IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v29y2018i4p722-738.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analysis of Organizational Structure in Process Variation

Author

Listed:
  • Dingyu Zhang

    (Wysdom, Toronto, Ontario L4B 4V1, Canada)

  • Nadia Bhuiyan

    (Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada)

  • Linghua Kong

    (Fujian University of Technology, Fuzhou, Fujian 350108, China)

Abstract

In today’s uncertain and dynamic market environment, the need for organizational structures that can respond to persistent improvement in organizational processes is more critical than ever. Current organizational studies emphasize categorized processes and structures, lacking any development of continuity in the temporal and spatial layers of environmental change. In this study, organizational structure is seen as varying according to departmentalization and assignment, whereas the process environment changes with information dependency and complexity. We develop a systemic framework, comparing our results with industrial data from the global automotive industry. We then extend the model to analyze variations in organizational structure in response to both static and dynamic process environments with varying communication costs. As will be demonstrated, organizational structures are stable at certain degrees during continuous process change. These same structures are able to fit multiple processes into a cycle of continuous improvement. This stability is also evaluated in situations where processes vary along different directions. And finally, in response to the need for organizational restructuring, we provide a set of strategic guidelines for managers to apply in process variation.

Suggested Citation

  • Dingyu Zhang & Nadia Bhuiyan & Linghua Kong, 2018. "An Analysis of Organizational Structure in Process Variation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 722-738, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:29:y:2018:i:4:p:722-738
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2017.1192
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1192
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2017.1192?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mount,Kenneth R. & Reiter,Stanley, 2007. "Computation and Complexity in Economic Behavior and Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521037891.
    2. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    3. Swank, Otto & Visser, Bauke, 2008. "The consequences of endogenizing information for the performance of a sequential decision procedure," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 667-681, March.
    4. Felipe A. Csaszar, 2013. "An Efficient Frontier in Organization Design: Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Exploration and Exploitation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1083-1101, August.
    5. Giovanni Gavetti & Daniel Levinthal & William Ocasio, 2007. "Perspective---Neo-Carnegie: The Carnegie School’s Past, Present, and Reconstructing for the Future," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 523-536, June.
    6. Paul S. Adler & Barbara Goldoftas & David I. Levine, 1999. "Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 43-68, February.
    7. Ioannides, Yannis M., 2012. "Complexity and organizational architecture," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 193-202.
    8. Michael Christensen & Thorbjørn Knudsen, 2010. "Design of Decision-Making Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 71-89, January.
    9. Gaël Le Mens & Michael T. Hannan & László Pólos, 2015. "Age-Related Structural Inertia: A Distance-Based Approach," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 756-773, June.
    10. Sah, Raaj Kumar & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1985. "Human Fallibility and Economic Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 292-297, May.
    11. Felipe A. Csaszar, 2012. "Organizational structure as a determinant of performance: Evidence from mutual funds," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 611-632, June.
    12. Danny Miller, 1986. "Configurations of strategy and structure: Towards a synthesis," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(3), pages 233-249, May.
    13. Daniel A. Levinthal, 1997. "Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(7), pages 934-950, July.
    14. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1990. "The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 511-528, June.
    15. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    16. Harold Guetzkow & Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "The Impact of Certain Communication Nets Upon Organization and Performance in Task-Oriented Groups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3-4), pages 233-250, 04-07.
    17. Luis Façanha & Marcelo Resende, 2010. "Determinants of hierarchical structure in industrial firms: an empirical study," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 295-308, June.
    18. Yue Maggie Zhou, 2013. "Designing for Complexity: Using Divisions and Hierarchy to Manage Complex Tasks," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 339-355, April.
    19. Visser, Bauke, 2000. "Organizational communication structure and performance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 231-252, June.
    20. Daniel A. Levinthal & Massimo Warglien, 1999. "Landscape Design: Designing for Local Action in Complex Worlds," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 342-357, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    2. John Joseph & Alex J. Wilson, 2018. "The growth of the firm: An attention‐based view," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1779-1800, June.
    3. Felipe A. Csaszar & J. P. Eggers, 2013. "Organizational Decision Making: An Information Aggregation View," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2257-2277, October.
    4. Nicolaj Siggelkow & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2003. "Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 650-669, December.
    5. Todd A. Hall & Sharique Hasan, 2022. "Organizational decision-making and the returns to experimentation," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(4), pages 129-144, December.
    6. Giovanni Gavetti, 2012. "PERSPECTIVE—Toward a Behavioral Theory of Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 267-285, February.
    7. Khraisha, Tamer, 2020. "Complex economic problems and fitness landscapes: Assessment and methodological perspectives," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 390-407.
    8. Arie Y. Lewin & Silvia Massini & Carine Peeters, 2011. "Microfoundations of Internal and External Absorptive Capacity Routines," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 81-98, February.
    9. Daniella Laureiro-Martínez & Stefano Brusoni & Nicola Canessa & Maurizio Zollo, 2015. "Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 319-338, March.
    10. Hart E. Posen & Sangyoon Yi & Jeho Lee, 2020. "A contingency perspective on imitation strategies: When is “benchmarking” ineffective?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 198-221, February.
    11. Juha Uotila, 2018. "Punctuated equilibrium or ambidexterity: dynamics of incremental and radical organizational change over time," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 131-148.
    12. Felipe A. Csaszar, 2013. "An Efficient Frontier in Organization Design: Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Exploration and Exploitation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1083-1101, August.
    13. Jan W. Rivkin & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2003. "Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 290-311, March.
    14. Mateos-Garcia, Juan, 2017. "To Err is Algorithm: Algorithmic fallibility and economic organisation," SocArXiv xuvf9, Center for Open Science.
    15. Friederike Wall, 2016. "Agent-based modeling in managerial science: an illustrative survey and study," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 135-193, January.
    16. Jose P. Arrieta & Yash R. Shrestha, 2022. "On the strategic value of equifinal choice," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(2), pages 37-45, June.
    17. Teece, David J., 2010. "Technological Innovation and the Theory of the Firm," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 679-730, Elsevier.
    18. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    19. Felipe A. Csaszar & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2010. "How Much to Copy? Determinants of Effective Imitation Breadth," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 661-676, June.
    20. Jesse Shore & Ethan Bernstein & David Lazer, 2014. "Facts and Figuring: An Experimental Investigation of Network Structure and Performance in Information and Solution Spaces," Harvard Business School Working Papers 14-075, Harvard Business School, revised Jun 2014.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:29:y:2018:i:4:p:722-738. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.