Chapter 3. The Genesis of Universum Structures P. K. Anokhin postulated the fundamental principle of the systemic work of the brain - the principle of anticipatory reflection of reality, a particular manifestation of which is the conditioned reflex ... P. K. Anokhin revealed the neurophysiological

7.1. Genesis of intellectual structures The process of development of supersystems corresponds to the above-considered general process of the universal "genesis-development", therefore, considering the process of the genesis of supersystems, it is impossible to ignore the issue of the emergence of intelligence,

8.2. Unity of descriptions of social structures Since the state and society consist of the same people, theoretically the state and society should set themselves the same tasks and engage in their implementation, but both in the past and in today's world this is far from

Organizational structure of management (managerial structure) – it is an ordered set of interrelated divisions and management bodies (positions, divisions and services), isolated in the process of division of labor, in a certain mutual connection and subordination, and united by communication channels . Depending on the nature of the connections, several main types of organizational management structures are distinguished (Figure 12.8):

· linear;

· functional;

linear-functional;

divisional;

design;

· matrix;

multiple (conglomerate).

Fig.12.8. Classification of management structures

Linear control structure

IN linear structure the linear form of connections prevails (Fig. 12.9). Essence linear structure type management consists in the fact that at the head of each team there is one leader who concentrates in his hands All management functions and decision-making authority and is accountable only to a superior manager. Subordinates carry out orders only from their immediate supervisor. A superior manager does not have the right to give orders to employees, bypassing their immediate superior. The linear management structure is used by small and medium-sized firms, small divisions, sections, branches of enterprises that carry out simple production. The principle of unity of command is clearly expressed; high degree of centralization in management.

pros

1) establishing clear and simple relationships between departments;

2) consistent and interconnected orders for subordinates;

3) efficiency in decision-making;

4) complete responsibility of each leader for the results of work;

5) unity of command and responsibility from top to bottom;

6) coordination of actions of the leader and performers.

Legend:

P1 - line manager of the highest level;

P2 - mid-level line manager;

I - performer

Fig.12.9. Linear control structure

Minuses

1) high requirements for the speed of reaction of the leader, the ability to process large amounts of information, the ability to participate in numerous contacts, competence in all areas of activity of subordinates, which entails overload;

2) the effectiveness of management is limited by the abilities and capabilities of the manager, the risk of incompetence and untimely decision-making increases.

Functional management structure

Functional management structure used for a large number of specialized works in the organization. IN functional type structure (Fig. 12.10) the functional form of relations prevails, which is characterized by the allocation of specialists and departments who are well aware of specific areas of production and management and make informed decisions in these areas.

Legend:

RA, RB, RV - functional managers for functions A, B, C

Fig.12.10. Functional management structure

At the same time, the implementation of the instructions of the functional bodies (departments of planning, accounting, etc.) within their competence is mandatory for production units. At one time, F. Taylor proposed a functional production management structure, in which the worker received instructions from 8 highly specialized functional managers instead of the foreman and foreman. In practice, this approach proved unviable. Uncoordinated decisions of specialists, no matter how good they are in themselves, inevitably come into conflict with each other. There is a struggle for the priority of instructions.

It can be used in organizations where there is a fairly clear delineation of the rights and responsibilities of managers, for example, in research and design organizations.

pros

1) increasing the competence of management due to the involvement of qualified specialists in certain areas;

2) increasing the flexibility of the structure, which responds to the needs of practice by creating new functional services.

Minuses

1) violation unity management and the principle of unity of command and, as a result, reducing the responsibility of performers for work;

2) high risk of uncoordinated decisions, conflicts;

Linear-functional management structure

Management structures built on an organic combination and mutual complementation of linear and functional powers are called linear functional. In the linear-functional type of structure, the line manager has a headquarters consisting of management units (departments, bureaus, groups, services, individual specialists) that specialize in performing one type of management activities(control functions). Variants of linear-functional control structures are shown in fig. 12.11.

Legend:

Ш1, Ш2 - staffs of specialists under top and middle level managers

The appearance of headquarters units was due to the complexity and complexity of management, the need to provide the administration with constant assistance from specialists. Employees of the headquarters apparatus have advisory, control and other powers, united under the general name "staff". They perform the following functions:

Fig.12.11. Linear-functional control structures

· main(analysis, evaluation, planning, financing, control, solving personnel issues, etc.);

· auxiliary(collection and storage of information, technical support for management activities, etc.);

· personal service leadership (these tasks are solved by the so-called personal device - secretaries, consultants and referents).

The functional leaders who head the headquarters services can prescribe the course of action for the line units.

For example, the head of the territorial division of the company, in addition to the regional vice president for relevant issues, may report to the vice presidents for finance, marketing, personnel, etc.

At the same time, staff leaders perform purely administrative functions in relation to their employees, exercising already linear powers.

For example, the deputy head of personnel not only distributes relevant recommendations to all departments of the organization, exercising functional powers, but also heads the personnel department. In relation to its employees, he acts as a line administrator.

Linear-functional structures are currently the main basic type of structures. Managers of even small businesses prefer to have assistants in such management functions as accounting, process control, and planning.

pros

1) combine the advantages of both linear and functional structures;

2) creates the most favorable basis for the formal regulation of powers and responsibilities;

3) weaken the overload of line managers, unload them by delegating functional powers to staff specialists, allowing them to prescribe ways to perform actions.

Minuses

1) an artificial expansion of the administrative apparatus is possible;

2) separation of the administrative apparatus from production;

3) bureaucracy and red tape in decision-making due to the high workload of the line manager with approvals of various kinds of decisions;

4) with the diversification and increase in the size of corporations, coordination of activities to introduce and support new areas, products, programs is not ensured.

Divisional management structure

To cope with the new challenges posed by firm size, diversification, changing environments and products, corporations have developed and used divisionalmanagement structure, according to which the linear-functional structure is divided into fairly autonomous, relatively independent blocks(fig.12.12).

Legend:

RP1, RP2, RPZ - production managers

Fig.12.12. Linear-functional control structures

The allocation of blocks occurs by types of goods and services, geographic regions, consumers (Fig. 12.13).

Fig.12.12. Types of divisional management structures

Rights and responsibilities in divisional management structures are distributed over two main levels:

♦ head office or company headquarters, where the supreme administration and several basic functional services are located. They are responsible for strategic planning, financing, distribution of resources, implementation of personnel (top and middle management) and marketing (in the entire market of the company) policy;

♦ production or sales offices which are usually headed by managers who have complete independence in solving the current operational problems of their units. Production (sales) departments, as independent business units, bear full responsibility for the results of their activities - the profitability of production and profit. Therefore they are called profit centers.

The independence of production departments extends to marketing (of their product group or local market), production, sales, accounting and reporting, selection and placement of personnel (lower management and performers), pricing.

Product management structure shown in Figure 12.13.

Fig.12.13. Product divisional structure

This structure is used when the company decides to expand the range of products. Used by most major consumer goods manufacturers with diversified products. At the same time, autonomous parts (departments) are allocated in the production link, technologically related to various products, and managers are appointed to these areas who are fully responsible for the production of this product and making a profit.

Functional services can be created in departments to ensure the assigned tasks. The top management of the firm is left with “a large number of centralized functional services (four to six) that ensure decision-making at the highest level.

Market structure of management shown in Figure 12.14.

Fig.12.14. Market divisional structure

This structure is used by firms that produce a wide range of goods and services that meet the needs of several markets or large groups of consumers. If some markets ( buyer groups) are of particular importance for the company, in its structure there are autonomous departments that focus on this market (group).

Regional governance structure(Fig. 12.15) are used by firms whose activities cover large geographical areas. Branches are created according to the territorial principle. The regional structure facilitates the solution of problems associated with local legislation, customs, and consumer needs. Easier communication between the organization and customers.

Fig.12.15. Regional divisional structure

Global product structure(12.16) is most appropriate for firms differences between types of productsryh are more important, than the differences between regionsus, in which it is sold. Differences in products are often due to the fact that the company produces a wide range of products, the production of which requires different technologies. In addition, differences in products can also arise because marketing methods do not correspond well to the distribution channels for these products. If you design the structure of the organization based on the types of products it produces, it is much easier to achieve the necessary technological and marketing specialization and coordination.

Fig.12.16. Global Product Divisional Structure

Global regional structure(Figure 12.17) is created in firms for which regional differences matter more than product differences. Regional differences are often due to the fact that the firm's foreign clients are located in different regions.

pros

1) allows a large firm to take advantage of small business;

2) the release of top managers of the company from operational and routine decisions

3) combines, on the one hand, the flexibility, efficiency of small businesses in adapting to market requirements, and, on the other hand, the financial, resource and organizational power of a large corporation;

4) improving the coordination of work grouped by product, region, consumer;

Fig.12.16. Global regional divisional structure

5) the attention and responsibility of the head of the department are focused on the final result;

6) the product structure makes it easy to cope with the development of new types of products, based on considerations of competition, technology improvement or customer satisfaction;

7) the regional structure allows the organization to more effectively take into account local legislation, socio-economic system and markets as the geographical expansion of its market areas;

8) the structure focused on the consumer gives the organization the chance most effectively to consider inquiries of those consumers on whom it most of all depends.

Minuses

1) an increase in management costs due to duplication of the same types of products, regions, consumers;

2) limiting the possibility of effective use of high-performance equipment due to the small size of the departments.

Project management structure

Under project management structure refers to a temporary structure created to solve a specific complex problem (project development and its implementation). The meaning of the design structure management is to bring together the most qualified employees of different professions into one team to implement a complex project on time with a given level of quality and within the material, financial and labor resources. The project management structure assumes the provision of centralized management of the entire course of work on each major project.

There are several types of project structures. As one of their varieties, one can cite the so-called pure or consolidated project management structures, which imply the formation of a special unit - project team working on a temporary basis. A temporary group of specialists is essentially a scaled-down copy of the permanent functional structure of a given company (Fig. 12.17).

The temporary groups include the necessary specialists: engineers, accountants, production managers, researchers, as well as management specialists. The project manager is given design authority(full power and control rights within a particular project). The manager is responsible for all activities from the beginning to the completion of the project or any part of it. Its functions include defining the concept and goals of project management, forming a project structure, distributing tasks among specialists, planning and organizing the execution of work, and coordinating the actions of performers. All team members and all resources allocated for this purpose are completely subordinate to him. The project manager's project authority includes responsibility for project planning, for scheduling and progress of work, for spending allocated resources, including financial incentives for employees. After completion of work on the project, the structure disintegrates, and the personnel moves to a new project structure or returns to their permanent position (in case of contract work, they leave).

Fig.12.17. One of the types of project management structures

1) integration of various activities of the company in order to obtain high-quality results for a specific project;

2) A complex approach to project implementation, problem solving;

3) concentration of all efforts on solving one problem, on the implementation of one specific project;

4) greater flexibility of project structures;

5) revitalization of the activities of project managers and performers as a result of the formation of project teams;

6) strengthening the personal responsibility of a particular leader both for the project as a whole and for its elements.

1) in the presence of several organizational projects or programs, project structures lead to a fragmentation of resources and significantly complicate the maintenance and development of the production and scientific and technical potential of the company as a whole;

2) the project manager is required not only to manage all stages life cycle project, but also taking into account the place of the project in the network of projects of this company;

3) the formation of project teams that are not sustainable formations deprives employees of awareness of their place in the company;

4) when using the project structure, there are difficulties with the prospective use of specialists in this company;

5) partial duplication of functions.

Matrix control structure

One of the most complex management structures is the matrix structure. It was originally developed in the space industry, applied in the electronics industry and in the fields of high technology. The matrix structure arose as a response to the need for rapid technological change with the most efficient use of a highly skilled workforce.

Matrix structure reflects the consolidation in the organizational structure of the company of two directions of management (Fig. 12.18). Vertical direction– management of functional and linear structural divisions of the company. Horizontal - management of individual projects, programs, products, for the implementation of which the resources of various departments of the company are involved.

A distinctive feature of the organizational structure of matrix type management is that employees have two leaders at the same time having equal rights. On the one hand, the performer reports to the immediate head of the functional service, and on the other hand, to the head of the business process, who is endowed with the necessary project authority to implement the management process in accordance with the planned deadlines, allocated resources and the required quality. Arises dual command system, based on a combination of two principles - functional and design (product).

Project managers in matrix structures, as well as in the project structures discussed above, have the so-called project authority. Moreover, these powers can be expressed in direct opposites: from comprehensive linear power over all the details of the project to almost purely consulting powers. The choice of a particular option is determined by what rights the top management of the company delegates to it.

Legend:

PG- production group; GI- study group; GC- groupconstruction;

GR - development group; HS- groupsupplies; BG - accounting group

Fig.12.18. Matrix control structure

Project managers in the matrix structure are generally responsible for integrating all activities and resources related to a given project. For that. so that they can achieve this, all material and financial resources for this project are transferred to their full disposal. Project Managers reserve the right to determine the priority and timing of the solution of a particular task, while heads of structural divisions can only choose a specific contractor and solution method.

1) flexibility and efficiency of resource maneuvering when performing several programs within the same firm;

2) effective coordination of various types of activities within the framework of one project;

3) obtaining high-quality results for a large number of projects, programs, products;

4) significant activation of the activities of managers and employees of the administrative apparatus as a result of the formation of project teams that actively interact with functional units;

5) strengthening the relationship between design and functional them; overcoming intraorganizational barriers without interfering with the development of functional specialization

6) strengthening the personal responsibility of a particular leader both for the project (program) as a whole and for its elements;

7) the ability to concentrate the efforts of specialists in various fields on the development of new projects and programs;

8) the formation of a way of thinking among employees in which they put the interests of the entire company in the first place, and not their own unit.

1) the complexity of implementation and management, its implementation requires long-term training of employees and an appropriate organizational culture;

2) violation of the principle of unity of command, conflict, struggle for power

3) dependence on the establishment of interpersonal communication of group members;

4) excessive overhead costs;

5) the complexity of the matrix structure for practical implementation;

6) the structure is complex, cumbersome and expensive not only in implementation, but also in operation;

7) within the framework of the matrix structure, there is a tendency to anarchy, in the conditions of its operation, the rights and responsibilities between its elements are not clearly distributed;

8) this structure is characterized by excessive overhead costs due to the fact that more funds are required to maintain more managers, as well as sometimes to resolve conflict situations;

9) there is a partial duplication of functions;

10) as a rule, group decision-making is characteristic, group conformism is possible;

11) the traditional system of relationships between departments is violated;

12) it is difficult and practically there is no full-fledged control over the levels of management;

13) the structure is considered to be absolutely inefficient in times of crisis.

Conglomerate governance structure

Multiple, conglomerate or mixed structure combines various structures at different levels of management. For example, a branch management structure can be applied to the entire company, and in branches it can be linear-functional or matrix.

The senior management of the corporation is responsible for long-term planning, policy development, as well as for coordinating and controlling actions throughout the organization. Surrounding this core group are a number of firms, which tend to be either independent economic units or de facto independent firms. These firms are almost completely autonomous with regard to operational decisions. They are subordinate to the main company, mainly in financial matters. They are expected to achieve their profit targets and keep costs within the limits set for the entire conglomerate by senior management. How these duties are carried out is left entirely to the discretion of the management of the relevant economic unit.

Some large conglomerates (such as Bietrio, Sears Roebuck, I.T.T., Gulf & Western, PepsiCo) have developed primarily through acquisitions and mergers rather than through internal expansion and growth. . As a result, their activities were often too diversified to fit into any system or structure. Therefore, the management of the conglomerate gives the opportunity to the management of each company included in its structure to choose the management structure that suits it best.

Another major reason why conglomerate firms maintain their own organizational structures is that they can scale up and down business very quickly in various areas with minimal disruption of established relationships. There is almost no interdependence between the individual firms that make up the conglomerate, in contrast to typical departmentalization. It would be unthinkable to imagine, for example, that a functionally structured firm would liquidate its marketing department just because it was performing below its capacity. A conglomerate, on the other hand, may sell any of its member firms because of its poor performance and buy a firm with good economic prospects, and all these changes are unlikely to even be noticed by other divisions of the conglomerate. These capabilities have made conglomerates very popular with entrepreneurs in knowledge-intensive industries, where you need to quickly transition to new types of products and just as quickly phase out obsolete ones.

Combines benefits common to all structures

1) Flexibility;

2) Ability to be rolled up and deployed very quickly business activity in various areas with minimal disruption of established ties

1) Possible only for large organizations;

12.3.2. Types of management structures for interaction with the external environment

Depending on how adaptive the organization is to changes in the environment, there are two types of organization management:

1) mechanistic (bureaucratic) type of management;

2) organic (adaptive) type of management.

The use of the term "mechanical" to the organization is used to show that the system is designed like a machine for productive operations. IN last years The mechanistic approach has been heavily criticized. The term "organic" seems to give the organization the quality of a living organism, free from the shortcomings of the mechanistic structure.

Mechanistic type of organization

The mechanistic approach to organizational design is characterized by the use of formal rules and procedures, centralized decision making, narrowly defined job responsibilities, and a rigid hierarchy of authority within the organization. With these characteristics, an organization can operate effectively in environments where routine technology is used (low uncertainty about when, where and how to do work) and an uncomplicated and non-dynamic external environment. Mechanistic in nature are all government bodies. Even modern automobile production may well be efficient within a mechanistic structure. There is a fair degree of certainty about automotive manufacturing technologies, and the problems that this production faces in the external environment have changed little over the past decades (traffic safety, environmental cleanliness, fuel, roads, infrastructure, etc.).

Many experts consider the mechanistic approach to be synonymous with the Weberian bureaucratic organization. The bureaucratic system can realize its advantages, for example, such as universality, predictability and productivity, with the following conditions:

the organization has common goals and objectives;

work in the organization can be divided into separate operations;

· the overall goal of the organization should be simple enough to allow it to be achieved on the basis of central planning;

individual performance can be reliably measured;

cash reward motivates the employee;

The authority of the leader is recognized as legitimate.

Of course, there are many other conditions that are important to the success of any organization, such as the availability of resources and the demand for performance. However, the above conditions are very important for the effective operation of an organization built on the basis of a mechanistic approach.

The mechanistic type of organization management is characterized by a set of the following characteristics:

Conservative, inflexible structure;

well-defined, standardized and sustainable objectives;

resistance to change

• power comes from the hierarchical levels in the organization and from the position in the organization;

hierarchical control system;

command type of communications going from top to bottom;

Organic type of organization

The organic approach to organizational design is characterized by low to moderate use of formal rules and procedures, decentralization and employee participation in decision making, broadly defined job responsibility, flexible power structures, and few levels of hierarchy. This approach proves to be effective in environments where technology is non-routine (high uncertainty about when, where and how to do work) and there is a complex and dynamic external environment. good example effective application organic approach is the organization of production of electronic equipment. Experts admit that the technology of electronic production changes almost every week. The external environment is changing at the same pace, the complexity of which no one doubts.

An organic approach allows the organization to better interact with the new environment, adapt faster to changes, i.e. be more flexible. To better reflect the essence of the organic approach, it can be presented as the direct opposite of the "ideal" bureaucracy (Table 12.3).

Table 12.3

Characteristics of mechanistic and organic organizations

If the mechanistic approach focuses the organization on highly structured roles, then the job description in the organic approach may consist of just one phrase: “ Do what you think is necessary to get the job done". The same is true when making a decision: You; an expert in this matter, it's up to you". With an organic approach, due to the lack of clear assessments and standards, there are more employees; driven by self-motivation and internal reward than a well-developed system of material rewards and formal control.

For the organic type of organization management characteristic:

· flexible structure;

dynamic, not rigidly defined tasks;

readiness for change;

power is based on knowledge and experience;

self-control and control of colleagues;

Multidirectional communications (vertical, horizontal, diagonal, etc.);

Most experts see the future in the organic approach and continue to strongly criticize the mechanistic approach. However, managers must take into account the specific conditions in which a particular organization operates, and on this basis make their final choice. In management, as in any other sphere of human social activity, there is no a priori concept of a “good” or “bad” system. There is a choice corresponding to existing conditions, and a choice that does not correspond to them. As the conditions change, so can the choice.

Essay

"Management structure of the organization"

1. The concept of management structure

One of the signs of the organization is the presence of an organizational center that coordinates the activities of the members of the organization and ensures the unity of their actions in achieving goals.

The management introduced the concept of "management system", which is a set of forms of association of people who carry out in practice the process of managing the entire organization as a whole and all its constituent elements (structures) separately. The control system contains a structure as an ordered set of its constituent elements.

The origins of the formation of modern management structures, of course, are a large social division of labor, cooperation, specialization and intra-production division of labor.

The basis of management structures is the need for efficient and economically sound management of organizations. Moreover, the forms of ownership can be different, which, of course, determines the principles and methods of management, the relationship of management structures both within the organization and with the external environment. Changes in the forms of private property associated with the joint-stock form of enterprises, the emergence of concerns and conglomerates, led researchers to the conclusion about a managerial revolution (see A. Burley and G. Means - 30s; J. Burnham - 40s; J. Galbraith - 70s). These theorists conclude that managerial power capital owners passed into the hands of technocrats and managers.

The basis of management structures is also a quantitative factor, the possibility of effective coverage of a certain number of objects by management activities. In management, this is called the range of control, that is, the limiting number of objects that can be effectively managed. Studies show that there is a natural relationship between the complexity of the management process, due to the complexity of the managed object, the number of employees, the complexity of their actions and the capabilities, abilities of the manager or the governing body.

So, for example, in simple types labor one leader can manage 40-50 people; at more complex work- 7-10, and at the highest levels of management - only 4-5 subordinate top managers.

To understand the essence and purpose of management structures allows the criterion of their effectiveness, efficiency. In practice, there are examples when the created management structures not only do not meet their intended purpose, but also turn out to be harmful and unnecessary. This is especially evident in the excessive bureaucratization of management, the emergence of intermediate instances that hinder the process of coordinating managerial actions and making the necessary decisions. The "bloat" of the administrative apparatus leads to excessive costs for its maintenance, and consequently, affects the magnitude of the costs of production and circulation.

Thus, the concept of "administrative" structure includes: its essence, as an ordered set of individual constituent parts; the origins associated with the division of labor; the foundations that are the forms of ownership; quantitative factors; achievement of scientific and technological progress; criteria for the effectiveness of management activities. The human factor is important in the management structure - the presence of specialists with professional knowledge and experience in managerial work.

The effectiveness of the activities of management structures in management comes down to the fact that the management of the enterprise provides:

ü interaction of all functional divisions of the organization to achieve common goals;

ü reliability of managerial communications from top to bottom and bottom to top, as well as horizontal production links between functional units;

ü adherence to the principle of unity of command in all levels of management, together with the principle of division of responsibility and rights within the framework of the democratization of management;

ü a certain stability and continuity in leadership, adherence to the rhythm developed in the organization, rules and methods of work;

ü the ability to respond quickly enough to changes in internal and external conditions, improve methods of management actions, change its structure before it becomes a burden and an inhibitory factor.

Management structures are constantly developing systems, which is associated with changes and development of organizational structures of enterprises, institutions, educational institutions, state and economic bodies and organizations.

2. Relationship between organizational and management structures

The most clearly and clearly the relationship of organizational and management structures appears in organizations built on a functional principle. Separation from the organization as a whole of individual parts and units that perform their functions immediately requires appropriate management of them; or the quantitative growth of organizations that goes beyond the range of control, led to the creation of management structures that would cover the entire management object as a whole and each of its component parts separately. In other words, if an object of control has arisen, then a corresponding subject must appear - a leader or a governing body.

The process of creating organizational structures can proceed sequentially or in parallel, simultaneously with the formation of management structures. With a divisional organizational structure, the managerial structure, as a rule, is formed in the first place. It organizes, plans and controls the very course of building a company.

Adaptive management structures are derived from the basic - functional and divisional. For example, an adaptive management structure as such is not formally created, and the assigned specialists to perform the necessary type of work are only delegated the necessary powers for this.

Depending on the types of organization (industries, types of products or services, size, number of enterprises, subdivisions and superdivisions, etc.), the management structure is also built; there are levels of control along the vertical and coordinating centers along the horizontal.

The relationship here is the most direct and immediate. Each management body refers to a specific management object - a group, brigade, workshop, department, building, plant, etc. Therefore, the management structure always coincides with the general structure of the organization, which is classified into functional, divisional, product, program-target, project, matrix and etc. Accordingly, the management structures will be the same.

However, with complete coincidence of structures, the managerial one tends to become more complicated vertically, to form a kind of "floors" and "superstructures" through which, as through vertical channels, managerial activity is carried out.

In order to more clearly imagine the interconnection of managerial and executive functions, of which there are many in practice, we will reduce this activity to several functions: 1) production of products or services, 2) supply and marketing (raw materials, materials, machines, mechanisms, technologies, finished products, etc.) .d.); 3) providing finance; 4) providing the organization with personnel; 5) planning, control, accounting and reporting (analysis of economic activity in general).

All these activities in the organization are interconnected. The absence of at least one of these links or a failure in its operation leads to a disruption of the entire economic mechanism. For example, production management includes the management of working machines (which in turn includes the management of the engine-machine, transmission devices, control devices and the working part of the machine itself). Work, i.e. the direct impact of a person on the subject and means of labor requires organization, coordination, planning, etc. above, i.e. management. And if there is no such control, then she herself labor activity may stop.

Management activities within functional structures also need to be managed by the top management, because without coordination of the actions of functional units there will be no coordinated work. Subdivisions, in principle, can independently coordinate among themselves specific types and terms of work, but this will require much more time and effort than will be done centrally (up to known limits and possibilities of centralization). Such types of organizational and managerial structures are classified as rigid, or mechanistic. They are sedentary, stable, planning and control systems are strictly hierarchical, and decisions are made by top management.

Depending on the internal goals of the organization and the external possibilities for their implementation, there may be other forms of interconnection between organizational and management structures. In enterprises where the type of management is less centralized, a more flexible, rapidly changing structure of the organization and its management is more common. Such governance structures are called organic.

With all the evidence of the relationship between managerial and organizational structures in management, they highlight the need to study the problems of improving and developing managerial structures as independent subject. This is due to extremely rapidly changing tasks that need to be addressed at all levels of management. In some cases, it is required to improve the management of the enterprise, in others - its development, and in the third - to destroy the old structure and create everything anew.

3. Types of management structures

The specific classification of managerial structures, as well as organizational ones, depends on the same signs and grounds.

Functional management structure. Historically, the first management structure was a simple shopless one. From simple cooperation of artisans engaged in homogeneous labor or different types labor in the manufacture of one product (for example, a group of people in the same room sew clothes or several people in different rooms work, making a carriage or wagon), a worker is constantly allocated, whose duties include not only the work of a tailor, joiner or carpenter, but also the management of the joint affairs of the united artisans. There is such a management structure in which one leader falls on 5-7 ordinary performers. It is called single-level.

It should not be thought that this structure has sunk into the mists of time. If we take the Russian small-scale wholesale market, where one successful "shuttle" hired 3-5 sellers and directs their actions, delivers goods for sale, it becomes clear that this is the same simple single-level management structure without a workshop, a relic of distant slave-owning and feudal eras.

Manufactory period of industrial development in the XVI-XVII centuries. gave mankind its three main forms: scattered (the entrepreneur bought and sold the product of independent artisans, supplying them with raw materials, materials and tools); mixed (when the manufacture of individual parts of the product - the goods - was carried out at home or in a separate room, and assembly in a centralized workshop); centralized (wage workers were united in one maeterskaya, for example, weavers, etc.). The management structure of manufactories prepared the conditions for the transition and the design of a functional management structure.

In the XVII-XVIII centuries. factories arose as systems of machines and mechanisms based no longer on manual labor, but on the work of machines. The management structure included the management of workshops and sections, it became two- and then three-level; factory manager - workshop foreman - site manager.

A fully functional management structure was formed when a certain stage of intra-production division of labor was completed. So, at the beginning of the XIX century. In England, the first weaving factory with 200 machines began work. The growth in the number of fabrics produced required mechanization and the separation of calico-printing, dyeing and other industries into a separate workshop. The volumes of deliveries of raw materials, dyes, tools, etc. have increased. A group of workers was singled out for the transportation and sale of finished products. Gradually, all the functions of machine production were identified: supply, production, marketing, finance, personnel, etc. In accordance with them, not only the management structure for technical and technological operations, but also functional in the form of workshops, sections, departments, services, departments, buildings, etc.

The corpus management structure has become the final stage of the functional management structure. It is four-level: plant manager - building manager - workshop foreman - section foreman. At each level of management, structures have gradually emerged that ensure the effectiveness of the work of the chief single-managers: deputy, assistant, secretary, etc.

IN modern conditions the management structure is based on functional foundations, i.e. designed to guide certain types of work.

The functional structure of management as the basic one, based on the centuries-old experience of economic and other activities of people, has developed a number of positive properties and qualities in comparison with management based on slave or serf labor. Wage labor gave the formal equality of managers and managed, which entailed the consolidation of certain rights and obligations for both, subsequently formalized by law.

The functional structure allowed:

1) to carry out a clear centralization of management from top to bottom, which made it possible to ensure the unity of actions of all structures subordinate to the center;

2) to concentrate the necessary material, human and financial resources and reserves to solve the main strategic goals and objectives, to ensure effective current and operational management;

3) introduce a strict system of control over the work of all sections, brigades, workshops, departments, etc., and over individual workers. Determine the norms and standards of their activities;

4)form management personnel, corresponding to the functions performed by various parts of the organization - production management, supply and marketing, finance, R&D, etc .;

5) prepare conditions for further development private production in conditions of free competition in various forms monopolistic associations during the concentration and centralization of production and capital and the emergence of cartels, trusts, syndicates and concerns - raw materials, industrial and financial monopolies.

With all its qualities and properties, the functional management structure did not allow solving the management problems that arose in the middle of the 20th century. The evolutionary period of development after the industrial revolution was replaced by an unprecedentedly fast process of applying fundamental and applied discoveries and inventions in industrial production.

Enterprises built according to the functional principle of management, due to strict centralization and bureaucratic procedures for passing decisions on the necessary changes in technology and technology, could no longer meet the requirements of scientific and technical progress. The process of separation of managerial powers in connection with the concentration and centralization of production and the formation of giant industrial raw materials and financial monopolies, which began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was supplemented by the technical side of the matter.

The quantitative growth of enterprises and qualitative changes in technology have led to a new type of management structures.

Divisional management structure. Such a management structure is a set of functional structures, where management functions are divided according to the principle of strategic and operational-tactical activities. At the highest levels of management, managers began to develop the company's policy in the field of investment, finance, planning, research work, coordination of actions of lower management structures and control. In the lower levels of management - departments, sub-divisions and super-divisions - managerial work covered current and operational activities.

IN various countries types of divisional management structures were created depending on the forms of ownership, the level of progress achieved in science and technology, national characteristics and other factors.

In the economy of the USSR, in addition to ministries and departments, new management structures arose in the center - management of all-Union industrial associations, production associations, management of central offices, combines, and trusts. Large industrial enterprises, for example, AvtoVAZ, created a separate management apparatus that centralized all the functional maintenance of production.

The pre-perestroika period in our country was characterized from the 60-70s. the formation of management at the level of national economic complexes (fuel and energy, machine-building, agro-industrial, construction, etc.). Their governing bodies received the functions of developing investment and technical policies, resolving issues of intra-complex cooperation, developing norms and standards for the entire complex.

For centralized management throughout the vast country, the issue of a divisional administrative structure acquired particular importance in the second half of the 20th century. However, all efforts to form management structures that combine centralized, sectoral, territorial and local government did not produce the desired result. The absence of a market mechanism and excessive centralization slowed down the opportunities for using NTD. This whole cumbersome structure, where technical and technological discoveries and inventions irretrievably sank in thousands of bureaucratic linkages and approvals, was destroyed.

But even today in Russia the new structure is in no hurry to be recreated at a qualitatively new level. Declared market relations are still very limited in this area.

IN Western countries With a developed market economy, the process of formation of divisional management structures was also not smooth and unambiguous. Thus, in the United States after the Second World War, a rapid growth of conglomerates began, the management of which was based on the centralization of industrial capital in the hands of financial structures. Giants of industrial production have grown up in the country and beyond its borders. The management structure in such associations turned out to be multi-stage, subject to external influence to a much greater extent than in smaller, but more flexible management structures. The crisis of the early 70s of the XX century. summed up the results of megalomania in the United States - the conglomerates collapsed.

The most stable and adapted to financial shocks and other external cataclysms turned out to be management structures that optimally combined the size of managed enterprises and the ability to timely update equipment and production technology, as well as the management structure.

Concerns adapted to the conditions of market competition and sectoral crises the fastest. Having passed the stage of diversification, they formed a divisional management structure (based on a functional one), which easily accepted all latest developments NTP.

It is not easy to give a management structure for modern corporations. The point is not only its complexity, but also the fact that it is a trade secret and publications about it appear 10-15 years late, when in reality this structure has already changed significantly and is outdated.

However, here is a schematic diagram of the management structure of a large corporation. It looks like this:

ü at the head of the management of large firms are the headquarters and the office of the chief executive. The headquarters consists of separate functional units that develop issues of strategic planning and investment. It prepares proposals for financing projects, marketing and marketing research, etc. The office of the chief executive is where senior managers are concentrated - the board of directors, the board of shareholders, etc. Here the decisions prepared by headquarters and other units find their final approval;

ü The following are super-departments, a significant part of which is engaged in management activities abroad. Super-branch managers report to the highest level of management;

ü further subdivisions and departments that have a certain independence in solving economic and technical and technological issues, managing resources and reserves, planning supplies and sales, rapidly changing (based on local demand) the type and range of products, conducting publishing and other activities , ensuring the solution of emerging social issues, etc.;

ü and finally, the management of medium and small businesses operating to meet the production needs of the corporation, for example, in assemblies and parts, tools and components, utility, service equipment, tooling, etc. The need for this type of production is quite large. Thus, a modern passenger liner consists of almost 300 thousand items of components and parts, which are technologically impossible and economically unprofitable for any one enterprise to produce.

Such a management structure, compared with a rigid, functional one, has a number of advantages:

ü the highest level of management is freed from the current routine management for solving strategic tasks and problems, representation and general control;

ü the development of the main directions of financial, industrial, marketing and research activities was determined by specialized departments, departments and research organizations;

ü it became possible to transfer management "to the field", closer to the sales markets or sources of raw materials, territorial, product, design and other individual enterprises.

However, along with the advantages, the divisional management structure also has disadvantages. So, in a number of departments there are functions that are duplicated in other departments. There is growth and appreciation of the administrative apparatus. In a number of cases, the heads of departments and sub-divisions are forced to deal more with production and marketing issues and less with issues of coordinating research and development work.

From the beginning of the 60s. some large organizations, under the influence of rapidly changing internal and external conditions (the complexity of the machines and mechanisms used, the rapid development of new technologies, changes in the financial situation, increased competition, etc.) began to create new types of organizational and, consequently, management structures. The main issues turned out to be overcoming bureaucracy, speeding up the procedure for developing and making decisions, flexibility and speed of management when the conditions for production and marketing of products change. Such structures are called organic or adaptive.

In the late 80s - early 90s. in our country, considerable attention was paid to the creation of organizational forms of management of targeted complex programs of sectoral and intersectoral character. They were created as head, permanent organizations for various programs, as well as temporary organizations with certain administrative and economic powers. The management structures of these organizations were called upon to solve a number of urgent problems: to overcome departmental disunity, change the bureaucratic style of leadership, move away from directive planning of nomenclature tasks and strictly centralized distribution of resources and products. The national economy of the country needed a transition to market relations and the creation of management structures capable of allocating resources and reserves on the basis of financial and credit management, taxes and prices, as is done in the industrialized countries of the world.

However, it was not possible to solve these problems due to a number of well-known circumstances. Financial shocks, economic crisis, structural changes management organizations, the liquidation of the functional management bodies of the country's economy led to a long period of stagnation in industrial production, undermined economic basis management structures of science and technology and, as a result, led to a drop in production volumes, rupture of economic ties, mutual non-payments, delays in paying salaries and other negative consequences.

Today, market relations require new solutions to management problems, the creation of its effective forms and types, both in the public and private sectors of the economy.

Bibliography

1. Abchuk V.A. Lectures on Management: Solution. Foresight. Risk. - St. Petersburg, 1999

2. Albastova L.N. Technology of Effective Management. - M., 2000

The organizational mechanism of enterprise management has many components, but it must necessarily represent a single system in which the functioning of individual elements is interdependent and interdependent. At present, there are especially many problems in the field of management organization in Russia due to the peculiarities of the current state of its transitional economy.

The organizational management mechanism is a system of management actions, techniques and procedures aimed at implementing the functions of the enterprise, as well as the theory and practice of management, based on the priority of corporate principles and the solution of organizational problems. It includes: designing, creating and improving organizational structures, a clear delineation of functions, distribution of organizational tasks, duties, rights and responsibilities of structural units and individual performers, establishing relationships between them, strict adherence to established rules of organizational behavior, adoption management decisions.

Of particular importance here is the characterization of a number of the most important parameters of the management system, primarily questions of the formation of organizational structures.

The structure of enterprise management, or the organizational structure of management, is one of the key concepts of management, closely related to the goals, functions, management process, the work of managers and the distribution of powers between them. Within the framework of this structure, the entire management process takes place (the movement of information flows and the adoption of managerial decisions), in which managers of all levels, categories and professional specializations participate.

The organizational structure of management is understood as an ordered set of stably interconnected elements that ensure the functioning and development of the enterprise as a whole.

The organizational structure of management is defined in the same way as a form of division and cooperation of management activities, within the framework of which the management process is carried out according to the relevant functions aimed at solving the set tasks and achieving the intended goals. From these positions, the management structure is presented as a system of optimal distribution of functional duties, rights and responsibilities, the order and forms of interaction between its constituent bodies and people working in them. The key concepts of the organizational structure of management are elements (links), connections (relationships) and powers.

The elements of the structure include individual employees, services and other parts of the management apparatus, and the relationship between them is maintained through connections, which are usually divided into horizontal and vertical. Horizontal links are in the nature of coordination and are, as a rule, single-level. Vertical links are links of subordination, and the need for them arises when management is hierarchical, i.e. with multiple levels of control. Links in the management structure can be linear and functional. Linear connections reflect the movement of management decisions and information between the so-called line managers, i.e. persons who are fully responsible for the activities of the enterprise or its structural divisions. Functional links are formed along the line of movement of information and management decisions for various management functions. Accordingly, such a concept as authority is used, i.e. the right to make decisions. The distribution of powers makes the structure hierarchical. Powers

are quite different. They are divided by functions, by the scope of management and by the volume of authorized activities.

Many requirements are imposed on the management structure, which are taken into account in the principles of the formation of organizational structures. The main of these principles can be formulated as follows.

The organizational structure of management must first of all reflect the goals and objectives of the enterprise, and therefore, be subordinate to production and change along with the changes taking place in it.

The organizational structure of management should reflect the functional division of labor and the scope of authority of management employees. These powers are determined by procedures, rules and job descriptions and are usually extended to higher levels of management.

The management structure must correspond to the social and cultural environment of the enterprise, and when building it, it is necessary to take into account the conditions in which it is to function. In practice, this means that attempts to blindly copy organizational management structures that are successfully operating in other enterprises are doomed to failure if the working conditions are different.

As a result of the vertical division of labor, management levels are formed - those parts of the enterprise within which and in relation to which independent solutions without their mandatory coordination with the above or below located parts.

The number of management levels is determined by the enterprise hierarchy - the power structure. The number of management levels in modern production enterprises can reach 12, and in non-production - 9.

Regardless of how many levels of management there are, managers are traditionally divided into two categories: low-level managers, or operational managers; senior managers.

The typology of organizational structures considers the following types of structures: traditional (linear, linear-functional, which are based on a combination of the principles of linear and functional departmentalization), divisional, matrix (and its varieties) and combined.

The linear management structure is most suitable for simple forms of production, therefore, historically, it arose first. Distinctive features of this structure are a direct impact on production and the concentration of all management functions in one hand. Hence - the impossibility of performing conflicting tasks and orders, the full responsibility of the leader for the results of work, ensuring the principle of unity of command. But this structure has a number of shortcomings, the main of which is the need for the manager to have versatile knowledge in all areas of activity. to be able to effectively manage the organization in the absence of specialists in the implementation of individual management functions.

The functional structure of management is based on other principles, it arose with the development of specialization of work related to the receipt and distribution of resources. The functional structure does not have the disadvantages of a linear one, here issues are resolved more competently, line managers do not need deep knowledge of all aspects of production management. A major drawback of this structure is the violation of the unity of command and responsibility for work.

The line-functional structure includes special units under line managers who help to carry out the tasks of the organization. The first (line) manager in the development of specific issues and the preparation of appropriate decisions, programs, plans is assisted by a special management apparatus, consisting of functional units (departments, departments, groups, bureaus). Such divisions carry out their decisions either through the top manager, or (within special powers) directly bring them to specialized services or individual performers at a lower level. Functional divisions, as a rule, do not have the right to independently give orders to production divisions.

Within the divisional management structure, the division of the enterprise into elements and blocks occurs according to the types of goods or services, groups of recipients or geographic regions. The divisional structure contributes to the elimination of a number of problems that arise in a linear functional structure. It has advantages in various industries, especially din, where production is weakly subject to market fluctuations and depends little on technological innovations, since in this structure interaction with the external environment is still based on a mechanistic approach.

In general, the divisional structure of the organization allows it to continue its growth and effectively manage various activities and markets. The heads of production departments within the product or territory assigned to them coordinate activities not only “along the line”, but also “by functions”, thereby developing the required qualities of general management.

But within manufacturing departments, there is a tendency to "shorten" goals. Due to the growth of the administrative apparatus due to the creation of branches, overhead costs increase. The centralized distribution of key resources in case of their lack can lead to the development of organizational conflicts.

The matrix management structure is a management organization that combines vertical linear and functional management links with horizontal ones. It's a complex structure, but an effective one. It is considered the most flexible, as it quickly adapts to changes in the external environment.

In the matrix structure, along with permanent functional departments, temporary project teams are formed to solve specific problems. Members of project teams often remain on the staff of functional units, which makes it easy to move staff from one project to another and make better use of it.

The matrix structure also has its advantages and disadvantages. The creation of a matrix organizational structure for enterprise management is considered appropriate if there is a need to develop a number of new products in a short time, introduce technological innovations and quickly respond to market fluctuations.

In practice, there are two types of structures:

Mechanistic, characterized by the use of formal procedures and rules, a rigid hierarchy of power in the enterprise, centralized decision-making. This includes a linear, functional, linear-functional, product, regional, market-oriented, divisional structure;

Organic, characterized by a moderate use of formal rules and procedures, decentralization, flexibility of the power structure, participation in the management of lower levels

10 Economy, enterprises

her. This type includes project, matrix, program-target structures.

Improving the organizational structure is a natural, necessary and ongoing process for all enterprises and organizations. It is determined not only by the methodological recommendations set forth in the economic literature, but also by the specific market situation, goals, values, development prospects, as well as the experience and knowledge of managers. Practice is replete with combined structures that combine the properties of traditional, divisional and matrix structures.

Factors influencing the construction of organizational management structures are situational in nature. The following groups of such situational factors can be distinguished:

The state of the external business environment, i.e. everything that surrounds the enterprise;

Technology of work at the enterprise;

The strategic choice of the management of the enterprise in relation to its goals.

All of these factors, individually or in combination, can influence an enterprise design decision through the components contained in each of them.

The organizational structure is also a behavioral system, people and their groups constantly entering into various relationships to solve common problems. Such versatility of the organizational mechanism is incompatible with the use of any unambiguous methods - either formal or informal. Therefore, it is necessary to combine scientific methods and principles of formation of structures (systemic approach) with a large expert-analytical work, the study of domestic and foreign experience.

The process of forming the organizational structure includes the formulation of goals and objectives, determining the composition and location of units, their resource support (including the number of employees), the development of regulatory procedures, documents, provisions that fix and regulate the forms, methods, processes that are carried out in the organizational management system .

This whole process can be carried out in three major stages.

1. Formation of a general structural scheme, which in all cases is of fundamental importance, since this determines the main characteristics of the enterprise, as well as directions,

for which a more in-depth design of both the organizational structure and other critical aspects systems (the ability to process information).

2. Development of the composition of the main divisions and links between them. It consists in the fact that the implementation of organizational decisions is envisaged not only in general for large linear-functional and program-target blocks, but also up to independent (basic) divisions of the management apparatus, distribution of specific tasks between them and building intra-organizational relations. Basic subdivisions are understood as independent structural units (departments, bureaus, departments, sectors, laboratories), into which linear-functional and program-targeted subsystems are organizationally divided. Base units may have their own structure.

3. Regulation of the organizational structure. Provides for the development of quantitative characteristics of the management apparatus and procedures for management activities. It includes:

Determining the composition of the internal elements of the basic units (bureaus, groups and positions);

Determination of the design number of units;

Distribution of tasks and work between specific performers;

Establishing responsibility for their implementation;

Development of procedures for the implementation of managerial work in departments;

Calculations of management costs and performance indicators of the management apparatus in the conditions of the designed organizational structure.

Each enterprise creates its own, specific structure, taking into account factors such as:

Scale of production;

The structure and capacity of the occupied market;

Features of the consumer contingent;

Properties and breadth of the range of products;

Trends and prospects for the development of competition.

In recent years, there has been an active process of reorganization of management structures both in large intersectoral complexes and in medium-sized organizations operating within the same industry or market sphere. The most important factors determining such a reorganization are:

Activation innovation processes in various areas of production and market activity;

The development of entrepreneurship, which involves the constructive use of the creative initiative of the members of the collectives of enterprises and organizations;

The introduction of information technologies that modify the management process;

The force of competition.

Formation of a new company, complete or partial transformation of the activities of economic entities, restructuring of enterprises, development and implementation investment projects require preliminary design in order to have an effective enterprise management mechanism. The formation of such a mechanism should be based not only on experience, analogy, habitual schemes and intuition, but also on the scientific methods of organizational design.

Organizational design is the process of finding a match between the key elements of an enterprise (structure, people, tasks, decision and reward systems, and informal organization and culture) and its strategy that lead to success. The enterprise design process is not a means of selecting a single project or once decision. Enterprises are gradually changing, and their structures must change with them. Some changes are cumulative and occur over a relatively long time; other changes happen quickly, swiftly. For both types of change, an enterprise must adjust its structure in order to be able to continue operating effectively.

In the course of organizational design, in relation to a particular company, decisions are made about the division of labor and specialization; departmentalization and cooperation; links between departments and coordination, the extent of manageability and control. As a result of the design, the following are established: the hierarchy of the enterprise and its links; distribution of powers and responsibilities; centralization and decentralization in enterprise management; differentiation and integration of elements of structure and functions. The listed tasks cannot be solved without taking into account all the external and internal conditions of the functioning of the enterprise in their development and change.

At present, when forming organizational management structures in Russia, it is considered appropriate to use four main methods. The analogy method is used in the development based on the analysis of advanced typical management structures for enterprises operating in similar conditions. The expert method is based on studying the enterprise, determining its most significant features, bottlenecks in the operation of the apparatus and developing recommendations based on expert opinions, as well as summarizing the results of best practices in the field of management organization. The method of structuring goals is the development of a system of goals for the enterprise and its subsequent combination with the structure being developed. Consequently, the structure is based on a systematic approach, analysis and justification of the options for its construction and operation.

The method of organizational modeling is also relevant, within the framework of which the development of formalized mathematical, graphical and machine descriptions of the distribution of powers and responsibilities in the enterprise is carried out in order to assess the degree of rationality of various options for organizational decisions based on clearly formulated criteria.

Rapid changes (dynamism) of the market environment sharply pose the problem of survival, stability of the enterprise. In order to increase the stability of the enterprise in the face of unfavorable market conditions, new organizational forms are created: holdings (multifunctional organizations, authorized capital which make up controlling stakes shares of other enterprises) and financial and industrial groups (vertically integrated technological structures).

At the present stage, there is a formation of such organizational management structures that most fully meet the established principles and functions of management, correspond to the circumstances and conditions that exist at this enterprise and in its external environment. There are a number of features that will determine the type of structure that is more or less suitable for this enterprise: the type of products (or services), technological processes, diversification of the enterprise, its scale, interaction with the external environment, etc.

The modern information society imposes new requirements on the design of an enterprise, which have revealed a trend towards a transition from hierarchical structures to organic structures with flexibility, adaptability, a reduced hierarchy, a high level of horizontal integration, self-organization of personnel, and innovation.

Among the new types of enterprises that successfully operate in the information environment, there are: adhocracy, multidimensional, participatory, entrepreneurial and market-oriented enterprises, as well as a new type of structures - network.

Adhocracy enterprises are characterized by a high degree of freedom in the actions of employees, their competence and ability to independently solve emerging problems.

Multidimensional enterprises include those in which departments (work groups) independently and simultaneously perform three functions: supply management, production management and sales management. Such autonomous divisions have the status of profit centers.

Participatory enterprises are focused on the participation of employees in the management process (in setting goals; in making decisions; in solving tactical and operational problems). At the same time, a more complete motivation of their work is provided, a sense of ownership is formed.

Entrepreneurial enterprises include those based on the principles of entrepreneurship (self-regulation of activities, consumer priority, competitiveness, etc.).

Market-oriented enterprises integrate the properties of all considered enterprises. These include various enterprises that adhere to an organic approach, in which all functions are grouped around a specific market (or markets).

The transfer of market relations to intra-company communications (domestic markets), informatization of business activities brought to life network structures. Within the framework of these structures, one of the main components of the enterprise's resource potential is formed in the management system - managerial.

Network enterprises differ from other types of enterprises in a number of ways. First, if in recent decades enterprises using traditional forms of organization preferred to contain all the necessary resources in their structure, then many network enterprises use the collective assets of several enterprises located at different points in the value chain. Secondly, network enterprises rely more on market mechanisms than on administrative forms of resource management. Thirdly, many modern networks involve a more effective and interested

new role of their participants. Fourth, in a growing number of industries (including the production of computers, automobiles, etc.), networks are an association of enterprises based on cooperation and mutual ownership of shares of group members - manufacturers, suppliers, trading and financial companies. A network enterprise combines elements of specialization of a functional form, autonomy of a divisional structure, and the possibility of transferring the resources of a matrix enterprise.

Recently, among the generally accepted methods of designing organizational structures of management, the concept of "networking" has appeared, meaning the ways of formatting companies-networks and networks of companies using the latest information technologies. Separate types activities in the process of networkization can be transferred to other companies specializing, for example, in marketing research, providing raw materials and materials, compiling accounting reports, recruiting and improving their skills, after-sales service for products of one industry or group of companies.

The most striking example of a network enterprise is a chain of stores (The Seventh Continent, Pyaterochka, etc.).