Each sub-funtion can not be broken down further and is solution neutral. Right now I’m working on cutting departmental costs. Members of Plant F did not reflect such positive feelings. The improvement in performance is just not there. At the same time, they retain the differentiation provided by the functional organization. Now I’m wondering if we wouldn’t be better off to divide our operations again into product units. That these intense concerns with specialized objectives were expected is illustrated by the apologetic tone of a comment on production goals by an engineering supervisor at Plant F: “At times we become too much involved in production. We hope to provide a way of thinking about these problems that will lead to the most sensible decisions for the accomplishment of organizational goals. Anam works as a marketing strategist and copywriter, collaborating with everyone from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups, lifestyle bloggers to professional athletes. The encounters observed were often a succession of two-man conversations, even though more than two may have been involved in a problem. These teams provide some opportunity for communication and conflict resolution and also a degree of the common identification with product goals that characterizes the product organization. The two plants where this study was conducted were selected because they were closely matched in several ways. Otherwise, this organizational model can cause problems. They focus on two plants (of two of the largest consumer products companies), one organized by product, the other by function. But this was not a serious problem at Plant P. Moreover, there was considerable differentiation in time orientation and structure; some specialists worked at the routine and programmed tasks in operating the plant, while others concentrated on longer-term problems to improve manufacturing capability. Much of this can be accomplished through paper systems and through the hardware of the production line itself. Since Plant P’s organization led its managers to identify with product goals, those who could contribute to the solution of longer-term problems became involved in these activities. For these products it is critical that manufacture is designed to deliver product attributes. 2. At Plant P the functional specialists’ goals were more diffuse—like buckshot. This stress could lead to dissatisfaction with their situation. Thus Plant P seemed to be getting slightly better integration in spite of the greater differentiation among specialists in that organization. For example, its production managers concentrated on routine matters, while planning and industrial engineering focused on issues that needed solution within a week, and quality control specialists worried about even longer-term problems. Improving the capabilities of the plant. Because each division functions independently, there may be several employees or whole departments that perform duplicate functions, causing a loss of profitability and productivity. The reader should note, however, that a discussion of these issues is immensely complicated by the fact that a choice at one level of the corporate structure affects the choices and criteria for choice at other levels. A final illustration is when production employees stood watching while members of the maintenance department worked to start a new production line, and a production supervisor remarked: “I hope that they get that line going soon. Maximizing current output within existing capabilities. In Plant F, where each unit focused on its own goals, there was more of a tendency to worry about getting daily progress. The organizational structure of your business helps your employees achieve company goals. If the bakery division of the company is losing sales, the clothing division can still be successful and have the resources it needs to grow. Lumen Learning: Common Organizational Structures, HubSpot: 9 Types of Organizational Structure Every Company Should Consider, Pingboard: Types of Business Organizational Structures, Reference for Business: Organizational Structure, Forbes: The 5 Types Of Organizational Structures: Part 4, Flatarchies. An industrial engineer in Plant F indicated this intensive interest in his own activity: “We have 150 projects worth close to a million dollars in annual savings. Developing highly specialized functional units makes it difficult to achieve coordination or integration among these units. This makes it difficult for employees to share information on important lessons to keep in mind or specific training and learning materials. How does the decision affect the prospects of accomplishing integration? The appointment of full-time integrators or coordinators around a product. It can be difficult for a product-based organizational structure to scale without increasing redundancy within the organization. The first was to formulate, package, and ship the products in minimum time at specified levels of quality and at minimum cost—that is, within existing capabilities. And as long as the organization avoided extensive problem solving, a great deal of personal contact was not very important. The unique experience can also provide employees with new opportunities in their product industry. The product organization utilizes the functional approach but creates large business units within the company for each major product the company offers. But our experience is that such reorganizations often are only temporary. Plant engineers and industrial engineers, for example, were rather vague about their responsibilities, and about the dividing line between their jobs and other jobs. They ask themselves, for instance, “Which choice will minimize payroll costs?” Or, “Which will best utilize equipment and specialists?” This approach not only makes real sense in the traditional logic of management, but it has strong support from the classical school of organization theorists.