netrashetty
Netra Shetty
Organisational Structure of Armstrong World Industries : Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (NYSE: AWI) is an international designer and manufacturer of floors, ceilings and cabinets. Based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Armstrong operates 40 plants in 10 countries and has approximately 12,300 employees worldwide. In 2006, Armstrong’s net sales were $3.42 billion, with operating income of $210.8 million.
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. emerged from Chapter 11 reorganization on October 2, 2006. Its stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange October 18, 2006 under the ticker symbol AWI. The Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust, holds approximately 66% of AWI’s outstanding common shares. Armstrong's “Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization, as Modified,” dated February 21, 2006, and confirmed by U.S. District Court Judge Eduardo Robreno in August 2006, become effective Oct. 2, 2006. The Plan includes a comprehensive settlement resolving AWI’s asbestos liability by establishing and funding a trust to compensate all current and future asbestos personal injury claimants. The company had filed for reorganization December 6, 2000, with the federal bankruptcy court in Delaware for reorganization under Chapter 11 because pending asbestos injury claims appeared to exceed the value of the company, and were growing.
“In addition to resolving AWI’s asbestos liability, we used the time in Chapter 11 to restructure our flooring business to make it more competitive,” Mr. Lockhart said. “We made substantial improvements in our cost structure by closing several plants and streamlining our workforce in the U.S. We have also expanded capacity to manufacture wood flooring, broadened our product lines and improved product quality and customer service.”
2
CEO
Matthew Espe
9
Chairman of the Board
James O'Connor
3
Director
Bettina Whyte
6
Director
James Gaffney
25
Director
John Roberts
2
Director
Richard Wenz
2
Director
Larry McWilliams
9
Director
David Bonderman
4
Director
Kevin Burns
4
Director
Tao Huang
7
Director
Michael Johnston
Director
Stan Askren
North American Floor Products
FR
Armstrong Building Products
VG
CFO
Thomas Mangas
Operations
DM
Legal & Secretary
JN
Human Resources
TK
Business Development
JB
Finance, Flooring Business, ...
WR
2
Control
Stephen McNamara
Organizational Structure
traditional bureaucratic structures, there is a tendency to increase task specialization as the organization grows larger. In grouping jobs into departments, the manager must decide the basis on which to group them. The most common basis, at least until the last few decades, was by function. For example, all accounting jobs in the organization can be grouped into an accounting department, all engineers can be grouped into an engineering department, and so on. The size of the groupings also can range from small to large depending on the number of people the managers supervise. The degree to which authority is distributed throughout the organization can vary as well, but traditionally structured organizations typically vest final decision-making authority by those highest in the vertically structured hierarchy. Even as pressures to include employees in decision-making increased during the 1950s and 1960s, final decisions usually were made by top management. The traditional model of organizational structure is thus characterized by high job specialization, functional departments, narrow spans of control, and centralized authority. Such a structure has been referred to as traditional, classical, bureaucratic, formal, mechanistic, or command and control. A structure formed by choices at the opposite end of the spectrum for each design decision is called unstructured, informal, or organic.
The traditional model of organizational structure is easily represented in a graphical form by an organizational chart. It is a hierarchical or pyramidal structure with a president or other executive at the top, a small number of vice presidents or senior managers under the president, and several layers of management below this, with the majority of employees at the bottom of the pyramid. The number of management layers depends largely on the size of the organization. The jobs in the traditional organizational structure usually are grouped by function into departments such as accounting, sales, human resources, and so. Figures 1a and 1b illustrate such an organization grouped by functional areas of operations, marketing and finance.
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
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. emerged from Chapter 11 reorganization on October 2, 2006. Its stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange October 18, 2006 under the ticker symbol AWI. The Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust, holds approximately 66% of AWI’s outstanding common shares. Armstrong's “Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization, as Modified,” dated February 21, 2006, and confirmed by U.S. District Court Judge Eduardo Robreno in August 2006, become effective Oct. 2, 2006. The Plan includes a comprehensive settlement resolving AWI’s asbestos liability by establishing and funding a trust to compensate all current and future asbestos personal injury claimants. The company had filed for reorganization December 6, 2000, with the federal bankruptcy court in Delaware for reorganization under Chapter 11 because pending asbestos injury claims appeared to exceed the value of the company, and were growing.
“In addition to resolving AWI’s asbestos liability, we used the time in Chapter 11 to restructure our flooring business to make it more competitive,” Mr. Lockhart said. “We made substantial improvements in our cost structure by closing several plants and streamlining our workforce in the U.S. We have also expanded capacity to manufacture wood flooring, broadened our product lines and improved product quality and customer service.”
2
CEO
Matthew Espe
9
Chairman of the Board
James O'Connor
3
Director
Bettina Whyte
6
Director
James Gaffney
25
Director
John Roberts
2
Director
Richard Wenz
2
Director
Larry McWilliams
9
Director
David Bonderman
4
Director
Kevin Burns
4
Director
Tao Huang
7
Director
Michael Johnston
Director
Stan Askren
North American Floor Products
FR
Armstrong Building Products
VG
CFO
Thomas Mangas
Operations
DM
Legal & Secretary
JN
Human Resources
TK
Business Development
JB
Finance, Flooring Business, ...
WR
2
Control
Stephen McNamara
Organizational Structure
traditional bureaucratic structures, there is a tendency to increase task specialization as the organization grows larger. In grouping jobs into departments, the manager must decide the basis on which to group them. The most common basis, at least until the last few decades, was by function. For example, all accounting jobs in the organization can be grouped into an accounting department, all engineers can be grouped into an engineering department, and so on. The size of the groupings also can range from small to large depending on the number of people the managers supervise. The degree to which authority is distributed throughout the organization can vary as well, but traditionally structured organizations typically vest final decision-making authority by those highest in the vertically structured hierarchy. Even as pressures to include employees in decision-making increased during the 1950s and 1960s, final decisions usually were made by top management. The traditional model of organizational structure is thus characterized by high job specialization, functional departments, narrow spans of control, and centralized authority. Such a structure has been referred to as traditional, classical, bureaucratic, formal, mechanistic, or command and control. A structure formed by choices at the opposite end of the spectrum for each design decision is called unstructured, informal, or organic.
The traditional model of organizational structure is easily represented in a graphical form by an organizational chart. It is a hierarchical or pyramidal structure with a president or other executive at the top, a small number of vice presidents or senior managers under the president, and several layers of management below this, with the majority of employees at the bottom of the pyramid. The number of management layers depends largely on the size of the organization. The jobs in the traditional organizational structure usually are grouped by function into departments such as accounting, sales, human resources, and so. Figures 1a and 1b illustrate such an organization grouped by functional areas of operations, marketing and finance.
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
Last edited by a moderator: