METRICS IN ORGANIZATIONAL CENTRALIZATION METRICS IN ORGANIZATIONAL CENTRALIZATION - Polish Journal of Management Studies

Search
Polish Journal of Management Studies
 ISSN 2081-7452
Go to content

Main menu:

METRICS IN ORGANIZATIONAL CENTRALIZATION METRICS IN ORGANIZATIONAL CENTRALIZATION

Abstracts > Vol 10.2

METRICS IN ORGANIZATIONAL CENTRALIZATION
AND DECENTRALIZATION
Modrak V., Radu S.M., Modrak J.

Abstract: Continual improvement of business processes requires, apart from other efforts, to develop effective metrics, by which managers and/or process engineers will be able to manage the organization's growth. Obviously, there are plenty measures that can be taken to optimize processes. Once effective metrics are identified, the assessment team should do what works best for them. In this paper, an organizational “centralization” or “decentralization” is a matter of interest. The dichotomous term “centralization/ decentralization” itself is somewhat inappropriate in the sense that an organizational centralization is not a goal, but rather a means to help us plan and to set goals. Naturally, approaches to the “centralization/ decentralization” measures depend on many factors. The paper's scope is explicitly limited to the vertical decentralization that is concerned with the delegation of decision-making power down the chain of authority. Subsequently, we are also interested to explore network centralization issues.

Key words:
structural analysis, discrete probability distribution, graph theory, structure centralization

Introduction
Business Process Improvement (BPI) is currently a concern of most organizations. Kock (2005) defines BPI as “the analysis, redesign, and subsequent change of organizational processes to achieve performance and competitiveness gains”. Approaches to the business process improvement can generally be divided into two categories: improvement of the operational properties of business processes (BP) and improvement of the structural attributes of BP. While the first approach deals with dynamic parameters of BP, structural analysis is mainly concerned with finding out the static properties of BP. The scope of this paper is focused on the second category of BP properties with the aim of measuring and benchmarking of business process centralization/decentralization.
The practical problem is that, in spite of the existing BPI tools and standards, most processes in major corporations have never even been measured and/or rigorously analyzed. According to Davenport and Short (1990), there are two basic problems for understanding and measuring processes before redesigning them. First, drawbacks must be understood so that they are not repeated. Second, effective measurement can act as a baseline for future improvements. Subsequent change of organizational processes leads to change of organizational structures. Such steps are fully in line with the management concept of corporate reengineering by Hammer and Champy (1993). Ultimately, many writers e.g., Ross (1991), Davenport (1993) and Currie (1996) show that an ideal organization structure allows decentralized organizational settings with centralized reporting and control. In a general meaning, decentralization (or decentralization) presents “the level of power over decisions made in the organization” (Mintzberg, 1983). Siggelkow and Levinthal (2003) add that “a centralized organization is an organization where the decisions are made from the top whereas a decentralized organization is characterized by decision-making lower in the organization”. However, a pertinent question is: which of these properties are predominantly represented in companies? Alonso (2008) in this context pointed out that “decentralization can dominate centralization even when coordination is extremely important relative to adaptation”. Similarly, Hall (1977) argued that “highly centralized organizations often limit the contribution that employees can make in carrying out their work”.


full version

References
Alonso R., Dessein W., Matouschek N., 2008, When Does Coordination Require Centralization? “American Economic Review”, 98(1).
Blair G., Meadows S., 1996, A Real-life Guide to Organizational Change, Aldershot, England, Brookfield, Vt., Gower.
Borgatti S.P., 2005, Centrality and network flows, “Social Networks”, 27(1).
Borgatti S.P., Everett M.G., Freeman L.C., 2002, Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis, Harvard, MA, Analytic Technologies.
Christofides N., 1975, Graph Theory-An Algorithmic Approach, London, Academic Press.
Currie W.L., 1996, Organizational Structure and the Use of Information Technology: Preliminary Findings of a Survey in the Private and Public Sector, “International Journal of Information Management”, 16(1).
Davenport T.H., 1993, Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology, Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
Davenport T.H., Short J., 1990, The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign, “Sloan Management Review”, 31(4).
Drucker P.F., 1994, Managing for results, New York: Harper and Row.
Fredrickson  J.W., 1986, The strategic decision process and organizational structure, “Academy of Management Review”, 11(2).
Freeman L.C., 1977, A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness, “Sociometry”, 40(1).
Freeman L.C., 1979, Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification, “Social Networks”, 1(1).
Hall R.H., 1977, Organizations: Structure and Process, 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
Hall D.J., Saias M.A., 1980, Strategy Follows Structure, “Strategic Management Journal”, 1(2).
Hammer M., Champy J., 1993, Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, New York, Harper Business Books.
Hanneman R. A., Riddle M., 2005, Introduction to social network methods, Riverside, CA, University of California Publisher.
Kock N., 2005, Business Process Improvement through E-Collaboration: Knowledge Sharing Through the Use of Virtual Groups, Hershey, PA, IGI Global.
Lin N., 1976, Foundations of Social Research, New York, McGraw Hill.
Mintzberg H., 1980, Structure in 5's" A synthesis of the Research on Organization Design, “Management Science”, 26(3).
Mintzberg H., 1983, Structures in Fives: Designing effective organizations, Englewood Clifs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
Modrak, V. (2007). On the conceptual development of virtual corporations and logistics, [In:] IEEE Proceedings of the International Symposium on Logistics and Industrial Informatics - LINDI 2007, University of Applied Sciences, Wildau.
Modrak V., Marton D., 2013, Complexity Metrics for Assembly Supply Chains:
A Comparative Study,
“Advanced Material Research”, 629(1).
Modrak V., Pasko J., Pavlenko S., 2003, Alternative solution for a robotic stereotactic system, “Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems”, 35.
Nagelkerk J., 2005, Leadership and Nursing Care Management, (3rd ed.), Elsevier Health Sciences.
Naisbitt J., 1982, Megatrends, New York, Warner Books, Inc.
Nikolaev V.I., Bruk V.M., 1985, Sistemotechnika: metody i prilozhenija, Leningrad, Machinostrojenie.
Robbins S.P., 1990, Organization theory: structure, design, and applications, (3rd ed.), New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Ross D.T., 1977, Structured Analysis: A language for communicating ideas, “IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering”, 3(1).
Ross D.F., 1991, Aligning the organization for world class manufacturing, “Production and Inventory Management Journal”, 32(2).
Sabidussi G., 1966, The centrality index of a graph, “Psychomatrika”, 31(1).
Scott J., 2002, Social Network Analysis: Critical Concepts in Sociology, New York, Routledge Publisher.
Siggelkow N., Levinthal D.A., 2003, Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation, “Organization Science”, 14(6).
Soffer P., Wand Y., 2007, Goal-driven multi-process analysis, “Journal of the Association for Information Systems”, 8(3).
Stoner J., Freeman R.E., 1989, Management, (4th ed.), Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall.
Toffler A., 1981, The Third Wave, London, Pan Books Ltd.
Treisman D., 2002, Defining and Measuring Decentralization: A Global Perspective, Unpublished typescript, UCLA.
Wasserman S., Faust K., 1994, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge, University Press.

WSKAŹNIKI W CENTRALIZACJI I DECENTRALIZACJI ORGANIZACJI

Streszczenie: Ciągłe doskonalenie procesów biznesowych wymaga, oprócz innych działań, opracowania skutecznych wskaźników, dzięki którym menedżerowie i / lub technolodzy będą mogli zarządzać rozwojem organizacji. Oczywiście, istnieje wiele działań, które mogą zostać podjęte w celu optymalizacji procesów. Kiedy oznaczone są skuteczne wskaźniki, zespół oceniający powinien robić to, co jest dla nich najlepsze. W niniejszym artykule przedmiotem zainteresowania jest organizacyjna "centralizacja" lub "decentralizacja". Dychotomiczne pojęcie "centralizacja / decentralizacja" samo w sobie jest nieco niestosowne w tym sensie, że centralizacja organizacyjna nie jest celem, lecz środkiem, aby pomóc nam planować i wyznaczać cele. Oczywiście podejścia do środków „centralizacji / decentralizacji" zależą od wielu czynników. Zakres artykułu jest wyraźnie ograniczony do decentralizacji pionowej, która dotyczy delegowania uprawnień decyzyjnych w dół łańcucha władzy. W późniejszym czasie, jesteśmy również zainteresowani zbadaniem kwestii centralizacji sieci.

Słowa kluczowe:
analiza strukturalna, dyskretny rozkład prawdopodobieństwa, teoria grafów, centralizacja struktury


集中組織和分散化的指標

摘要:業務流程的持續改進要求,除其他活動外,有效的指標的制定由經理和/或技術人員將能夠管理組織的發展。當然,也有可採取優化過程的許多動作。當表示是有效的指標,評估小組應該​​做的是對他們最好的。在這種利益的文章是組織“集權”與“分權”。 “集權/分權”本身的二分概念是在這個意義上有點不恰當,組織的集權化不是目的,而是手段,幫助我們計劃和設定目標。當然,這種方法為“集權/分權”的方式取決於很多因素。本文的範圍顯然是有限的垂直分權,是指決策下的權力鏈的代表團。在稍後的時間,我們也有興趣在研究網絡的集中化的問題。
關鍵詞:結構分析,離散概率分佈圖論,集中式結構


 
Back to content | Back to main menu