Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
The strengths and weaknesses of BEC’s organizational structure before 2006
Strengths
BEC’s organizational structure before 2006 was favorable at the initial stage because the business was still small. Moreover, little emphasis was placed on marketing at this stage. Besides, all the employees were always involved in each project. This meant that individuals were assigned tasks based on their skills and schedules. This had the benefit of producing quality services because of collaboration. Moreover, employees were personally involved in the projects. Also, employees felt like they were part of the project. In essence, there was job satisfaction among employees. Furthermore, working together enabled employees to learn from one another. This structure created an open culture within the organization (Rothstein and Jiao 1-9).
Weaknesses
Firstly, BEC did not have proper structures because all the employees worked in one office. Moreover, the company did not have clearly defined departments. In this regard, there were no clearly defined responsibilities for employees. This created problems when it came to assigning tasks because it was difficult to identify who was authorized to give orders (Rothstein and Jiao 1-9).
The strengths and weaknesses of BEC’s organizational structure after 2006
Strengths
This new structure contained clearly defined departments within the company (BEC 1). This structure empowered employees charged with the responsibility of organizing projects. Departments such as research and development, among others, were essential because they aided the company to improve capacity building. Moreover, the departments were designed based on expertise of employees to maximize quality of services. Project management organizational structure enabled the company to save time. Also, the company became more efficient (Rothstein and Jiao 1-9).
Weaknesses
In the process, the company realized that the new project management organizational structure had its flaws. For instance, many projects forced employees to multitask thereby putting a lot of pressure on them. Interestingly, some employees were working on more than 10 projects; this increased pressure and stress on employees, which lowered employee satisfaction. Essentially, this system also lowered quality of services. Also, there was no clear answer on who was senior between project managers and departmental managers. This created confusion on who had the final say in the departments (Rothstein and Jiao 1-9).
The root causes of BEC’s organizational problems after 2006
Firstly, increased volume of work was a root cause of the company’s organizational problems. This happened because the company was forced to focus on the business activities as opposed to capacity building. In the process, the company’s few employees were forced to multitask on numerous projects. This resulted in increased pressure on employees thereby causing exhaustion and dissatisfaction among them. Secondly, the new organizational structure did not clearly define the roles of project managers.
This created conflict because some roles were shared between project managers and departmental managers. Moreover, project managers felt frustrated because of the poor relationship with employees and departmental managers. In essence, rapid growth in BEC caused more problems as it tried to adjust to the changes in business environment (Reimann 1).
A proper strategy to address BEC’s organizational problems after 2006
Firstly, the company should consider defining the roles of project managers and the roles of departmental managers. This would enable employees to understand whether they should be dealing directly with the project manager or with the departmental manager (Corkindale 1). In essence, the company should consider putting departmental managers in charge of employees within their respective areas. On the other hand, project managers should be given more power to enable them to coordinate with departmental managers on projects (DeLoatch 1). In this case, employees would report to the departmental managers, while the managers would report to the project managers. This would enable departmental managers to assign tasks by the needs of the company without causing conflict with project managers (Vangen 1).
Works Cited
BEC. About BEC. 2016. Web.
Corkindale, Gill. The Importance of Organizational Design and Structure. 2011. Web.
DeLoatch, Pamela. Effective Enterprise Collaboration Strategy Needs Everyone on the Bus. 2012. Web.
Reimann, Bernard. Dimensions of Structure in Effective Organizations: Some Empirical Evidence. 2008. Web.
Rothstein, Mitch, and Lily Jiao. Case Study: Beijing EAPs Consulting Inc. 2009. Web.
Vangen, Siv. Business Network: Achieving Collaborative Advantage. 2011. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.