Comparing Organisation Structures Related to Projects - Essay Example

FORMS OF ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES Organizational structures are arrangement and coordination of the tasks in the entire organization. The organization of the structure is in such a way that there is the assignment of each task to the organization (Colli, Iversen & de Jong, 2011; pp. 5). Each employee belongs to a specific department in the organization, hence ensuring easy allocation of tasks, activities and responsibilities within the organization. The organization of tasks and selecting of effective organizational structure is executive’s responsibility.

Organizations adapt to diverse structures, as long as they suit the desires of the organization. They determine the success of an organization; hence, they have to be extra careful when choosing the organizational structure. There exist diverse Organizational structures for selecting, only if it fits the firm finest (Stare, 2011: pp. 22). The functional, organizational arrangement is a form of institutions structure. This arrangement has a basis of the various functions of all the departments and divisions in the organization.

It shows the responsibilities of each employee; whether subordinate or management in each of the divisions and departments (Colli, Iversen & de Jong, 2011; pp. 9). It is through this arrangement that they organization identifies the relationship of diverse departments. This will assist in the efficient operations of the organization. The second organization arrangement is the divisional. Only large organizations use this structure, which handles many commodities and markets. The divisions have managers who have the accountability of dealing with the final products.

This category uses the decentralized form of power in how they attend their duties and roles. The third organizational structure is the adaptive structure. It has a formulation that can manage the nature of the institution (Higgins & Toms, 2011). It has two kinds of arrangement in it, the project and matrix arrangement. The first is suitable when a firm is handling projects within a given duration of time. The latter integrates contents of the functional and tasks of the firm structures. ABB group ABB Organizational General chart Bharti Airtel chart.

It is an international organization in nature, and it deals with electronics like robots. It handles large markets encompassing over 100 states and has its locations in Sweden (Higgins & Toms, 2011). ABB group has its structure such that it has one division, which handles the various automation machines in the firm. It has about five main functional firm structures, after its new rules on the firm in early 2010. The only division in the organization is the power products unit, which has the duty of ensuring that there is proper distribution of power.

It has three mini-departments and provides repair services (Colli, Iversen & de Jong, 2011; pp. 12). The five functional branches in the firm include energy stations with the duty of controlling power in power plants, providing turnkey services for uses in the transmission of current. Discrete automation holds the aim of providing services for diverse applications in the industrial manufacturing. Solar energy is under the same unit (Higgins & Toms, 2011). Process automation has the duties of providing for clients with automation appliances.

Low current commodities unit has the responsibilities of producing circuits that can reduce power that is power-controlling equipment. The fifth unit is the corporate component, which handles the management of the entire firm. Bharti Airtel Company executes service provision with telephone services. Its headquarters is in India, being among the world’s best telephone operators. It offers a variety of internet services. The Company has a clear, firm structure with the basis of operation structure (Goswami & Goswami, 2010: pp. 167). The firm is in a hierarchical order of tasks taking place in the firm.

It has two structures, the Business to customer unit, which handles matters to do with their clients and complains. This unit ensures that all the customer desires and handles complain from clients (Stare, 2011: pp. 12). The second unit is the Business to business unit where it deals with matters between the corporation and other firms. That encompasses business matters to do with business transactions with other Companies. Comparison Firm’s structures vary from one firm to another, relying on the extent and the area of specialization of the firm (Colli, Iversen & de Jong, 2011; pp. 2). In the firm’s structure of ABB Company, has a larger structure in contrast to the small organizational structure of Bharti Airtel Company, which has only two branches.

The organization structure depends on the functions of the firm in question. The arrangements of duties of the various divisions that the firm contains define its structure. The departmental structure of the Company determines the structure it will adopts for use. The first organization above has more departments in comparison to the second instance above. That means that its structure contains more details than the later; therefore, it has a more multifaceted organizational arrangement (Stare, 2011: pp. 15). The structure depends on the volume of the total sales that the organization makes.

This is because it has to have many branches in the different countries, which call for more heads and mangers. Provision of services does not need many departmental heads similar to corporations that deal with production and manufacturing. This is because there is offering of services from one centre, for instance, providing customer services by the call operator Company (Higgins & Toms, 2011). Customers here may call the service provider through the customer service number for clarification of issues.

They can also present complains through the telephone operator numbers and get the help they require. This offers them to have smaller and less intricate organizational structures, unlike, the ABB Company (Higgins & Toms, 2011). Conclusion The nature of the firm’s structure determines the success of a firm, hence the need for it to be keen in selecting a structure. An organizational chart best simplifies the organizational structure by giving the roles of all units in the organization. The chart is an illustration that shows the structure of the divisions, their duties and the heads.

The divisions in the chart show the correlation amongst themselves. There is no unit in the organization that is independent of the others. This is because they all work towards the attainment of the organizational targets. Although the firm’s structures vary across firms, their aim is not any different (Colli, Iversen & de Jong, 2011). The targets and objectives of the organization may lead to the discrepancy in the choices organizational structures. In the example of the ABB Company, the structure contains so many details of all the production of electricity and power.

Since, the range of services and commodities that they deal with and the steps and processes in the production (Goswami & Goswami, 2010: pp. 170). In the second instance of the telephone service provider, the structure does not encompass so many details in comparison to the first Company. The reason behind that is that the later company does not handle so much, hence a simple firm’s structure. References Colli, A, Iversen, M, & de Jong, A 2011, Mapping strategy, structure, ownership and performance in European corporations: Introduction, Business History, 53, 1, pp.

1-13, viewed on 11 February 2012. Goswami, C. & Goswami, S. 2010, Role of Organisation Structure in Facilitating Marketing, Global Business & Management Research, 2, 2/3, pp. 162-183, viewed 11 February 2012. Higgins, D, & Toms, S 2011, Explaining corporate success: The structure and performance of British firms, 1950-84, Business History, 53, 1, pp. 85-118, viewed 11 February 2012. Stare, A 2011, The Impact Of The Organisational Structure And Project Organisational Culture On Project Performance In Slovenian Enterprises, Management: Journal Of Contemporary Management Issues, 16, 2, pp.

1-22, viewed on 11 February 2012. Waite, D 2010, On the shortcomings of our organisational forms: with implications for educational change and school improvement, School Leadership & Management, 30, 3, p. 225, viewed on 11 February 2012.