Organizational structure, functions, and comparative analysis

organization familiar present items relate organization: • Describe organizational structure selected organization. Compare contrast structure organizational structures. • Evaluate organizational functions ( marketing, finance, human resources, operations) influence determine organizational structure selected organization.

My company choice is Microsoft, mainly because it best reflects one of the newest and most used organizational approaches in the 20th and 21st century. There are several interesting considerations worth pointing out in the case of Microsoft.

Microsoft uses a team-based organization, often combined or embedded on a project-based approach. The idea of a team-based organizational structure is to synergize individual skills and competencies into a larger, more overarching framework (Thareja, 2007). In the case of Microsoft and, in fact, of many other software producers, the team-based organizational structure is also determine by the necessities that arrive in software development and the particularities of the different phases in this process that require employees with particular skills at each phase of development.

As such, each project would include different phases, such as architectural design, specifications (technical and user), actual development, testing, plus a project manager (or more) to coordinate all these actions into a unitary effort. Each individual is involved at the different stages of the project development, but, at the same, coordination needs to be ensured at all stages, both horizontally (between each team members) and vertically (with other branches of the company, so that a particular project can be coordinated with the development of others. No use launching a new version of Microsoft Project, unless this is coordinated with other segments of Microsoft).

For examples, testing is generally done at the end of the development phase. However, modular testing can be tried as well, with the testing team working on testing the application after each module is developed. The testing will focus on the particular functionality of that particular module rather than on the functionality of these modules in relation to the others, something that can be done after everything has been completed.

The team/project-based approach at Microsoft is also translated in the way the company is organization vertically. There are three main pillars: project management, development and testing. Each employee gets a choice on which of these pillars to develop and move upwards in the hierarchy. From an organizational perspective, this is an excellent manner of developing human resource, mainly because of a distinct specialization of all these employees.

This approach means that all training and motivational resources will be targeted towards improving the individual in the particular pillar in which he or she is operational. If he is a developer, but does not have any project management skills, he will be able to move upwards as a developer without any problem in his career. In other development companies, there is the usual practice that the developer will eventually become a project manager, as a way of moving upwards in his career.

The team-based approach practiced at Microsoft also influences the way the other functions of the organization operate. The human resources are directly linked to the needs of the team and the request for additional members in a particular project team leads to Microsoft launching a recruitment and selection process to have more people hired.

At the same time, the marketing and operations are also in touch with the clients, both current and potential clients, of the company, helping them determine concrete specifications that can be passed down to the development teams. A project manager from each team will usually participate in the meeting with the clients, specifically because he can transform these requirements into technical specifications that the team could them implement.

Microsoft is an example where the organizational structure is product-driven. The particularities of the software development industry and its focus on the creation of the final product (which is a significantly more difficult enterprise than, say, making clothes) means that the work needs to be broken down among teams, which also coordinate horizontally and vertically.

One can assume that the teams at Microsoft eventually configure themselves in such a way that their coordination leads to a matrix-type structure, which groups teams both by product and by function. It is easy to assume that, at a certain point in the history of the organization, developers were employed on several products at the same time, perhaps developing a particular aspect of the respective applications. Similarly, testers likely move around from team to team, being employed for punctual projects.

One can never underestimate the importance that Microsoft gives to coordination. It is understandable in a structure of this size. Legend says that developers spent more time in meetings than in their actual development work. This is useful because it gives them a chance to interact at all levels with other parts of the structure and coordinate their work at a larger scale, taking into consideration all the necessities of the company.

The product-based approach and the influence that the product portfolio has on the company's policies are clear also in terms of human resource and acquisition policies. The acquisition policy is driven by the need to complete an existing suite or product portfolio with a particular product that is cheaper to purchase rather than develop. With that in mind, the company proceeds to acquiring the company, including the team of developers, testers and project managers that work on that particular product.