netrashetty
Netra Shetty
Arryx, Inc. develops tools and technology for manipulation and measurement on the micro and nano lengthscales. Arryx's technology and products center around optical trapping. They specialize in holographic optical trapping, a technique for creating and moving many optical traps at once. Their technology is commercialized in the form of a flagship research tool, the BioRyx 200 optical trapping system. Arryx has investigated the application of the technique to an array of problems in different fields including telecommunications, agriculture, healthcare, basic research, and forensics.
Arryx was founded in the fall of 2000, based on technology invented at the University of Chicago by Professor David Grier and his student Eric Dufresne a couple years earlier. Their BioRyx 200 system was released in early 2002 and won an R&D 100 Award later that year. An IR version of the system was released in 2004 for broader application to biological systems, with support of additional imaging methods including fluorescent microscopy.
In July 2006, Arryx was acquired by Haemonetics, with whom they had an ongoing partnership. Their announcement states that Arryx personnel and operations will remain in Chicago. They continue to support and expand their product line of research instruments, based around the BioRyx 200, as they pursue development of the underlying holographic optical trapping technologies and applications of that technology in various markets.
I certify that my modifications are exact
Confirm Cancel
President
Brad Nutter
4
Director
Ronald Merriman
2
Director
Mark Kroll
4
Director
Pedro Granadillo
2
Director
Lawrence Best
Director
Susan Bartlett
Lead Director
Ronald Gelbman
a
a a
2
CFO
Christopher Lindop
8
Marketing
Peter Allen
2
Legal
James O'Shaughnessy
CEO
Brian Concannon
Asia Pacific
RC
Markets
MG
2
Japan
Keiko Hattori
3
North America & Global Plasma
Mike Kelly
Distribution
MB
Global Plasma
SS
Patient Division
JG
Software Solutions, Arryx & ...
JC
Corporate Affairs
LL
Manufacturing
PB
Human Resources
JF
2
Research & Development
Jonathan White
Sales, NA Blood Bank Remi Co...
MC
Finance
SH
An organization may find it advantageous to organize according to the types of customers it serves. For example, a distribution company that sells to consumers, government clients, large businesses, and small businesses may decide to base its primary divisions on these different markets. Its personnel can then become proficient in meeting the needs of these different customers. In the same way, an organization that provides services such as accounting or consulting may group its personnel according to these types of customers. Figure 2 depicts an organization grouped by customers and markets.
MATRIX ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Some organizations find that none of the afore-mentioned structures meet their needs. One approach that attempts to overcome the inadequacies is the matrix structure, which is the combination of two or more different structures. Functional departmentalization commonly is combined with product groups on a project basis. For example, a product group wants to develop a new addition to its line; for this project, it obtains personnel from functional departments such as research, engineering, production, and marketing. These personnel then work under the manager of the product group for the duration of the project, which can vary greatly. These personnel are responsible to two managers (as shown in Figure 3).
One advantage of a matrix structure is that it facilitates the use of highly specialized staff and equipment. Rather than duplicating functions as would be done in a simple product department structure, resources are shared as needed. In some cases, highly specialized staff may divide their time among more than one project. In addition, maintaining functional departments promotes functional expertise, while at the same time working in project groups with experts from other functions fosters cross-fertilization of ideas.
The disadvantages of a matrix organization arise from the dual reporting structure. The organization's top management must take particular care to establish proper procedures for the development of projects and to keep communication channels clear so that potential conflicts do not arise and hinder organizational functioning. In theory at least, top management is responsible for arbitrating such conflicts, but in practice power struggles between the functional and product manager can prevent successful implementation of matrix structural arrangements. Besides the product/function matrix, other bases can be related in a matrix. Large multinational corporations that use a matrix structure most commonly combine product groups with geographic units. Product managers have global responsibility for the development, manufacturing, and distribution of their own product or service line, while managers of geographic regions have responsibility for the success of the business in their regions.
A light-weighted matrix organization remains functional and the level of specialization is comparable to that found in the functional mode. What is different, is the addition of a product manager who coordinates the product creation activities through liaison representatives from each function. Their main tasks are: to collect information, to solve conflicts and to facilitate achievement of overall project objectives. Their status and influence are less as compared to functional managers, because they have no direct access to working-level people.
A heavy-weighted matrix organization exists of a matrix with dominant the project structure and underlying the functional departments. The product manager has a broader responsibility. Manufacturing, marketing and concept development are included. The status and influence of the product manager, who is usually a senior, is the same or higher as compared to the functional manager. compared to functional managers, because they have no direct access to working-level people.
A project organization exists of product oriented flows: project and teams. The project members leave their functional department and devote all their time to the project. They share the same location. The professionals are less specialized and have brioader tasks, skills and responsibilities. The functional manager is responsible for the personnel development and the more detailed technology research in the functional groups.
Companies can be classified to their organizational structures. Another variable companies can be classified to is the nature of the projects undertaken. We characterize projects by the number of employees needed to perform the tasks, or workload, and the number of tasks that are fundamentally different in nature. An example of the latter aspect is PCB development and structural design.
Another way to classify organization structure is by one of the following four categories:
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.
Arryx was founded in the fall of 2000, based on technology invented at the University of Chicago by Professor David Grier and his student Eric Dufresne a couple years earlier. Their BioRyx 200 system was released in early 2002 and won an R&D 100 Award later that year. An IR version of the system was released in 2004 for broader application to biological systems, with support of additional imaging methods including fluorescent microscopy.
In July 2006, Arryx was acquired by Haemonetics, with whom they had an ongoing partnership. Their announcement states that Arryx personnel and operations will remain in Chicago. They continue to support and expand their product line of research instruments, based around the BioRyx 200, as they pursue development of the underlying holographic optical trapping technologies and applications of that technology in various markets.
I certify that my modifications are exact
Confirm Cancel
President
Brad Nutter
4
Director
Ronald Merriman
2
Director
Mark Kroll
4
Director
Pedro Granadillo
2
Director
Lawrence Best
Director
Susan Bartlett
Lead Director
Ronald Gelbman
a
a a
2
CFO
Christopher Lindop
8
Marketing
Peter Allen
2
Legal
James O'Shaughnessy
CEO
Brian Concannon
Asia Pacific
RC
Markets
MG
2
Japan
Keiko Hattori
3
North America & Global Plasma
Mike Kelly
Distribution
MB
Global Plasma
SS
Patient Division
JG
Software Solutions, Arryx & ...
JC
Corporate Affairs
LL
Manufacturing
PB
Human Resources
JF
2
Research & Development
Jonathan White
Sales, NA Blood Bank Remi Co...
MC
Finance
SH
An organization may find it advantageous to organize according to the types of customers it serves. For example, a distribution company that sells to consumers, government clients, large businesses, and small businesses may decide to base its primary divisions on these different markets. Its personnel can then become proficient in meeting the needs of these different customers. In the same way, an organization that provides services such as accounting or consulting may group its personnel according to these types of customers. Figure 2 depicts an organization grouped by customers and markets.
MATRIX ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Some organizations find that none of the afore-mentioned structures meet their needs. One approach that attempts to overcome the inadequacies is the matrix structure, which is the combination of two or more different structures. Functional departmentalization commonly is combined with product groups on a project basis. For example, a product group wants to develop a new addition to its line; for this project, it obtains personnel from functional departments such as research, engineering, production, and marketing. These personnel then work under the manager of the product group for the duration of the project, which can vary greatly. These personnel are responsible to two managers (as shown in Figure 3).
One advantage of a matrix structure is that it facilitates the use of highly specialized staff and equipment. Rather than duplicating functions as would be done in a simple product department structure, resources are shared as needed. In some cases, highly specialized staff may divide their time among more than one project. In addition, maintaining functional departments promotes functional expertise, while at the same time working in project groups with experts from other functions fosters cross-fertilization of ideas.
The disadvantages of a matrix organization arise from the dual reporting structure. The organization's top management must take particular care to establish proper procedures for the development of projects and to keep communication channels clear so that potential conflicts do not arise and hinder organizational functioning. In theory at least, top management is responsible for arbitrating such conflicts, but in practice power struggles between the functional and product manager can prevent successful implementation of matrix structural arrangements. Besides the product/function matrix, other bases can be related in a matrix. Large multinational corporations that use a matrix structure most commonly combine product groups with geographic units. Product managers have global responsibility for the development, manufacturing, and distribution of their own product or service line, while managers of geographic regions have responsibility for the success of the business in their regions.
A light-weighted matrix organization remains functional and the level of specialization is comparable to that found in the functional mode. What is different, is the addition of a product manager who coordinates the product creation activities through liaison representatives from each function. Their main tasks are: to collect information, to solve conflicts and to facilitate achievement of overall project objectives. Their status and influence are less as compared to functional managers, because they have no direct access to working-level people.
A heavy-weighted matrix organization exists of a matrix with dominant the project structure and underlying the functional departments. The product manager has a broader responsibility. Manufacturing, marketing and concept development are included. The status and influence of the product manager, who is usually a senior, is the same or higher as compared to the functional manager. compared to functional managers, because they have no direct access to working-level people.
A project organization exists of product oriented flows: project and teams. The project members leave their functional department and devote all their time to the project. They share the same location. The professionals are less specialized and have brioader tasks, skills and responsibilities. The functional manager is responsible for the personnel development and the more detailed technology research in the functional groups.
Companies can be classified to their organizational structures. Another variable companies can be classified to is the nature of the projects undertaken. We characterize projects by the number of employees needed to perform the tasks, or workload, and the number of tasks that are fundamentally different in nature. An example of the latter aspect is PCB development and structural design.
Another way to classify organization structure is by one of the following four categories:
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.
Last edited: