Literature
The literature reviewed discusses various functional integration models in systems dealing with product customization and new product introductions. This literature utilizes various management concepts to explain the mechanisms of functional integration, and why or why not integration worked in the separate situations mentioned. Through these descriptions, one can see the use of organizational theory as a system that defines the functional integration process. Mass Customization Overview For instance, one of the pieces of literature describes a process of mass customization (Liu & Schroeder, 2012). The researcher is looking to find a more efficient way to introduce the concept into a corporation so as to produce a more profitable outcome. The researcher discusses functional integration as a conduit of such efficient processing. The functional integration entailed cross-departmental relations in marketing, procurement and production of the customized product (Liu & Schroeder, 2012). The main system of integration would be the use of software technology that would allow for an automated system for supplies handling, enacted by the inputting of data in each functional department associated with the ordering and procurement of mass customization supplies (Liu & Schroeder, 2012). Theory This particular system of integration is recommended due to the structure of the organization. The company in question tends to enlist multiple suppliers to fulfill similar orders, as they are available according to a reduced lead time of production (Liu & Schroeder, 2012). They are looking at the supplies process in a more instrumentalist point of view - meaning the way that these suppliers could become a tool for them when they are trying to provide outputs, although the structure of the organization requires institutionalized conduct - which is an internal structure that operates under a set of uniform rules and a predetermined organization of positions that are kept separate from one another (Huegens & Sherer, 2010). The organization works for the common good of its employees, and attempts to solve consumer problems regardless of the cost to them. It does not matter to them which supplier they use, as long as the supplier can get them what they need in time to satisfy the customer (Liu & Schroeder, 2012). Regardless, this automated system of integration is required due to the company’s mechanistic leadership style (Morgan, 2006). Employees are clustered into departments that belong to their specialty and asked to carry out their duties with little to no interaction with the other departments. These duties should innately conduce positive efforts in the other departments despite the lack of communication. An automated system attempts to encourage this reduction in communication by communicating within itself between departments, rather than to insist that the departments utilize employees to communication cross-departmentally (Liu & Schroeder, 2012). This idea is further enhanced by the company’s individualist culture where it is apparent that it operates as though each individual has the will to contribute one way or another to the entire social atmosphere of the organization, without encouragement by others (Heugens & Sherer, 2010). In response, the individual functional departments contribute data into the automated system, and then the programmed sorting codes within the system enact steps to ensure smooth implementation of the mass customization process (Liu and Schroeder, 2012) – there are no humans involved in the final integration of the data. All of the departments can stay as themselves, acting as individuals, and still enjoy the benefits of integration. Just in Time Overview Reading the needs of this mass customization organization allows the reader to contemplate the use of Just in Time manufacturing in order to produce a more efficient process. Just in Time delivery is part of the main management style used by the Japanese car industry (Bernard, 1996). With this management style comes a desire that employees immediately report system failures, or even to locate system needs ahead of time and suggest a solution to higher level management. These systems focus on the reduction of waste, including the reduction of extra supplies that could deteriorate or become useless over time (Bernard, 1996). The entire structure works like homeostasis in the body, illustrating the early forms of the theory of an organization as a biological organ (Morgan, 2006). Even suppliers are required to support this organizational form of homeostasis by agreeing to the fulfillment of shorter orders at a higher frequency than with other types of structure (Bernard, 1996). This reduction in waste requires a system of functional integration. Theory Integration needs are replete in the systems of problem reporting, problem resolution and the integration of resolution programs (Bernard, 1996). Furthermore, external integration falls in line with cooperative supplier relations (Morgan, 2006). In order to extend the length of any accidental supplies overages, multiple departments need to communicate between each other for alternate uses of the supplies (Bernard, 1996). These systems are highly constructive and adaptive to change (Heugens and Sherer, 2010). Company values are formed according to the overall social interaction of employees to one another, and the outcome of such interactions. Integration systems require quick reactions, open and honest communication, and the reduction of lag time for communicative processes. Employees should communicate directly to one another with these types of organizational structures in place (Bernard, 1996). Utilization of Teams Overview The Just in Time delivery process places in mind the need for having a multitude of tools available ahead of time in stations where specific projects are produced to fill special orders. Another method of functional integration introduced in the literature deals with the utilization of teams of employees from multiple functional departments to produce outputs on a project by project basis (Nakata and Im, 2010). In this arrangement, facilities are usually equipped in a cluster design so that there are multiple productive tool beds throughout the facility that provide all the tools needed to create project based products. The tool beds are centrally located and the tool supplies are generally inclined for flexibility of use with the typical resources that are ordered to fulfill most project guidelines. Teams are built of employees from multiple units and the employees all exercise separate expertise (Nakata and Im, 2010). Each separate expertise is represented as a part of the group in order to fulfill the planning, procurement, and production of a specific part of the product. Team members work together for the preliminary portions of the project and either complete it as the same team or administer individual tasks through the help of other employees from their affiliated departments within the company (Nakata and Im, 2010). The company may also have a few areas of the factory designed to store basic product supplies that are generally the same regardless of the project administered. Theory Integration is set up this way because the company is organized with an overarching mechanistic style of leadership (Morgan, 2006). Each department is separate from the others, and communication between them is normally minimal. However, the leadership style is more classical than mechanistic because the departments are able to provide inter-communicatory services when administered into project teams (Morgan, 2010; Nakata and Im, 2010). When this starts to happen, the teams begin to form a holographic image of the entire company, with each member representing a separate section of the organization. So while each section is separate from each other, these mini portraits of the company are still able to depict the full image of the company (Morgan, 2006). This includes a representation of the full array of perspectives. These companies are purely instrumental. They can take or leave a supplier depending on the project, and they can build or digest teams according to project start and stop dates (Heugens and Sheer, 2010). If a project is renewed, these companies remain flexible enough that they can extend the life of the team in order to maintain the extended contract. At times, the company can continue the processes enacted through the team to fulfill an extended contract without actually having to keep the team intact (Nakata and Im, 2010). This is an illustration of the closed communication between upper level management and regular employees. Although there is open communication between departments comprising a team, there is still closed communications between projects and team placement - which is a decision made entirely at the discretion of a management department that is kept separate from the team (Nakata and Im, 2010). This suggests a postmodern organizational framework in that both social and individualist concepts are employed (Heugens and Sherer, 2010). Furthermore, teams exercise realism in decision processes, but the movement, integrations and divesting of teams follows an obviously constructionist concept (Heugens and Sherer, 2010). Whatever the company needs to do to fulfill the project order, that’s what the company will do. Conclusion – Defining Structural Integration As illustrated in the examples above, organizational theory plays an incremental role in defining the boundaries of functional integration. This sort of integration requires that different types of theory are considered in determining how it will work. Such that, different structural arrangements that were developed from organizational theory actually serve as determinants of integrative strategy. So when a corporation is structured with a mechanistic style of management, and little interaction between subunits, integration is set up so that departments can still resolve systems between each other while minimizing communications on a humanistic level. Where the system is set up for socially created values and constructivist reality, functional integration is implemented so that communication is encouraged as a tool for integration. In this regards, organizational theory is a required element for planning and defining functional integration. References Bernard, K. N. (1996). Just-in-Time as a Competitive Weapon: The Significance of Functional Integration. Journal Of Marketing Management, 12(6), 581-597. Heugens P, Scherer A. When Organization Theory Met Business Ethics: Toward Further Symbioses. Business Ethics Quarterly [serial online]. October 2010;20(4):643-672. Available from: Business Source Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed October 13, 2014. Liu, G., Shah, R., & Schroeder, R. G. (2012). The relationships among functional integration, mass customisation, and firm performance. International Journal Of Production Research, 50(3), 677-690. doi:10.1080/00207543.2010.537390 Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN: 9781412939799. Nakata, C., & Im, S. (2010). Spurring Cross-Functional Integration for Higher New Product Performance: A Group Effectiveness Perspective. Journal Of Product Innovation Management, 27(4), 554-571. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00735.x.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorBonnie enjoys publishing poetry, fiction, social media and non-fiction. She has created numerous technical documents and research dissertations. Bonnie has also assisted in teh writing of movie scripts that have gone into production. Archives
November 2021
Categories |