actual use of internal capabilities by the organization to the “management mechanism” block of the conceptual model, formalized in the form of a generalizing indicator K mu DPE OS).

Analysis methods: all methods of analysis and forecasting of the internal environment of the enterprise used in strategic planning. Of particular importance are the methods of financial analysis and planning, functional cost analysis.

The construction of a logical scheme of the main problems of the enterprise determines the structure of the problem field, the main areas of which are structural and technological(reduction of sales markets for products, non-competitiveness of products due to obsolescence and physical depreciation of fixed capital, growth of costs in excess of the planned level) and organizational and economic(low level of organization of production and management) problems. S. Yang also noted that the viability of an organization and the well-being of its members is determined by their ability to detect, recognize and solve problems in a timely manner. Building a problem field within the framework diagnostic analysis allows you to identify the cause of failures in management and the conditions for their elimination. According to the definition of V. Sh. Rapoport: "Management diagnostics is the identification of problems." Within the framework of a diagnostic analysis of the management system and a detailed analysis of its individual links, organizational problems are recognized, systematized, structured and clearly formulated.

Diagnostic analysis of performance indicators provides information on the positive or negative dynamics of certain aspects of the management system and shows whether it was able to identify all the impacts that are significant for it and how appropriate and conscious the response to them was.

Detailed analysis characterizes the individual state of each block (element) of the organizational structure of management. Partial performance indicators carry some information about the positive or negative dynamics in the activities of individual blocks of the control system, which allows:

specify the problems identified in the diagnostic analysis;

identify the problems of the block (element) itself;

reveal reserves and develop directions for their mobilization.

As a result of a detailed analysis, “pain points” are identified, characterized by a discrepancy between costs and the quality of performance of functions. The generalizing indicator of the effectiveness of the control mechanism K mu characterizes the degree of achievement of the system's goal with the actual costs of maintaining the control apparatus. Particular indicators of the block To mu - the degree of implementation of the targets of individual links with the actual costs of their implementation. Generalizing information can be obtained only on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of indicators K mu and indicators of the goal-setting mechanism K mu.

But identifying, precisely formulating and systematizing problems is only one side of diagnostics. The second is a forecast of the development of existing problems, taking into account the real possibilities for their solution. The connection between prognostic and diagnostic analysis is realized through the forecast of the development of problems. The construction of a logical scheme of the main problems facilitates the process of ranking the performance indicators of the organizational structure of management according to the degree of their influence on the final results of the organization's activities. The analysis of the DPE is predictive in nature, as it involves the refinement of the desired model of the system. Attention to the problem orientation of the analysis is primarily due to the extreme instability, mobility of the external and internal environment of the enterprise, associated with the transitional nature of the domestic economy. An analysis of a problematic situation can lead to a change in intermediate, key goals and even the main goal of the economic system.

The degree of use by the organization of its internal capabilities is characterized by the state technical and technological, property and financial, experimental design, social and other potentials. A certain service is responsible for the state of each of these potentials, and top management is responsible for their linkage and coordination. According to the law, the least structural stability of the whole is determined by the least stability of its part. Therefore, it is economically expedient to have a system of interconnected and interconnected potentials.

Stage 6. Analysis of the compliance of the organizational structure of management with the production structure.

Purpose of the analysis: assessment of the correspondence of the two main subsystems to each other, the formation of information for the development of measures to ensure economic, technological, socio-psychological and organizational compliance.

Analysis methods: methods of financial analysis, projection method (correspondence matrix), functional cost analysis, questioning, interviewing.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the organizational structure of management can be carried out only from the standpoint of its effectiveness for the managed object. From this point of view, in the chain of the most significant factors taken into account when analyzing the organizational structure, the main ones are: the level of specialization, volume and type of production → technological factors → organization of the production process → production structure → reproduction structure → financial structure → organizational structure.

The information base for such an analysis was mainly created at the previous stages. Particular attention should be paid to the analysis of the feasibility of technological and subject specialization of production units in conjunction with the economic indicators of their activities. The discrepancy between the organizational structure of management and production and reproduction structures can manifest itself in the following areas:

discrepancy between the goals of the blocks (elements) of the management system and the production system;

the failure of the organizational structure of management to ensure the solution of the tasks facing the managed object, when the existing structures are a reflection of the problems that were once solved by the organization;

discrepancy between the capacity of technological and experimental units (pre-production structure) and the pace of production renewal;

the existence of the expediency of identifying target economic objects, when the predicted efficiency of their functioning outside the enterprise is higher than in its composition (the presence of demand for the products of individual divisions);

the presence of a discrepancy between the existing organizational structure of management and the features of interaction and forms of integration with other enterprises;

discrepancy between the organizational and economic, and possibly the organizational and legal form of the subdivisions of the actually established degree of autonomy;

socio-psychological discrepancy.

Stage 7. Identification of the degree of rationality of the distribution of tasks, rights and responsibilities between various structural links. Purpose of analysis : assessment of the degree of reliability (operability) of the organizational structure of management, characterized by the degree of rationality of the horizontal and vertical structuring of the integral system into elements (correspondence of the existing composition of the system, the grouping of types of work and the distribution of managerial functions to the “composition of the system” block of the conceptual model, formalized in the form of a generalizing indicator K ss DPE OS ).

Analysis methods: structuring goals, matrix, expert.

At this stage, based on the data of the previous stages, the functional model of the enterprise is refined, a hierarchy of main and auxiliary functions is built, with the help of which they are implemented. The number of management functions determined by the tree of system goals and the number of actually performed functions are specified, unrealizable (the so-called white spots in the distribution of functions), duplication of functions by two or more services are identified. In parallel, using the matrix, defects are identified in the implementation of delegated decision-making powers (with varying degrees of detail of managerial actions - decision preparation, coordination at the preparation stage, decision-making, execution, control), which can be combined into three main groups:

decisions are made at an unreasonably high level, which reduces their efficiency and distracts management from strategic tasks;

decisions are formally transferred to a lower level, but are not provided with appropriate resources;

decisions are made by employees who not only lack the authority to do so, but also lack reliable information.

Stage 8. Identification of defects in the structure of links (lack of links, breakage, irrationality of links) and ways to implement them.

Purpose of the analysis: assessment of the degree of reliability (operability) of the organizational structure of management, characterized by the degree of rationality of the structure of relations between elements (relationship and interaction), which determines the ability of organizational structures of management to import, process and export information (correspondence of the existing system of relations, their relative position in space and interaction in time to the block " system of connections” of the conceptual model, formalized in the form of a generalizing indicator K sv DPE OS).

Analysis methods: matrix, network, expert.

At this stage, certain parameters of their expedient relationships are analyzed and regulated between the selected elements of the system. The basis is the results of the analysis of input and output documents (information flows), the results of interviews and surveys on the order and content of information exchange between the units (elements) of the system, the analysis of defects in the implementation of delegated decision-making powers, carried out at the previous stage. The matrix of delegated powers for decision-making with varying degrees of detail of management actions makes it possible to analyze the flow of information (its routing).

Stage 9. Analysis of the quality of the implementation of functions and the cost of their execution.

Purpose of the analysis: formation of information on management costs, taking into account the degree of participation of each unit in achieving the goal of the production organization in order to optimize the costs of performing functions.

Analysis methods: matrix, functional-value.

Functional-cost and functional-quality diagnostics of the organizational structure of management are described in sufficient detail in the literature. Features are ranked using a scoring matrix that assigns them a numerical value that reflects their relative weight and role in achieving the organization's overarching goal.

Stage 10. Determination of the integral indicator K eff (zero level of indicators), complex K os and K om (first level), summarizing K ss, K sv, K mts, K mu and comparing them with the corresponding indicators of DPE OS.

Purpose of the analysis: identifying the degree and causes of discrepancy between indicators, determining the degree of impact of identified deviations on achieving the goal of the system.

Analysis methods: factor analysis, expert method.

Generalizing performance indicators K ss, K sv, K mts, K mu are determined by the ranking method based on the principle of optimizing their weighted sum. The integral indicator of the effectiveness of the organizational structure of management K ef is derived on the basis of a formal procedure for applying the principle of successive resolution of uncertainty, which is the key to understanding and using in practice the principles of its construction when forming the organizational structure of management. It is known that the structure of an organization is determined by the complexity and degree of uncertainty of its functioning, so this approach to the synthesis of indicators makes its hierarchy understandable.

The main goal of the system, formulated in the category of profit, also makes it possible to use this method for a comparative analysis of the organizational structure of management at similar facilities and in similar areas of management activity, since one of the conditions for conducting a comparative analysis is the use of the same calculation methodology and the procedure for measuring indicators. As a basis for comparison, a specially developed average industry, corporate, regulatory standard, formed from several objects according to their standard level, can be used.

Stage 11. Adjustment of indicators of the conceptual model in the form of DPE OS, development of measures to improve the efficiency of the organizational management structure.

Content.

Introduction …………………………………………………..........… …........ 3
Chapter I. ... 6
1.1. The concept of organizational structure and its essence ………........... 6
1.2. Types of organizational structures ............................................................... ........ 8
Chapter II. Organizational structure analysis
LLC Firm "Liga" .............................. .............................. .............................. .21
2.1. Brief description of LLC Firm "Liga" ................................... ....21
2.2. Analysis of the organizational structure of OOO Firma "Liga" ..........23
2.3. Possible actions for improvement
organizational structure of OOO Firma "Liga" ............................................... .29
Conclusion .............................. .............................. .............................. ......33
Bibliography .............................. .............................. ......................36

Introduction.

The organizational structure is one of the key concepts of management, closely related to the goals, functions, management process, the work of managers and the distribution of powers between them. Within the framework of this structure, the entire management process takes place (the movement of information flows and the adoption of managerial decisions), in which managers of all levels, categories and professional specializations participate. The organizational structure of an enterprise is understood as the composition, subordination, interaction and distribution of work among departments and management bodies, between which certain relations are established regarding the implementation of power, command flows and information. The structure can be compared to the frame of the management system building, built to ensure that all processes occurring in it are carried out in a timely manner and with high quality. Organizational structures are subject to many requirements, such as optimality, efficiency, reliability, cost-effectiveness, flexibility. , sustainability, but the main one is that the organizational structure must always correspond to the strategy of the enterprise.
Strategy implementation is an important part of the overall development mechanism. Through this, the organization can achieve its intended purpose and ultimately its mission. The skillful execution of the strategy depends to a large extent on competent personnel, on their sufficient skill and competitive capabilities, as well as on the effective internal organization of the enterprise. Thus, the creation of a viable structure is always the highest priority in the implementation of the strategy. The task of managers in this case is to choose the structure that best suits the goals and objectives of the organization, as well as internal and external factors affecting it. The “best” structure is the one that best enables an organization to interact effectively with its external environment, distribute and direct the efforts of its employees in a productive and efficient manner, and thus meet customer needs and achieve its goals with high efficiency.
An equally important task of building the structure of an organization is to provide functional and production departments with personnel with the skills, technical knowledge, and abilities necessary to provide the company with a competitive advantage over rivals in the implementation of one or more activities that play an important role in the value chain. To do this, you need to have a certain talent and be able to correctly determine what level of training, experience, knowledge the staff should have, what their values, beliefs, personal characteristics should be, so that all this contributes to the successful implementation of the strategy.
Relevance This issue determines that the improvement of the organizational structure of the enterprise is the most important task of modern management, the most important part of organizational development, the process of change, the improvement of the enterprise management system, which also contributes to the speedy achievement of the goals and objectives.
object work is the company OOO Firm "Liga".
Subject study in this case will be the organizational structure of the enterprise LLC Firm "Liga".
aim This work is a study of the organizational structure of the enterprise and a proposal for ways to improve it. In accordance with the goal, the following can be distinguished tasks:
1. Study typical organizational structures.
2. Give a brief description of the company OOO Firm "Liga".
3. To study and analyze the organizational structure of the enterprise I am researching (OOO Firm "Liga").
4. Propose measures to improve the organizational structure of LLC Firm "Liga".
The work contains two chapters.
In the first chapter, the concept of organizational structures is given and their main types and types, advantages and disadvantages are considered. Conclusions are also drawn about the feasibility of their use.
The second chapter gives a general description of LLC Firm "Liga", describes the results of my analysis of the organizational structure of the enterprise and suggests possible measures to improve the organizational structure of this enterprise.

I. Essence and main types of organizational structures.

1.1. The concept of organizational structure and its essence.

Organizational structure of the enterprise- this is its internal structure, characterizing the composition of units and the communication system, subordination and interaction between them. Organizational structures differ from each other in complexity, formalization and the ratio of centralization and decentralization.
1. The complexity of the organizational structure is determined by the number of departments, groups, qualified specialists and hierarchy levels. These parameters in organizations can vary significantly depending on the accepted division of work and the nature of the links between them.The number and composition of departments, groups, highly qualified specialists and levels of hierarchy can change with significant changes both in the structure of the organization itself and in its relations with the external environment.
2. Formalization characterizes the extent of the use of rules and regulatory mechanisms to control people's behavior, i.e. the level of standardization of work within the organization. Standards limit the choice of performers by telling them what, when and how to do it. Work must be performed in accordance with the requirements, instructions, rules, description of procedures and operations for all processes occurring in the organization. Their significance decreases with a decrease in the level of formalization, and performers are given greater freedom of choice and opportunities to make their own decisions.
3. Centralization reflects the degree of concentration of decision making at the highest level of the organization. It shows the formal distribution of rights, duties and responsibilities along the vertical of management, and its level characterizes the extent to which members of the organization are involved in making management decisions. Management is centralized , if all key decisions are made by top management, and the participation of other levels is negligible. A high level of decentralization ensures faster response to events and responses. More managers are involved in their implementation, which increases confidence in solving problems. The criteria by which it is possible to determine the real level of decentralization in the management of an organization are related to the assessment of the system of relations between performers and managers, between managers of different levels, between managers and clients, etc.
The organizational structure in the classical sense defines the following three characteristics of the organization:

the totality of all divisions, services and individual employees of the company;
vertical and horizontal connections between them;
hierarchical levels occupied by them (i.e. subordination of elements of the organization).

A structural subdivision of an organization is a group of people whose activities are consciously directed and coordinated to achieve common goals. Relations between them are maintained through connections , which are usually divided into horizontal and vertical. Horizontal links are in the nature of coordination and are, as a rule, single-level. Vertical links are links of subordination, and the need for them arises when management is hierarchical, i.e. with multiple levels of control. In addition, links in the management structure can be linear and functional. Linear connections reflect the movement of management decisions and information between the so-called line managers, i.e. persons who are fully responsible for the activities of the organization or its structural divisions. Functional connections take place along the line of movement of information and management decisions on various management functions.
There is a close relationship between the management structure and the organizational structure: the organization structure reflects the division of work adopted in it between departments, groups and people, and the management structure creates coordination mechanisms that ensure the effective achievement of the overall goals and objectives of the organization. As a rule, measures to design or change the composition of the organization itself (disaggregation, merger, merger with other organizations, etc.) necessitate appropriate changes in the management structure.

1.2. Types of organizational structures.

There are two approaches to the origin of types of organizational structures. The first is the formation of a management structure based on the internal structure of organizations, division of work and rationalization of management - a hierarchical type . The second proceeds from the need for constant adaptation of the management structure to the conditions of the external environment, called organic. In the first approach, the main attention was paid to the division of labor into separate functions and the correspondence of the responsibility of management employees to the powers granted. For many decades, organizations have created formal governance structures that have come to be known as hierarchical (bureaucratic) structures.
Concept of hierarchical structure was formulated by the German sociologist Max Weber. It contained the following fundamental provisions:
1. A clear division of labor, the consequence of which is the need to use qualified specialists for each position;
2. Hierarchy of management, in which the lower level is subordinate and controlled by the higher;
3. The presence of formal rules and norms that ensure the uniformity of the performance of their tasks and duties by managers;
4. The spirit of formal impersonality with which officials carry out their duties;
5. Implementation of hiring in accordance with the qualification requirements for this position.
Organic structure type management rejects the need for a detailed division of labor by type of work and forms such relations between the participants in the management process that are dictated not by the structure, but by the nature of the problem being solved.
The main property of such structures, known in management practice as flexible and adaptive, is their inherent ability to relatively easily change their shape, adapt to new conditions, organically fit into the management system. These structures are guided by the accelerated implementation of complex programs and projects within the framework of large enterprises and associations, entire industries and regions. As a rule, they are formed on a temporary basis, i.e. for the period of implementation of the project, program, problem solving or achievement of goals. The organic type, in contrast to the hierarchical one, is a decentralized management organization, which is characterized by:
- rejection of formalization and bureaucratization of processes and relations
- reduction in the number of hierarchical levels
- high level of horizontal integration between staff
- Orientation of the culture of relationships towards cooperation
- mutual awareness
- self-discipline

Hierarchical type represented by the following structures:
I. Linear.
The basis of linear structures is the so-called "mine" principle of construction and specialization of the management process according to the functional subsystems of the organization (marketing, production, finance, personnel, R&D, innovation, etc.). For each subsystem, a hierarchy of services ("mine") is formed, penetrating the entire organization from top to bottom. The results of the work of each service are evaluated by indicators characterizing the fulfillment by them of their goals and objectives. Accordingly, a system of motivation and encouragement of employees is being built. At the same time, the end result (the efficiency and quality of the work of the organization as a whole) becomes, as it were, secondary, since it is believed that all services work to some extent to obtain it.

Rice. 1. Linear organizational structure

Advantages of a linear structure:
1. A clear system of mutual relations of functions and divisions;
2. A clear system of unity of command - one leader concentrates in his hands the management of all processes that have a common goal;
3. Clearly expressed responsibility;
4. Quick reaction of the executive departments to direct instructions from the higher.
Disadvantages of a linear structure:
1. Lack of links dealing with strategic planning; in the work of managers at almost all levels, operational problems ("churn") dominates over strategic ones;
2. A tendency to red tape and shifting responsibility when solving problems that require the participation of several departments;
3. Low flexibility and adaptability to changing situations;
4. The criteria for the efficiency and quality of work of departments and the organization as a whole are different;
5. The tendency to formalize the evaluation of the effectiveness and quality of the work of units usually leads to the emergence of an atmosphere of fear and disunity;
6. A large number of "management floors" between workers producing products and the decision maker;
7. Overload of top-level managers;
8. Increased dependence of the results of the organization's work on the qualifications, personal and business qualities of top managers.
In modern conditions, the disadvantages of the structure outweigh its advantages. Such a structure is poorly compatible with the modern philosophy of quality.

II. Linear - functional.
This type of organizational structure is the development of a linear one and is designed to eliminate its most important drawback associated with the lack of strategic planning links. The linear-functional structure includes specialized units (headquarters) that do not have the right to make decisions and manage any subordinate units, but only help the relevant manager in performing certain functions, primarily the functions of strategic planning and analysis. Headquarters at several levels of the hierarchy should provide advice and participate in the preparation of decisions, but they do not have the right to make decisions and lead subordinate units or performers.

Rice. 2. Linear - functional organizational structure

Advantages of a linear - functional structure:
1. Deeper than in a linear study of strategic issues;
2. Some unloading of top managers;
3. Ability to attract external consultants and experts;
4. In empowering headquarters units with functional leadership, such a structure is a good first step towards more effective organic management structures.
Disadvantages of a linear - functional structure:
1. Insufficiently clear distribution of responsibility, since the persons preparing the decision do not participate in its implementation;
2. Tendencies towards excessive centralization of management;
3. Difficulty responding to change.
4. Makes horizontal alignment difficult
Linear - functional structure can be a good intermediate step in the transition from a linear structure to a more efficient one. The structure allows, although to a limited extent, to embody the ideas of the modern philosophy of quality.

III. Functional.
This structure is based on the creation of units to perform certain functions at all levels of management. These functions include research, production, sales, marketing, etc. Here, with the help of directive guidance, hierarchically lower levels of management can be connected to various higher levels of management. The transfer of instructions, instructions and messages is carried out depending on the type of task. For example, a worker in a workshop receives instructions not from one person (foreman), but from several staff units, i.e. The principle of multiple subordination applies. The functional structure of production management is aimed at performing constantly recurring routine tasks that do not require prompt decision-making. Functional services usually include highly qualified specialists who perform specific activities depending on the tasks assigned to them.

Rice. 3. Functional organizational structure.
Advantages of a functional structure:
1. Reduction of coordination links
2. Reducing duplication of work
3. Strengthening vertical links and strengthening control over the activities of lower levels
4. High competence of specialists responsible for the performance of specific functions
Disadvantages of a functional structure:
1. Ambiguous distribution of responsibility
2. Difficult communication
3. Long decision-making procedure
4. The emergence of conflicts due to disagreement with the directives, since each functional leader puts his issues in the first place.

IV. Divisional.
This structure appeared at the end of the 1920s, when there was a need for new approaches to the organization of management, associated with a sharp increase in the size of enterprises, the diversification of their activities, and the complication of technological processes in a dynamically changing environment. In this regard, divisional management structures began to emerge, primarily in large corporations, which began to provide some independence to their production units, leaving the development strategy, research and development, financial and investment policy, etc. to the management of the corporation. In this type of structures an attempt was made to combine centralized coordination and control of activities with decentralized management. The key figures in the management of organizations with a divisional structure are no longer the heads of functional departments, but managers who head production departments (divisions). Structuring by divisions, as a rule, is carried out according to one of the criteria: by manufactured products (products or services) - product specialization; by focusing on certain groups of consumers - consumer specialization; on served territories - regional specialization.

Rice. 4. Divisional organizational structure

Advantages of a divisional structure:
1. It provides management of diversified enterprises with a total number of employees of the order of hundreds of thousands and territorially remote divisions;
2. Provides greater flexibility and faster response to changes in the enterprise environment compared to linear and linear - staff;
3. With the expansion of the boundaries of independence of the departments, they become "profit centers", actively working to improve the efficiency and quality of production;
4. Closer connection between production and consumers.
Disadvantages of the divisional structure:
1. A large number of "floors" of the management vertical; between the workers and the production manager of the unit - 3 or more levels of management, between the workers and the company's management - 5 or more;
2. The disunity of the headquarters structures of the departments from the headquarters of the company;
3. The main connections are vertical, therefore, there are shortcomings common to hierarchical structures - red tape, overload of managers, poor interaction in resolving issues related to departments, etc.;
4. Duplication of functions on different "floors" and as a result - very high costs for the maintenance of the management structure;
5. In departments, as a rule, a linear or linear-headquarters structure with all their shortcomings is preserved.
The advantages of divisional structures outweigh their disadvantages only during periods of fairly stable existence; in an unstable environment, they risk repeating the fate of dinosaurs. With this structure, it is possible to embody most of the ideas of the modern philosophy of quality.

organic type includes the following structures:
I. Matrix.
Such a structure is a network structure built on the principle of dual subordination of executors: on the one hand, to the direct head of the functional service, which provides personnel and technical assistance to the project manager, on the other hand, to the project or target program manager, who is endowed with the necessary authority to carry out the management process. With such an organization, the project manager interacts with 2 groups of subordinates: with permanent members of the project team and with other employees of functional departments who report to him temporarily and on a limited range of issues. At the same time, their subordination to the direct heads of subdivisions, departments, and services is maintained. For activities that have a clearly defined beginning and end, projects are formed, for ongoing activities - targeted programs. In an organization, both projects and targeted programs can coexist.

Rice. 5. Matrix organizational structure

Advantages of the matrix structure:
1. Better orientation to project (or program) goals and demand;
2. More efficient day-to-day management, the ability to reduce costs and improve the efficiency of resource use;
3. More flexible and efficient use of the organization's personnel, special knowledge and competence of employees;
4. The relative autonomy of project teams or program committees encourages workers to develop decision-making skills,
managerial culture, professional skills;
5. Improvement of control over individual tasks of the project or target program;
6. Any work is organizationally formalized, one person is appointed - the "owner" of the process, serving as the center of concentration of all issues related to the project or target program;
7. The response time to the needs of the project or program is reduced, since horizontal communications and a single decision-making center have been created.
Disadvantages of matrix structures:
1. Difficulty in establishing clear responsibility for work on the instructions of the unit and on the instructions of the project or program (a consequence of double subordination);
2. The need for constant monitoring of the ratio of resources allocated to departments and programs or projects;
3. High requirements for qualifications, personal and business qualities of employees working in groups, the need for their training;
4. Frequent conflict situations between heads of departments and projects or programs;
5. The possibility of violating the rules and standards adopted in the functional units due to the isolation of employees participating in the project or program from their units.
The introduction of a matrix structure gives a good effect in organizations with a sufficiently high level of corporate culture and qualifications of employees, otherwise management can be disorganized.

II. Brigade (cross-functional).
The basis of this management structure is the organization of work in working groups (teams). The form of the brigade organization of work is a fairly ancient organizational form, it is enough to recall the worker artels, but only from the 80s did its active use begin as an organization management structure, in many respects directly opposite to the hierarchical type of structures. The main principles of such a management organization are:
- autonomous work of working groups (teams);
- independent decision-making by working groups and horizontal coordination of activities;
- replacement of rigid managerial ties of a bureaucratic type with flexible ties;
- involvement of employees of different departments for the development and solution of problems.
These principles destroy the rigid distribution of employees in production, engineering, economic and managerial services inherent in hierarchical structures, which form isolated systems with their own goals and interests. In an organization built on these principles, functional units may or may not be preserved. In the first case, employees are under double subordination - administrative (to the head of the functional unit in which they work) and functional (to the head of the working group or team in which they are a member). This form of organization is called cross-functional. In the second case, there are no functional units as such; we will call it the brigade proper.

Rice. 6. Team (cross-functional) organizational structure.

Benefits of a brigade (cross-functional) structure:
1. Reducing the administrative apparatus, increasing management efficiency;
etc.................