1. If you were on the Dynacorp task force, what would be your first choice for an alternative design? What would be your second choice?. Answer: If I am on the Dynacorp task force, my first choice for an alternative design would be front /back structure of strategic design. This structure divides the organization into two parts such that the back end products which include engineering, manufacturing and the logistics and the front end is faced by the marketing and sales division. As Dynacorp is spread across the US and as well as the world, this front/back structure will also support the various divisions spread across the globe.
Each country where Dynacorp wants to expand itself can have its marketing and sales division and the manufacturing division can be located in a country where the production costs would be as lower as possible. This would be an advantage by lowering the production costs and increasing the profit of Dynacorp. The marketing division, which becomes the back end of the structure, can address the various issues faced by the Dynacorp, with one major issue of handling the change from dealing with the direct customers to the consulting firms with special practices in ITC. This can be coordinated with the engineering and the production divisions, which in turn spread across the globe. With the advancement in the information exchange systems, the communication between the divisions can be increased and the adaption to the change can be made easier.
Dynacorp can introduce a division which deals with the projects and programs of the whole company across the various products Dynacorp manufactures. The project/programs division can be used to identify what would be the strategy for the whole company on a periodical basis. For example, this division can have a head of the division with other members can analyses how to introduce new products of Dynacorp into a new country like China. This division can sit down and analyses the methods or the strategies for the same which in turn can be implemented by the back end of the structure.
2. Which of the problems of the current design would your chosen design addresses? What problems (if any) would not address? Are there any new problems to which it might lead? Answer: The current strategic design of Dynacorp is the Functional Grouping structure with three major divisions such as engineering, manufacturing and marketing. My chosen design is front/back structure, and it addresses the problems faced by Dynacorp in following ways:
* The separation of the marketing from manufacturing and engineering reduces the friction between these divisions. * With the introduction of the projects/programs division the expansion in Dynacorp can be implemented easily with the new inventions being done be the engineering and produced by manufacturing divisions. * This new division revisits the goals of Dynacorp on a periodic basis which in turn creates a continuous increase in the profits of the Dynacorp. There are some issues still faced within the different divisions of Dynacorp. For example, the problems of the young members of the organization is having too many layers of managers within the division, is not addressed by the above strategic structure. With the advancement in the technologies these barriers can be reduced further with the help of information networks.
3. What linking and alignment mechanisms would you propose to make the “grouping” of your first choice design more effective?
Answer: I would suggest Permanent Cross-unit Groups and Information Technology systems as the linking between the divisions of Dynacorp. With permanent cross-unit groups teams can be formed to coordinates the meetings and activities between engineering and manufacturing, and as well as marketing and manufacturing, where major delays are noted in Dynacorp. Also with the help of the Information Technology systems (computer networks, emails, etc.), the communications between the managers of the same division and between the divisions are made possible. This in turn reduces the delays that are faced by the manufacturing division, which waits for the communication from the engineering division; as well as the interruptions made by the marketing to the manufacturing can also be reduced.
The alignment mechanisms I would suggest for Dynacorp is human resource development and information systems. The strategic design which I chose for Dynacorp is front/ back structure; human resources can be used in the newly introduced projects/programs division. This division can be a bridge between the marketing and manufacturing divisions. This will in turn reduces the friction present between these two divisions and the delays in manufacturing the products of Dynacorp. The information systems would allow Dynacorp to form new intra networks between the various teams involved with which Dynacorp can the increase the communication between an engineer and a manufacturing manager for example.