The process of forming an organizational structure includes the following three stages:

- Formation of a general structural diagram- the main characteristics of the organization are determined, as well as the directions along which a more in-depth design of the organizational structure should be carried out.

- Development of the composition of main departments and connections between them- lies in the fact that it provides for the implementation of organizational decisions not only as a whole in large linear-functional and program-target blocks, but also down to independent (basic) divisions of the management apparatus, the distribution of specific tasks between them and the construction of intra-organizational connections.

- ^ Regulation of organizational structure - provides for the development of quantitative characteristics of the management apparatus and procedures for management activities. It includes:

Determining the composition of internal elements of 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 management work in departments;

Calculations of management costs and performance indicators of the management apparatus in the conditions of the designed organizational structure.

Methods for constructing organizational structures:

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

- ^ Expert-analytical method consists of a survey and analytical study of the organization by qualified specialists.

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

- ^ Goal structuring method involves the development of a system of organizational goals, including their quantitative and qualitative formulations. When using it, the following steps are most often performed:

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

B) Expert analysis of the proposed options for the organizational structure from the point of view of organizational support for achieving each of the goals, compliance with the principle of uniformity of goals set for each division, determination of the relationships of management, subordination, cooperation of divisions based on the interrelationships of their goals, etc.;

C) Drawing up maps of rights and responsibilities for achieving goals for individual departments and for complex cross-functional activities, which regulate:

Area of ​​responsibility (products, resources, work force, information, production and management resources);

Specific results for which achievements responsibility is established;

Rights granted to achieve results (agreed, confirmed, controlled).

- ^ Organizational modeling method represents the development of formalized mathematical, graphical, computer and other displays of the distribution of powers and responsibilities in an organization, which are the basis for constructing, analyzing and evaluating various options for organizational structures based on the relationship of their variables.

Organizational management structures and principles of their construction

Organizational management structure (OMS)- is an ordered set of steadily interconnected elements that ensure the functioning and development of the organization as a single whole.

^ Key concepts OSU are :

Elements, Elements are both individual workers (managers, specialists, employees performing a specific management function) and management bodies - departments and services that perform certain functional responsibilities.

Levels and powers

- principles of structure formation:

• 
  the principle of hierarchy of management levels - each lower level is controlled by a higher one and is subordinate to it;
• 
  goal-setting principle - the operating system must first of all reflect the goals and objectives of the organization, and therefore be subordinate to the production of goods or services;
• 
  principle of conformity - the OSU must implement the principle of correspondence between the powers and responsibilities of employees, on the one hand, and the qualifications and level of culture, on the other (it is with the help of the OSU that the system of responsibility and authority is implemented);
• 
  the principle of division of labor - the OSU must ensure an optimal division of labor between management bodies and the scope of their powers;
• 
  principle of limitation of powers - the powers of managers are limited by the mission and goals of the organization, factors external environment, level of culture, traditions and norms;
• 
  principle of adaptation - the operating system must be flexible enough and respond to external and internal changes; The OSU must be adequate to the socio-cultural environment of the organization.

• 
  OSU ensures coordination of all management functions;
• 
  The GSA defines the rights and obligations of performers;
• 
  the quality of the operating system determines its ability to survive and prosper;
• 
  OSU determines employee behavior and management style.

The management structure of an organization distinguishes between linear and functional relationships.

Linear connection- relationships regarding the adoption and implementation of management decisions, as well as the flow of information between line managers, i.e. between persons or structural units responsible for the activities of the organization.

^ Functional connections are associated with certain management functions: planning, financing, production, marketing, etc.

Linear management structure(Fig. 11) is most acceptable only for simple forms of organizations. Distinctive feature: direct impact on all elements of the organization and concentration in one hand of all management functions. The structure works well in small organizations with high professionalism and authority of the leader.

^ Figure 11 - Linear management structure

In small organizations with a clear distribution of functional responsibilities, structures in the form of a ring, star and wheel have also become widespread (Fig. 12, 13, 14).

Figure 12 - Linear control structure: ring

R - leader;
I - performer

Figure 13 - Linear control structure: star

Figure 14 - Linear control structure: wheel

Advantage of linear structure is ease of use. All responsibilities and powers are clearly distributed, in connection with which all the necessary conditions for the operational decision-making process, to maintain the necessary discipline in the team 13, P.258. In addition, increasing the manager’s responsibility for the results of the activities of the unit he heads, the executors receiving interconnected orders and tasks, provided with resources, and personal responsibility for the final results of the activities of their unit 2, P.55.

Among shortcomings Rigidity, inflexibility, and inability to further growth and development of the enterprise are noted. The linear structure is focused on a large amount of information transmitted from one management level to another, limiting the initiative of employees at lower management levels.

Linear-functional organizational structure

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, research and development, finance, personnel, etc.). For each subsystem, a hierarchy of services (“mine”) is formed, permeating the entire organization from top to bottom (see Fig. 1). The results of the work of each service are assessed by indicators characterizing the fulfillment of their goals and objectives. The system of motivation and encouragement of employees is built accordingly. At the same time, the final result (the efficiency and quality of the organization as a whole) becomes, as it were, secondary, since it is believed that all services, to one degree or another, work to achieve it.

Fig.1. Linear management structure

Advantages of a linear-functional structure:

• 
  a clear system of mutual connections between functions and departments;
• 
  a clear system of unity of command - one leader concentrates in his hands the management of the entire set of processes that have a common goal;
• 
  clear responsibility;
• 
  quick response of executive departments to direct instructions from superiors.

• 
  lack of links involved in strategic planning; in the work of managers at almost all levels, operational problems (“turnover”) dominate over strategic ones;
• 
  a tendency to red tape and shifting responsibility when solving problems that require the participation of several departments;
• 
  low flexibility and adaptability to changing situations;
• 
  criteria for the effectiveness and quality of work of departments and the organization as a whole are different;
• 
  the tendency to formalize the assessment of the effectiveness and quality of work of departments usually leads to the emergence of an atmosphere of fear and disunity;
• 
  a large number of “management levels” between workers producing products and the decision maker;
• 
  overload of top-level managers;
• 
  increased dependence of the organization’s performance on the qualifications, personal and business qualities of senior managers.

Line-staff organizational structure

This type of organizational structure is a development of the linear one and is intended to eliminate its most important drawback associated with the lack of strategic planning links. The line-staff structure includes specialized units (headquarters), which do not have the rights to make decisions and manage any lower-level units, but only assist the corresponding manager in performing certain functions, primarily the functions of strategic planning and analysis. Otherwise, this structure corresponds to linear (Fig. 2).

Fig.2. Linear staff management structure

Advantages of the linear staff structure:

• 
  deeper elaboration of strategic issues than in the linear one;
• 
  some relief for senior managers;
• 
  the ability to attract external consultants and experts;
• 
  When assigning functional leadership rights to headquarters units, such a structure is a good first step towards more effective organic management structures.

• 
  insufficiently clear distribution of responsibility, since the persons preparing the decision do not participate in its implementation;
• 
  tendencies towards excessive centralization of management;
• 
  similar to the linear structure, partially in a weakened form.

Divisional management structure

Already by the end of the 20s, the need for new approaches to organizing management became clear, associated with a sharp increase in the size of enterprises, the diversification of their activities (versatility), and the increasing complexity technological processes in a dynamically changing environment. In this regard, divisional management structures began to emerge, primarily in large corporations, which began to provide a certain independence to their production divisions, leaving the development strategy, research and development, financial and investment policies, etc. to the management of the corporation. In this type of structure an attempt was made to combine centralized coordination and control of activities with decentralized management. The peak of implementation of divisional management structures occurred in the 60s and 70s (Fig. 3).

Fig.3. Divisional management structure

The key figures in the management of organizations with a divisional structure are no longer the heads of functional departments, but managers heading 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 targeting certain consumer groups - consumer specialization; by territories served - regional specialization. In our country, similar management structures have been widely introduced since the 60s in the form of the creation of production associations.

^ Advantages of a divisional structure:

• 
  it provides management of multidisciplinary enterprises with a total number of employees of the order of hundreds of thousands and geographically remote divisions;
• 
  provides greater flexibility and faster response to changes in the environment of the enterprise compared to linear and line-staff;
• 
  when expanding the boundaries of independence of departments, they become “profit centers”, actively working to improve the efficiency and quality of production;
• 
  closer connection between production and consumers.

• 
  a large number of “floors” of the management vertical; between workers and the production manager of a unit - 3 or more levels of management, between workers and company management - 5 or more;
• 
  disunity of headquarters structures of departments from company headquarters;
• 
  the main connections are vertical, so there remain shortcomings common to hierarchical structures - red tape, overworked managers, poor interaction when resolving issues related to departments, etc.;
• 
  duplication of functions on different “floors” and, as a result, very high costs of maintaining the management structure;
• 
  In departments, as a rule, a linear or line-staff structure with all its disadvantages is preserved.

Matrix (program-target) management structure

This structure is a network structure built on the principle of double subordination of performers: on the one hand, to the immediate head of the functional service, which provides personnel and technical assistance to the project manager, on the other, to the manager of the project or target program, who is vested with the necessary powers 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 immediate heads of divisions, departments, and services remains. For activities that have a clearly defined beginning and end, projects are formed; for ongoing activities, targeted programs are formed. In an organization, both projects and targeted programs can coexist.

Fig.6. Matrix management structure

Advantages of a matrix structure:

• 
  better orientation to project (or program) goals and demand;
• 
  more efficient day-to-day management, the ability to reduce costs and improve resource efficiency;
• 
  more flexible and efficient use organization personnel, special knowledge and competence of employees;
• 
  the relative autonomy of project groups or program committees contributes to the development of decision-making skills, management culture, and professional skills among employees;
• 
  improving control over individual tasks of a project or target program;
• 
  any work is formalized organizationally, one person is appointed - the “owner” of the process, who serves as the focal point for all issues related to the project or target program;
• 
  the response time to the needs of a project or program is reduced, since horizontal communications have been created and one-stop center decision making.

• 
  the difficulty of 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);
• 
  the need for constant monitoring of the ratio of resources allocated to departments and programs or projects;
• 
  high requirements for qualifications, personal and business qualities workers working in groups, the need for their training;
• 
  frequent conflict situations between heads of departments and projects or programs;
• 
  the possibility of violating the rules and standards adopted in functional departments due to the isolation of employees participating in a project or program from their departments.

Brigade (cross-functional) management structure

The basis of this management structure is the organization of work into working groups (teams). The form of brigade organization of work is a fairly ancient organizational form, it is enough to recall workers’ artels, but only in the 80s did its active use begin as a structure for managing an organization, in many ways directly opposite to the hierarchical type of structures. The main principles of this management organization are:

• 
  autonomous work of working groups (teams);
• 
  independent decision-making by working groups and horizontal coordination of activities;
• 
  replacing rigid bureaucratic management ties with flexible ties;
• 
  attracting employees from different departments to develop and solve problems.

In an organization built according to these principles, functional divisions may either remain (Fig. 4) or be absent (Fig. 4). 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 work group or team to which they belong).

Fig.4. Cross - functional (team) organizational structure

Advantages of a team (cross-functional) structure:

• 
  reduction of the administrative apparatus, increasing management efficiency;
• 
  flexible use of personnel, their knowledge and competence;
• 
  work in groups creates conditions for self-improvement;
• 
  possibility of application effective methods planning and management;
• 
  the need for general specialists is reduced.

• 
  increasing complexity of interaction (especially for a cross-functional structure);
• 
  difficulty in coordinating the work of individual teams;
• 
  highly qualified and responsible personnel;
• 
  high requirements for communications.

Project management structure

The main principle of constructing a project structure is the concept of a project, which is understood as any purposeful change in the system, for example, the development and production of a new product, the introduction of new technologies, the construction of facilities, etc. The activity of an enterprise is considered as a set of ongoing projects, each of which has a fixed beginning and ending. For each project, labor, financial, industrial, etc. resources are allocated, which are managed by the project manager. Each project has its own structure, and project management includes defining its goals, forming a structure, planning and organizing work, and coordinating the actions of performers. After the project is completed, the project structure disintegrates; its components, including employees, move into new project or quit (if they worked on a contract basis). The form of the project management structure can correspond to: brigade (cross-functional) structure and divisional structure , in which a certain division (department) does not exist permanently, but for the duration of the project.

^ Benefits of a project management structure:

• 
  high flexibility;
• 
  reduction in the number of management personnel compared to hierarchical structures.

• 
  very high qualification requirements, personal and business qualities of the project manager, who must not only manage all stages of the project life cycle, but also take into account the project’s place in the company’s network of projects;
• 
  fragmentation of resources between projects;
• 
  the complexity of interaction between a large number of projects in the company;
• 
  complication of the process of development of the organization as a whole.

The management structure of a production and economic organization as a design object is a complex system. It combines technological, economic, informational, administrative and organizational interactions, which are amenable to direct analysis and rational design, as well as socio-psychological characteristics and connections. The latter are determined by the level of qualifications and abilities of workers, their attitude to work, and leadership style. The specificity of the problem of designing an organizational management structure is that it cannot be adequately presented in the form of a problem of formal selection of the best variant of the organizational structure according to a clearly formulated, unambiguous, mathematically expressed optimality criterion. This is a quantitative-qualitative, multi-criteria problem, solved on the basis of a combination of scientific, including formalized, methods of analysis, assessment, modeling of organizational systems with the subjective activities of responsible managers, specialists and experts in selection and assessment the best options organizational decisions.

Process organizational design consists of a sequence of approaching a model of a rational management structure, in which design methods play a supporting role in the consideration, evaluation and adoption of the most effective options for organizational decisions for practical implementation. The design of organizational management structures is carried out on the basis of the following main complementary methods:

• a) analogies;
• b) expert-analytical;
• c) structuring goals;
• d) organizational modeling.

Method of analogies consists in the application of organizational forms and management mechanisms that have proven themselves in organizations with similar organizational characteristics (goals, type of technology, specific organizational environment, size, etc.) in relation to the designed organization. The method of analogies includes the development of standard management structures for production and economic organizations and the determination of the boundaries and conditions of their application.

The use of the analogy method is based on two complementary approaches. First of them is to identify for each type of production and economic organizations and for various industries the values ​​and trends in changes in the main organizational characteristics and the corresponding organizational forms and management mechanisms, which, based on specific experience or scientific justification, prove their effectiveness for a certain set of initial conditions.

Second the approach is essentially a typification of the most general fundamental decisions about the nature and relationships of the units of the management apparatus and individual positions in a clearly certain conditions work of organizations of this type in specific industries, as well as the development of individual regulatory characteristics management apparatus for these organizations and industries. Typification of solutions is a means of increasing the general level of organization of production management, aimed at standardizing and unifying organizational forms of management, accelerating the implementation of the most rational, progressive forms. Standard organizational decisions should be, firstly, variant, and not unambiguous, secondly, reviewed and adjusted at regular intervals and, finally, allowing deviations in cases where the operating conditions of the organization differ from the clearly formulated conditions for which the corresponding standard is recommended form of organizational management structure.

Expert-analytical method consists of a survey and analytical study of the organization, carried out by qualified specialists with the involvement of its managers and other employees, in order to identify specific features, problems, “bottlenecks” in the work of the management apparatus, as well as to develop rational recommendations for its formation or restructuring. This method, which is the most flexible and comprehensive, is used in close combination with others (especially methods of analogies and goal structuring) and has diverse forms of implementation. This includes conducting expert surveys of managers and members of the organization to identify and analyze individual characteristics construction and functioning of the management apparatus, processing of the obtained expert assessments using statistical and mathematical methods (rank correlation, factor analysis of list processing, etc.).

Expert methods should also include the development and application of scientific principles for the formation of organizational management structures. They are understood as guidelines derived from advanced management experience and scientific generalizations, the implementation of which guides the activities of specialists in developing recommendations for the rational design and improvement of organizational management systems. The principles for the formation of organizational management structures are a concretization of more general principles of management (for example, unity of command or collective leadership, specialization, etc.). Examples of modern principles for the formation of organizational structures include “building an organizational structure based on a system of goals”, “separation of strategic and coordination functions from operational management”, “combination of functional and program-targeted management” and a number of others.

A special place among expert methods is occupied by the development of graphic and tabular descriptions of organizational structures and management processes, reflecting recommendations for their best organization. This type of description includes, in particular, route technology for performing management functions or their stages, based on the principles of scientific organization of work, progressive methods and technical means for carrying out management work and regulating the procedure for their implementation. This is preceded by the development of options for organizational solutions aimed at eliminating identified organizational problems that meet scientific principles and best practices in organizing management, as well as the required level of quantitative and qualitative criteria for assessing the effectiveness of organizational structures. As a rule, this involves a tabular presentation of the advantages and disadvantages of each option for the purpose of their subsequent discussion and analysis.

Goal structuring method involves the development of a system of organizational goals (including their quantitative and qualitative formulations) and subsequent analysis of organizational structures from the point of view of their compliance with the system of goals. When using it, the following steps are most often performed:

• 1) development of a system (“tree”) of goals, which represents a structural basis for linking all types of organizational activities, based on the final results, regardless of the distribution of these types of activities among organizational units and program-targeted subsystems in the organization;
• 2) expert analysis of the proposed options for the organizational structure from the point of view of organizational support for achieving each of the goals, compliance with the principle of uniformity of goals established for each division, determination of the relations of management, subordination, cooperation of divisions based on the interrelationships of their goals, etc.;
• 3) drawing up maps of rights and responsibilities for achieving goals both for individual departments and for complex cross-functional activities, where the scope of responsibility is regulated (products, resources, labor, production and management processes, information); specific results for the achievement of which responsibility is established; the rights vested in the unit to achieve results (to approve and submit for approval, coordinate, confirm, control).

Organizational modeling method represents the development of formalized mathematical, graphical, computer and other displays of the distribution of powers and responsibilities in an organization, which are the basis for constructing, analyzing and evaluating various options for organizational structures based on 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 or using machine simulation languages
• (examples include multi-stage optimization models, system and industrial dynamics models, etc.);
• - graphic-analytical models of organizational systems, which are network, matrix and other tabular and graphical displays of the distribution of functions, powers, responsibilities, and organizational connections. They make it possible to analyze their focus, nature, causes of occurrence, evaluate various options for grouping interrelated activities into homogeneous units, “play out” options for the distribution of rights and responsibilities between at different levels manuals, etc. Examples include “meta-scheme” descriptions of material, information, cash flows together with management actions; matrices of distribution of powers and responsibilities; tables of coefficients of connections between production and management functions, 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, similar to real organizational conditions; management games - actions practitioners, based on pre-established rules with an assessment of their current and long-term consequences (including with the help of a computer);
• - mathematical and statistical models of dependencies between the initial factors of organizational systems and the characteristics of organizational structures. They are built on the basis of collecting, analyzing and processing empirical data about organizations operating in comparable conditions. Examples include regression models of the dependence of the number of engineers and employees on the production and technological characteristics of the organization; dependence of indicators of specialization, centralization, standardization of management work on the type of organizational tasks and other characteristics, etc.

Most often, organizational structures are created by the management apparatus itself, focusing not on scientific recommendations, but primarily on its own interests. Foreign research in this area mainly reflects the experience of efficiently operating enterprises in conditions market economy and can only be considered as some guidelines for organizing management work in a transition economy. It has now become obvious that effective management, based on the use of progressive organizational systems and structures, becomes perhaps the main tool for ensuring the competitiveness of a production organization.

The problems of formation, improvement, rationalization of organizational structures of existing industrial enterprises, which are urgently on the agenda, are solved from the standpoint various methods their construction. There is no universal method for forming organizational management structures. Each of the known methods has inherent limits of application, and none of them individually fully corresponds to the tasks of ensuring the development of the management system of a production organization in a situation of a dynamically changing external environment. Organizational design at domestic enterprises was carried out on the basis of the following main approaches: normative-functional, functional-technological and system-target.

Normative-functional approach, developed by the Labor Research Institute of the State Committee for Labor of the USSR, at one time was most widespread and was the basis for a number of methodological recommendations on the formation of standard structures of the management apparatus. The classification of management functions and the development on its basis of standard variants of organizational structures made it possible to provide a unified approach to determining the composition structural divisions. The regulation of the structure and staff of the enterprise did not take into account the peculiarities and operating conditions of a particular enterprise. Then, as a result of the search for an optimal typification framework, the idea of ​​a block approach to the formation of an organizational management structure was put forward, when standard solutions were applied “not for the structure as a whole, but for its individual parts - enlarged blocks.” Each block represented a set of organs or links performing the functions of the corresponding subsystem.

Scheme 7. Criteria for the effectiveness of the organizational management structure

When forming a block of the organizational structure, the list of factors influencing the value of the block parameters was now taken into account. Systematization and selection of factors was carried out using expert research, including a survey of experts and statistical analysis of expert assessments. The construction of an organizational structure for a specific enterprise was completed by the synthesis of blocks, which ensured some flexibility of the management system. Industry-wide recommendations suggested using 35 functions for calculations. The total number of employees of the management apparatus consisted of their number by function.

The normative nature of this approach and its focus on the use of already existing organizational solutions practically exclude its use.

Almost in parallel with the normative-functional one, it was developed functional-technological approach, the foundations of which were studied by S. A. Valuev, A. S. Kazarnovsky, S. E. Kamenitser and others. It was based on the formation of network models describing the organizational technology of training and passing information documents, which are the basis for decision-making and regulation of the activities of departments and employees of the enterprise. Rationalization of information flows and technology for processing it contributed to the elimination of duplication of work, a clearer distribution of powers and responsibilities between departments and positions, savings in administrative and management costs and, ultimately, rationalization of the management apparatus as a whole. This method, unlike the previous one, can be used when creating new organizations and for radically improving organizational structures. Among the disadvantages are high labor intensity, the use of a stable range of management functions, and the subordination of the organizational structure to a document flow scheme, which limited the scope of its application for building structures focused on performing repetitive work with a fairly defined external organizational environment. It is of little use for organizations with complex and insufficiently deterministic management schemes and is practically not applicable for the formation of structures focused on various types of innovations and their rapid implementation.

Then it acquired great importance system-target approach , which consists in building a structure of goals, assigning functions to them and their organizational design. Such a structure is built on the basis of a systematic approach to the processes of setting goals, collecting, transmitting, receiving and analyzing information, forming development alternatives, developing and implementing decisions and makes it possible to predict organizational management structures. The method is applicable to the formation of management structures that have no analogues in their field of activity.

There are publications in the scientific literature about the development universal technology building organizational systems, called problematic approach . The essence of the approach developed at the All-Union Research Institute of Control Automation in the Non-Industrial Sphere (VNIINS, Moscow) is that the viability of an organization and the well-being of its members are determined by their ability to promptly detect and solve problems. The developers especially draw attention to the illegality of identifying this approach with a program-target approach. « Programmatically-target method (or approach) is focused on solving well-structured problems, for which a tree of goals can be built and a corresponding set of measures can be defined that implements these goals, and thereby the problem as a whole. The problem approach is designed mainly for solving poorly structured problems for which it is impossible to build a tree of goals... It is more general in nature compared to the program-target method, therefore program-target systems created on the basis of the latter, sometimes called goal-implementing complexes, can be considered as special case of organizational systems". According to the author, it is unlawful to shift the emphasis only towards problems. Program-targeted and problem-targeted blocks solve their poorly structured tasks in a limited time frame and within limited resources, but the problem requires an immediate response, and the activities of the program-target group are preventive in relation to the problem. The first three stages of the general technology for constructing organizational systems, identified within the framework of the problem approach - identification (detection), sorting, research, development and implementation of organizational systems - are carried out within the framework of a diagnostic analysis of the management system, which makes it possible to identify the cause of failures in management and determine the conditions for their elimination. Identifying problems and connections between them, establishing the causes of their occurrence, ranking problems makes it possible to describe the system in terms of problems, which, in turn, makes it possible to build a problem tree. Therefore, there are no sufficient grounds to talk about a universal technology for constructing organizational systems, called the problem approach. The reason for this is also the lack of a clear distinction in the formation of organizational management structures between the concepts of “approach” and “method”. An approach is a specific scientific concept within which methods are developed to implement it. There are a number of basic methods for constructing organizational management structures.

Block method developed under the general guidance of prof. G. E. Slesinger. The method is still used to design individual blocks of organizational structures. Its use is fraught with the consolidation of outdated forms of management.

Method of analogies consists in the use of organizational forms and management mechanisms that have proven themselves in organizations of a similar type.

Goal structuring method is based on a chain of successive steps from defining and formulating the main goal of the enterprise to decomposing it into its component parts or subgoals, then from goals to functions. Characteristics of an organization as a system as a classification feature makes it possible to formulate the functions of managing material, financial and labor resources. The content of the management process allows us to highlight the functions of planning, organization, regulation, control, accounting and motivation. From functions they move on to the composition of structural units, their subordination and the establishment of communications. The composition of subgoals is determined by the set of resources necessary to achieve it. As a result of the repeated decomposition procedure, a hierarchy of goals is formed, called a goal tree. Activities to ensure the achievement of each goal become functional responsibility structural unit. Each subsequent level of subgoals is a means of realizing the higher goal. When improving management structures, the method involves not only developing a system of organizational goals, but also analyzing organizational structures from the point of view of their compliance with the system of goals.

Expert-analytical method includes a diagnostic analysis of the existing management system and the development of recommendations for improving organizational management structures based on expert opinions. The method allows you to generalize and implement the most advanced trends in the field of management organization.

Organizational modeling method is to develop a formalized organizational system using economic and mathematical modeling. Currently, there is no unified classification of formalized models. Theoretically, optimization models have been the most studied, in which two groups are distinguished: models in which the organizational structure efficiency criterion reflects the final results of the enterprise, and models based on the use of indirect efficiency criteria. The method has not yet received wide distribution and significant practical implementation due to the complexity and labor-intensiveness of modeling management structures, which does not exclude its use as an auxiliary scientific and analytical tool for searching, justifying and selecting rational solutions for the formation of organizational management structures.

Program-target method, on the basis of which structures are formed aimed at the accelerated implementation of programs and projects. They are created, as a rule, on a temporary basis, i.e. for the period of implementation of a project, program, or solution to a problem.

In practice, analogy methods are mainly used and much less expert assessments are used. The program-target method has become widespread, and only in Lately Developers of organizational structures are beginning to increasingly turn to methods of structuring goals and organizational modeling, considering the system of organizational goals as the basis for structuring. The formation of an effective organizational structure is the result of optimal implementation of the principles of constructing organizational management structures.

When forming organizational management structures, the following basic provisions were taken as a basis:

1. The process of production as a complex of production and economic operations to transform material and material flows into final products with given properties is the basis of the organizational system, its basis. The control system operates with information display production process, develops a set of reactions to adjust it in the direction of achieving the final goals of the production system.

2. The organizational form of management is understood as a stable set of all inter- and intra-organizational connections of the system as an element of a higher order system:

connections with management links of the larger system (vertical integration connections, government orders, participation in targeted programs for the implementation new technology, development of new technological processes, new products, etc.);

connections that provide information connections with related systems (scientific, scientific-methodological, design, information support);

life support infraconnections: technological (flows of products, materials, energy), economic, social.

3. Interdependence and interaction of system elements create an internal structure of forward and feedback connections, the appropriate functioning of which is determined by a number of parameters:

type of connection and its direction (vertical relationships of subordination or horizontal relationships of cause-and-effect interdependence);

communication volume, i.e. how much information can be transmitted via direct and feedback per unit of time or within a given period;

time, duration or period of the communication process;

communication method.

4. The goal is a system-forming factor of the system. In this case, it is advisable to highlight its goal-setting (external) aspect, which is manifested in the choice of the mission (line of activity) of the organization, and the goal-perceiving (internal) aspect, which is taken into account when developing goals (see 4.4). The external goal serves as the basis for the implementation of its functional purpose in a system of a larger order, determines production and economic specialization, priority areas development and direction of management activities. The internal goal ensures the achievement of the external one.

5. The degree of centralization - decentralization of management is one of the main factors influencing the effectiveness of management structures. In turn, the very degree of centralization - decentralization also depends on numerous factors that must be taken into account when designing management structures.

6. Centralization leads to delay in decision making, therefore, without decentralization, a business organization can only grow to a certain level. The greater the degree of uncertainty in achieving goals, the higher the degree of decentralization.

7. The creation of various forms of organic structures inside the mechanical structure helps maintain controllability and makes it possible to provide the economic organization with the properties of stability, maneuverability, flexibility, and ability to renew, which cannot be preserved within any one type.

8. The culture of the organization, the social development of the team are the basis on which only a reasonable degree of centralization - decentralization of management can be determined.

9. Organizational management must necessarily use the phenomenon of self-organization in its various aspects.

10. Organizational changes should not be revolutionary in nature, nor should they be continuous. Their inevitability must be realized.

When building organizational structures, there are three main stages:

formation of a general structural diagram of the management apparatus (the “composition” stage);

development of the composition of the main divisions and connections between them (stage of “structuring”);

development of characteristics and procedures for management activities (stage of “regulation”).

The first group of principles we have identified, conventionally called “principles of form” is implemented within the first stage of construction. At this stage:

basic organizational elements are formed, including through the establishment of strategic business areas (by product, by region);

organizational-economic and organizational-legal forms are established;

the boundaries of the organization are chosen;

the general organization of the enterprise is revealed.

To form basic organizational elements, it is necessary to compile a list of all types of activities of the enterprise, starting with types of business and ending with the list of products produced and services provided. Structuring can be carried out on a functional or object principle, when the object independently carries out all general management functions. At the same time, such organizational concepts as segmentation of economic activities, the concept of profit centers (income, costs, investments) are widely used, which make it possible to identify structural units with a high degree of vertical and horizontal autonomy, to determine market assessments of their activities (profit volume, profitability, etc.) .d.). In addition to individual production facilities, such autonomy may be provided by supporting (procurement, tool shops, etc.) and servicing structural units (information departments, service centers computer equipment, etc.) - everything that has closed cycles of work and can be focused on both internal and external consumers.

The starting point stage of "composition" is the construction of a tree of system goals, the information base of which is diagnostic and prognostic types of analysis. To form basic organizational elements, it is necessary to compile a list of all types of activities of the enterprise, starting with types of business and ending with a list of products produced and services provided. Strategic management zones are identified at the strategic planning stage.

A very important structural parameter for multi-firm companies is the establishment of a legal form. The legal registration of small and medium-sized business organizations does not present any particular difficulties and is regulated by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. As foreign and domestic practice shows, the predominant form of management is the joint-stock form of business. The legal registration of enterprise associations as a result of integration processes presents a certain complexity. Depending on the tasks set, enterprises are united on the basis of cooperation or concentration. The goals of integration based on cooperation (cartel, pool, consortium, economic union, etc.) can be the implementation of large projects, coordination of behavior in the product sales market, solution of common scientific and technical problems, etc.). At the same time, enterprises included in such an association retain their legal independence and are subject to general management only in terms of achieving common goals. Integration of enterprises based on concentration is based on direct or indirect ownership of a majority of the shares of the firms included in such an association. Main advantages corporate organization economic activities are the possibility of accumulation Money through attracting an unlimited number of investors, mobilizing the corporation’s financial resources and concentrating them on key areas activities, the possibility of increasing management efficiency through the development of a corporate strategy for adaptation to the external environment. If an association of enterprises is not engaged in production and economic activities, but only holds part of the shares, it is a holding company, the main advantages of which are a high degree of decentralization and strategic flexibility. Horizontal, vertical concentration, concentration based on diversification, without depriving the enterprise of legal independence, forms either equal partnerships or relationships of dependence. Single financial control can be supplemented by centralization of functional management (marketing, procurement, etc.).

An equally important structural parameter is the boundary of the organization. The issue of boundaries is resolved within the framework of diagnostic and prognostic analyzes of the effectiveness of management structures, which make it possible to determine what part of the activities for each goal is carried out (or will be carried out) by the enterprise itself, and which part - outside its boundaries. Most researchers are of the opinion that the boundaries of an organization are not always accurately and indisputably determined by legal norms and formal structure. To determine it, a clear understanding of those bodies and institutions that form its external organizational environment is necessary, and with its favorable attitude, some part of the activity to achieve the goal can be carried out outside the organization. Identification of the relevant external environment, determination of the limits of relevance external factors make it possible to resolve the issue of means of its protection, one of which is the creation of specialized departments or problem-oriented structures as a response to the sustainable impact of environmental factors. In this regard, the idea put forward by O. Morgenstern and subsequently developed by G. Simon in “The Science of the Artificial” about the existence of a certain organizational core deserves attention. Its essence is as follows:

the core of the organization is a set of blocks that ensure the implementation of the main function of the organization;

those blocks that do not affect or indirectly affect the main function of the organization are attachments to the core;

the core, which has the required number and composition of attachments, ensures a high level of organizational activity;

with similar characteristics of the structure of production and management, their connection through the core and attachments can be different and lead to different economic effects;

the problem is to identify the core and determine the most effective combination of prefixes in a given situation;

For a growing system, relatively greater dismemberment is effective (through decentralization or an increase in the number of attachments), and for a shrinking system, greater solidity is effective.

The establishment of a general organization, in turn, is divided into three particular problems:

division of the main task of the enterprise into separate, relatively large parts with the corresponding linkage of production units;

development of a general organigram;

identification of the most important coordination tools at the enterprise level.

As part of the first stage of construction (the “composition” stage), structuring is carried out according to many parameters, but preference is given not to its functional aspects, but to division into market objects, primarily by goods and regions. The principle of a rational combination of centralization and decentralization at this stage is implemented through the so-called federal decentralization, when powers are transferred to an autonomous unit in all areas of its activity (providing greater autonomy to the company's divisions by creating divisional structures focused on the product or region, identifying the possibility of placing and developing duplicate divisions and production to attract intra-company competition). It is known that without decentralization, an enterprise can only grow to a certain level. Autonomous decentralized divisions, if the size of the organization makes it possible to separate them, form a kind of conglomerate that is susceptible to innovation.

The organizational structure must ensure the choice of the movement vector through the goal-setting mechanism and the coordinated, purposeful functioning of the system elements through the goal-achievement mechanism based on the use of the professional potential of qualified specialists. Goal setting is a decisive element of any concept of activity, determining all the main aspects of its structure. At the “composition” stage, the goal structuring method is used to set subgoals for independent elements of integrated corporate structures or structural divisions, departments, workshops, production areas. The development of corporate and divisional strategies allows you to determine the resource provision of subgoals. In this way, the principle of linking goals and resources is implemented, which requires its implementation at different hierarchical levels and stages of construction. The principle of efficiency of the organizational management system is implemented through optimization of the relationship between minimal redundancy and efficiency. Choosing an effective structure is a search for a compromise between the required level of reliability to ensure the organization's performance and minimal redundancy (cost-effectiveness).

The tree of performance indicators allows you to set the main goal, subgoals, and key goals of subsystems based on a set of criteria and framework business conditions. A change in the line of activity, operating conditions changes the composition of problems and the range of factors influencing the efficiency of the functioning and development of the organization and, as a result, affects the structure of functions: some functions are detailed to the point of being isolated into separate, independent ones, while others are enlarged. This area of ​​the second stage of construction– the stage of “structuring” and the action of structural and functional principles of the formation of organizational management structures. At this stage, the principle of a rational combination of centralization and decentralization is implemented through the so-called functional decentralization, which involves the transfer of powers in accordance with functional specialization. Some functions are typical for any business organization and are present in all areas of production and economic activity. The composition of general control functions is the basis of modeling.

The goal always constitutes the first, initial stage of the management process as an activity aimed at its implementation. This activity can be considered in temporal (stages of the management process: preparation, development of a solution, organization of implementation, control over its implementation, evaluation of the result) and in spatial aspects (division into functional blocks). The time aspect of the management process is ensured by a set of rules, decision-making algorithms and the development of control actions, which is called control mechanism , which ultimately determines its effectiveness. The spatial aspect of the management process implements functional relationships in the organizational structure, which are set by the goal. The result of these relationships is the separation of elements or stages of the management process. Thus, the management process determines both the main characteristics of the structure of the management system, reflecting the requirements of management laws, and the features of individual links of the structure and their connections. The structure and functions of management are in dialectical unity. A specific management function always corresponds to a specific structural unit and, conversely, each element of the management structure is assigned a specific function or group of management functions. Features of the management process are directly related to the characteristics of the structure of the management system. Dynamism, stability and continuity of the management process require optimal level its centralization. Complex multi-level structures do not provide the above properties of the control process, which leads to a natural desire to simplify them, but simple systems do not have sufficient variety to adequately respond to numerous and varied environmental influences. Features of the management process cycle for the main groups of management decisions affect the size of the links and their organizational position. Therefore, a structure that ensures the systematic development of optimal solutions can be considered optimal.

At the “structuring” stage, it is advisable to use the block method, since each block was developed as a set of interconnected links, which are entrusted with performing the functions of one of the subsystems that have a target orientation. For the basic types of resources (taking into account the formation of their reserves), a minimal configuration management system model was adopted, distinguishing subsystems (marketing, R&D, production, finance, personnel) and modules (materials and technical supply, logistics maintenance, capital construction). Given the known commonality of problems to be solved at the stages of “composition” and “structuring”, the latter provides for the development of organizational solutions not only for the whole general functions, but also up to the distribution of specific tasks of departments within subsystems and modules, which also have their own internal structure.

Direct management of production activities is carried out by the “production” subsystem. The characteristics of the final product (both existing and predicted, and sometimes created) serve as the basis for creating a technology for its production, which, in turn, is the basis for organizing production. Thus, the “production” subsystem acts, on the one hand, as a production management system, providing direct management of production structural divisions (productions, workshops), on the other hand, in order to implement a technical function, as a functional subsystem that ensures the organization of production in accordance with the requirements technologies. The first one forms the “line management” block, the purpose of which is direct production management, regulation of quantitative and qualitative (development of economic relations, integration) relations between the elements of the production process. The essential basis of this block is operational production management. To manage technological preparation of production and its technical maintenance the “technical manual” block is highlighted.

The identification of basic blocks allows us to move on to determining the structure of each block, calculating the number of workers in it, taking into account the standard of control, unity of subordination, balance of rights and responsibilities.

The design stages at the basic block level can be systematized as follows:

organization plans (sales plan, production plan, logistics plan, financial plan, organizational plan etc.);

compiling a list of labor operations to be performed to ensure the achievement of these plans;

grouping of identical labor operations;

determining the required degree of centralization - decentralization within a block according to the principle: the greater the degree of uncertainty in achieving goals, the higher the level of decentralization of activities;

quantitative and qualitative calculation of personnel requirements;

stratification (allocation of management levels);

assigning responsibility for performing labor operations to a specific person;

ensuring integration and interaction of both the blocks themselves and their elements in the most economical and efficient way.

The list of main tasks solved within the dedicated blocks and modules, despite the uniqueness of business organizations, is quite stable. The transition of the system to a new state (a qualitative leap) will require changes (additions, combinations, elimination of unnecessary ones) in the composition of special functions, which will lead to a decrease (increase) in the number of structural elements and a shift in their specialization. It is especially important at this stage to pay attention not to highlighting individual specific functions on the principle of self-sufficiency, but to understand for what tasks this function is allocated. Dysfunctions develop precisely when the structure ceases to correspond to the content of the functions, loses flexibility, and loses effectiveness. Elements of the block (services, departments, bureaus, etc.), distinguished by the functions they perform, should be further classified by management objects. Thus, the economic planning department may include groups for planning costs, profits, etc.

On stage of "structuring" the orderliness and consistency of the functions and structure of the economic system (both existing and newly created) is ensured by compliance with structural and functional principles. Traditionally, pain points are considered to be those where the operating costs are high and do not correspond either to the role of this block (module) for the control system, or to the quality of its function, since developing dysfunctions require additional costs for high-quality performance of the function. In this case, dysfunctions are not eliminated, and additional costs only temporarily increase the effectiveness of the block (module), reducing its flexibility.

The main task of forming the structural parameters of blocks (modules) is to combine various special management functions with homogeneous groups of problems identified as a result of diagnostic analysis. It is possible that the solution to an identified problem will require the construction of an independent element of the structure. The final stage of determining the composition of organizational modules is the aggregation of functions within each subsystem (block, module) and the selection of elements (services, departments, officials) that ensure their implementation based on the volume of work, controllability standards and marginal costs of maintaining the management apparatus.

To the main organizational design standards relate [based on 108, p. 68 – 69]:

a) parameters characterizing the management hierarchy:

number of levels linear control, the value of which depends on the characteristics of the controlled object;

the number of levels of functional management, the value of which depends mainly on the number of personnel in the management apparatus;

the share of line managers in the number of management personnel, which depends on production structure managed object (with an increase in the number of structural divisions, the number of line managers increases);

controllability norm, which refers to the number of employees directly subordinate to one manager (the range of changes in the quantitative characteristic of the parameter is 7 ± 2, and the specific value depends on the complexity and efficiency of decisions made);

b) the degree of centralization of the management mechanism, which is characterized by:

coefficient of centralization of management functions;

coefficient of centralization of management decisions (the range of changes in quantitative characteristics varies within very wide limits - from complete elimination in making management decision until full participation). The higher the degree of centralization of authority, the greater the value of the quantitative characteristic of the parameter.

The nature of the transfer of powers very much depends on the functions through which it is carried out. Yes, in the area production there is a wide transfer of powers, but decentralization is carried out under control; sales more often than other functions becomes the object of decentralization. Finance represent the most favorable ground for centralizing responsibility. Regarding management staff solutions must be more flexible. But such aspects as collective bargaining, the remuneration system, and personnel evaluations must be centralized. Accounting and statistical reporting requires both centralization and decentralization. Centralization is convenient for the top management of the enterprise, but it makes it difficult for intermediate managers to effectively monitor performance results. In area procurement There is both centralization and decentralization, depending on the current situation.

Moreover, as normative material can be used:

typical management structures;

standard lists of management functions for structural divisions.

The stage of aggregation of functions ends with the procedure for determining the areas of responsibility of the organizational units included in the subsystems, blocks, modules for the implementation of activities and functions. This projection method, which has a wide scope of application in the rationalization of company management and allows you to systematize, identify and reflect the structural connections of one group of elements with another. A table can be taken as a basis, in which horizontally there is a list of organizational units of the management structure, combined into subsystems and modules, and vertically in the rows of the table - the main management procedures. The organizational projection matrix captures information in a compact form about who is doing what in the organization.

The list of basic procedures can be determined based on the developments of V.S. Rapoport and Kibanov A. Ya. It includes: research and forecasting of development; research and development; long-term and current technical and economic planning; rationalization, invention and patenting; sales activities; logistics; external cooperation and acquisition; design preparation for production; technical and technological preparation of production; instrumental preparation of production; repair service production; energy production services; standardization; metrological support of production; transport services for production; mechanization and automation of production; technical control and testing; operational regulation and dispatching of production; organization of labor and wages; rationing; financial resource management; accounting and reporting; economic analysis; personnel Management; product quality management; occupational Safety and Health; management of repairs and operation of buildings and structures; capital construction management; legal support; management information support; provision of technical control means; provision of regulatory documentation; economic support management; office management and communications; service maintenance; safety; disposal; security environment and environmental management.

The projection method allows you to check the completeness of the implementation of management functions, identify functions that are not performed at the moment, rationally distribute powers and responsibilities at all stages of decision-making and implementation between hierarchical levels and links, consolidate the most appropriate stable connections, ensure the unity of activities in the development of the organizational mechanism achieving goals.

After determining the composition of subsystems, blocks, modules, their internal structure is developed, which is described by a set of functional and resource parameters. The main functional parameters include:

target orientation of a subsystem, block, module;

a list of functions the implementation of which it provides;

status (department, bureau, group, official);

management rights and responsibility;

system of organizational interaction With other blocks for each control function;

information base, necessary to solve the problems of the organizational unit;

technology for obtaining, processing, using, storing and transmitting information;

cost standards for maintaining the management apparatus;

standards for ratios of categories of workers;

professional qualification level;

organizational and technological support.

The calculation of the number of employees in each block begins from the lower level of management based on the volume of information processed. By predetermining the tasks of specific employees, the range of their rights and responsibilities, conditions labor activity, the block structure is a form of supporting the targeted and coordinated use of the professional potential of qualified specialists. By determining the place and role of each position in the company's management system, it is necessary to ensure their harmonization for the effective implementation of common goals.

At the “structuring” stage, program-target blocks are identified. This stage is very important, since it is at this stage that the main organizational changes are linked with the strategies of economic, technical and social development enterprises.

Identification of the main blocks of an economic organization, determination of their hierarchy and connections allow us to move on to the next stage - "regulation" stage. The most common linear-functional structure cannot ensure the management process at all without a clear management regulation system.

The main structure-forming document of the organization is Regulations on the organizational structure, which includes the following sections:

types of activities (products, services, types of business);

a list of subsystems, blocks and modules indicating their status (department, bureau, group, etc.), target orientation according to any criterion and a list of functions the implementation of which it ensures;

provisions on autonomous units, subsystems, modules;

job responsibilities;

organizational block diagram (organigram);

staffing table.

The regulation on the organizational structure is one of the main system-forming internal documents. Job responsibilities may be replaced by a workplace qualification card. Taking into account the importance of the organization's culture, a Personnel Regulation and a Code of Business Ethics can be developed.

The formation of an organizational management structure is one of the most important strategic decisions made by the management of an enterprise. When developing the concept of structural transformation, it is necessary to take into account the basic principles underlying the organizational charts of enterprises.

The principle, as a concept, means “the basic starting position of any organization”; it is also the “basis of the structure”, in this case the OSU. The set of principles for constructing an organizational management structure should reflect, on the one hand, the main requirements for it, and on the other, the basic rules for its structure. Summarizing the many approaches that exist in the scientific literature when formulating the principles of constructing OCS, we can highlight the following basic principles.

1. The principle of target orientation towards the final result. The necessary role of the organizational management structure in achieving goals is ensured by establishing the rights and responsibilities of each management level for achieving the tasks assigned to it. At the same time, it is necessary that the implementation of tasks assigned to all levels of the lower level ensures the full achievement of the goal set for the higher level of management.

2. The principle of functional division and specialization of managerial labor. Based on this principle, it is necessary to create divisions separately by function, preventing the combination of disparate management functions in one division. This principle also involves establishing boundaries between line and functional management. Line management must directly manage production,

functional - provide him with technical assistance, provide him with information and practical recommendations.

When implementing the principle of specialization, it is necessary at the same time to avoid an overly narrow, fractional delineation of the activities of structural divisions, since this leads to an excessive amount of coordination work, lengthening the hierarchical ladder and, as a consequence, a mismatch in the goals of management units.

3. The principle of unity of management and personal responsibility. It eliminates the duality of subordination and the possibility of receiving conflicting instructions. This principle also excludes the simultaneous control by one control element of two objects, one of which is part of the second.

4. The principle of rational controllability. It consists of determining the number of subordinates that one person can effectively manage, i.e. in establishing the standard of control (usually three to seven people subordinate to one main manager and 20-30 workers subordinate to the foreman). Many attempts have been made to determine exactly how many people can be effectively led by one person. The number given by different authors varies from three to about fifteen. Because of huge variety conditions and coordination problems, no single quantity specified can be considered the correct answer under all circumstances.

The fundamentally reasonable desire to limit the norm of controllability may conflict with the requirement for a minimum number of management levels, because the first limitation leads to a lengthening of the hierarchical ladder. In each specific case, when establishing a standard of control, it is necessary to take into account such factors as the content and uniformity of the work performed, the involvement of managers in the work as specialists; frequency of new problems; degree of standardization of management processes: abilities, initiative, experience of subordinates.

5. The principle of regulation of the organizational structure. Providing for the need to develop normative regulatory documents that exclude arbitrary interpretation of the scope of rights and measures of responsibility, subordination of departments and individual employees.

As rightly emphasized in the Industry-wide Scientific and Methodological Recommendations, it is important to clearly define the range of issues that require strict, targeted regulation, separating them from issues where, instead of such regulation, recommendations are needed that allow freedom of choice, creative search for solutions, in relation to specific conditions. Thus, despite the importance of regulation in organizational activities, it cannot be approached unambiguously and simplistically, considering the strengthening of regulation only a good thing and not taking into account the possibility of it negative consequences. Thus, it would be a mistake to try to develop detailed schemes for the distribution of powers, job descriptions, guidelines for performing work for areas of activity related to the identification and solution of non-repetitive tasks, a high proportion of creative solutions, the great importance of experience and qualifications of specialists (for example, for the marketing service). In the latter case, it is advisable to regulate the formulation of goals and objectives, and not the actions themselves to implement them.

Most of the above principles and those close to them, such as the principle of unity of command, rational distribution of functions, equality and responsibility, limited range, control, regulation, etc., are sometimes called “universal principles for constructing an organizational management structure” proposed by the “classical school of organization.” The most famous representative of their theoretical development was A. Fayol, who connected the concept of rational, scientific management with the ability to extremely streamline and regulate the organization, to achieve stability in the activities of economic units mainly through administrative methods in hierarchical structures. Since the recognition and dissemination of such a conceptual approach in management thought, a number of major breakthroughs have occurred, each time providing the basis for a critical rethinking of the universality of these principles of the so-called classical administrative school. Among the most significant conceptual approaches to management, which appeared later under the influence of the achievements of other sciences related to management (psychology, sociology, systems theory, cybernetics), the following are distinguished:

Approach from the point of view of human relations (1930-1950 E. Mayo, A. Maslow, etc.);

Approach from the point of view of behavioral science (1950 - present K. Argyris, D. McGregor, etc.);

Approach from the point of view quantitative methods(1950 - present);

Systems approach(late 1950 - present);

Situational approach (late 1960s - present).

Without dwelling on the characterization of the essence of the above approaches to management, it is important at the same time to note that under the influence of the systemic and situational approaches at the turn of the 80s in the American economy, for example, in the words of L.I. Evenko there was a “quiet management revolution”, which was marked by a transition to a new “managerial paradigm”. The essence of the “new paradigm” is a certain departure from the managerial rationalism of the classical school.

The term “paradigm” was introduced by T. Kuhn in 1970. According to his definition, a paradigm is scientific achievements recognized by all, which over a certain period of time provide the scientific community with a model for posing problems and their solutions.

According to the situational approach to management, the entire intra-company construction of a management system is a response to influences of different nature from the external environment and a number of internal characteristics, in particular production technology and the quality of its human resources. If the environment and technology are relatively stable, sufficiently defined, people are executors by nature, and not entrepreneurs and creators, the principles of constructing an organizational management structure of the administrative, classical school are quite sufficient for building an operating system. However, as the enterprise environment becomes more complex, the share of specialized, small-scale products increases, As the diversity of its goals and objectives increases, flexibility in building its organizational structure becomes of great importance. It is implemented by creating project and matrix structures.

American researchers D. Grayson and K. O Dell, considering the requirements for operating systems from the perspective of a new management paradigm, highlight the following principles for creating effective organizational structures:

1. Building blocks should be product, market or customer oriented rather than function oriented.

2. The basic blocks of any structure should be target groups specialists and teams, not functions and departments.

3. It is necessary to focus on a minimum number of management levels and a wide control area.

4. Each employee must be responsible and have the opportunity to take initiative.

From the standpoint of modern views on management, particularly important importance is attached to the factors of organizational culture. those. established values ​​in the organization, individual and group norms of behavior, types of interaction. Japanese firms use these factors most effectively, but since the 80s and in other countries, organizational culture began to be given the importance of the most important management tool that influences all management systems, including the construction of its organizational structure. Thus, I. Ansoff, analyzing ways to overcome conflicts that arise due to a violation of the principle of unity of authority and responsibility characteristic of matrix structures, sees informal interaction as one of the effective means of resolving contradictions, based “on the common responsibility shared by all for global success firm"[ 15], on the general corporate culture.

Along with increasing attention to organizational culture, in modern science and management practice, various forms of democratization of management are increasingly being developed - the participation of ordinary workers in management, in profits, in property. Accordingly, the management structure can in this case acquire a democratic type, the difference from the hierarchical one is that the relationship between production and management units is based not on subordination, but on partnership. At the same time, intermediate links of line management are abolished, and the composition and structure of production divisions is revised taking into account the formation on their basis of contract teams working on the principles of a certain economic independence and self-government. The principle of maximum decentralization in this case of authority and responsibility for making operational decisions does not exclude, but presupposes the centralization of strategic and general decision-making.

Figure 5.9 shows a diagram of the main factors that determine the organizational structure of enterprise management in modern conditions.

Thus, with the trend of transition from authoritarian to democratic, coordination principles of leadership, organizational structures are turning from pyramidal to flatter, with a minimum number of levels between top management and direct performers, thereby achieving better communication with consumers.

Scheme of the main factors determining the organizational structure of enterprise management

The use of democratic types of organizational structure and, accordingly, collective forms of labor organization makes more

Composition and labor intensity of management work, management methods

Social psychological factors

Interpersonal and intergroup relations in a team

Qualification and.,"* I general education level of workers (I

Imputed economic forces

Character economic relations fur<ду -ЭДЩразделениями

System of rating and evaluation of activities

Material incentive system

Organizational-legal form and form of ownership

Technical and

organizational

Production structure

Degree of centralization of the management function

The level of specialization, cooperation, mechanization, and automation of production places high demands on personnel, as it requires the involvement of workers in making business decisions. A positive effect in this case can be achieved if employees are ready to accept broad rights and responsibilities. That is, in this case, you need to use a situational approach. It is reasonable to introduce new progressive principles of organization gradually and gradually.

Summarizing the consideration of the principles of constructing organizational structures for enterprise management, we can draw the following conclusion.

Management science and practice have developed and verified by many years of experience principles for the formation of management systems, which manifest themselves objectively and which must be taken into account when choosing directions and measures for organizational restructuring of management systems. However, each of these principles cannot be absolutized and considered as universal. When choosing specific organizational solutions, it is necessary to be guided by a situational approach and apply those principles that will achieve the organization's goals in a given situation. At the same time, it is also necessary to take into account the general trends and patterns of development of organizational structures and requirements for them.

The most fruitful methods of organizational design are developed on the basis of a systems approach, which involves considering the characteristics of a production organization not in isolation, but in the totality of their connections and relationships with the external environment, goals, technology used, and personnel.

Analysis of the most common scientific concepts in the field of studying the patterns of construction and development of organizational management structures of industrial organizations, including classical, behavioral, situational and systemic concepts, shows that the most advanced is the systemic target approach. The theoretical foundations of the system target approach within the framework of system methodology were studied in the works of Russian academic economists: D.M. Gvinshani, I.V. Blauberga, L.I. Evemko, B.Z. Mnlner, V.s. Rapoport, V. N. Sadovsky and others.

Within the framework of this approach, both the content itself and the procedure for constructing the structure of the management apparatus are considered, and a methodological apparatus for searching and justifying organizational decisions is being developed. The authors proposed this methodological approach as an alternative to the previously predominantly used experimental-statistical, functional-oriented one. The essence of the latter was to highlight standard management functions and to establish, on the basis of statistical surveys, standard structures, staffing schedules, and headcount standards depending on the scale of production (category of organization) .

The following main provisions of the system-target approach give reason to consider the use of this methodological approach as a basis for the formation of SMS in modern conditions to be justified. At the same time, market reorientation determines, in our opinion, the need to supplement them. We will consider the essence of these new proposals after presenting the initial version of the main provisions of the system-target approach, which are as follows:

1. Formulation of the final goals of the activity as the initial basis for the formation of the organizational structure. However, the goals of the organization (economic, production, social) are only one of the factors in designing the organizational structure, along with the size of the organization, environmental requirements, technological and other factors (see Fig. 5.9).

2. Systematic consideration of the organizational structure. It consists, firstly, in determining a set of actions to achieve a major final goal, the implementation of which should be carried out through the appropriate structural elements (divisions). Secondly, in establishing which part of these actions is carried out within the organization and which outside it, i.e. e. in establishing the boundaries of the organization as an open system. Thirdly, in the presentation of the organizational structure as one of the defining variables in the system of other interrelated variables of the organization's goals, environment, production and technical basis

Bb1> personnel^ behavior

managers, informal structure and others),

3. Variant-typological systematization of the fundamental characteristics of the organizational structure Among these characteristics: the type of differentiation of the structure (linear-functional, matrix, etc.); the relationship between centralization and decentralization in decision making, the composition of personnel by skill level, behavioral stereotypes. The combination of such characteristics makes it possible to determine which of the general types the organization belongs to - mechanistic, organic or intermediate between them.

4. Multifactor assessment of requirements for the control subsystem from the side of the control object and the external environment. Its purpose is to take into account as fully as possible the internal and external conditions in which a given system operates in order to adequately select the type and characteristics of its structure.

5 Elaboration of the organizational mechanism for the functioning of the system, simplification. This means that the problem of forming a management structure is closely linked to the construction of an intra-organizational mechanism, a system of busing, material incentives, and information support. These are the main provisions of the system-target approach proposed by the above-mentioned authors of the monograph Systemic approach to organizing management.

The above provisions are sufficient

Quite universal, so the CC approach to

the choice of organizational structure is carried out

allstppppworld. n carried out from a broad perspective and

comprehensively. At the same time, it appears that new major challenges in

the transformation of organizational management structures during the transition to a market requires special emphasis on a number of specific features; _tov

related specifically to this transition already at the methodological level

approaches. So, firstly, in connection with the acquisition of complete

independence and isolation of enterprises, unlike previously

their existing “embeddedness” in the systems - - -

them into the industry management system

the problem arises of a new approach to psh^- -

This, with one

approach to defining not only goals but also

developing your own long-term development strategy. on the one hand, it necessitates the formation of an appropriate management system oriented to the long term (by creating functional services or a functional-target block of long-term development), on the other. implementation of the developed ^^

may lead to a change in specialization, or diversification to various types of integration with other economic entities and

etc., ™ will profoundly change the organizational management structure

enterprise. So oL"p„

Hakim ooraz, in the new conditions, strategy, along with

goals, acquires meaning

"the importance of not only one of the factors, but also

the initial basis for the formation of the OSU.

Secondly, in the new economic conditions, the methodological approach to the formation of general management systems by enterprises should take into account, in our opinion, the factor of captivity in the organizational-legal form and form of ownership.

The implementation of a system-targeted approach to the construction and improvement of operating systems is carried out through the use of various specific methods and their combination. Before recommending certain methods for use by enterprises, it is necessary to classify them and provide a comparative analysis. Currently, the following methods for forming OSU are the most well known. method of structuring goals, expert-analytical method, method of comparison and analogies and method of organizational modeling. Let's consider the essence of each of these methods.

1. The method of structuring goals is based on the representation of a production and economic organization as a multi-purpose system. It involves the development of a system of goals, including their quantitative and qualitative formulations, followed by the construction and analysis of alternative operating systems, assessing their compliance with the system of goals. With a system-targeted approach to the formation of organizational structures, this method is especially important, because with its help, one of the main ideas of this approach is implemented - regulation and evaluation of the activities of management units (or officials) but based on the criterion of their responsibility for achieving set goals, and not the performance of certain functions. The importance of this approach and method also increases in dynamic market conditions. In a rapidly changing, uncertain environment, any attempt to strictly regulate the functions of each management level leads to an increase in its inertia, deterioration of adaptability and, as a consequence, a decrease in work efficiency. Therefore, using clearly defined goals as a guideline for activities is a means of developing the economic independence of workers and management units, which ensures flexibility of the structure, coordination of formal and informal relations in the organization, i.e. those properties that you cannot do without in market conditions.

The considered method for designing an OSU consists of performing several stages. First, goals are structured in one of three ways: graphical - in the form of a tree of goals, matrix - in the form of a table, list - by listing and coordinating goals. Then, based on the composition of subgoals (tasks), which are a means or condition for achieving the overall goal, the composition of management functions and management work is established, the grouping of which according to certain rules makes it possible to determine structural divisions. A schematic diagram of the distribution of tasks and management functions to specific management units is drawn up. At the last stage, the internal structure of departments and the system of their subordination at all levels are formed.

The advantages of the method, along with the above, include the fact that it does not require the use of special research tools, which makes it quite simple to implement. Disadvantages include the absence of clear rules for constructing a tree of goals or other methods of structuring, as well as insufficient consideration of other factors (besides goals) influencing the formation of the OSU.

2. The expert-analytical method consists of a survey and analytical study of the organization in order to identify specific features, bottlenecks and problems in the work of the management apparatus, and develop recommendations for eliminating the shortcomings of the operating system, based on the conclusion of experts. The method provides for a diagnostic analysis of the existing management structure, conducting surveys of managers and employees of the organization, developing graphic and tabular descriptions of operating systems and management processes, reflecting recommendations for the best organization of these structures, taking into account advanced trends in the field of management organization.

The use of the expert-analytical method is determined by the insufficient development of quantitative methods of analysis and the shortcomings of the regulatory framework. The advantages of the method, provided that qualified experts are involved, are the relative speed of obtaining analysis results and recommendations for improving the operating system.

3. The method of comparison and analogies consists in using, when improving the management organization, elements of the management mechanism, structural forms and solutions that have proven themselves in practice in organizations with similar operating conditions. The method also provides for the use of standard management structures, controllability standards, and standard composition of management functions. The most effective way to use standard solutions when forming a management apparatus is the “block principle”. Its essence lies in the fact that the management structure of any large organization can be represented as a series of relatively separate blocks, including several units or bodies. The construction of a control system using this method consists in the synthesis of enlarged blocks (linear-functional or program-targeted), the structure of which corresponds to standard solutions. As noted by V.I. Franchuk, the disadvantage of this method is its conservative nature, since the consolidation of already outdated forms of management is not excluded.

4. The method of organizational modeling is based on the use of certain formalized representations (models) of an object and management system, which are used as a basis for constructing, analyzing and evaluating various options for organizational structures depending on changes in the most significant factors.

The possibilities of organizational modeling are increasing due to the increased use of computers for these purposes in recent years. Thus, with the help of computers and economic and mathematical models, it has become possible to simulate many situations of management activity, which expands the scope of organizational analysis and makes it possible to predict changes in the management system. At the same time, well-known models reflect only certain aspects of organizational management systems and comprehensively cover all aspects of the formation of an organizational structure (administrative and managerial, information, behavioral). The scope of practical application of organizational models is limited by the difficulty of modeling the entire variety of organizational-structural relations, and modeling is considered as an auxiliary analytical tool for searching and selecting rational solutions for constructing OSU.

Taking into account the specifics of the transition period to the market, which dictates qualitatively new requirements for the organizational management system and its structure, the use of previously common, standard OCS solutions is of little use, with the exception, perhaps, of individual blocks of operational management and technological maintenance of production. The need to adapt to an uncertain, changing external environment further limits the ability to apply organizational modeling methods. Thus, for enterprises in the current conditions, the use of predominantly a combination of the first two of the methods for constructing OSU, i.e. method of structuring goals and analytical.

denie people. Therefore, scientifically

suddenly

most

acceptably named expert-

process

organization

Next, we will consider the content and formation of the enterprise management system, since the described trends and patterns of transformation of the enterprise management structure, requirements, principles and methods for constructing organizational structures do not answer the question of how to organize the process of improving management, how to design a more advanced structure of the management system. The main feature of organizational design is the dual nature of the design object, in which there are elements that can be rationally designed, like the creation of technical systems, while at the same time the organization, as a social collective, requires the use of special techniques in the design process that take into account the socio-psychological and behavioral aspects of organizations .

The improvement of organizational systems and their structures, taking into account behavioral aspects, has received great development in American management theory and practice, where, as noted by L.I. Evenko, it has developed into an independent direction, called the methodology of “organizational change” or “organizational development”.

Many recommendations of this approach are of great practical value, the application of which is necessary in the design process. Thus, one of the methods from the arsenal of organizational changes - “action research” suggests that for the success of organizational design it is necessary, firstly, that it be carried out jointly by specialists in the design of organizations, senior managers and ordinary workers, i.e. so that there is constant communication between developers and practitioners who will have to work in a new (modified) organization. Secondly, after each stage of survey and design of the structure, it is necessary to collect data on the reliability of the results, on how a living organization will react to the planned action, and in the process, influence members of the organization through training.

It should be emphasized that the importance of taking into account socio-psychological factors increases immeasurably when designing more flexible types of structures that are well adapted to rapidly changing external influences (i.e. those that are necessary in market conditions) in comparison with previously carried out reorganizations within the framework of administrative-command systems. In more detail, various methods of taking into account the behavior of factors in the process of designing and implementing structural transformations of manufacturing firms, which are useful to use in practice, are described in the works of foreign and domestic authors.

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

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

Let's consider the content of the most famous of them.

1. Expert method consists of a preliminary study of the current management structure and identification of its bottlenecks. For this purpose, a diagnostic examination of the control system is carried out in order to study its condition based on a comparison of the actual values ​​of the relevant indicators with their standard and planned values. Subsequent analysis of these indicators allows us to identify shortcomings (reserves) in the activities of the management system and make an accurate diagnosis of them. As a rule, this work is accompanied by the so-called. predictive analysis, the task of which is to study the behavior of the current system in dynamics, identify trends in its changes, as well as explain the reasons for these changes.

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

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

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

4. Methods of organizational modeling are based on the use of certain formalized representations (models) of the object and control system. Among the group of organizational modeling methods, the most famous is the method based on the decomposition of the information process of performing management work. In accordance with this method, points and places that require control actions are identified in production processes. Next, the nature and frequency of these impacts, the composition and volume of information, the necessary technical means and other components of the management process are established. Management processes are developed taking into account regulatory requirements for their organization. Based on the characteristics of the developed management processes (their frequency, labor intensity, etc.), the number of employees, their subordination in the course of performing management work, and the composition of the management apparatus departments are established.

Methods of organizational modeling include methods that use parametric dependencies of the object and subject of management. The essence of these methods is to establish connections between the parameters of the control system and production and technical factors, to determine the direction of action and the closeness of these connections. The advantage of the parametric method is the study of quantitative characteristics to describe the control system and its structure.

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

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

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

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

Thus, The method of organizational modeling is the most universal and modern for designing organizational structure and decision-making processes.

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

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

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

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

Onfirst stage design, a matrix-staff model is selected, which is subject to detailed consideration and is necessary for the implementation of subsequent stages. In this way, the first theoretical premise identified as a result of the pre-project survey is implemented. The sequence of stages of designing a control structure is shown in Fig. 2

Fig.2. Stages of designing a management system using the organizational modeling method

Onsecond stage management decisions are distributed among levels within the matrix-staff structure (see paragraph 6.2.)

Third stage- This is the actual process of designing the management structure. It is based on the study of the possibility of designing one or another variant of the structure for the selected control object. The question of the formation of any management structure will depend on how appropriate it is to have functional, thematic or coordinating levels in it. In this case, expediency refers to the degree of workload of the decision-maker. Load, in turn, we define as the total (total) labor intensity of management decisions made by the manager at the level during the study period according to the formula

Where Qp- total labor intensity, hours

T i - labor intensity i th management decision, h.;

K ij- number of repetitions i-th solution at the j-th level;

Where Wed - estimated number of managers;

Qp- labor intensity of making management decisions, hours;

F d - effective time fund of one employee, h

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

Choosing a structure option

Let us consider how the issue of choosing a structure option is resolved depending on the load on the control levels. Load calculation begins at the linear level, since it is inherent in any control structure and, in a certain sense, is dominant. Research has shown that the transition to the design of one or another form of control organization depends on the load value of the linear level, which may be less than the established limit, or be within the specified limits of the limit (TO 1 <Ср <К 2 ) and go beyond these boundaries.

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

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

Case 1. The line manager's workload is less than the established limit, i.e. Wed< К 1 . The selection algorithm in this case consists of a step-by-step combination of the levels inherent in the matrix-staff structure with the line level in order to ensure the workload of the line manager. The unification begins from the coordinating level, since the process of transforming the matrix-staff structure into any other begins with the exclusion of this particular level. If loading is not achieved in the first step of the process, a thematic level is added, and then, if necessary, a functional one. With this ratio, when the workload of the line manager consists of the combined workload of managers at the coordinating, thematic and functional levels, i.e. Wed = Sl,+ Sk+ +C T, + Sf, It is possible to design only a linear control structure. In other cases, when the load of the line manager is reached at the first step of the iteration, i.e. Wed = Cl + Sk; or on the second: Wed == Sl+Sk+St the possibility of designing a linear-functional or matrix management structure is created. Consequently, if the linear level is insufficiently loaded, depending on the initial calculated data and the functional, thematic and coordinating levels, three structure options can be designed: linear, linear-functional and matrix.

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

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

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

Therefore, on fourth stage The final choice of the structure option occurs and all further calculations are carried out within the framework of the selected structure.

On fifthstage the issue of forming the composition of units at levels within the chosen structure is being resolved. This task involves determining the composition and number of managers and performers necessary for making and preparing management decisions. The delivery of this task is due to the fact that the criterion for creating any organizational unit - department or service - is the standard of controllability. The formation of structural units will ultimately depend on how much the resulting number of managers and performers corresponds to the standard of controllability. The initial data for performing this stage of work are:

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

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

where Sisp is the number of performers who ensure the preparation of management decisions;

Q isp - labor intensity of preparation i-x decisions, hours;

F d - actual time fund of one performer, hours.

After the number of performers and managers at each level has been calculated, the issue of creating structural units is decided. This is achieved by adjusting the resulting number. All the data necessary for this is available: the estimated number of managers and performers, a typical management organization diagram (in this case, a matrix-staff structure diagram); permissible norm of controllability for a given object. The resulting number is adjusted as follows. The accepted number of managers and performers is determined by rounding the calculated number and the controllability rate is checked. If the resulting ratio significantly exceeds the controllability norm, the issue of creating an additional control body is decided (if the possibility of dividing the control function remains possible). Conversely, with a reduced controllability rate, two controls performing related functions can be combined into one. Thus, taking into account the standard management scheme, structural divisions are formed. The final documents of this stage of work are adjusted lists of performers and managers by division, and, consequently, the composition of divisions at each organizational level.

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

Three subsequent stages - seventh, eighth and ninth represent organizational regulation on which the development of documentation regulating the activities of individual performers, departments and the management system as a whole is carried out.

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

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

The regulations on the enterprise require knowledge of the charter and strict adherence to the principles of construction; production processes, forms and systems of remuneration, environmental requirements.

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

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