Введение
Департаментализация (или департаментализация) — это процесс объединения видов деятельности в отделы. Разделение труда порождает специалистов, нуждающихся в координации. Такая координация облегчается за счет объединения специалистов в отделах.
Популярные типы департаментализации
Функциональная специализация – Группировка деятельности по выполняемым функциям. Деятельность может быть сгруппирована по функциям (видам выполняемой работы) для достижения эффекта масштаба путем объединения сотрудников с общими навыками и знаниями в отделах, например, отдел управления персоналом, ИТ, бухгалтерия, производство, логистика и инженерия. Функциональная специализация может применяться во всех типах организаций. Группировка деятельности в соответствии с функциями предприятия. Специализация по продуктам – Группировка деятельности по продуктовым линиям. Она также может быть организована по конкретному продукту или услуге, объединяя все виды деятельности, связанные с этим продуктом или услугой, под руководством одного менеджера. Каждое основное направление продукции в корпорации находится в ведении старшего менеджера, являющегося специалистом и ответственным за все аспекты, связанные с этой продуктовой линейкой. LA Gear – пример компании, использующей специализацию по продуктам. Ее структура основана на разнообразных продуктовых линейках, включая женскую обувь и т.д. Специализация по клиентам – Группировка деятельности на основе общих клиентов или типов клиентов. Рабочие задачи могут быть сгруппированы в соответствии с типом обслуживаемых клиентов. Предполагается, что клиенты в каждом отделе имеют общий набор проблем и потребностей, которые лучше всего могут быть удовлетворены специалистами. Деятельность отдела продаж в компании, занимающейся поставками офисных товаров, может быть разделена на три отдела, обслуживающих розничных, оптовых и государственных клиентов. Географическая специализация – Группировка деятельности по территориальному признаку. Если клиенты организации географически распределены, рабочие места могут быть сгруппированы по географическому принципу. Например, организационная структура Coca-Cola отражает деятельность компании в двух основных географических регионах – североамериканском и международном, который включает регионы Тихоокеанского бассейна, Европейское сообщество, Северную и Восточную Европу, Африку и Латинскую Америку. Специализация по процессам – Группировка деятельности на основе потока продукта, услуги или клиентов. Поскольку каждый процесс требует различных навыков, специализация по процессам позволяет объединять однородные виды деятельности. Например, для получения водительского удостоверения заявителю может потребоваться пройти несколько отделов, таких как проверка, лицензирование и казначейство. Дивизиональная специализация – Когда компания развивает независимые направления бизнеса, функционирующие как отдельные компании, вносящие вклад в общую прибыльность корпорации, такая структура называется дивизиональной специализацией или (M-форма). Например, The Limited, Inc. имеет следующие подразделения: The Limited, Express, Lerner New York, Lane Bryant и Mast Industries. Ввиду сложности задач и конкурентной среды, в которой работают организации, они часто используют комбинацию вышеупомянутых методов специализации.
Некоторые философские соображения
Как отметили Марч и Саймон (1958), первые подходы к департаментализации восходят к Аристотелю (Политика, Книга IV, Глава 15), и проблема распределения работы, полномочий и ответственности в организации отнюдь не нова. В современное время Гулик и Урвик (1937) первыми представили теорию различных стратегий департаментализации, которые получили названия департаментализация по цели и департаментализация по процессу. Во-первых, [организация по основным процессам] путем объединения в одном подразделении значительного объема работ каждого вида (измеряемого технологически) позволяет добиться наиболее эффективного разделения труда и специализации. Во-вторых, это обеспечивает экономию за счет максимального использования трудосберегающих машин и массового производства. Существует опасность, что организация, построенная на основе цели, не сможет использовать самые современные технические средства и специалистов, поскольку может оказаться недостаточно работы определенного технического рода для эффективного подразделения. Есть ли преимущества в размещении специализированных служб, таких как личные секретари или делопроизводство, в [подразделениях, ориентированных на процессы]? В очень маленькой организации – да, в крупной – нет. В небольшой организации, где в некоторые дни секретарь не занят полный рабочий день, лучше иметь централизованный секретариат, чем личного секретаря для каждого сотрудника. В крупной организации все наоборот. (Гулик и Урвик, 1937)
Studying the above characterizations of the two forms of departmentalization we note that purpose decentralization is concerned with building work around specific products, customers, or geographic locations, while process departmentalization encompasses the efficiency of ”production”. March and Simon (1958) described the basic difference between the two ways of departmentalization as following:
”Process departmentalization generally takes greater advantage of the potentialities for economy of specialization than does purpose departmentalization: purpose departmentalization leads to greater self containment and lower coordination costs than process departmentalization.”
Author's note: Please keep in mind that the content of the term "process" as it is used today in concepts such as Business Process Management or business process reengineering differs significantly from its use by Gulick and Urwick. While G. and U. refer to functional decomposition when using the term "departmentalization by process", process orientation in today's meaning is more comparable to what G. and U. refer to as "purpose departmentalization". When taking a closer look at the three ways of departmentalization by purpose–product, customer, and location–we note that there are some specific advantages related to it. First, self containment tends to improve the ability for internal coordination within the unit. At the same time, the need for developing and maintaining extensive external coordination mechanisms is reduced. Second, a clearer focus on the purpose itself–serving a specific customer or market–is enabled. On the other hand, the sense of independence may result in a drift off from the achievement of the overall objectives of the organization. Therefore, several authors have emphasized the need for establishing control systems that serve the purpose of allowing decentralized decisions, while still aligning all sub units to the overall goals of the organization (Drucker 1954, Koontz & O’Donnell, 1964). Departmentalization by process, on the other hand, seeks to benefit from the advantages that are found in high specialization, and tends to be very efficient in some instances. A high degree of specialization leads to the development of proficiency and professional competence, as well as it enables, and implies, the development of centralized control functions. On the other hand, the problem of aligning individual and organizational goals remains. In addition, in this case, we would also need to consider departmental goals. Also, the high level of specialization is a barrier for the flexible reallocation of resources within the organization, i. e. people can not perform other tasks than those they are working with in their functional occupation. The most common way of process departmentalization is the division of the firm into business functions, such as purchasing, manufacturing, sales, accounting, etc. Looking at the circumstances encompassing the use of either of the departmentalization strategies, we find that departmentalization by process generally is advantageous in cases of stable environments, while departmentalization by purpose, featuring self containment and certain amounts of independence, appears to be the appropriate strategy for handling changing or unpredictable circumstances. Alfred Chandler (in: March and Simon, 1958) identified a correlation between the application of purpose departmentalization and the use of a diversification strategy:
”The dominant centralized structure had one basic weakness. A very few men were still entrusted with a great number of complex decisions. As long as an enterprise belonged in an industry whose market, sources of raw materials, and production processes remained relatively unchanged, few entrepreneurial decisions have to be reached. In that situation, such a weakness was not critical, but where technology, market, and sources of supplies were changed rapidly, the defect of such a structure became more obvious.”
Изучая вышеприведенные характеристики двух форм департаментализации, мы отмечаем, что департаментализация по цели связана с организацией работы вокруг конкретных продуктов, клиентов или географических регионов, в то время как департаментализация по процессу охватывает эффективность "производства". Марч и Саймон (1958) описали основное различие между этими двумя способами департаментализации следующим образом:
Studying the above characterizations of the two forms of departmentalization we note that purpose decentralization is concerned with building work around specific products, customers, or geographic locations, while process departmentalization encompasses the efficiency of ”production”. March and Simon (1958) described the basic difference between the two ways of departmentalization as following:
”Process departmentalization generally takes greater advantage of the potentialities for economy of specialization than does purpose departmentalization: purpose departmentalization leads to greater self containment and lower coordination costs than process departmentalization.”
Author's note: Please keep in mind that the content of the term "process" as it is used today in concepts such as Business Process Management or business process reengineering differs significantly from its use by Gulick and Urwick. While G. and U. refer to functional decomposition when using the term "departmentalization by process", process orientation in today's meaning is more comparable to what G. and U. refer to as "purpose departmentalization". When taking a closer look at the three ways of departmentalization by purpose–product, customer, and location–we note that there are some specific advantages related to it. First, self containment tends to improve the ability for internal coordination within the unit. At the same time, the need for developing and maintaining extensive external coordination mechanisms is reduced. Second, a clearer focus on the purpose itself–serving a specific customer or market–is enabled. On the other hand, the sense of independence may result in a drift off from the achievement of the overall objectives of the organization. Therefore, several authors have emphasized the need for establishing control systems that serve the purpose of allowing decentralized decisions, while still aligning all sub units to the overall goals of the organization (Drucker 1954, Koontz & O’Donnell, 1964). Departmentalization by process, on the other hand, seeks to benefit from the advantages that are found in high specialization, and tends to be very efficient in some instances. A high degree of specialization leads to the development of proficiency and professional competence, as well as it enables, and implies, the development of centralized control functions. On the other hand, the problem of aligning individual and organizational goals remains. In addition, in this case, we would also need to consider departmental goals. Also, the high level of specialization is a barrier for the flexible reallocation of resources within the organization, i. e. people can not perform other tasks than those they are working with in their functional occupation. The most common way of process departmentalization is the division of the firm into business functions, such as purchasing, manufacturing, sales, accounting, etc. Looking at the circumstances encompassing the use of either of the departmentalization strategies, we find that departmentalization by process generally is advantageous in cases of stable environments, while departmentalization by purpose, featuring self containment and certain amounts of independence, appears to be the appropriate strategy for handling changing or unpredictable circumstances. Alfred Chandler (in: March and Simon, 1958) identified a correlation between the application of purpose departmentalization and the use of a diversification strategy:
”The dominant centralized structure had one basic weakness. A very few men were still entrusted with a great number of complex decisions. As long as an enterprise belonged in an industry whose market, sources of raw materials, and production processes remained relatively unchanged, few entrepreneurial decisions have to be reached. In that situation, such a weakness was not critical, but where technology, market, and sources of supplies were changed rapidly, the defect of such a structure became more obvious.”
"Департаментализация по процессу, как правило, в большей степени использует потенциал экономии за счет специализации, чем департаментализация по цели: департаментализация по цели ведет к большей самодостаточности и снижению затрат на координацию, чем департаментализация по процессу."
Studying the above characterizations of the two forms of departmentalization we note that purpose decentralization is concerned with building work around specific products, customers, or geographic locations, while process departmentalization encompasses the efficiency of ”production”. March and Simon (1958) described the basic difference between the two ways of departmentalization as following:
”Process departmentalization generally takes greater advantage of the potentialities for economy of specialization than does purpose departmentalization: purpose departmentalization leads to greater self containment and lower coordination costs than process departmentalization.”
Author's note: Please keep in mind that the content of the term "process" as it is used today in concepts such as Business Process Management or business process reengineering differs significantly from its use by Gulick and Urwick. While G. and U. refer to functional decomposition when using the term "departmentalization by process", process orientation in today's meaning is more comparable to what G. and U. refer to as "purpose departmentalization". When taking a closer look at the three ways of departmentalization by purpose–product, customer, and location–we note that there are some specific advantages related to it. First, self containment tends to improve the ability for internal coordination within the unit. At the same time, the need for developing and maintaining extensive external coordination mechanisms is reduced. Second, a clearer focus on the purpose itself–serving a specific customer or market–is enabled. On the other hand, the sense of independence may result in a drift off from the achievement of the overall objectives of the organization. Therefore, several authors have emphasized the need for establishing control systems that serve the purpose of allowing decentralized decisions, while still aligning all sub units to the overall goals of the organization (Drucker 1954, Koontz & O’Donnell, 1964). Departmentalization by process, on the other hand, seeks to benefit from the advantages that are found in high specialization, and tends to be very efficient in some instances. A high degree of specialization leads to the development of proficiency and professional competence, as well as it enables, and implies, the development of centralized control functions. On the other hand, the problem of aligning individual and organizational goals remains. In addition, in this case, we would also need to consider departmental goals. Also, the high level of specialization is a barrier for the flexible reallocation of resources within the organization, i. e. people can not perform other tasks than those they are working with in their functional occupation. The most common way of process departmentalization is the division of the firm into business functions, such as purchasing, manufacturing, sales, accounting, etc. Looking at the circumstances encompassing the use of either of the departmentalization strategies, we find that departmentalization by process generally is advantageous in cases of stable environments, while departmentalization by purpose, featuring self containment and certain amounts of independence, appears to be the appropriate strategy for handling changing or unpredictable circumstances. Alfred Chandler (in: March and Simon, 1958) identified a correlation between the application of purpose departmentalization and the use of a diversification strategy:
”The dominant centralized structure had one basic weakness. A very few men were still entrusted with a great number of complex decisions. As long as an enterprise belonged in an industry whose market, sources of raw materials, and production processes remained relatively unchanged, few entrepreneurial decisions have to be reached. In that situation, such a weakness was not critical, but where technology, market, and sources of supplies were changed rapidly, the defect of such a structure became more obvious.”
Примечание автора: Следует учитывать, что содержание термина "процесс", используемого сегодня в концепциях, таких как управление бизнес-процессами или реинжиниринг бизнес-процессов, значительно отличается от его использования Гуликом и Урвиком. В то время как Г. и У. подразумевают функциональное разложение при использовании термина "департаментализация по процессу", ориентация на процессы в современном понимании скорее сопоставима с тем, что Г. и У. называют "департаментализацией по цели". При более детальном рассмотрении трех способов департаментализации по цели – продукту, клиенту и местоположению – мы отмечаем некоторые специфические преимущества. Во-первых, самодостаточность способствует улучшению внутренней координации внутри подразделения. Одновременно снижается потребность в разработке и поддержании обширных механизмов внешней координации. Во-вторых, обеспечивается более четкая ориентация на саму цель – обслуживание конкретного клиента или рынка. С другой стороны, чувство независимости может привести к отклонению от достижения общих целей организации. Поэтому ряд авторов подчеркивали необходимость создания систем управления, которые позволяли бы принимать децентрализованные решения, при этом согласовывая деятельность всех подразделений с общими целями организации (Дрюкер, 1954; Кунтц и О’Доннелл, 1964). Департаментализация по процессу, напротив, стремится извлечь выгоду из преимуществ высокой специализации и в некоторых случаях оказывается очень эффективной. Высокая степень специализации способствует развитию профессионального мастерства и компетенции, а также предполагает развитие централизованных функций управления. С другой стороны, остается проблема согласования индивидуальных и организационных целей. Кроме того, в этом случае необходимо учитывать и цели подразделений. Высокий уровень специализации также является препятствием для гибкого перераспределения ресурсов в организации, то есть сотрудники не могут выполнять задачи, выходящие за рамки их функциональных обязанностей. Наиболее распространенным способом департаментализации по процессу является разделение фирмы на бизнес-функции, такие как закупки, производство, продажи, бухгалтерия и т.д. Анализируя обстоятельства, определяющие выбор той или иной стратегии департаментализации, мы видим, что департаментализация по процессу, как правило, выгодна в условиях стабильной среды, в то время как департаментализация по цели, характеризующаяся самодостаточностью и определенной степенью независимости, представляется наиболее подходящей стратегией для работы в условиях перемен или непредсказуемости. Альфред Чандлер (в: Марч и Саймон, 1958) выявил корреляцию между применением департаментализации по цели и использованием стратегии диверсификации:
Studying the above characterizations of the two forms of departmentalization we note that purpose decentralization is concerned with building work around specific products, customers, or geographic locations, while process departmentalization encompasses the efficiency of ”production”. March and Simon (1958) described the basic difference between the two ways of departmentalization as following:
”Process departmentalization generally takes greater advantage of the potentialities for economy of specialization than does purpose departmentalization: purpose departmentalization leads to greater self containment and lower coordination costs than process departmentalization.”
Author's note: Please keep in mind that the content of the term "process" as it is used today in concepts such as Business Process Management or business process reengineering differs significantly from its use by Gulick and Urwick. While G. and U. refer to functional decomposition when using the term "departmentalization by process", process orientation in today's meaning is more comparable to what G. and U. refer to as "purpose departmentalization". When taking a closer look at the three ways of departmentalization by purpose–product, customer, and location–we note that there are some specific advantages related to it. First, self containment tends to improve the ability for internal coordination within the unit. At the same time, the need for developing and maintaining extensive external coordination mechanisms is reduced. Second, a clearer focus on the purpose itself–serving a specific customer or market–is enabled. On the other hand, the sense of independence may result in a drift off from the achievement of the overall objectives of the organization. Therefore, several authors have emphasized the need for establishing control systems that serve the purpose of allowing decentralized decisions, while still aligning all sub units to the overall goals of the organization (Drucker 1954, Koontz & O’Donnell, 1964). Departmentalization by process, on the other hand, seeks to benefit from the advantages that are found in high specialization, and tends to be very efficient in some instances. A high degree of specialization leads to the development of proficiency and professional competence, as well as it enables, and implies, the development of centralized control functions. On the other hand, the problem of aligning individual and organizational goals remains. In addition, in this case, we would also need to consider departmental goals. Also, the high level of specialization is a barrier for the flexible reallocation of resources within the organization, i. e. people can not perform other tasks than those they are working with in their functional occupation. The most common way of process departmentalization is the division of the firm into business functions, such as purchasing, manufacturing, sales, accounting, etc. Looking at the circumstances encompassing the use of either of the departmentalization strategies, we find that departmentalization by process generally is advantageous in cases of stable environments, while departmentalization by purpose, featuring self containment and certain amounts of independence, appears to be the appropriate strategy for handling changing or unpredictable circumstances. Alfred Chandler (in: March and Simon, 1958) identified a correlation between the application of purpose departmentalization and the use of a diversification strategy:
”The dominant centralized structure had one basic weakness. A very few men were still entrusted with a great number of complex decisions. As long as an enterprise belonged in an industry whose market, sources of raw materials, and production processes remained relatively unchanged, few entrepreneurial decisions have to be reached. In that situation, such a weakness was not critical, but where technology, market, and sources of supplies were changed rapidly, the defect of such a structure became more obvious.”
"Доминирующая централизованная структура имела одну основную слабость. Очень небольшое число людей по-прежнему отвечало за большое количество сложных решений. Пока предприятие работало в отрасли, где рынок, источники сырья и производственные процессы оставались относительно неизменными, не требовалось принимать много предпринимательских решений. В этой ситуации эта слабость не была критичной, но когда технологии, рынок и источники снабжения быстро менялись, недостаток такой структуры становился более очевидным."
Studying the above characterizations of the two forms of departmentalization we note that purpose decentralization is concerned with building work around specific products, customers, or geographic locations, while process departmentalization encompasses the efficiency of ”production”. March and Simon (1958) described the basic difference between the two ways of departmentalization as following:
”Process departmentalization generally takes greater advantage of the potentialities for economy of specialization than does purpose departmentalization: purpose departmentalization leads to greater self containment and lower coordination costs than process departmentalization.”
Author's note: Please keep in mind that the content of the term "process" as it is used today in concepts such as Business Process Management or business process reengineering differs significantly from its use by Gulick and Urwick. While G. and U. refer to functional decomposition when using the term "departmentalization by process", process orientation in today's meaning is more comparable to what G. and U. refer to as "purpose departmentalization". When taking a closer look at the three ways of departmentalization by purpose–product, customer, and location–we note that there are some specific advantages related to it. First, self containment tends to improve the ability for internal coordination within the unit. At the same time, the need for developing and maintaining extensive external coordination mechanisms is reduced. Second, a clearer focus on the purpose itself–serving a specific customer or market–is enabled. On the other hand, the sense of independence may result in a drift off from the achievement of the overall objectives of the organization. Therefore, several authors have emphasized the need for establishing control systems that serve the purpose of allowing decentralized decisions, while still aligning all sub units to the overall goals of the organization (Drucker 1954, Koontz & O’Donnell, 1964). Departmentalization by process, on the other hand, seeks to benefit from the advantages that are found in high specialization, and tends to be very efficient in some instances. A high degree of specialization leads to the development of proficiency and professional competence, as well as it enables, and implies, the development of centralized control functions. On the other hand, the problem of aligning individual and organizational goals remains. In addition, in this case, we would also need to consider departmental goals. Also, the high level of specialization is a barrier for the flexible reallocation of resources within the organization, i. e. people can not perform other tasks than those they are working with in their functional occupation. The most common way of process departmentalization is the division of the firm into business functions, such as purchasing, manufacturing, sales, accounting, etc. Looking at the circumstances encompassing the use of either of the departmentalization strategies, we find that departmentalization by process generally is advantageous in cases of stable environments, while departmentalization by purpose, featuring self containment and certain amounts of independence, appears to be the appropriate strategy for handling changing or unpredictable circumstances. Alfred Chandler (in: March and Simon, 1958) identified a correlation between the application of purpose departmentalization and the use of a diversification strategy:
”The dominant centralized structure had one basic weakness. A very few men were still entrusted with a great number of complex decisions. As long as an enterprise belonged in an industry whose market, sources of raw materials, and production processes remained relatively unchanged, few entrepreneurial decisions have to be reached. In that situation, such a weakness was not critical, but where technology, market, and sources of supplies were changed rapidly, the defect of such a structure became more obvious.”
Последние тенденции в области департаментализации
Все большее внимание уделяется функциональной организации по клиентам. Жесткая департаментализация дополняется использованием команд, работающих вне традиционных ведомственных границ ("силосов").