netrashetty
Netra Shetty
Ariba (NASDAQ: ARBA) is a software and information technology services company located in Sunnyvale, California.
Ariba was founded in 1996 by Bobby Lent, Boris Putanec, Paul Touw, Rob Desantis, Ed Kinsey, Paul Heggarty, and Keith Krach on the idea of using the Internet to enable companies to facilitate and improve the procurement process. Procurement had been a paper-based, labor-intensive, and inefficient process for large corporations. According to the company's website, Ariba provides "Spend Management solutions" which help companies "analyze, understand, and manage their corporate spending to achieve cost savings and business process efficiency." Currently, 94 of the Fortune 100 and more than 200,000 other companies use Ariba's SaaS (Software as a Service) solutions to manage their spend and commerce activities.[4]
Ariba was one of the first business-to-business Internet companies to go public (in 1999). The company's stock more than tripled from the offering price on opening day,[citation needed] making the three year-old company worth $6 billion. In 2000, the stock value continued to climb, and Ariba's market capitalization was as high as $40 billion. With the bursting of the dot-com bubble, Ariba's stock price fell dramatically to the low double digits in July 2001, where it has remained since, with a market capitalization of just over $1.5 billion as of June 2010.
CEO
Robert Calderoni
2
Chairman of the Board
Kevin Costello
20
Director
Robert Johnson
2
Director
Karl Newkirk
3
Director
Thomas Monahan
5
Director
Richard Wallman
2
Director
Richard Kashnow
Director
Harriett Edelman
3
Lead Director
Robert Knowling
CFO
Ahmed Rubaie
Marketing
TM
COO
Kent Parker
CTO
BH
North America & Asia
DR
2
Supplier Network
Bob Solomon
Development & Human Resources
MZ
Solutions Management
GS
Europe
While the previous section explained the emergence of the traditional organizational structure, this section provides additional detail regarding how this affected the practice of management. The structure of every organization is unique in some respects, but all organizational structures develop or are consciously designed to enable the organization to accomplish its work. Typically, the structure of an organization evolves as the organization grows and changes over time.
Researchers generally identify four basic decisions that managers have to make as they develop an organizational structure, although they may not be explicitly aware of these decisions. First, the organization's work must be divided into specific jobs. This is referred to as the division of labor. Second, unless the organization is very small, the jobs must be grouped in some way, which is called departmentalization. Third, the number of people and jobs that are to be grouped together must be decided. This is related to the number of people that are to be managed by one person, or the span of control—the number of employees reporting to a single manager. Fourth, the way decision-making authority is to be distributed must be determined.
In making each of these design decisions, a range of choices are possible. At one end of the spectrum, jobs are highly specialized with employees performing a narrow range of activities, while at the other end of the spectrum employees perform a variety of tasks.
Another way to classify organization structure is by one of the following four categories:
I. The product to be developed is comprehensible for one person. One person is likely to have all the knowledge needed to develop Manufacturing and Assembly. The development department in companies that undertake these kinds of projects are usually very small. If a company consists of more than one department, it is usually structured as a functional organization.
II. The product to be developed has a fairly low complexity, but total work is high. These kind of products are likely to be developed within one functional department. A research department may also be an example of a department in which type II projects are undertaken. Are more departments involved, then the light weighted matrix structure is preferable. Employees are involved on a full-time basis. Tasks may be performed concurrently. The sequence can be determined using the Design Structure Matrix.
III. The product to be developed consists of a lot of different elements, such as software, PCB, power supply and mechanical structure. The product is however in the engineering phase, i.e. it is clear what needs to be done to get the product into production. Various disciplines perform their own tasks. These tasks have mostly a low workload. Employees cannot work full-timee on one project. This creates a complex situation, that may be compared to a job shop situation in production logistics. Though the comparison between manufacturing and product development is not accepted by all product development managers, it may yield good results. Studying each step in the Product Development Process and fluctuations in workloads reveals ways to reduce variation and eliminate bottlenecks. It is necessary to view the Product Development Process as a process and not as a list of projects. Three important findings regarding this are:
1. Projects get done faster if the organization takes on fewer at a time.
2. Investments to relieve bottlenecks yield disproportionately large time-to-market benefits.
3. Eliminating unnecessary variation in workloads and work processes eliminates distractions and delays, thereby freeing up the organization to focus on the creative parts of the task.
Creating cross-functional concurrent engineering teams is the right way to develop products. However, the pitfall is too many project at the same time, so that key people from engineering, marketing and manufacturing work at five or more projects at once. This results in congestion. Striving to work at 100% of the product development capacity legthens product development lead times enormously. A more realistic percentage is 80%. Attention must be focused on bottlenecks, these days most commonly found at the software development side of the project.
IV. The product is complex. Total work is high. Employees can thus participate on a full-time basis. A project organization is the most appropriate organizational structure for these kind's of products.
Ariba was founded in 1996 by Bobby Lent, Boris Putanec, Paul Touw, Rob Desantis, Ed Kinsey, Paul Heggarty, and Keith Krach on the idea of using the Internet to enable companies to facilitate and improve the procurement process. Procurement had been a paper-based, labor-intensive, and inefficient process for large corporations. According to the company's website, Ariba provides "Spend Management solutions" which help companies "analyze, understand, and manage their corporate spending to achieve cost savings and business process efficiency." Currently, 94 of the Fortune 100 and more than 200,000 other companies use Ariba's SaaS (Software as a Service) solutions to manage their spend and commerce activities.[4]
Ariba was one of the first business-to-business Internet companies to go public (in 1999). The company's stock more than tripled from the offering price on opening day,[citation needed] making the three year-old company worth $6 billion. In 2000, the stock value continued to climb, and Ariba's market capitalization was as high as $40 billion. With the bursting of the dot-com bubble, Ariba's stock price fell dramatically to the low double digits in July 2001, where it has remained since, with a market capitalization of just over $1.5 billion as of June 2010.
CEO
Robert Calderoni
2
Chairman of the Board
Kevin Costello
20
Director
Robert Johnson
2
Director
Karl Newkirk
3
Director
Thomas Monahan
5
Director
Richard Wallman
2
Director
Richard Kashnow
Director
Harriett Edelman
3
Lead Director
Robert Knowling
CFO
Ahmed Rubaie
Marketing
TM
COO
Kent Parker
CTO
BH
North America & Asia
DR
2
Supplier Network
Bob Solomon
Development & Human Resources
MZ
Solutions Management
GS
Europe
While the previous section explained the emergence of the traditional organizational structure, this section provides additional detail regarding how this affected the practice of management. The structure of every organization is unique in some respects, but all organizational structures develop or are consciously designed to enable the organization to accomplish its work. Typically, the structure of an organization evolves as the organization grows and changes over time.
Researchers generally identify four basic decisions that managers have to make as they develop an organizational structure, although they may not be explicitly aware of these decisions. First, the organization's work must be divided into specific jobs. This is referred to as the division of labor. Second, unless the organization is very small, the jobs must be grouped in some way, which is called departmentalization. Third, the number of people and jobs that are to be grouped together must be decided. This is related to the number of people that are to be managed by one person, or the span of control—the number of employees reporting to a single manager. Fourth, the way decision-making authority is to be distributed must be determined.
In making each of these design decisions, a range of choices are possible. At one end of the spectrum, jobs are highly specialized with employees performing a narrow range of activities, while at the other end of the spectrum employees perform a variety of tasks.
Another way to classify organization structure is by one of the following four categories:
I. The product to be developed is comprehensible for one person. One person is likely to have all the knowledge needed to develop Manufacturing and Assembly. The development department in companies that undertake these kinds of projects are usually very small. If a company consists of more than one department, it is usually structured as a functional organization.
II. The product to be developed has a fairly low complexity, but total work is high. These kind of products are likely to be developed within one functional department. A research department may also be an example of a department in which type II projects are undertaken. Are more departments involved, then the light weighted matrix structure is preferable. Employees are involved on a full-time basis. Tasks may be performed concurrently. The sequence can be determined using the Design Structure Matrix.
III. The product to be developed consists of a lot of different elements, such as software, PCB, power supply and mechanical structure. The product is however in the engineering phase, i.e. it is clear what needs to be done to get the product into production. Various disciplines perform their own tasks. These tasks have mostly a low workload. Employees cannot work full-timee on one project. This creates a complex situation, that may be compared to a job shop situation in production logistics. Though the comparison between manufacturing and product development is not accepted by all product development managers, it may yield good results. Studying each step in the Product Development Process and fluctuations in workloads reveals ways to reduce variation and eliminate bottlenecks. It is necessary to view the Product Development Process as a process and not as a list of projects. Three important findings regarding this are:
1. Projects get done faster if the organization takes on fewer at a time.
2. Investments to relieve bottlenecks yield disproportionately large time-to-market benefits.
3. Eliminating unnecessary variation in workloads and work processes eliminates distractions and delays, thereby freeing up the organization to focus on the creative parts of the task.
Creating cross-functional concurrent engineering teams is the right way to develop products. However, the pitfall is too many project at the same time, so that key people from engineering, marketing and manufacturing work at five or more projects at once. This results in congestion. Striving to work at 100% of the product development capacity legthens product development lead times enormously. A more realistic percentage is 80%. Attention must be focused on bottlenecks, these days most commonly found at the software development side of the project.
IV. The product is complex. Total work is high. Employees can thus participate on a full-time basis. A project organization is the most appropriate organizational structure for these kind's of products.