SBenegaL

Category: Organizational Development ವ್ಯವಹಾರಿಕ ಉನ್ನತಿ

  • Intensive technology – Reciprocal task interdependence

    In the last blog, we looked at long-linked technology and the task interdependence associated there with. In today’s blog we look at intensive technology and the nature of task interdependence. 
    Intensive technology generally comes with a lot higher complexity compared to the long-linked technology. The scope of the task is much task is much higher that an individual’s capacity to transform things; it mandates exchange of information between the people working on the task while performing it. 
    Let us take an example of restaurant to understand the scenario at hand better. The kitchen staff waits for the wait staff to provide orders, and the wait staff is dependent on the kitchen staff to provide meals prepared to the customer’s satisfaction. The situation becomes even more complex when we take the situation of a surgeon at work.  The surgeon needs to continuously exchange information with the anesthesiologist, assisting doctors and nurses while performing the operation. 
    We see that in addition to the existence of pooled and sequential task interdependence, we find a new type of task interdependence called – reciprocal task interference. We could diagrammatically understand this through the image shown below.
    The primary difference between the sequential and reciprocal task interdependence is that while long-linked technology involves work flow in a single direction, but the intensive technology has complementary work flows. “Mutual adjustment” becomes extremely essential to the operation of intensive technology on the parts of the individuals and units involved due to the reciprocal nature of their task interdependence. 
    Extreme mutual adjustment mandates the requirement of team work. In teamwork, work inputs to the transformation process are simultaneously acted upon by members of the work team, rather than passing inputs back and forth as in the case for less intensive forms of reciprocal task interdependence. The second example of surgical process is an example for this.

  • Long-linked Technology – sequential interdependence

    In the last blog, we looked at the realign between mediating technology and the related task interdependence – pooled task interdependence. In today’s blog we look at the long-linked technology and the related task interdependencies. 
    To begin with, let’s take an example of assembly line. We sometimes see that there are lots of functions operators can perform independent of one another. So the different lines are pooled in the sense that their outputs are aggregated into the total output of the organization – this is an example of pooled task interdependence. 
    In another situation, we see that within a production line, we see that each worker is dependent on the work of the others located at positions prior to theirs in line; this means that there is a sequential dependence of the tasks – this is called sequential task interdependence. This can be visualized as shown in the diagram below. 
    Such sequential task interdependence requires more planning and scheduling than pooled interdependence. Getting back to the context defined earlier, we would   need to design tasks and assign workers and schedule to work together in order for the assembly line to work properly. Any break in the line can interrupt production, careful planning of tasks and scheduling of workers is imperative. Rules and procedures are also necessary and these don’t need any explanation.

  • Mediating Technology – task interdependence and coordination

    In the last blog, we looked at the relation between Technical complexity, Uncertainty and Routineness. In today’s blog, we begin the discussion on relation between task interdependence and mechanism of Coordination.
    Thompson recognized that the objects being processed or the work processes of a technology may be interrelated so that changes or problems in one part of the technical system affect other parts. This is defined situation as task interdependence.
    In this blog, we look at specifically at mediating technology. To understand this, let’s take the example of a bank.
    Bank employees mediate between borrowers and savers or investors. The mediation cab is accomplished simultaneously by several bank branches that operate independently of one another.  Little direct contact is needed between the various units. In such cases, the output of the organization is simply the sum of the efforts of each unit. – This is called “pooled task interdependence“. 
    We could visualize this as shown in the diagram below.
    Another interesting point to note is that, if the organization wishes to achieve a coherent organizational identity or ensure services are consistent across units, this can be achieved by setting up and following rules and standard procedures.

  • Technology Complexity, Uncertainty and Routineness

    In the last blog, we discussed about the technology imperative and how it affects the structure of an organization. In todays blog, we look at how technical complexity, uncertainty and routiness are related.
    Woodward’s study indicated that both unit and continuous processing technologies are associated with low routineness while mass production technologies have high routineness. Thus the relationship between routines of work and technical complexity takes the form of an inverted U. The following diagram indicates the same. 
    We could represent Perrow’s two dimensional topology of technology into once single dimension of routiness as shown in the following diagram. 
    The above 2 diagram shows how both the topologies link technology and social structure in terms of routines and non-routinesss of work.

  • Technology and Implications on Organization Structure

    In the last blog, we looked at Perrow’s topology of technology. Beginning with today’s blog we begin understanding the relation of the technology on the social structure of an organization. We could classify the affects of this social structure into one of the following 3 classes. 
    1. Technology Imperative
    2. Relationship between Technology complexity, Uncertainty and Routine-ness 
    3. Task interdependence ant Mechanism of Coordination

    In today’s blog, we begin the first of these – The Technology Imperative.
    The early works of Woodward’s indicated that technology used by the organization would determine what sort of organization structure was best. This belief was called “Technology Imperative”. However, when this was studied extensively by the researchers at “Aston Group”, they found the result which Woodward’s had indicated was contingent on the organization size.
    The study by Aston Group summarized is as follows – technology has a greater significance for the structure-performance relationship when organizations are small than when they are large. 
    This becomes clear when we have a closer look a these small organizations. [Relating back to this blog on the structure we had defined something called operational core, which we could here call as technical core]. In these smaller organization, most employees work directly on the core technology, but in larger organizations many employees are involved in technologies which are not directly related to the core. The structure in large organizations reflects greater differentiation and integration of a wider array of technologies than do social structures in smaller organizations.

  • Organization Theory – 42 (Perrow’s typology of technology with examples)

    In the last blog, we looked at Thompson’s Topology of Technology. In today’s blog, we look at Perrow’s Topology of Technology.
    In the topologies described by Thompson and Woodward, a common problem was that there was only one dominating technology in the organization and it would be challenging if an organization would have more than one technology. For this he used 2 dimensions:
    1. Task variability
    2. Task analyzability

    Task Variability could be defined by the number of exceptions to standard procedures encouraged in the application of a given technology.

    Task Analyzability could be defined as the extent to which, when an exception is encountered, there are known analytical methods for dealing with it.
    Put on a 2×2 matrix, we could look at it as shown in the diagram below.

    The classification of the technology could be as:

    1. Routine
    2. Craft
    3. Engineering
    4. Non-routine

    An example for each of these is:
    1. Routine – The job of a clerk generally has low variation on the kind of activity that (s)he performs and almost always has a known method of solving the problem at hand
    2. Craft – The job could be that of a construction worker. The number of exceptions to the standard procedures could be minimal, but when such exceptions occur there is almost always a new case at hand to handle which a new method needs to be involved
    3. Engineering – Consider the case of aerospace engineering, every challenge at hand would different exceptions to face and handle every time each requiring a special method to solve. There is a high task variability and high task analyzability in such a scenario
    4. Non-routine – A case could be in an RnD lab, when high task variability could be found but there are standard ways to handle the exceptions that come in the means of achieving the objective

  • Organization Theory – 41 (Thompson’s topology of technology)

    In the last blog, we looked at Woodward’s Topology of Technology. In today’s blog, we looked at Thompson’s topology of technology. 
    Thompson classified the technology as one of the following 3 varieties:
    1. Long-linked
    2. Mediating
    3. Intensive

    Long-linked technology covers’ Woodward’s mass production or continuous processing categories. Essentially, this technology indicate linear transformation process that can be thought of as having inputs entering at one end of a long line of steps from which products emerge at the far end.
    Mediating technologies bring clients and customers together in an exchange or transaction. Mediating technologies are called so because firms using these technologies act as go-between (i.e. mediators) in bringing together the interest of two or more different parties to a transaction.
    An example of Intensive technologies is hospital emergency rooms, research laboratories etc. This technology requires coordinating the specialized abilities of two or more experts in the transformation of a usually unique input into a customized output.
    Thompson’s theory could be visualized in a 2×2 matrix as below, on 2 dimensions.
    • standardization of inputs and outputs
    • standardization of transformation process

    The interesting part is the 4th quadrant – where we have standardized inputs/outputs with un-standardized transformation processes. It could be interpreted as a nonexistence due to enormous inefficiencies associated with such a system, hence not a very serious impact
    Read in Kannada:

  • Organization Theory – 40 (Woodward’s Topology of Technology)

    In the last blog, we began our discussion about technology. In today’s blog we discuss one of the initial classifications of technology done by – Woodward.
    Woodward began attempting to find a relation between structure and performance; however no significant relation was found. That is when she began classifying the companies based on the level of technical complexity; she began seeing patterns and relation between structure and performance. 
    She classified the technologies into 3 basic technologies:

    1. Unit or Small Batch
    2. Large Batch or Mass production
    3. Continuous Processing

    The following diagram summarizes the various topologies.

    Woodward’s study showed that organizations using unit and small technologies are more successful when they have smaller spans of control, fewer levels of management and when they practice decentralized decision making.
    The study also showed that organizations that use larger batch and mass production technologies are more successful when their managers have larger spans of control and when they practice centralized decision making. 
    The successful continuous processing organizations are similar to those for unit and small batch processing technologies, they have smaller spans of control and decentralized decision making. However they have more levels of management than either of the earlier discussed technologies. 
    Though this was breakthrough in classifying companies based on the type of technology, the study was not without limitations. The 2 major drawbacks are:
    1. The study mainly focused on small and medium sized organizations – the relation discovered between structure and performance is less significant when the organizations are larger and more complex
    2. Non-manufacturing firms were not part of the study

  • Organization Theory-39 (Technology)

    In the last blog, we discussed buffering and boundary spanning roles. In todays blog, we being understanding another important concept – “technology” and continue the discussion over the next few blogs. 
    A general understanding of “technology” is more closely aligned with the concept of science that we know. However, this is pretty different when economists try to define “technology”.
    The economists and there by the organization theorists look at technology as  a means by which society provides its members with the things that they need and desire. So one can consider organization is a technology for producing a set or subset of the objects and services that society demands. This could be the environment level of analyzing the term technology.
    A dive deep into the organization and we could have a completely different perspective – the view of how things are actually done! The organization has number of departments which coordinate amongst each other to provide the material another department needs etc. A complete new technology perspective within the firm. This level of analyze would be at the organization-level. 
    One could go further and discuss these at the tasks in each of these organizational departments. However for clarity sake, we could limit the level of analysis at Organizational and Environmental level. The variations across the organizations is reduced by focusing more on the core technology to produce the organization’s primary output.
    This simplified view, enables us to compare organizations with different core technologies by which core technologies, by noting key similarities and differences between them. What gets lost in this approach is the details of technology diversity within the organization.
    Read in Kannada:

  • Organization Theory – 38 (Buffering and Boundary Spanning)

    In the last blog, we looked at a framework for understanding the relation between complexity, change and uncertainty. In today’s blog we look at how organizations handle the need for information through buffering and boundary spanning roles. We begin with understanding and then better it with 2 examples.
    Buffering involves protecting the internal operations of the organization from interruption by the environmental shocks such as material, labor, capital shortage etc. Organizations generally create a role to handle this sort of shocks. Through their efforts, uncertainty associated with a complex or changing environment is absorbed, freeing those in the production centers from concerns that might distract them from their work.
    Boundary spanning is the name given to environmental activities including passing needed information for decision makers. It also covers the activities representing the organization o its interests to the environment.
    The difference between the 2 is that while Buffering deals with the material requirements of the organization, while boundary spanning is more of information need. Many a times the 2 roles are seen to overlap – we take 2 examples in here.
    A sales person, for example is responsible for transferring the organization’s output to its customers, but they also bring important information about changing customer demands into the organization and represent the organization’s capabilities and reputation to the customer.
    Purchasing agents in organizations too combine buffering and boundary spanning roles. As they transfer required raw materials etc into the organization, they also gather information on new supplies and techniques and techniques of production from their suppliers.
    Read in Kannada: