netrashetty
Netra Shetty
Organisational Structure of Arrow Electronics : Arrow Electronics (NYSE: ARW) is a Fortune 500 company headquartered in Melville, New York. The company specializes in distribution and value added services relating to electronic components and computer products
CEO
Michael Long
Vice Chairman of the Board
John Waddell
2
Director
Martha Keeth
2
Director
Stephen Patrick
8
Director
Richard Hill
3
Director
Gail Hamilton
5
Director
Barry Perry
4
Director
Roger King
2
Director
Philip Asherman
6
Director
John Hanson
2
Director
Andrew Kerin
3
Lead Director
Daniel Duval
Accounting & Control
MS
2
CFO & Operations
Paul Reilly
Asia Pacific Components
SY
North American Components
VV
Global Components Business
PK
2
Enterprise Computing Solutio...
AB
10
Legal
Peter Brown
12
Human Resource
John McMahon
Every organization of a given type must perform certain jobs in order do its work. For example, key functions of a manufacturing company include production, purchasing, marketing, accounting, and personnel. The functions of a hospital include surgery, psychiatry, nursing, housekeeping, and billing. Using such functions as the basis for structuring the organization may, in some instances, have the advantage of efficiency. Grouping jobs that require the same knowledge, skills, and resources allows them to be done efficiently and promotes the development of greater expertise. A disadvantage of functional groupings is that people with the same skills and knowledge may develop a narrow departmental focus and have difficulty appreciating any other view of what is important to the organization; in this case, organizational goals may be sacrificed in favor of departmental goals. In addition, coordination of work across functional boundaries can become a difficult management challenge, especially as the organization grows in size and spreads to multiple geographical locations.
GEOGRAPHIC DEPARTMENTALIZATION.
Organizations that are spread over a wide area may find advantages in organizing along geographic lines so that all the activities performed in a region are managed together. In a large organization, simple physical separation makes centralized coordination more difficult. Also, important characteristics of a region may make it advantageous to promote a local focus. For example, marketing a product in Western Europe may have different requirements than marketing the same product in Southeast Asia. Companies that market products globally sometimes adopt a geographic structure. In addition, experience gained in a regional division is often excellent training for management at higher levels.
PRODUCT DEPARTMENTALIZATION.
Large, diversified companies are often organized according to product. All the activities necessary to produce and market a product or group of similar products are grouped together. In such an arrangement, the top manager of the product group typically has considerable autonomy over the operation. The advantage of this type of structure is that the personnel in the group can focus on the particular needs of their product line and become experts in its development, production, and distribution. A disadvantage, at least in terms of larger organizations, is the duplication of resources. Each product group requires most of the functional areas such as finance, marketing, production, and other functions. The top leadership of the organization must decide how much redundancy it can afford.
I. 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.
II. 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.
CEO
Michael Long
Vice Chairman of the Board
John Waddell
2
Director
Martha Keeth
2
Director
Stephen Patrick
8
Director
Richard Hill
3
Director
Gail Hamilton
5
Director
Barry Perry
4
Director
Roger King
2
Director
Philip Asherman
6
Director
John Hanson
2
Director
Andrew Kerin
3
Lead Director
Daniel Duval
Accounting & Control
MS
2
CFO & Operations
Paul Reilly
Asia Pacific Components
SY
North American Components
VV
Global Components Business
PK
2
Enterprise Computing Solutio...
AB
10
Legal
Peter Brown
12
Human Resource
John McMahon
Every organization of a given type must perform certain jobs in order do its work. For example, key functions of a manufacturing company include production, purchasing, marketing, accounting, and personnel. The functions of a hospital include surgery, psychiatry, nursing, housekeeping, and billing. Using such functions as the basis for structuring the organization may, in some instances, have the advantage of efficiency. Grouping jobs that require the same knowledge, skills, and resources allows them to be done efficiently and promotes the development of greater expertise. A disadvantage of functional groupings is that people with the same skills and knowledge may develop a narrow departmental focus and have difficulty appreciating any other view of what is important to the organization; in this case, organizational goals may be sacrificed in favor of departmental goals. In addition, coordination of work across functional boundaries can become a difficult management challenge, especially as the organization grows in size and spreads to multiple geographical locations.
GEOGRAPHIC DEPARTMENTALIZATION.
Organizations that are spread over a wide area may find advantages in organizing along geographic lines so that all the activities performed in a region are managed together. In a large organization, simple physical separation makes centralized coordination more difficult. Also, important characteristics of a region may make it advantageous to promote a local focus. For example, marketing a product in Western Europe may have different requirements than marketing the same product in Southeast Asia. Companies that market products globally sometimes adopt a geographic structure. In addition, experience gained in a regional division is often excellent training for management at higher levels.
PRODUCT DEPARTMENTALIZATION.
Large, diversified companies are often organized according to product. All the activities necessary to produce and market a product or group of similar products are grouped together. In such an arrangement, the top manager of the product group typically has considerable autonomy over the operation. The advantage of this type of structure is that the personnel in the group can focus on the particular needs of their product line and become experts in its development, production, and distribution. A disadvantage, at least in terms of larger organizations, is the duplication of resources. Each product group requires most of the functional areas such as finance, marketing, production, and other functions. The top leadership of the organization must decide how much redundancy it can afford.
I. 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.
II. 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.
Last edited by a moderator: