Strategy in practice: organizational capacity and structure

Putting the strategy into practice: Building resource capacities and organizational structure

"The strategies are intellectually simple, their execution is not" Lawrence A. Bossidy. Executive Director Allied - Signal

“Simply being able to devise reckless new strategies is not enough. The general manager must also be able to translate his strategic vision into concrete steps to get things done. ” Richard G. Hamermesh

Introduction

Once the managers have decided on a strategy, they proceed to turn it into action and good results. Putting a strategy into practice and getting your organization to execute it well requires a different set of managerial tasks and skills. Although strategy design is largely a market-driven business activity, implementation is primarily an organization-driven activity, revolving around managing people and business processes.

While the design of a successful strategy depends on the vision of the business, on a good adjustment of the resources, the successful implementation depends on the good performance to guide others and work with and through them, to allocate resources, develop and consolidate competitive capacities, establish policies that support the strategy and adjust the way in which the organization carries out its fundamental activities with the requirements for a good execution of the strategy.

Implementation is an action-oriented task, in order to make things happen, that tests a manager's ability to lead organizational change, develop valuable organizational capabilities, achieve continuous improvement in the business process., create a corporate culture that supports the strategy and meets or exceeds performance objectives.

Experienced managers are emphatic in stating that it is much easier to develop a solid strategic plan than it is to make it happen. According to an executive, it was quite easy for us to decide where we wanted to go. The hard part is getting the organization to act on the new priorities.

The job of the strategy implementer is to turn the strategic plan into action and follow through with what it takes to achieve the vision and goals that have been set.

Just because managers announce a new strategy does not mean that their subordinates agree with it, or that they cooperate in putting it into practice.

Skilled managerial leadership is required to overcome pockets of doubt and disagreement, create consensus on how to proceed, achieve compromise and cooperation, and put in place and integrate all parts of implementation. Depending on how much consensus building and how much organizational change is involved, the implementation process can take from several months to several years.

FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGY

Each manager has an active role in the process of putting into practice and the execution of the strategic plan of the company.Each manager should thoroughly consider the answer to the following question: What should be done in my area to put the strategic plan and what should I do to achieve it? In this sense, all managers become responsible for implementing the strategy in their areas of competence and all employees are participants.One of the keys to successful implementation is that management communicates the reason for the change so clearly and persuasively that a determined commitment emerges at all levels to carry out the strategy and meet performance objectives.

There is no ten-step checklist or proven track record, but rather a few concrete guidelines for tackling the job. Putting strategy into practice is the least planned and most open part of strategic management.

Putting strategy into practice is more of an art than a science. Business practices and competitive circumstances, work environments and cultures, policies, compensation incentives, and mixes of different personalities and organizational histories require a tailored approach to strategy implementation. based on the situations and circumstances of individual companies and the best judgment and ability of the manager to expertly use the techniques of particular change.

THE MAIN TASKS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGY:

Even though managers' approaches must be tailored to the situation, certain bases need to be covered, regardless of the organization's circumstances:

Develop an organization with the competencies, capabilities and resource strengths to carry out the strategy successfully Develop budgets to direct extensive resources toward those value chain activities that are critical to strategic success Establish policies and procedures that support the strategy.Institute the best practices and press for the achievement of continuous improvements in the way in which the activities of the value chain are carried out.Install information, communications and operation systems that allow the company's personnel to perform successfully their strategic roles, day after day Link rewards and incentives to achieving performance objectives and successful strategy execution.Create a work environment and a corporate culture that support the strategy. Exercise the internal leadership necessary to drive implementation and improve the way in which the strategy is executed.

These administrative tasks crop up repeatedly in the strategy implementation process, regardless of the specifics of the situation.

One or two of these tasks are typically more critical or time-consuming than others, depending on how dramatically different the strategy changes need to be implemented, financial conditions, and competitive capabilities of the organization, if there are significant resource weaknesses that must be corrected or new competencies that must be developed, the degree to which the company is already capable of meeting the resource requirements to create a sustainable competitive advantage, the strength of the behavior patterns rooted ones that need to be changed, from personal and organizational relationships in the company's history, from any pressures for quick results and short-term financial improvements, and perhaps other important factors.

When planning an agenda for action, implementers should start with an assessment to probe what the organization needs to do differently to successfully carry out the strategy and then consider how to make the necessary internal changes. as quickly as possible. The actions of the person in charge of implementing the strategy should focus on adjusting the way in which the organization performs its activities in the value chain and conducts its internal business, with what is required for optimal execution of the strategy.

GUIDE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

A determining factor for successful strategy implementation is how well management guides the process. Managers can employ any of several leadership styles to drive the implementation process.

The way in which managers guide the implementation task tends to be a function of:

Their experience and knowledge of the business If they are new to the job or veterans Their network of personal relationships with others in the organization Their own diagnostic, administrative, interpersonal and problem-solving skills The authority they have been given The leadership style they are comfortable with Their view of the role they need to play in getting things done.

While the CEO and other senior officials must typically guide efforts, senior managers must rely on the active support and cooperation of lower and middle managers to drive changes in strategy and ensure that Key activities are performed well on a daily basis. Managers at the middle and lower levels are not only responsible for initiating and supervising the implementation process in their areas of competence, but they must also help their subordinates continually improve the way in which they perform the activities of the company. value chain that are decisive for the strategy and that produce results on the front line that allow the company's objectives to be met.How successful middle and lower level managers are determines how efficiently the company executes strategy on a daily basis, their role in the strategy implementation team is by no means minimal.

The agenda for action by senior implementers, especially in large organizations with geographically dispersed operating units, mostly involves communicating the reason for the change to others, creating a consensus on how to proceed, installing powerful allies in positions where they can drive implementation across key organizational units, urge employees to move forward with the process and delegate some authority to them, set progress measures and time limits, reallocate resources and personally preside over the process of strategic change. Therefore the larger the organization,the success of the chief implementer depends more on the cooperative strategy and implementation skills of the operation managers who can drive the necessary changes at the lower organizational levels.

The real skill in putting strategy into practice is being competent in figuring out what it takes to execute the strategy effectively.

DEVELOPING A CAPABLE ORGANIZATION

The efficient execution of the strategy depends to a large extent on competent personnel, the most appropriate competitive competencies and capacities, and an effective organization. Therefore, developing a capable organization is always a priority of strategy implementation.

There are three types of organizational development that are of utmost importance.

Select capable people for key positions Ensure that the organization has the skills, core competencies, managerial talents, technical knowledge, competitive capabilities and resource strengths it needs Organize business processes, management activities the value chain and decision making in such a way that it leads to a successful execution of the strategy.

Selection of people for key positions:

Forming a powerful management team with the right personal chemistry and skill mix is one of the first steps in implementing the strategy.

Building a critical executive team begins with deciding what combination of backgrounds, experiences, knowledge, values, beliefs, managerial styles, and personalities is necessary to consolidate and contribute to successful strategy execution.

Development of core competencies and distinctive capabilities:

Two of the most important aspects in the development of the organization are:

To equip the operating units with a staff with the specialized talent, capabilities and technical experience necessary to give the company a competitive advantage over its rivals in the performance of one or more decisive activities in the value chain. valuable competitive. When the ease of imitation makes it difficult or impossible to defeat rivals on the basis of superior strategy, the other main route to achieving industry leadership is to outperform.

Superior strategy execution is essential in situations where rival companies have very similar strategies and can easily duplicate each other's strategic maneuvers. Developing core competencies, resource strengths, and organizational capabilities that rivals cannot match are one of the best ways to outperform your execution.

Development and consolidation of core competencies:

Core competencies can be related to any strategically relevant factor.

Honda's core competency is its deep expertise in gasoline engine technology and small engine design. Procter & Gamble's expertise lies in its excellent Marketing and Distribution and Research and Development capabilities in five key technologies: greases, oils., skin chemicals, softeners and emulsifiers.

There are four characteristics that concern the core competencies and competitive capabilities important to the task of the manager of implementing the organization's development strategy:

Core competencies very rarely consist of limited skills or single department work efforts. Rather, they are composed of skills and activities that are performed at different locations in the company's value chain and that, when linked together, create a unique organizational capacity, because core competencies often reside in the combined efforts of different work groups and departments, individual department managers and supervisors cannot be expected to consider developing the core competencies of the entire corporation as their responsibility.The key to leveraging a company's core competencies into long-term competitive advantage is to focus more efforts and more talent than rivals on deepening and consolidating competencies, as customer needs change in often unpredictable ways. The knowledge and skills required for competitive success cannot always be predicted accurately, the bases of a company's selected competencies need to be broad and flexible enough to respond to an unknown future.the bases of a company's selected competencies need to be broad and flexible enough to respond to an unknown future.the bases of a company's selected competencies need to be broad and flexible enough to respond to an unknown future.

The nature of multiple capabilities and activities of core competencies makes their development and consolidation an exercise in: 1) The management of human skills, knowledge bases and talent, 2) the coordination and establishment of networks for efforts of different work groups and departments in each related place in the value chain.

It means focusing more talent on them in a more conscious way and making internal and external comparisons to move towards the position of the best company in the industry, if not in the whole world.

One of the keys to Microsoft's success in computer software is hiring and motivating the brightest and most talented programmers - both with good monetary incentives and the challenge of working on major software design projects.

Strategy implementers cannot afford to become complacent once core competencies have been established and are working. A constant challenge of organizational development is to expand, deepen or modify them in response to constant changes in the customer and the market.

Development and consolidation of organizational capacities:

Management must be proactive in developing new competencies and capabilities to complement the company's existing resource base and promote more efficient execution of the strategy.

Organizational development that is successful in implementing new valuable competitive capabilities and in consolidating existing ones can allow a company to outperform its rivals on the basis of superior resources.

One issue is whether the desired competencies and capabilities need to be developed internally or whether it makes sense to allocate them to external sources, partnering with key vendors or forming strategic alliances. Decisions to turn to external sources or build internal capacity often revolve around the question of what can be safely delegated to external providers versus which internal capabilities are critical to the long-term success of the company.

Developing a capacity requires a series of organizational steps:

First, the organization must develop the ability to do something, even when it is imperfect or ineffective. This means selecting people with the necessary skills and experience, improving or expanding individual skills as needed, and then shaping the efforts and work products of individuals into a cooperative group effort, in order to create an organizational skill. Then, as the experience develops, in such a way that the organization can perform the activity uniformly well and at an acceptable cost, the skill begins to translate into a competence and / or a capacity. To be so competent that you outperform your rivals in that activity, ability becomes a distinctive competence,with the potential to achieve a competitive advantage.

Sometimes these steps can be shortened by obtaining the desired capacity by:

Collaborative efforts with external partners Acquiring a company that has the desired capacity and is essential when: 1) An opportunity can disappear faster than a necessary capacity can be created internally and 2) When the conditions of the industry, the technology or competitors advance at such a rapid rate that time is of the essence.

The strategic role of employee training

If the chosen strategy requires new skills, a deeper technological capability, or the development and use of new capabilities, training should be set close to the top of the action agenda, as it needs to be provided early in the process implementation of the strategy.

Adjustment of the organization's structure with the strategy:

The following guidelines are helpful in adjusting structure to strategy:

Accurately identify the value chain activities, competencies and competitive capabilities that are important to successful strategy execution Determine if some value chain activities (especially supportive ones that are not critical, but such Once selected main ones) can be assigned to external sources that would perform them in a more efficient way than if performed internally Determine which activities / capabilities critical to the strategy require close collaboration with suppliers, allies of the exit channels (distributors, agents or franchisees), manufacturers of complementary products or even competitors.Make the main activities and capacities of the value chain perform / develop internally and that the organizational units critical to the strategy are the main components in the organization's structure Determine the degrees of authority necessary to manage each organizational unit, finding a balance between centralized decision-making under the coordinating authority of a single manager and delegation of decision-making to the lowest organizational level capable of making timely, informed, and competent decisions If not all facets of a internal activity / capacity are under the authority of a single administrator, establish ways to bridge the departmental lines and achieve the necessary coordination.Determine how relationships with people outside the company will be managed and assign the responsibility of building the necessary organizational bridges.

Accurately determine the activities and competitive capabilities critical to the strategy:

The activities and capabilities critical to the strategy vary according to the particular aspects, the structure of the value chain and the competitive requirements of a company.

There are two questions that help to identify which activities in an organization are critical to strategy:

What functions must be performed extremely well or in a timely manner to achieve sustainable competitive advantage? In which value chain activities would poor performance seriously jeopardize strategic success?

Answers typically indicate critical organizational activities and capabilities on which the organization's development efforts should focus.

Reasons to consider assigning certain activities in the value chain to external sources

Assigning certain activities in the value chain to external sources that are not critical to the development of those organizational capabilities necessary for long-term competitive success, allow a company to focus its own resources and energies on those activities in the supply chain. Value where you can create unique value and be the best in the industry and where you need strategic control to develop core competencies, to achieve competitive advantage, and to manage key customer, supplier, and distributor relationships.

Assigning certain activities in the value chain to external sources makes sense from a strategic point of view as long as external providers can perform them at a lower cost and / or with greater added value than if the company performed them internally.

Reasons to consider partnering with others to achieve valuable competitive capabilities

Partnerships with companies outside the company can result in faster introduction of new technology online, faster delivery and / or lower inventory levels of parts and components, providing better and faster technical support to customers, etc. By developing, continually improving, and then leveraging these kinds of organizational capabilities, a company develops the resource strengths necessary for competitive success and establishes an enhanced ability to do certain things for its customers that deliver value to customers and that rivals they cannot totally match.

Automobile manufacturers work closely with their suppliers to coordinate the design and operation of parts and components, incorporate new technologies, better integrate individual parts and components to manufacture engine cooling systems, etc. which helps to shorten cycle times for new models, optimize the quality and performance of your vehicles, and improve overall production efficiency.

How to make the activities / capabilities critical to the strategy the main components of the internal organization:

Principle of strategic management:

Attempting to implement a new strategy with an old organizational structure is often reckless, it can open the door to problems in implementation and performance.

In other words, the mere fact of formulating a strategy already implies organizational changes, so in fact, if these changes did not occur, it would not be feasible to consider the strategy as an alternative from the planning phase.

Principle of strategic management:

Adjusting structure to strategy requires converting critical activities and organizational units critical to strategy into the main components of the organization's structure.

If the needs for a successful execution of the strategy are to promote organizational design, then the relationships that should be studied are those that: 1) link the performance of one work unit with the performance of another and 2) can be transformed into capabilities valuable competitive.

Managers need to be particularly alert to the fact that, in traditional functionally organized structures, parts of the strategically relevant activities and capabilities often end up scattered across many departments. An obvious solution is to remove the parts of the processes that are critical to the strategy from the functional sites and create entire process departments capable of performing all the cross-functional steps necessary to produce a strategy-critical result.

Determination of the degree of authority and independence that must be granted to each unit and each employee:

In recent years, there has been a decisive shift from authoritarian and hierarchical structures to flatter and more decentralized structures, which emphasize the delegation of authority to employees.

The new preference is based on three principles

Now that the world economy is rapidly shifting from the Industrial Age to the Age of Knowledge / Information Systems, traditional hierarchical structures developed around functional specialization must undergo radical surgery, in order to place greater emphasis on the development of valuable competitive cross-functional capabilities, the best companies must be able to act and react quickly, and quickly create, select and move information to the point where it is needed, in short, companies must reinvent their organizational arrangements. Decision-making authority should be delegated to employees at lower levels of management who are capable of making timely, informed and competent decisions, i.e.In those people (managers or not) who are more aware of the situation and the problems and who are better able to weigh all the factors It is necessary to delegate authority to employees at a lower level of management, in order to that they exercise their judgment in matters corresponding to their work. (They are smart at their job and cannot just translate executives' decisions about what to do.)(They are smart at their job and cannot just translate executives' decisions about what to do.)(They are smart at their job and cannot just translate executives' decisions about what to do.)

Report on relations and coordination between units:

The key to weaving support activities into organizational design is to establish reporting and coordination arrangements that:

Maximize the way in which support activities contribute to an improvement in the performance of the main activities in the company's value chain, contain the costs of support activities and minimize the time and energy that business units they must dedicate themselves to doing business with each other.

Assignment of responsibility for collaboration with people outside the company:

It is necessary to assign some person or group the authority and responsibility to collaborate with each of the external groups involved in the execution of the strategy. This means requiring that managers who are responsible for forming particular strategic partnerships or alliances generate the intended benefits. If close relationships with suppliers are critical, then supply chain authority and management need to be assigned a formal position in the company's organization chart and a significant position in the order of preference.

The challenge in the organization is to find ways to span the boundaries of independent organizations and produce the collaborative efforts necessary to enhance the competitive capabilities and resource strengths of the company. Forming partnerships and cooperative relationships offers immediate opportunities and opens the door to future possibilities, but nothing of value is accomplished until the relationship grows, develops, and flourishes.

The strategic advantages and disadvantages of different organizational structures:

There are five building block programs to match structure with strategy

Functional and / or process specialization Geographic organization Decentralized business divisions Strategic business units Matrix structures.

Each has advantages and disadvantages and each must be complemented with formal and informal organizational arrangements to fully coordinate work effort, develop core competencies, and build competitive capabilities.

1.- Structure Functional and process organization:

Components of a "typical" Functional Organizational Structure

Components of a Process-Oriented Organizational Structure

Strategic advantages:

Centralized control of strategic results Best suited for structuring a single business Suitable for businesses where the components of the value chain that are critical to strategy consist of discipline-specific or process-oriented activities Promotes a functional experience In-depth Appropriate for the development of functional and / or process-related skills and competencies It leads to the use of the effects of the learning / experience curve associated with functional specialization or with process specialization Improves the efficiency of operations where tasks are routine and repetitive Can be a foundation for competitive advantage when dominant depth in a function or process is key to success.Process organization provides a way to avoid fragmentation of strategy-critical activities across functional departments.

Strategic disadvantages:

Functional specialization leads to fragmentation of processes critical to strategy Emphasis on functional specialization erects organizational barriers to the creation of cross-functional core competencies and to close collaboration between departmental lines May lead to rivalry and conflict inter-functional rather than team spirit and cooperation Multi-level administrative bureaucracies and centralized decision-making delay response times Organization development around functional departments with managers who have inter-functional expertise functional, because the promotion ladder occurs at the top of the ranks within the same functional area, it imposes the responsibility of profits at the upper level.Functional specialists often attach more importance to what is best for the functional area than what is best for the business Lack of functional vision often works against creative entrepreneurial attitude and quick adaptation to changing market conditions Functional specialization creates barriers to cross-functional competencies and close departmental collaboration.Functional specialization creates barriers for the creation of cross-functional competencies and for close departmental collaboration.Functional specialization creates barriers for the creation of cross-functional competencies and for close departmental collaboration.

2.- Structure of a representative Geographic Organization:

It is suitable for companies looking for different strategies in different geographic regions.

Strategic advantages:

Allows strategy adjustment to the needs of each geographic market Delegates profit / loss responsibility to the lowest strategic level Improves functional coordination within the target market Takes advantage of local operations economies Regional units are a excellent training ground for general managers at the top level.

Strategic disadvantages:

It raises the problem of how much geographic uniformity the matrix should impose versus how much geographic diversity should be allowed. Greater difficulty in maintaining a uniform image / reputation of the company from one area to another when the managers of the geographic area exercise too much strategic freedom. Add another layer of management to direct geographic units, which can result in duplication of staff services at headquarters and across geographic levels, creating a cost disadvantage.

3.- Organizational structure of a decentralized business line:

In a diversified company, the basic organizational components are its business units, each business operates as a self-sustaining profit center.

Strategic advantages:

It offers a logical and feasible means of decentralizing responsibility and delegating authority to diversified organizations. It establishes responsibility for the design and implementation of business strategy in close proximity to the unique environment of each business. It allows each unit of business is organized around its own key value chain activities, business processes and functional requirements Leaves CEO free to handle corporate strategic issues Assigns clear profit / loss responsibility in the hands of the managers of the business units.

Strategic disadvantages:

It can lead to costly duplication of staff functions at the corporate and business unit levels, thereby increasing the costs of administrative overhead It raises a problem of which decisions to centralize and which to decentralize (business managers They need enough authority to get the job done, but not so much that corporate management loses control of key decisions at the business level.) It can lead to excessive rivalry in the division for corporate resources and attention. of the business / division operates against the achievement of the coordination of related activities in different business units,consequently blocking to some degree the capture of the benefits of strategic adjustment and resource adjustment Corporate management comes to rely to a high degree on business unit managers Corporate managers may lose touch with situations business units and end up being surprised when problems arise because you don't know much about how to solve them.

4.- Structure of the organization of a UEN:

A UEN Business Strategic Unit is a grouping of related businesses under the supervision of a senior executive.

Strategic advantages:

Provides a strategically relevant way to organize the business unit portfolio of a broadly diversified company Facilitates the coordination of related activities within a SBU, thereby helping to capture the benefits of resource adjustments between related businesses Promotes greater cohesion and collaboration between separate but related businesses Enables strategic planning to be carried out at the most relevant level within the total enterprise Makes the task of strategic review carried out by senior managers executives are more objective and effective Helps allocate corporate resources to the areas with the best opportunities for growth and profits.The position of group vice presidents is a good training ground for future CEOs.

Strategic disadvantages:

It is easy for the definition and grouping of businesses in a UEN to be so arbitrary that it serves no purpose, other than administrative convenience. If the criteria for defining SBUs are streamlined and have very little to do with the essence of strategy coordination, then clusters lose their true strategic importance.SUs may still lack vision in charting their future direction. adds another level to senior management The roles and authority of the CEO, group vice president, and business unit manager must be carefully delineated, otherwise the group vice president is caught in the middle with an authority ill-defined Unless the head of the business unit has a strong character,There is likely to be very little coordination or collaboration on strategy between business units in the SBU Recognition of performance becomes confusing, there is a tendency to give credit for successful business units to the CEO, then to the CEO. the business unit and finally the vice president.

5.- Matrix of the structure of an Organization:

A matrix organization is a structure with two (or more) channels of command, two budget lines of authority, and two sources of performance and reward.

The key characteristic of the matrix is that the authority of a business / product / project / company and the authority in a function or a business process overlap (to form a matrix or a grid) and the responsibility of decision-making in each unit / table of the matrix it is shared between the manager of the business / product / project / company team and the functional / process manager.

The matrix is a conflict resolution system whereby strategic and operational priorities are negotiated, power is shared, and resources are allocated based on the “strongest case” for what is generally best for the unit.

Strategic advantages:

Pays formal attention to each dimension of strategic priority. Creates checks and balances between opposing viewpoints. Facilitates obtaining strategic adjustments functionally based on diversified companies. Promotes barter decision-making on the basis of "what it's better for the organization as a whole. ”Encourages cooperation, consensus building, conflict resolution, and coordination of related activities.

Strategic disadvantages:

Its administration is very complex. It is difficult to maintain a balance between the two lines of authority. So much shared authority can result in stagnant transactions and disproportionate amounts of time spent on communications, consensus building and collaboration. Difficult to move swiftly and decisively without checking with or obtaining approval from many other people Promotes organizational bureaucracy and impedes creative entrepreneurship and initiative Operates for purposes contrary to efforts to delegate authority to managers and employees at lower levels.

How to complement the basic structure of the organization:

In many companies, the organization supporting the strategy requires complementing the formal structure with special coordination mechanisms and with efforts to develop organizational capacities.

Seven most frequently used plans to supplement the building blocks of the structure are:

Special project teams:

Create a separate and largely self-contained task force to oversee the completion of a special activity and are especially useful for short-term situations and when the organization is not equipped to achieve the same results.

Cross-functional workforces:

Bring together several top-level executives and / or specialists to solve problems that require specialized expertise from various parts of the organization, coordinate strategy-related activities that cross departmental borders, or explore new ways to leverage the skills of different functional specialists in broader core competencies. They appear to be most effective when they are made up of fewer than 10 members.

Business teams:

Form a group of individuals to manage a new product launch, enter a new geographic market, or create a specific new business.

Autonomous work teams:

Form a group of people from different disciplines, who work together on a semi-permanent basis to continuously improve organizational performance in areas related to strategy, such as shortening cycle time from laboratory to market, improving product quality, etc.

Process teams: Appoint functional specialists to perform part of a business process in a team, rather than assigning them to the functional department that is its base. These teams can be delegated the authority to reengineer the process, hold them accountable for results, and reward them based on good process performance Contact Managers: Appoint someone to serve as a single point of contact with customers when Customer-related activities are so multi-faceted that it is impractical to integrate them for one person or a team to perform. The contact person, who acts as a buffer between internal processes and the customer,responds to his questions and coordinates the solutions to his problems as if he were responsible for the performance of the required activities. To carry out this role, contact persons need to have access to all the information used by those who actually carry out the activities and the ability to contact those persons with questions and requests for additional help when necessary.: Appoint people who have the responsibility of organizing and integrating the company's efforts in order to develop solid working relationships with allies and strategic partners.Contact persons need access to all the information used by those who actually carry out the activities and the ability to contact those persons with questions and requests for additional help when necessary Relationship managers: Appoint persons who have the right responsibility for organizing and integrating the company's efforts in order to develop solid working relationships with allies and strategic partners.Contact persons need access to all the information used by those who actually carry out the activities and the ability to contact those persons with questions and requests for additional help when necessary Relationship managers: Appoint persons who have the right responsibility for organizing and integrating the company's efforts in order to develop solid working relationships with allies and strategic partners.

Organizational Structures of the future:

Over the past decade, new strategic priorities and rapidly changing competitive conditions have produced revolutionary changes in the way companies organize the work effort.

Organizations of the future will have several new features:

Fewer boundaries between different vertical ranges, between functions and disciplines, between units in different geographic locations, and between the company and its suppliers, distributors / agents, strategic allies and customers An ability for rapid change and learning. collaboration between people in different functional specialties and geographic locations essential for building organizational competencies and capabilities Extensive use of digital technology, personal computers, cordless phones, video conferencing and other cutting edge electronic products.