Основы организационного дизайна в процессе управления экономическими системами: разработка концептуальной модели
Blagodatskiy P.V.1
1 Russian University of Transport (MIIT)
Download PDF | Downloads: 7
Journal paper
Leadership and Management (РИНЦ, ВАК)
опубликовать статью | оформить подписку
Volume 12, Number 2 (February 2025)
Indexed in Russian Science Citation Index: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=80406929
Abstract:
В настоящее время экономическая конкуренция становится все более интенсивной и стремительной. Именно поэтому возрастают требования к организации эффективного организационного проектирования и дизайна. Именно организационный дизайн является ключевым аспектом успешной деятельности экономических систем, прежде всего, на уровне отдельных компаний. Изучение основ организационного дизайна имеет большое практическое значение для менеджеров и генеральных директоров, принимающих стратегические решения по развитию компании. Понимание принципов и методов организационного дизайна поможет им эффективно адаптироваться к изменяющимся рыночным условиям, создавать устойчивые и конкурентоспособные организационные структуры и успешно реализовывать стратегии развития. В статье представлены результаты систематизации ключевых слов, концепций и теорий, связанных с концепцией организационного дизайна. На основе результатов наукометрического анализа выявлены ключевые элементы организационного дизайна и разработана концептуальная модель. В статье определены ключевые элементы, влияющие на успех организационного дизайна и его соответствие стратегии компании. Автором статьи предлагается новый подход к организационному дизайну, основанный на анализе организационной архитектуры, структуры и стратегии. Разработанная в статье концептуальная модель позволяет учесть все аспекты взаимосвязи между выбранными элементами и оптимизировать процесс организационного дизайна с целью достижения целей и задач компании. Результаты исследования позволяют лучше понять механизмы влияния организационного дизайна на эффективность экономических систем, в том числе в контексте совершенствования управления организацией в целом.
Keywords: концептуальная модель, организационная архитектура, организационный дизайн, организационная структура, стратегия
JEL-classification: L26, M11, M21
1. Introduction
In modern management (both in theory and practice), there are three concepts about which questions concerning their semantic content often arise. These are the concepts of organizational structure, organizational architecture, and organizational design.
Organizational structure is understood as a formal system that defines how the various functional areas, departments, and individuals in an organization are managed and coordinated. It is the organizational structure that determines the hierarchical relationships among employees, the management structure, the communication flows, and the employees’ powers and responsibilities [49, 63, 64, 93, 94] (Fayol, 1949; Gulick, 1937; Gulick, 2012; Urwick, 1952; Weber, 1972).
Organizational architecture is the fundamental organization of a system, embodied in its elements, their relationships to each other and to the environment, and the principles that guide its design and evolution. Conventionally, it consists of a formal organization (organizational structure), an informal organization (organizational culture), business processes, strategy, and human resources. In 1964, principles to guide the design of organizational systems were formulated. These principles include coherence, orthogonality, consistency, cost-effectiveness, transparency, generality, openness, and completeness [32] (Blaauw and Brooks, 1964). Lawrence and Lorsch presented the theory of differentiation and integration, which is one of the components of a special approach to organizational structure. They suggested that the factor of functional divergence between different departments may affect their relationship (differentiation), and also pointed out the need for cooperation (integration) between all departments [68] (Lawrence and Jay, 1967). Moreover, the foundations of the theory of organizational architecture were laid by Nadler, Gerstein and Shaw in their book “Organizational Architecture: Designs for Changing Organizations” [80] (Nadler et al., 1992).
Organizational design is a broader category that includes the design of structure, processes, management systems, and interaction within an organization aimed at achieving business goals. It is a process that results in the formation of an effective organizational configuration, which includes a number of basic subsystems (blocks), i.e. the organizational structure. Henry Mintzberg is considered the founder of the theory of organizational design. In 1983, in his work “Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations”, he outlined a theory called “Structure in Fives” (five coordination mechanisms, five components and five driving forces of every organization, and five configurations of organizational structures) [76] (Mintzberg, 1983). Later, Galbraith identified five areas of organizational design choices (blocks of the organizational model) related to each other (goals, objectives and strategy, structure, information processes, reward and incentive system, human resources), developing the Star Model [54, 56] (Galbraith, 2009; Galbraith, 2014).
Thus, the main difference between the three concepts mentioned above is as follows. Organizational structure is only a formal organization of management and coordination; organizational architecture focuses on the fundamental organization of the system as a whole; and organizational design focuses on the design of individual elements and processes within the company.
In our research, we will adhere to the following assumption. We will consider the organizational structure and design of the organization in a metaphorical sense, including ways of managing and building a chain of commands. We believe that the organizational structure is a description of the company’s hierarchy; and its purpose is to align the company’s work with its mission and vision. Organizational design is always a process; and this concept is narrower than “organizational structure”. It describes processes and aligning positions with business strategies (“the right people in the right places”) to increase the performance and efficiency of the organization. Thus, the organizational structure is the result of the organizational design process. As far as the organizational architecture is concerned, it is the so-called “physical” design of the company, i.e. the architecture and layout of workspaces and equipment placement.
The research purpose was to systematize keywords, concepts, and theories related to the concept of “organizational design” based on the results of a scientometric analysis of the foundations of organizational design in the management of economic systems, to identify its key elements, and to develop its conceptual model.
The scientific novelty of the research includes the author’s interpretation of the elements of organizational design and the author’s conceptual model of organizational design.
2. Materials and methods
The research methodology is based on qualitative and quantitative analysis of scientific publications on the portals ELIBRARY.ru and Sciencedirect.com, contextual and retrospective analysis, synthesis, systematization and grouping of data, mathematization (calculation of frequencies), as well as the use of the Internet service Google Books Ngram Viewer.
2.1. Methodology of data analysis on ELIBRARY.ru
On ELIBRARY.ru on 5 November 2024, the search query “organizational design” was generated. 63,829 publications out of 59,600,622 were selected. Then the query was limited to search only in the title, abstract and keywords. As a result, 210 publications were chosen. Further analysis, systematization, grouping, and calculations were carried out based on the data of the selected publications. 25 keywords directly related to the concept of organizational design were identified. For these keywords, the frequency of mention in the selection of 210 publications was calculated.
2.2. Methodology of data analysis on Sciencedirect.com
On Sciencedirect.com on 10 November 2024, the search query “organizational design” was entered. 32,418 publications were selected in which the analyzed concept is found in the title, abstract and keywords. Then the query was limited to search for the concept “organizational design” only in the title of the publication. The number of publications was 503. Next, the subject areas in which the concept under study was considered were analyzed; and three subject areas were selected: “Business, Management and Accounting”, “Decision Sciences”, and “Economics, Econometrics and Finance”. Thus, the selection was reduced to 205 and further analysis, systematization, grouping, and calculations were carried out based on the data of the selected publications. 25 keywords selected in the previous stage were used. For these keywords, the frequency of mention in the selection of 205 publications was calculated.
2.3. Methodology of data analysis with the help of Google Books Ngram Viewer
The Google Books Ngram Viewer tool was used to analyze the frequency of mention of keywords and concepts in the corpus of printed sources collected in Google Books. The database contains more than 40 million publications from the 16th century to 2022. The data was analyzed for the period 1930–2022 (due to the fact that there was no interest in the concept of organizational design until 1930). The query specified seven keywords and concepts: organizational design, organizational structure, management, model, strategy, integration, and planning.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Selection and analysis of keywords and concepts related to the study of the concept of organizational design
We begin our research with the scientometric analysis of the interest in the concept of organizational design.
According to the search query “organizational design” on ELIBRARY.ru on 5 November 2024, 63,829 publications out of 59,600,622 can be found (i.e. only 0.107%). If we restrict the search by searching for the concept only in the title, abstract, and keywords, the number of publications will be only 210 (only 0.00035%), i.e. we can say that the concept of organizational design remains insufficiently discussed. An analysis of the selected publications in the context of subject areas shows that most of all publications (160 or 78%) belong to the category “Economics. Economic Sciences” (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Analysis of the selection of 210 publications, which title, abstract, and keywords contain the concept “organizational design”, by subject areas
Source: compiled by the author according to ELIBRARY.ru on 5 November 2024.
At the next stage of our research, using 210 selected publications, we identified 25 of the most interesting, in our opinion, keywords and concepts related to the concept of organizational design. Next, we determined the frequency of mention of the selected 25 keywords and concepts (Table 1). Thus, most often (frequency of mention is 10 and more), in the selected publications, the concept of organizational design is associated with such keywords and concepts as organizational structure (89 publications or 42.38%), organizational design (27 publications or 12. 86%), management (25 publications or 11.90%), staff (22 publications or 10.48%), model (14 publications or 6.67%), strategy (12 publications or 5.71%), integration (12 publications or 5.71%), and planning (10 publications or 4.76%). Three more interesting and important concepts follow: competitiveness, design, and efficiency (9 publications each or 4.29% each) (Table 1).
Table 1
Keywords and concepts related to organizational design research and the frequency of their mention in the selection of 210 publications
|
No.
|
Keyword
|
Number of publications
|
Frequency of mention, %
|
Authors
|
|
1
|
Organizational
structure
|
89
|
42.38
|
[2, 6] (Aleynikov, 2021; Gusev,
2022)
|
|
2
|
Organizational
design
|
27
|
12.86
|
[5, 11] ( Veshkurova and Kopylova, 2023;
Clargo, 2009)
|
|
3
|
Management
|
25
|
11.90
|
[1, 7, 8, 12] (Aleksashina, 2022; Drogobytskaya, 2009a; Drogobytskaya, 2009b; Kogai, 2012)
|
|
4
|
Staff
|
22
|
10.48
|
[1] (Aleksashina, 2022)
|
|
5
|
Model
|
14
|
6.67
|
[24] (Tolstykh, 2020)
|
|
6
|
Strategy
|
12
|
5.71
|
[18, 23] (Nikiforova and Kharchenko, 2010; Tereshkina
and Khalturina, 2023)
|
|
7
|
Integration
|
12
|
5.71
|
[4] (Burylova and Shangina, 2011)
|
|
8
|
Planning
|
10
|
4.76
|
[7, 8] (Drogobytskaya, 2009a; Drogobytskaya, 2009b)
|
|
9
|
Competitiveness
|
9
|
4.29
|
[9] (Zherlova and Vikhoreva, 2022)
|
|
10
|
Project
|
9
|
4.29
|
[16] (Mumladze, 2023)
|
|
11
|
Effectiveness
|
9
|
4.29
|
[27] (Shushurykhina and Glukhikh, 2016)
|
|
12
|
Sustainability
|
8
|
3.81
|
[20, 21] (Skripkin, 2016; Skripkin,
2023)
|
|
13
|
Digitalization
|
8
|
3.81
|
[19, 22] (Potekhina and Bisikalo, 2021;
Sobirov, 2022)
|
|
14
|
Performance
|
8
|
3.81
|
[11] (Clargo, 2009)
|
|
15
|
Optimization
|
8
|
3.81
|
[1] (Aleksashina, 2022)
|
|
16
|
Innovation
|
7
|
3.33
|
[26] Chegrintsova and Torskaya,
2024)
|
|
17
|
System approach
|
7
|
3.33
|
[15] (Motyshina, 2019)
|
|
18
|
(Organizational)
architecture
|
6
|
2.86
|
[20, 21] (Skripkin, 2016; Skripkin,
2023)
|
|
19
|
Communication
|
6
|
2.86
|
[3] (Artemova, 2020)
|
|
20
|
Process
|
6
|
2.86
|
[10] (Kirillov et al., 2020)
|
|
21
|
System
|
6
|
2.86
|
[15] (Motyshina, 2019)
|
|
22
|
Corporate
culture
|
5
|
2.38
|
[25] (Khomutsky and Andreev,
2017)
|
|
23
|
Control
|
5
|
2.38
|
[7, 8, 13] (Drogobytskaya, 2009a; Drogobytskaya, 2009b; Komissarova
and Belogina, 2015)
|
|
24
|
Potential
|
5
|
2.38
|
[12] (Kogai, 2012)
|
|
25
|
Controlling
|
3
|
1.43
|
[14] (Miroshnichenko and Nikiforova, 2018)
|
|
Total
|
210
|
100
|
| |
Source: compiled by the author according to ELIBRARY.ru on 5 November 2024.
On the portal Sciencedirect.com on 10 November 2024, according to the search query “organizational design”, 32,418 publications can be found in which the analyzed concept is found in the title, abstract, and keywords. If the query is restricted to search for the concept “organizational design” in the title only, the number of publications is 503.
The distribution of publications containing the concept “organizational design” in the title, abstract, and keywords by subject area is as follows (Figure 2):
• Business, Management and Accounting (161);
• Engineering (153);
• Social Sciences (100);
• Computer Science (87);
• Decision Sciences (85);
• Medicine and Dentistry (51);
• Psychology (45);
• Economics, Econometrics and Finance (44);
• Biochemistry, Genetics and Biology (21);
• Mathematics (20).
An analysis of the selected publications by subject area shows that the majority of all publications (161 or 78.54%) relate to the area “Business, Management and Accounting” (Figure 2).
Note: One publication may be included in several subject areas.
Figure 2. Distribution of 503 publications, which title, abstract and keywords contain the concept “organizational design”, by subject area
Source: compiled by the author according to Sciencedirect.com on 10 November 2024.
Within the framework of our research, we will further use and analyze 205 publications that are included in the following three collections “Business, Management and Accounting”, “Decision Sciences”, and “Economics, Econometrics and Finance”.
Further, the terminological apparatus should be considered. On the basis of 25 keywords and concepts selected in the previous stage (Table 1), we will analyze the frequency of their mention the selection of 205 publications (for each keywords and concept, the search was carried out in the title, abstract, and keywords) (Table 2).
Table 2
Analysis of keywords for the search query “organizational design” in the selection of 205 publications on Sciencedirect.com
|
No.
|
Keyword
|
Number of publications
|
Frequency of mention, %
|
Authors
|
|
1
|
Organizational
design
|
205
|
100.00
|
[81,
84, 99, 100] (Nadler et al., 2011; Prendergast, 2023; Zani et al., 2024a;
Zani et al., 2024b)
|
|
2
|
Management
|
62
|
30.24
|
36,
84] (Buchanan, 2015; Prendergast, 2023)
|
|
3
|
Organizational
structure
|
60
|
29.27
|
[42,
46, 58] (Dekkers, 2018; Edwards et al., 2015; González-Zapatero et al., 2024)
|
|
4
|
Model
|
60
|
29.27
|
[33,
50] (Bocken and Geradts, 2020; Fjeldstad and Snow, 2018)
|
|
5
|
System
|
54
|
26.34
|
[97]
(Xu et al., 2009)
|
|
6
|
Process
|
45
|
21.95
|
[31]
(Besri and Boulmakoul, 2017)
|
|
7
|
Performance
|
34
|
16.59
|
[62]
(Grego et al., 2024)
|
|
8
|
Strategy
|
32
|
15.61
|
[65]
(Gurianova and Mechtcheriakova, 2015)
|
|
9
|
Project
|
26
|
12.68
|
[28,
99, 100] (Aubry and Lavoie-Tremblay, 2018; Zani et al.,
2024a; Zani et al., 2024b)
|
|
10
|
Control
|
22
|
10.73
|
[34]
(Boland et al., 2008)
|
|
11
|
Integration
|
21
|
10.24
|
[35]
(Browning, 2001)
|
|
12
|
Controlling
|
20
|
9.76
|
[34]
(Boland et al., 2008)
|
|
13
|
System
approach
|
19
|
9.27
|
[30,
67] (Besio and Tacke, 2023; Kast and Rosenzweig, 1972)
|
|
14
|
Communication
|
18
|
8.78
|
[90]
(Sladowski et al., 2019)
|
|
15
|
Potential
|
17
|
8.29
|
[58]
(González-Zapatero et al., 2024)
|
|
16
|
Competitiveness
|
16
|
7.80
|
[83]
(Prasad and Tanase, 2021)
|
|
17
|
Innovation
|
15
|
7.32
|
[91,
96] (Talebi and Rezania, 2020; Wu et al., 2022)
|
|
18
|
Planning
|
11
|
5.37
|
[50]
(Fjeldstad and Snow, 2018)
|
|
19
|
Effectiveness
|
6
|
2.93
|
[62]
(Grego et al., 2024)
|
|
20
|
Optimization
|
6
|
2.93
|
[62]
(Grego et al., 2024)
|
|
21
|
Sustainability
|
5
|
2.44
|
[33]
(Bocken and Geradts, 2020; Grego et al., 2024)
|
|
22
|
Digitalization
|
5
|
2.44
|
[46]
(Edwards et al., 2015)
|
|
23
|
(Organizational)
architecture
|
5
|
2.44
|
[69]
(Lee, 2021)
|
|
24
|
Staff
|
3
|
1.46
|
[82]
(Oubrich et al., 2021)
|
|
25
|
Corporate
culture
|
3
|
1.46
|
[58]
(González-Zapatero et al., 2024)
|
|
Total
|
205
|
100
|
| |
The most frequently (frequency of mention is more than 10), the concept of organizational design is associated with 18 keywords and concepts (Figure 3):
• Management (62 publications or 30.24%);
• Organizational structure (60 publications or 29.27%);
• Model (60 publications or 29.27%);
• System (54 publications or 26.34%);
• Process (45 publications or 21.95%);
• Performance (34 publications or 16.59%);
• Strategy (32 publications or 15.61%);
• Project (26 publications or 12.68%);
• Control (22 publications or 10.73%);
• Integration (21 publications or 10.24%);
• Controlling (20 publications or 9.76%);
• System approach (19 publications or 9.27%);
• Communication (18 publications or 8.78%);
• Potential (17 publications or 8.29%);
• Competitiveness (16 publications or 7.80%);
• Innovation (15 publications or 7.32%);
• Planning (11 publications or 5.37%).
Figure 3. Spider diagram of the frequency of the first 18 keywords for the search query “organizational design” in the selection of 205 publications (number of publications)
Source: compiled by the author according to Sciencedirect.com on 10 November 2024.
It is possible to identify the following seven keywords and concepts that have a frequency of mention more than 10 and in the selection of 210 publications on ELIBRARY.ru and in the selection of 205 publications on Sciencedirect.com (Table 1, Table 2):
• Organizational design;
• Management;
• Organizational structure;
• Model;
• Strategy;
• Integration;
• Planning.
In the next stage of our research, we will use the Google Books Ngram Viewer tool to analyze the frequency of keywords and concepts in the corpus of printed sources collected in Google Books. The given period is 2030–2022. In the search query, we used seven keywords, selected above, and obtained the following results (Figure 4).
Four keywords (model, management, strategy, and planning) have the highest frequency. Moreover, since 2013, the interest in the concept of strategy begins to exceed the interest in the concept of planning. Since 1971, interest in the concept of model has been in first place, ahead of the previously leading concept of management. Interest in the concepts of organizational design and organizational structure is episodic.
In our opinion, the above seven keywords and concepts can be considered as the basic elements of the conceptual model of organizational design (Figure 4).
In our further research, we will use the highlighted basic elements of organizational design to build a model and substantiate our theoretical concept.
Figure 3. Dynamics of changes in frequency of keywords and concepts “organizational design”, “organizational structure”, “management”, “model”, “strategy”, “integration”, and “planning” in the corpus of printed sources collected in Google Books in 1930–2022
Source: compiled by the author with Google Books Ngram Viewer on 12 November 2024.
Figure 4. Elements of the conceptual model of organizational design
Source: compiled by the author.
3.2. A retrospective analysis of the main approaches and theories to the definition of the concept of organizational design
Here, we are going to summarize the main characteristics of organizational design as a concept described in the scientific literature (Table 3). Most authors indicate that the primary concept and the key element of organizational design is the strategy of the company [38, 39, 75, 77, 78] (Chandler, 1962; Chandler 1990; Miller, and Friesen, 1982; Miterev et al., 2017; Miterev et al., 2020). It is the strategy that forms the organizational structure [37, 51–56, 89] (Burton and Obel, 2018; Galbraith, 1973; Galbraith, 1977; Galbrait, 1995; Galbrait, 2009; Galbrait, 2012; Galbrait, 2014; Simon, 1967). Many authors believe that organizational design is based on efforts to improve the organization [34, 45, 74, 98] (Boland et al., 2008; Dunbar and Starbuck, 2006; MacCormack et al., 2012; Yoo et al., 2006), as well as ensuring the achievement of the organization’s goals [61] (Greenwood and Miller, 2010) in the process of project implementation [28] (Aubry and Lavoie-Tremblay, 2018).
Table 3
A retrospective analysis of the key concepts and main ideas to defining the concept of organizational design
|
Key
concepts
|
Concept
development
|
The main ideas
of the leading researchers within the development of the concept of organizational design
|
Authors
|
|
Strategy
|
Integration, structure
|
The dominant organizational
structure at any given time is a combination or integration of all previous
strategies and structures. Structure follows strategy. The most complex type
of structure is the result of the concatenation (combination) of several
basic strategies
|
[38, 39] (Chandler, 1962; Chandler 1990)
|
|
Structure
|
Organizational design is the
structure of accountability and responsibility used to develop and implement
strategy, as well as the methods of working with people, information, and the
business processes themselves that drive that structure
|
[75]
(Miller, and Friesen,
1982)
| |
|
Structure
|
In
designing an organization, the focus is on different organizational forms,
the variety of design strategies available to managers, and their external
and internal capabilities
|
[77,
78] (Miterev et al., 2017; Miterev et al., 2020)
| |
|
Structure
|
Information flows
|
Organizational design is the
study of the information flows and interactions necessary to achieve the
goals of an organization, and then the study of what these information
interactions mean in the context of an organizational structure
|
[89]
(Simon,
1967)
|
|
Strategy, roles, processes, remuneration,
talents
|
Organizational design is the
process of changing the organizational structure and roles in an
organization. More broadly, organizational design is the alignment of
structure, processes, rewards, indicators, and talents with business strategy
|
[51–56] (Galbraith,
1973; Galbraith,
1977; Galbrait,
1995;
Galbrait,
2009;
Galbrait,
2012;
Galbrait,
2014)
| |
|
Coordination, system
approach
|
Organizational design is the
correspondence between structure and coordination. Structure allows to break
down a large goal or problem into smaller tasks and areas. The result is a
set of tasks to be accomplished. Coordination is about bringing these small
problems, divisions, and tasks together so that they work together to achieve
a common goal. Organizational design is a system approach to aligning
structures and processes, including leadership, culture, people, practices,
and indicators, that enable organizations to achieve their mission and
strategy
|
[37]
(Burton
and Obel,
2018)
| |
|
Organization improvement efforts
|
Actors’
actions
|
Organizational design is an
efforts made by organizational actors to improve organizations
|
[34] (Boland et
al., 2008; Yoo
et al.,
2006)
|
|
Management approaches; organization development the here and now
|
Organizational design is an
explicit effort to improve organizations that requires a focus on new
approaches to managing and developing the organization in the present, rather
than exploring organizational balance in the past
|
[45] (Dunbar and Starbuck, 2006)
| |
|
Organization
development the here and now
|
Organizational
design represents measures aimed at improving the activities of organizations
carried out by the initiative of organizational structures, and requires an
emphasis on innovative approaches rather than a retrospective analysis of
equilibrium
|
[74] (MacCormack et
al., 2012)
| |
|
Goal achievement
|
Organizing people and
resources
|
Organizational design is defined
as the study of how people and resources are organized to collectively
achieve desired goals.
|
[61]
(Greenwood and Miller, 2010)
|
|
Project implementation
process
|
Organization as an object
|
Both the resulting organization
(object) and the project implementation process are included in the concept
of organizational design.=
|
[28]
(Aubry
and Lavoie-Tremblay, 2018)
|
It should be noted that the development of the concept of organizational design was influenced by various theoretical approaches, such as congruence theory [79] (Nadler and Tushman, 1980), contingency theory [68] (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967), complexity theory and organizations [41] (Clegg, 2000), etc., which are applied in various disciplines, including operations and project management. In the context of our research, it seems necessary to identify the following 12 most well-known theories related to organizational design (Table 4):
• Organizational theory;
• Institutional theory;
• Stakeholder theory;
• Contingency theory;
• Transaction cost economics (TCE) theory;
• System theory;
• Complexity theory and organizations;
• Organizational behaviour theory;
• Agency theory;
• Governance theory;
• Congruency theory;
• Configuration theory.
Table 4
Basic organizational design theories
|
Theory
|
Authors
|
Basic ideas
|
|
Organizational
Theory
|
[30, 37, 77, 78] (Besio and Tacke, 2023; Burton and Obel, 2018;
Miterev et al., 2020; Miterev et
al., 2017)
|
The
study of organizations in practice; the study of how the elements of an
organization interact, and how an organization interacts with its environment
|
|
Institutional
Theory
|
[34] (Boland et al., 2008)
|
The
theory of deep and sustainable aspects of social structure. It examines the
processes by which structural elements, including schemas, rules, and
regulations, are transformed into authoritative principles governing social
behavior. The various components of institutional theory explain how these
elements are created, distributed, diffused, and adapted in space and time,
as well as how they decline and fall out of use
|
|
Stakeholder
Theory
|
[70] (Lehtinen and
Aaltonen,
2020)
|
The
theory of organizational management and business ethics that considers the
influence of many business entities such as employees, suppliers, local
communities, creditors, etc. It examines the principles of morality and
values in the management of an organization, such as corporate social
responsibility, the theory of the social contract, etc.
|
|
Contingency
Theory
|
[28, 29] (Aubry and Lavoie-Tremblay, 2018; Bakker et al., 2008)
|
A
theory that asserts that there is no best way to organize a corporation, run
a company, or make decisions. The optimal course of action depends on the
internal and external situation. Therefore, CEOs should be flexible in
choosing and adapting to short-term strategies in accordance with changes in
the situation over a certain period of time
|
|
Transaction
Cost Economics (TCE) Theory
|
[29]
(Bakker et al., 2008)
|
The
theory suggests alternative ways of organizing transactions (within a
management structure, including the choice of markets, hybrid forms of
management, etc.) that minimize transaction costs. The optimal organizational
structure is one that ensures economic efficiency by minimizing exchange
costs
|
|
System
Theory
|
[47, 85] (Erbil et al., 2013; Rolstadas et al., 2014)
|
Every
organization is a single (logistic) system of interconnected parts or
subsystems. Each part of the overall system depends on the others and cannot
function optimally without them. Therefore, if there are factors that
negatively affect one subsystem in the organization, it is likely that these
factors will negatively affect other subsystems
|
|
Complexity
Theory and Organizations
|
[47, 85] (Erbil et al., 2013; Rolstadas et al., 2014)
|
The
theory involves the use of methods for studying complex systems in the field
of strategic management and organizational research. The theory is based on
the factors of uncertainty and non-linearity of the system. Complexity theory
focuses on the interactions and related feedback loops that constantly change
systems. The theory suggests that systems are unpredictable, but they are
also constrained by rules that create order. Organizations are complex
because they are dynamic networks of interactions, and their relationships
are not a collection of individual static objects. They are adaptive because
individual and collective behavior changes and self-organizes in response to
a single event or a series of events that trigger change
|
|
Organizational
Behaviour Theory
|
[48, 85] (Eriksson and Kadefors, 2017; Rolstadas et al., 2014)
|
The
theory is based on the study of human behavior in an organization, including
the relationship between human behavior and the organization, as well as the
organization itself
|
|
Agency
Theory
|
[29] (Bakker et al., 2008; Talebi and Rezania, 2020)
|
The
theory attempts to explain relationships and personal interests in business
organizations. It describes the relationship between managers or agents and
the delegation of control. The theory explains how to organize a relationship
in which one party (the principal) determines the work and the other party
(the agent) performs it or makes decisions on behalf of the principal in the
best way
|
|
Governance
Theory
|
[72] (Levitt and Eriksson, 2016)
|
A
system of rules, practices, and processes that ensures that the management of
the company acts in the best interests of its stakeholders. It encompasses
the mechanisms, processes, and relationships through which management and
control are exercised in the enterprise. At the same time, transparency and
accountability in the decision-making process are important
|
|
Congruency
Theory
|
[79] (Nadler
and
Tushman, 1980)
|
The
congruence model in management serves as a tool for identification and
analysis of the interactions between different elements of the company and
areas of activity where problems and imbalances exist. The effectiveness of
an organization depends on four components: work, people, structure, and
culture. The more congruent, or compatible, these elements are, the better
the performance. Using the congruence model, it is possible to diagnose,
identify problem areas, and rebuild either the structure or the culture so
that both components work in unison
|
|
Configuration
Theory
|
[88] (Scott and Meyer, 1994)
|
The
theory provides an understanding of organizations as complex systems in which
multiple elements interact to produce results. The theory focuses on the
holistic and systemic nature of organizational phenomena, suggesting that the
interaction of various factors, rather than isolated variables, determines
the effectiveness and behavior of an organization. The basic idea is that
configurations, or unique combinations of multiple characteristics and
conditions, can explain the complexity and diversity of organizational life
more effectively than single-factor models
|
If we summarize the theories and theoretical approaches outlined above, it can be noted that the concept of organizational design has evolved and developed within the framework of two approaches:
(1) The first approach considers the static nature of organizational design, which can be represented in the form of graphical images, graphs and diagrams. Here, organizational design is described in terms and categories such as organizational structure, organizational architecture, and organizational configuration [43, 66, 77] (Denicol et al., 2021; Imperatori and Ruta, 2015; Miterev et al., 2017).
(2) Within the framework of the second approach, the attitude towards organizational design as a dynamic process associated with organizational changes, changes in organizational culture and the transformation of organizational systems prevails [40, 57, 86] (Cheung et al., 2011; Gareis, 2010; Romero-Silva et al., 2018).
Most modern research on organizational design focuses on permanent (static) organizations, considered within the framework of the above-mentioned first approach to organizational design. In such a “static” perspective, organizational change is viewed as a kind of pre-planned and controlled process that develops step by step with a clearly defined starting and ending point according to a predetermined scenario [60] (Graetz and Smith, 2010, p. 150). In our opinion, this approach to organizational design has a number of disadvantages. In particular, it does not take into account the flexible boundaries between intra-organizational and inter-organizational capabilities (potential), which leads to a rupture of ties between the organization and the external environment.
At the same time, organizational design studies presented within the framework of the second approach and based on a dynamic perspective are associated with change models focused on managing internal and external variables (including intra-organizational and inter-organizational potential) and contributing to positive transformations in the organization.
In our opinion, when developing a modern organizational concept, we should also start from the position that organizational design is a combination of static and dynamic approaches with constant adaptation to dynamically changing environmental conditions in the context of development of intra-organizational and inter-organizational potential of the organization. In our opinion, such an integrated approach to organizational design is insufficiently represented in modern scientific research.
Based on the previously conducted scientometric analysis of the foundations of organizational design of economic systems, namely the seven highlighted elements of the conceptual model of organizational design, and the study of existing approaches to this concept in modern science, it is possible to propose our own interpretation of organizational design and its model.
In our opinion, organizational design should be understood as the process, which includes the construction of the company’s management system, i.e. modeling its organizational structure, allowing it to realize its strategic goals outlined in the strategic plan without losing the current stability, realizing and developing intra-organizational and inter-organizational potentials by integrating and adapting operational and project activities to the conditions of a dynamically changing external environment, which requires appropriate organizational transformations.
The conceptual model of organizational design can be presented in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Conceptual model of organizational design
Source: compiled by the author.
According to the conceptual model of organizational design, the strategy of the organization is of key importance for the organizational design process as a whole, as well as for its elements. Moreover, under the influence of dynamically changing environmental factors, both the strategy itself and the process of organizational design itself can and should undergo changes, i.e. we are talking about integration, adaptation and transformation of operational and project activities to new conditions. The criteria of the effectiveness of the organizational design process are the preservation of the sustainability of the organization and the implementation and development of intra-organizational and inter-organizational potentials.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
Traditionally, organizational design refers to a large structure consisting of various components that must be broken down into smaller units for more efficient allocation of resources, including people, in order to achieve the strategic goal of the organization [37, 61] (Burton and Obel, 2018; Greenwood and Miller, 2010). Within the framework of this approach, the organization is considered as a unique holistic structure with clear boundaries separating it from the environment, which can be represented in the form of an organizational chart. Analyzing the internal and external boundaries of organizational structures, many researchers resort to the concept of organizational capabilities, describing various components of organizational design [43, 71, 73] (Denicol and Davies, 2022; Leiringer and Zhang, 2021; Locatelli et al., 2021). Organizational capabilities are a combination of knowledge, skills, resources and procedures, which are managed taking into account a developed strategy for creating value and ensuring competitive advantages [44, 92, 95] (Dosi et al., 2000; Teece et al., 2009; Winter, 2003). It is these organizational capabilities that a number of researchers propose to consider as the building blocks of an organization [99] (Zani et al., 2024a). A number of researchers [28] (Aubry and Lavoie-Tremblay, 2018) go beyond the traditional concept of organization design as a static structure developed at the initial stage of the project. They propose a concept according to which organizational design acts as an evolving structure, whose clearly defined boundaries and capabilities develop throughout the entire life cycle of the project.
The latest research [99] (Zani et al., 2024a) is based on the idea that within the framework of organizational design, the organizational structure should be considered not only as a kind of static state of the organization, but also as a process of organizational development that is dynamic, i.e. organizational design involves the creation of an organizational structure that can be changed or replaced depending on the capabilities at various stages of development of an organization or project, which in fact makes organizational design also a dynamic process. Organizational design as a process is significantly influenced by organizational capabilities, which can be both internal (intra-organizational potential) and external, acquired on the market (inter-organizational potential). The development and exchangeability of such capabilities (potentials) represent changes in the “design” of the organization.
To ensure the successful development of companies, managers and CEOs should use and develop skills in organizational design, as it is a key aspect of the successful activity of economic systems. Studying the basics of organizational design is of great practical importance for managers and CEOs who make strategic decisions on the development of the company. Understanding the principles and techniques of organizational design will help them effectively adapt to changing market conditions, build sustainable and competitive organizational structures, and successfully implement development strategies.
The directions of our further research will include the development of a concept and model of organizational design in relation to large enterprises of various industries, in particular, for JSC Russian Railways.
References:
Aleksashina T. V. (2022). Organizatsionnyy dizayn: obespechenie optimizatsii sistemy upravleniya proizvodstvennyh kompaniy [Organizational design: ensuring optimization of the management system in production companies]. Creative Economy. 16 (5). 2007-2020. (in Russian). doi: 10.18334/ce.16.5.114603.
Aleynikov A. I. (2021). Faktory proektirovaniya organizatsionnyh struktur [Organizational structure design factors]. Economics: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. 11 (3-1). 225-234. (in Russian). doi: 10.34670/AR.2021.74.12.024.
Artemova V. L. (2020). Effektivnyy organizatsionnyy dizayn predpriyatiya cherez strukturirovanie kanalov kommunikatsiy [Effective organizational design of the enterprise through structuring of communication channels] Problems of management, economics and law on a national and regional scale. 13-16. (in Russian).
Aubry M., Lavoie-Tremblay M. (2018). Rethinking organizational design for managing multiple projects International Journal of Project Management. (36(1)). 12–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012.
Bakker E., Walker H., Schotanus F., Harland C. (2008). Choosing an organizational form: The case of collaborative procurement initiatives International Journal of Procurement Management. (1(3)). 297–317. doi: 10.1504/IJPM.2008.017527.
Besio C., Tacke V. (2023). Old and New organizational forms in a complex society: A systems-theoretical perspective Critical Sociology. doi: 10.1177/08969205231189472.
Besri Z., Boulmakoul A. (2017). Framework for organizational structure re-design by assessing logistics’ business processes in harbor container terminals Transportation Research Procedia. (22). 164–173. doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2017.03.023.
Blaauw G.A., Brooks F.P. (1964). The Structure of SYSTEM/360 Part I: Outline of the Logical Structure IBM Syst. J. (3). 119–135.
Bocken N. M. P., Geradts T. H. J. (2020). Barriers and drivers to sustainable business model innovation: Organization design and dynamic capabilities Long Range Planning. (53(4)). 101950. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101950.
Boland R. J., Sharma A. K., Afonso P. S. (2008). Designing management control in hybrid organizations: The role of path creation and morphogenesis Accounting. Organizations and Society. (33(7–8)). 899–914. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2008.06.006.
Browning T. R. (2001). Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: A review and new directions IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. (48(3)). 292–306. doi: 10.1109/17.946528.
Buchanan R. (2015). Worlds in the Making: Design, Management, and the Reform of Organizational Culture She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. (1(1)). 5–21. doi: 10.1016/j.sheji.2015.09.003.
Burton R. M., Obel B. (2018). The science of organizational design: Fit between structure and coordination Journal of Organization Design. (7(5)). 1–13. doi: 10.1186/s41469-018-0029-2.
Burylova L. G., Shangina V. A. (2011). Integratsiya organizatsionnogo dizayna i modeli sistemy sbalansirovannyh pokazateley [Integration of organizational design and balanced scorecard model] Theory and practice of corporate management. 34-38. (in Russian).
Chandler A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure
Chandler A. D. (1990). Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism
Chegrintsova S. V., Torskaya A. N. (2024). Sovremennye informatsionno- kommunikatsionnye tekhnologii kak element organizatsionnogo dizayna v innovatsionnom razvitii kompaniy [Modern information and communication technologies as an element of organizational design in innovative development of companies]. Bulletin of Tver State University. Series: Economics and Management. (2). 73-83. (in Russian). doi: 10.26456/2219-1453/2024.2.073-083.
Cheung S. O., Wong P. S. P., Wu A. W. Y. (2011). Towards an organizational culture framework in construction International Journal of Project Management. (29(1)). 33–44. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.01.014.
Clegg C. W. (2000). Sociotechnical principles for system design Applied Ergonomics. (31(5)). 463–477. doi: 10.1016/S0003-6870(00)00009-0.
Dekkers R. (2018). Group technology: Amalgamation with design of organizational structures International Journal of Production Economics. (200). 262–277. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.02.018.
Denicol J., Davies A., Krystallis I. (2020). What are the causes and cures of poor megaproject performance? A systematic literature review and research agenda Project Management Journal. (51(3)). 328–345. doi: 10.1177/8756972819896113.
Dosi G., Nelson R. R., Winter S. G. (2000). The nature of dynamics of organizational capabilities
Drogobytskaya K. S. (2009). Osobennosti organizatsionnogo dizayna v menedzhmente [Features of organizational design in management]. Bulletin of Taganrog Institute of Management and Economics. (2). 81-83. (in Russian).
Drogobytskaya K. S. (2009). Planirovanie i kontrol v organizatsionnom dizayne [Planning and control in organizational design]. Vestnik SamGUPS. (3). 115-117. (in Russian).
Dunbar R. M., Starbuck W. H. (2006). Learning to Design Organizations and Learning from Designing Them Organization Science. (17(2)). 171-178.
Edwards J., Davey J., Armstrong K. (2015). Cultural Factors: Understanding Culture to Design Organizational Structures and Systems to Optimise Safety Procedia Manufacturing. (3). 4991–4998. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.650.
Erbil Y., Akincitürk N., Acar E. (2013). Inter-organizational context of the innovation process and the role of architectural designers as system integrators: Case evidence from Turkey Architectural Engineering and Design Management. (9(2)). 77–94. doi: 10.1080/17452007.2012.738038.
Eriksson T., Kadefors A. (2017). Organizational design and development in a large rail tunnel project — Influence of heuristics and mantras International Journal of Project Management. (35(3)). 492–503. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.12.006.
Fayol H. (1949). General and Industrial Management London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons.
Fjeldstad Ø. D., Snow C. C. (2018). Business models and organization design Long Range Planning. (51(1)). 32–39. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.07.008.
Galbraith J. (2012). The Evolution of Enterprise Organization Designs Journal of Organization Design. (1). doi: 10.7146/jod.1.2.6342.
Galbraith J. R. (1973). Designing Complex Organizations
Galbraith J. R. (1977). Organization Design, Reading
Galbraith J. R. (1995). Designing Organizations: an Executive Briefing on Strategy, Structure, and Process
Galbraith J. R. (2014). Designing Organizations: Strategy, Structure, and Process at the Business Unit and Enterprise Levels John Wiley & Sons.
Galbraith J. R. The Star Model™. Retrieved December 12, 2024, from https://jaygalbraith.com/services/star-model/
Gareis R. (2010). Changes of organizations by projects International Journal of Project Management. (28(4)). 314–327. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.01.002.
González-Zapatero C., González-Benito J., Byung-Gak S., Lannelongue G. (2024). Is supply chain risk mitigation affected by organizational design? The roles of organic structures and cultures European Research on Management and Business Economics. (30(2)). 100248. doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2024.100248.
Google Books Ngram Viewer. Retrieved November 12, 2024, from https://books.google.com/ngrams/
Graetz F., Smith A. C. T. (2010). Managing organizational change: A philosophies of change approach Journal of Change Management. (10(12)). 135–154. doi: 10.1080/14697011003795602.
Greenwood R., Miller D. (2010). Tackling design anew: Getting back to the heart of organizational theory Academy of Management Perspectives. (24(4)). 78–88. doi: 10.5465/amp.2010.24.4.3655970.a.
Grego M., Magnani G., Denicolai S. (2024). Transform to adapt or resilient by design? How organizations can foster resilience through business model transformation Journal of Business Research. (171). 114359. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114359.
Gulick L. (1937). Notes on the Theory of Organization. Papers on the science of administration. Ch. 1
Gulick L., Lyndall U. (eds.) (2012). Papers on the Science of Administration
Gurianova E., Mechtcheriakova S. (2015). Design of Organizational Structures of Management According to Strategy of Development of the Enterprises Procedia Economics and Finance. (24). 395–401. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00695-4.
Gusev A. A. (2022). Formirovanie organizatsionnoy struktury kak bazovyy element organizatsionnogo proektirovaniya [Formation of organizational structure as a basic element of organizational design]. Nauchnyy Lider. (39). 35-41. (in Russian).
Imperatori B., Ruta D. C. (2015). Designing a social enterprise Social Enterprise Journal. (11(3)). 321–346. doi: 10.1108/sej-08-2014-0034.
Kast F. E., Rosenzweig J. E. General systems theory: Applications for organization and management Academy of Management Journal. (15(4)). 447–465. doi: 10.5465/255141.
Khomutskiy D. Yu., Andreev G. S. (2017). Vliyanie organizatsionnoy kulturnoy sredy na funktsionirovanie proektnyh komand po modeli dizayn-myshleniya [The influence of the organizational cultural environment on the functioning of project teams according to the design thinking model]. Upravlenie razvitiem personala. (2). 158-162. (in Russian).
Kirillov A. A., Ermakov V. E., Bachinskiy A. G., Ivanova T. I. (2020). Liderskiy protsess i stili (Organizatsionnoe povedenie i dizayn) [Leadership process and styles (organizational behavior and design)]. Forum molodyh uchenyh. (10). 244-249. (in Russian).
Klargo M. (2009). Organizatsionnyy dizayn: organizatsii mogut primenyat k samim sebe instrumenty proektirovaniya i upravleniya kachestvom, prichem s vpechatlyayushchimi rezultatami! [Organizational design: Organizations can apply design and quality management tools to themselves, with impressive results!]. Strategicheskiy menedzhment. (2). 144-154. (in Russian).
Kogay Yu. P. (2012). Vliyanie kadrovogo potentsiala kompanii na dizayn organizatsionnoy struktury [The impact of the company's human resources on the design of the organizational structure] Modern issues of science and education in the 21st century. 56-58. (in Russian).
Komissarova I. P., Belogina N. S. (2015). Dekompozitsiya dizayna vnutrennego kontrolya kholdinga na osnove risk-orientirovannogo podkhoda [Decomposition of internal control design of a holding company based on the risk-based approach]. Vestnik UrFU. Seriya: Ekonomika i upravlenie. 14 (1). 4-19. (in Russian). doi: 10.15826/vestnik.2015.14.1.001.
Lawrence P. R., Lorsch J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations Administrative Science Quarterly. (12(1)). 1–47. doi: 10.2307/2391211.
Lee K. (2021). Critique of Design Thinking in Organizations: Strongholds and Shortcomings of the Making Paradigm She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. (7(4)). 497–515. doi: 10.1016/j.sheji.2021.10.003.
Lehtinen J., Aaltonen K. (2020). Organizing external stakeholder engagement in inter-organizational projects: Opening the black box International Journal of Project Management. (38(2)). 85–98. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.12.001.
Leiringer R., Zhang S. (2021). Organizational capabilities and project organizing research International Journal of Project Management. (39(5)). 422–436. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.02.003.
Levitt R. E., Eriksson K. (2016). Developing a governance model for PPP infrastructure service delivery based on lessons from Eastern Australia Journal of Organization Design. (5(7)). 1–8. doi: 10.1186/s41469-016-0009-3.
Locatelli G., Greco M., Invernizzi D.C., Grimaldi M., Malizia S. (2021). What about the people? Micro-foundations of open innovation in megaprojects International Journal of Project Management. (2(39)). 115-127. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.06.009.
MacCormack A., Baldwin C., Rusnak J. (2012). Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: A test of the “mirroring” hypothesis Research Policy. (41(8)). 1309–1324. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.011.
Miller D., Friesen P. H. (1982). Structural change and performance: Quantum versus piecemeal-incremental approaches The Academy of Management Journal. (25(4)). 867–892.
Mintzberg H. (1983). Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations
Miroshnichenko E. B., Nikiforova L. E. (2018). Vnedrenie kontrollinga v praktiku upravleniya: otsenka rezultativnosti [Implementation of controlling in management practices: effectiveness assessing]. Creative Economy. 12 (8). 1165-1178. (in Russian). doi: 10.18334/ce.12.8.39294.
Miterev M., Jerbrant A., Feldmann A. (2020). Exploring the alignment between organization designs and value processes over the program lifecycle International Journal of Project Management. (38(2)). 112–123. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.12.003.
Miterev M., Turner J. R., Mancini M. (2017). The organization design perspective on the project-based organization: A structured review International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. (10(3)). 527–549. doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-06-2016-0048.
Motyshina M. S. (2019). Organizatsionnyy dizayn kak sistemnaya kontseptsiya [Organizational design as a system concept] System analysis in design and management. 8-12. (in Russian).
Mumladze N. A. (2023). Organizatsionnyy dizayn Proekta na osnove modeli M.A. Chartaeva [Organizational design of the Project based on the model of M.A. Chartaev] Nature - society - man. 61-70. (in Russian).
Nadler D. A., Gerstein M. S., Shaw R. B. (1992). Organizational Architecture: Designs for Changing Organizations Wiley.
Nadler D. A., Tushman M. L. (1980). A model for diagnosing organizational behavior Organizational Dynamics. (9(2)). 35–51. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(80)90039-X.
Nadler D. A., Tushman M. L., Nadler M. B. (2011). Competing by Design: The Power of Organizational Architecture Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nikiforova L. E., Kharchenko A. A. (2010). Upravlenie organizatsionnymi izmeneniyami v kompanii: otsenka sootvetstviya organizatsionnogo dizayna strategicheskim tselyam i situatsionnym kharakteristikam [Organisational changes in a company and its management: conformity assessment of organisational design, strategic objectives and situational characteristics]. Siberian Financial School. (4). 116-127. (in Russian).
Oubrich M., Hakmaoui A., Benhayoun L., Söilen K. S., Abdulkader B. (2021). Impacts of leadership style, organizational design and HRM practices on knowledge hiding: The indirect roles of organizational justice and competitive work environment Journal of Business Research. (137). 488–499. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.045.
Potekhina V. A., Bisikalo E. E. (2021). Tsifrovye biznes-ekosistemy kak novaya forma organizatsionnogo dizayna [Digital business ecosystems as a new form of organizational design]. Global and Regional Research. 3 (2). 272-280. (in Russian).
Prasad S., Tanase S. (2021). Competition, collaboration and organization design Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. (183). 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2020.12.010.
Prendergast C. (2023). Organizational design for making a difference Journal of Public Economics. (218). 104817. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2022.104817.
Rolstadås A., Tommelein I., Morten Schiefloe P., Ballard G. (2014). Understanding project success through analysis of project management approach International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. (7(4)). 638–660. doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-09-2013-0048.
Romero-Silva R., Santos J., Hurtado M. (2018). A note on defining organizational systems for contingency theory in OM Production Planning and Control. (29(16)). 1343–1348. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2018.1535146.
Sciencedirect.com. Retrieved November 10, 2024, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/
Scott W. R., Meyer J. W. (1994). Institutional Environments and Organizations: Structural Complexity and Individualism
Shushuryhina E. K., Glukhikh E. A. (2016). Podkhody k otsenke effektivnosti organizatsionnogo dizayna [Approaches to evaluating the effectiveness of organizational design] Scientific research and development in the era of globalization. 85-89. (in Russian).
Simon H. A. (1967). The business school a problem in organizational design Journal of Management Studies. (4(1)). 1–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1967.tb00569.x.
Skripkin K. G. (2016). Arkhitektura predpriyatiya: Problema opisaniya organizatsionnogo kapitala [Organizational capital in enterprise architecture]. Statistics and Economics. (4). 49-55. (in Russian).
Skripkin K. G. (2023). Mobilis in mobile: ustoychivost predpriyatiya, dinamicheskie sposobnosti i organizatsionnyy dizayn [Mobilis in mobile : enterprise sustainability, dynamic capabilities and organizational design] Enterprise Engineering and Knowledge Management 2023. 333-340. (in Russian).
Sladowski G., Radziszewska-Zielina E., Kania E. (2019). Analysis of self-organising networks of communication between the participants of a housing complex construction project Archives of Civil Engineering. (65(1)). 181–195. doi: 10.2478/ace-2019-0013.
Sobirov B. Sh. (2022). Dizayn i biznes v tsifrovom mire: organizatsionnye osobennosti formirovaniya dizayn-myshleniya [Design and business in the digital world: organizational features of forming design thinking]. Ergodizayn. (1). 14-23. (in Russian). doi: 10.30987/2658-4026-2022-1-14-23.
Talebi A., Rezania D. (2020). Governance of projects in public procurement of innovation a multi-level perspective Journal of Public Procurement. (20(2)). 187–206. doi: 10.1108/JOPP-01-2019-0005.
Teece D. J., Pisano G., Shuen A. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management Knowledge Strategy. (18). 77–116. doi: 10.1093/0199248540.003.0013.
Tereshkina N. E., Khalturina O. A. (2023). Vzaimosvyaz korporativnoy strategii i organizatsionnogo dizayna [The relationship of corporate strategy and organizational design]. Vestnik Altayskoy akademii ekonomiki i prava. (11-2). 304-308. (in Russian). doi: 10.17513/vaael.3092.
Tolstyh T. O. (2020). Ekosistemnaya model organizatsionnogo dizayna dlya innovatsionnogo razvitiya promyshlennyh predpriyatiy [Ecosystem model of organizational design for innovative development of industrial enterprises]. Proceedings of the South-Western State University. Series: Economy. Sociology. Management. 10 (3). 65-74. (in Russian).
Urwick L. F. (1952). Notes on the Theory of Organization New York: American Management Association.
Veshkurova A. B., Kopylova N. A. (2023). Sovremennye podkhody k organizatsionnomu proektirovaniyu [Modern approaches to organizational design]. Samoupravlenie. (2). 342-345. (in Russian).
Weber M. (1972). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der Verstehenden Soziologie. 5 Revidierte Aufl. Besorgt von Johannes Winckelmann
Winter S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities Strategic Management Journal. (24). 991–995. doi: 10.1002/smj.318.
Wu A., Song D., Liu Y. (2022). Platform synergy and innovation speed of SMEs: The roles of organizational design and regional environment Journal of Business Research. (149). 38–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.016.
Xu L., Liu H., Wang S., Wang K. (2009). Modelling and analysis techniques for crossorganizational workflow systems Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research. (26(3)). 367–389. doi: 10.1002/sres.978.
Yoo Y., Boland R., Lyytinen K. (2006). From Organization Design to Organization Designing Organization Science – ORGAN SCI. (17). 215–229. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0168.
Zani C. M., Denicol J., Broyd T. (2024). Organization design in megaprojects: A systematic literature review and research agenda International Journal of Project Management. (42(6)). 102634. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2024.102634.
Zani C. M., Denicol J., Broyd T. (2024). The four coordination roles of clients when designing megaproject organizations Project Management Journal. doi: 10.1177/87569728241248033,.
Zherlova E. A., Vikhoreva M. V. (2022). Povyshenie konkurentosposobnosti organizatsii zheleznodorozhnoy otrasli s pomoshchyu modifitsirovannoy modeli organizatsionnogo dizayna [Improving the competitiveness of the railway industry through a modified organizational design model]. Economics and business: theory and practice. (6). 145-149. (in Russian). doi: 10.24412/2411-0450-2022-6-1-145-149.
Страница обновлена: 27.04.2025 в 16:42:42