Gestión de Procesos y Estructuras

Esta asignatura aborda los principales conceptos y aspectos en torno al diseño estructural de las organizaciones, con base en el estudio de su entorno, la propuesta de valor de sus productos y/o servicios, la cultura interna, los recursos disponibles y las tendencias del mercado. También recoge los fundamentos en torno a la identificación, diseño, documentación, evaluación y optimización de los procesos y procedimientos que conforman la cadena de valor de la organización, presentando las principales metodologías y herramientas para su estudio, análisis y diagramación.

Materiales de Lectura

La metodología para el estudio de sus contenidos esta basada en la lectura de los materiales asignados semanalmente, que serán socializados y debatidos en cada sesión para gestar la apropiación del conocimiento teórico y la adopción de conceptos que serán evaluados a través de talleres y cuestionarios.

A continuación encontrarán el listado de lecturas del libro "Teoría y diseño Organizacional" (Daft, Richard L.), que deberán realizarse para el desarrollo de la asignatura y las fechas en que estas serán evaluadas:

Lectura complementaria para la primera evaluación:

Mechanistic vs Organic Organizational Structures

Organizational structures fall on a spectrum, with "mechanistic" at one end and

"organic" at the other.

Take a look at the diagram below. As you'll probably be able to tell, the mechanistic structure represents the traditional, top-down approach to organizational structure, whereas the organic structure represents a more collaborative, flexible approach.

Here's a breakdown of both ends of the structural spectrum, their advantages and disadvantages, and which types of businesses are suited for them.

Mechanistic Structure

Mechanistic structures, also called bureaucratic structures, are known for having narrow spans of control, as well as high centralization, specialization, and formalization. They're also quite rigid in what specific departments are designed and permitted to do for the company.

This organizational structure is much more formal than organic structure, using specific standards and practices to govern every decision the business makes. And while this model does hold staff more accountable for their work, it can become a hindrance to the creativity and agility the organization needs to keep up with random changes in its market.

As daunting and inflexible as mechanistic structure sounds, the chain of command, whether long or short, is always clear under this model. As a company grows, it needs to make sure everyone (and every team) knows what's expected of them. Teams collaborating with other teams as neededmight help get a business off the ground in its early stages, but sustaining that growth -- with more people and projects to keep track of -- will eventually require some policymaking. In other words, keep mechanistic structure in your back pocket ... you never know when you'll need it.

Organic Structure

Organic structures (also known as "flat" structures) are known for their wide spans of control, decentralization, low specialization, and loose departmentalization. What's that all mean? This model might have multiple teams answering to one person and taking on projects based on their importance and what the team is capable of -- rather than what the team is designed to do.

As you can probably tell, this organizational structure is much less formal than mechanistic, and takes a bit of an ad-hoc approach to business needs. This can sometimes make the chain of command, whether long or short, difficult to decipher. And as a result, leaders might give certain projects the green light more quickly but cause confusion in a project's division of labor.

Nonetheless, the flexibility that an organic structure allows for can be extremely helpful to a business that's navigating a fast-moving industry, or simply trying to stabilize itself after a rough quarter. It also empowers employees to try new things and develop as professionals, making the organization's workforce more powerful in the long run. Bottom line? Startups are often perfect for organic structure, since they're simply trying to gain brand recognition and get their wheels off the ground.

Now, let's uncover more specific types of organizational structures, most of which fall on the more traditional, mechanistic side of the spectrum.

Types of Organizational Structure

1. Functional Organizational Structure
2. Product-Based Divisional Structure
3. Market-Based Divisional Structure
4. Geographical Divisional Structure
5. Process-Based Structure
6. Matrix Structure
7. Circular Structure

1. Functional Organizational Structure

One of the most common types of organizational structures, the functional structure departmentalizes an organization based on common job functions.

An organization with a functional org structure, for instance, would group all of the marketers together in one department, group all of the salespeople together in a separate department, and group all of the customer service people together in a third department.

The functional structure allows for a high degree of specialization for employees, and is easily scalable should the organization grow. Also this structure is mechanistic in nature -- which has the potential to inhibit an employee's growth -- putting staff in skill-based departments can still allow them to delve deep into their field and find out what they're good at.

Disadvantages

Functional structure also has the potential to create barriers between different functions -- and it can be inefficient if the organization has a variety of different products or target markets. The barriers created between departments can also limit peoples' knowledge of and communication with other departments, especially those that depend on other departments to succeed.

2. Product-Based Divisional Structure

A divisional organizational structure is comprised of multiple, smaller functional structures (i.e. each division within a divisional structure can have its own marketing team, its own sales team, and so on). In this case -- a product-based divisional structure -- each division within the organization is dedicated to a particular product line.

This type of structure is ideal for organizations with multiple products and can help shorten product development cycles. This allows small businesses to go to market with new offerings fast.

Disadvantages

It can be difficult to scale under a product-based divisional structure, and the organization could end up with duplicate resources as different divisions strive to develop new offerings.

3. Market-Based Divisional Structure

Another variety of the divisional organizational structure is the market-based structure, wherein the divisions of an organization are based around markets, industries, or customer types.

The market-based structure is ideal for an organization that has products or services that are unique to specific market segments, and is particularly effective if that organization has advanced knowledge of those segments. This organizational structure also keeps the business constantly aware of demand changes among its different audience segments.

Disadvantages

Too much autonomy within each market-based team can lead to divisions developing systems that are incompatible with one another. Divisions might also end up inadvertently duplicating activities that other divisions are already handling.

4. Geographical Divisional Structure

The geographical organizational structure establishes its divisions based on -- you guessed it -- geography. More specifically, the divisions of a geographical structure can include territories, regions, or districts.

This type of structure is best-suited to organizations that need to be near sources of supply and/or customers (e.g. for deliveries or for on-site support). It also brings together many forms of business expertise, allowing each geographical division to make decisions from more diverse points of view.

Disadvantages

The main downside of a geographical org structure: It can be easy for decision- making to become decentralized, as geographic divisions (which can be hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from corporate headquarters) often have a great deal of autonomy. And when you have more than one marketing department -- one for each region -- you run the risk of creating campaigns that compete with (and weaken) other divisions across your digital channels.

5. Process-Based Structure

Process-based organizational structures are designed around the end-to-end flow of different processes, such as "Research & Development," "Customer Acquisition," and "Order Fulfillment." Unlike a strictly functional structure, a process-based structure considers not only the activities employees perform, but also how those different activities interact with one another.

In order to fully understand the diagram below, you need to look at it from left to right: The customer acquisition process can't start until you have a fully developed product to sell. By the same token, the order fulfillment process can't start until customers have been acquired and there are product orders to fill.

Process-based organizational structure is ideal for improving the speed and efficiency of a business, and is best-suited for those in rapidly changing industries, as it is easily adaptable.

Disadvantages

Similar to a few other structures on this list, process-based structure can erect barriers between the different process groups. This leads to problems communicating and handing off work to other teams and employees.

6. Matrix Structure

Unlike the other structures we've looked at so far, a matrix organizational structure doesn't follow the traditional, hierarchical model. Instead, all employees (represented by the green boxes) have dual reporting relationships. Typically, there is a functional reporting line (shown in blue) as well as a product- based reporting line (shown in yellow).

When looking at a matrix structure org chart, solid lines represent strong, direct-reporting relationships, whereas dotted lines indicate that the relationship is secondary, or not as strong. In our example below, it's clear that functional reporting takes precedence over product-based reporting.

The main appeal of the matrix structure is that it can provide both flexibility and more balanced decision-making (as there are two chains of command instead of just one). Having a single project overseen by more than one business line also creates opportunities for these business lines to share resources and communicate more openly with each other -- things they might not otherwise be able to do regularly.

Disadvantages

The primary pitfall of the matrix organizational structure? Complexity. The more layers of approval employees have to go through, the more confused they can be about who they're supposed to answer to. This confusion can ultimately cause frustration over who has authority over which decisions and products -- and who's responsible for those decisions when things go wrong.

7. Circular Structure

While it might appear drastically different from the other organizational structures highlighted in this section, the circular structure still relies on hierarchy, with higher-level employees occupying the inner rings of the circle and lower-level employees occupying the outer rings.

That being said, the leaders or executives in a circular organization aren't seen as sitting atop the organization, sending directives down the chain of command. Instead, they're at the center of the organization, spreading their vision outward.

From an ideological perspective, a circular structure is meant to promote communication and the free flow of information between different parts of the organization. Whereas a traditional structure shows different departments or divisions as occupying individual, semi-autonomous branches, the circular structure depicts all divisions as being part of the same whole.

Disadvantages

From a practical perspective, the circular structure can be confusing, especially for new employees. Unlike with a more traditional, top-down structure, a circular structure can make it difficult for employees to figure out who they report to and how they're meant to fit into the organization.

That concludes our exploration of different types of organizational structures. Keep in mind that what we've just looked at are simply archetypes -- in real-world applications, organizations often use hybrid structures, which can borrow elements from multiple structure types.

Want to see some real-world examples of marketing team org structures from companies like GitHub and Rue La La? Download the complete resource, An Illustrated Guide to Organizational Structures.

To learn more about working on a marketing team, check out the 6 Building Blocks of Organizational Structure [Diagrams].

Syllabus de la Asignatura: