Hey,
Thanks for the link. If I were to start my own company I would go for a matrix organiation as it makes the most sense to me. I think the combination of functional organziation and project base divison is very common in our industry. Departments whould be structured by function and there should be cross talk between departments. Not only that, products also expand different departsmets as well. Yet this also depends on the size of a company if we have a small company that just focuses on for example, diabtic shoes then functional is enough. If we plan on being a major medical device company like stryker or something, matrix is best as there asre multiple products being made at once.

Hi,
Looking at these different types, the last one in particular stands out to me for certain reasons. First, the fact that the directorate have an influential vision that is applied across the company and its different branches. This circular organization also allows for sharing of workload and responsibility between different divisions of the workforce and a great deal of flexibility between them. Through this it seems as if middle management will be immersed into the actual “work” if you will as much as possible. This is done by eliminated departments and divisions but instead teams and groups of people to work on assigned tasks at a time.
-Tarek

I would consider to set up the startup company as functional structure in the very beginning. As mentioned in lecture, this kind of organization is suitable for small startup and advantages are obvious: Functional departments arguably permit greater operational efficiency because employees with shared skills and knowledge are grouped together by functions performed. Each group of specialists can therefore operate independently with management acting as the point of cross-communication between functional areas. This arrangement allows for increased specialization.Even argues concerning communication between groups as well as decision making may be cast, startup company typically does not require multiple groups and board decision makers. Instead, how to make things happen and how to finish projects efficiently should be seriously considered.

Hi All,

I would say that the best type of organization would depend on the specific company, but I would consider starting as a matrix organization. As a matrix organization, everyone would know each other, and knowledge would transfer well. All these characteristics are needed in a startup. A startup needs not only good management of resources and the ability to adapt as needed. There are typically many projects occuring in a startup so one person may be assisting on multiple projects, but a matrix eliminates the need for too many employees while funds are scarce.

-Andrew Nashed

I would agree with the matrix type organization as being very successful. It reduces redundancy and fosters working together to prevent re-inventing things that are required. Especially in medical devices where there is typically 1 core device with different variations for slightly different markets. Even in larger organizations, this type of work is better in my opinion.

If I was to start a company that worked on a world-scale, the worst thing to form is an organic structured organization, in my opinion. A company working globally needs to have a rigid structure so everything can run smoothly and avoid a mess. Organic structures are more for smaller companies, I believe. According to the link given above, the best structure to imitate would be the Geographical Organization structure, since it obviously focuses on geographic locations to divide the company - by territories and regions. The disadvantage, as stated in the link, is the decentralization that occurs due to each territory running their section of the company. I would make sure this aspect is improved.

I believe, if first starting up a company, such as a start up and do not want to have the corporate feel to the company, I believe an organic organization structure makes the most sense to start off. You have your three main positions of CEO, CTO, COO and then other positions follow under but it is still an open environment with continuous interaction between all hierarchies. As the company grows and becomes bigger, it would make sense to have a matrix organization structure where individuals have dual reporting relationships and it also allows for more flexibility.

I still like the matrix organization, as it induces proper work flow and opens the fied for the employess to get the job done. Ideally if you would want the goal of being larger company that works on multiple projects then this would be a best thing to do as it allows the right balance of leadership and science in a mutally beinfincal way for the goals of the project. And I feel this type of organiation opens paths for larger scale work.

I will have to agree as well. I would prefer the matrix organization as it also allows for greater flexibility in terms of outsourcing. In my experience, some projects that can be done outside the company are easily contracted and the outsource personnel are expected to support whole functional areas. However, I must also add that in this structure, employees may have to report to two bosses, which adds confusion and may cause conflict. This usually happens in a balanced matrix organization where both bosses have equal authority and power. In order to mediate this, roles and responsibilities must be clearly documented and communicated to employees to avoid confusion.

Hi,
If i start my own company i will go with matrix structure that allows team members to share information more readily across task boundaries; it also allows for specialization that can increase depth of knowledge. I would like to rearrange the organization structure every five years.It also provides a clear career trajectory for employees, from junior-level positions, up to the top decision-making positions.

Irene lloyd

I agree with you that this type of organization is good for a start up. on the other hand, as the company grows overall I would prefer to have a company that operates in the matrix way. It promotes innovation and competition. As the lecture mentions, the matrix organization can shift the resources in a bigger organization. This is really important to help the mission and the vision of the organization in every possible way.

- Lamiaa Abdelaziz

The idea of the matrix organization seems to be a great idea for forming a project team. It will give the project manager an opportunity to really pick those people who may be best for that particular project. Sometimes people may have a certain niche that will really benefit a project and if the project manager is able to capitalize on that, it will benefit the team and organization. Those who may be on the team will have the opportunity to go back to their functional managers if they need help or guidance. This structure seems like it could help people from becoming stagnant in their departments and keep them on top of things.

I believe the matrix org structure would be the best for most companies. It provides a well balanced structure as the employees have to report to at least two bosses; their functional manager and product manager. This helps a company share resources and provide a unified environment. However, for a medical device company worldwide, I believe the divisional: geographical org structure would be the best. This is ideal when different countries have a different target market, different restrictions, and different resources. Sharing resources could be difficult when divisions are on opposite sides of the world, so a geographical org structure helps to accommodate each division by their location. The major downfall is that the decision making can be easily decentralized but I believe its benefits out way this risk.

I have worked within both divisional: product-based and matrix organization. I would still consider the matrix to be organization structure of choice.In my experience within product-based, there were always issues regarding statuses or approvals from other team, communication was often lost, and as a result this hindered meeting timeline objectives. In my opinion, this option offers more flexibility and exposure to cross functional teams, in other words it enables the team member’s exposure to various areas within this organization, and lastly the decision making is more balanced, since there are more than two chains of command.
Chris