You are on page 1of 18

Organizational Chart

Governance Structure of AASTU Addis Ababa Science and


Technology University (AASTU) follow the governance structure of
Ethiopian Higher Education Institutions as stipulated in the
Proclamation No. 650/2009. Accordingly, here is the organogram
of AASTU.

Universities In Ethiopia
Bwstats Sites > Bwstats Ethiopia > Addis Ababa Science And Technology University Addis Ababa
EthiopiA

Addis Ababa Science And Technology University


Addis Ababa Ethiopia

Addis Ababa Science And Technology University Addis Ababa Ethiopia


The concept of Addis Ababa Science And Technology University Addis
Ababa Ethiopia had a direct and reasonable connection with the Five-Year
Growth and Transformation Plan (2010-2015) of the government of the
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. As it was stated in the plan, the
establishment of well institutionalized and strong science and technology
universities and institutes of technology will serve as a cornerstone to build
an economically developed and industrialized state of Ethiopia. As a result,
AASTU was founded in 2011 under the Directive of the Council of Ministers
No. 216/2011 by admitting the first batch (2000 students) in November
2011.
Currently, the university has enrolled more than 8000 undergraduate (under
regular and continuing education program) and close to 700 postgraduate
students under its nine applied sciences, technology, engineering and ICT
focused schools. AASTU is a university in the making, and much of its
short-term plans aim at establishing academic infrastructures and facilities,
staff recruitment and manpower development. So far, we managed to
recruit 472 academic staff and 391 administrative staff.

Formal organizations[
An organization that is established as a means for achieving
defined objectives has been referred to as a formal organization. Its design
specifies how goals are subdivided and reflected in subdivisions of the
organization. Divisions, departments, sections, positions, jobs, and tasks
make up this work structure. Thus, the formal organization is expected to
behave impersonally in regard to relationships with clients or with its
members. According to Weber's definition, entry and subsequent
advancement is by merit or seniority. Each employee receives a salary and
enjoys a degree of tenure that safeguards him from the arbitrary influence
of superiors or of powerful clients. The higher his position in the hierarchy,
the greater his presumed expertise in adjudicating problems that may arise
in the course of the work carried out at lower levels of the organization. It is
this bureaucratic structure that forms the basis for the appointment of
heads or chiefs of administrative subdivisions in the organization and
endows them with the authority attached to their position. [3]

Informal organizations[
In contrast to the appointed head or chief of an administrative unit, a leader
emerges within the context of the informal organization that underlies the
formal structure. The informal organization expresses the
personal objectives and goals of the individual membership. Their
objectives and goals may or may not coincide with those of the formal
organization. The informal organization represents an extension of the
social structures that generally characterize human life the spontaneous
emergence of groups and organizations as ends in themselves. [3]
In prehistoric times, man was preoccupied with his personal security,
maintenance, protection, and survival. Now man spends a major portion of
his waking hours working for organizations. His need to identify with a
community that provides security, protection, maintenance, and a feeling of
belonging continues unchanged from prehistoric times. This need is met by
the informal organization and its emergent, or unofficial, leaders. [2]

Leaders emerge from within the structure of the informal organization. Their
personal qualities, the demands of the situation, or a combination of these
and other factors attract followers who accept their leadership within one or
several overlay structures. Instead of the authority of position held by an
appointed head or chief, the emergent leader wields influence or power.
Influence is the ability of a person to gain cooperation from others by
means of persuasion or control over rewards. Power is a stronger form of
influence because it reflects a person's ability to enforce action through the
control of a means of punishment.[2]

Organization

A social unit of people that is structured and managed to meet a need or to


pursue collective goals. All organizations have a management structure
that determines relationships between the different activities and the
members, and subdivides and assigns roles, responsibilities, and authority
to carry out different tasks. Organizations are open systems--they affect
and are affected by their environment.
Basically, an organization in its simplest form (and not necessarily
a legal entity, e.g., corporation or LLC) is a person or group of
people intentionally organized to accomplish an overall, common
goal or set of goals. Business organizations can range in size from
one person to tens of thousands.
There are several important aspects to consider about the goal of
the business organization. These features are explicit (deliberate
and recognized) or implicit (operating unrecognized, "behind the
scenes"). Ideally, these features are carefully considered and
established, usually during the strategic planning process. (Later,

we'll consider dimensions and concepts that are common to


organizations.)
Vision

Members of the organization often have some image in their


minds about how the organization should be working, how it
should appear when things are going well.
Mission

An organization operates according to an overall purpose, or


mission.
Values

All organizations operate according to overall values, or priorities


in the nature of how they carry out their activities. These values
are the personality, or culture, of the organization.
Strategic Goals

Organizational members often work to achieve several overall


accomplishments, or goals, as they work toward their mission.
Strategies

Organizations usually follow several overall general approaches to


reach their goals.
Systems and Processes that (Hopefully) Are Aligned With Achieving the
Goals

Organizations have major subsystems, such as departments,


programs, divisions, teams, etc. Each of these subsystems has a
way of doing things to, along with other subsystems, achieve the
overall goals of the organization. Often, these systems and
processes are define by plans, policies and procedures.
How you interpret each of the above major parts of an
organization depends very much on your values and your nature.
People can view organizations as machines, organisms, families,
groups, etc. (We'll consider more about these metaphors later on
in this topic in the library.)

Organizations as Systems (of Systems of Systems)

Organization as a System

It helps to think of organizations as systems. Simply put, a


system is an organized collection of parts that are highly
integrated in order to accomplish an overall goal. The system has
various inputs which are processed to produce certain outputs,
that together, accomplish the overall goal desired by the
organization. There is ongoing feedback among these various
parts to ensure they remain aligned to accomplish the overall
goal of the organization. There are several classes of systems,
ranging from very simple frameworks all the way to social
systems, which are the most complex. Organizations are, of
course, social systems.
Systems have inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. To
explain, inputs to the system include resources such as raw
materials, money, technologies and people. These inputs go
through a process where they're aligned, moved along and
carefully coordinated, ultimately to achieve the goals set for the
system. Outputs are tangible results produced by processes in
the system, such as products or services for consumers. Another
kind of result is outcomes, or benefits for consumers, e.g., jobs
for workers, enhanced quality of life for customers, etc. Systems
can be the entire organization, or its departments, groups,
processes, etc.
Feedback comes from, e.g., employees who carry out processes
in the organization, customers/clients using the products and
services, etc. Feedback also comes from the larger environment
of the organization, e.g., influences from government, society,
economics, and technologies.
Each organization has numerous subsystems, as well. Each
subsystem has its own boundaries of sorts, and includes various
inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes geared to accomplish an
overall goal for the subsystem. Common examples of subsystems
are departments, programs, projects, teams, processes to
produce products or services, etc. Organizations are made up of

people -- who are also systems of systems of systems -- and on it


goes. Subsystems are organized in an hierarchy needed to
accomplish the overall goal of the overall system.
The organizational system is defined by, e.g., its legal documents
(articles of incorporation, by laws, roles of officers, etc.), mission,
goals and strategies, policies and procedures, operating manuals,
etc. The organization is depicted by its organizational charts, job
descriptions, marketing materials, etc. The organizational system
is also maintained or controlled by policies and procedures,
budgets, information management systems, quality management
systems, performance review systems, etc.
Standard Planning Process is Similar to Working Backwards Through
the System

Remember how systems have input, processes, outputs and


outcomes? One of the common ways that people manage
systems is to work backwards from what they want the system to
produce. This process is essentially the same as the overall,
standard, basic planning process. This process typically includes:
a) Establishing overall goals (it's best if goals are defined in
measurable terms, so they usually are in terms of outputs) (the
overall impacts of goals are outcomes, a term increasingly used in
nonprofits)
b) Associating smaller goals or objectives (or outputs?) along the
way to each goal
c) Designing strategies/methods (or processes) to meet the goals
and objectives
d) Identifying what resources (or inputs) are needed, including
who will implement the methods and by w

Organizational structure
An organizational structure defines how activities such as task allocation,
coordination and supervision are directed toward the achievement of

organizational aims.[1] It can also be considered as the viewing glass or


perspective through which individuals see their organization and its
environment.[2]
Organizations are a variant of clustered entities.[3]
An organization can be structured in many different ways, depending on its
objectives. The structure of an organization will determine the modes in
which it operates and performs.
Organizational structure allows the expressed allocation of responsibilities
for different functions and processes to different entities such as
the branch, department, workgroup and individual.
Organizational structure affects organizational action in two big ways:

First, it provides the foundation on which standard operating


procedures and routines rest.

Second, it determines which individuals get to participate in which


decision-making processes, and thus to what extent their views shape
the organizations actions.[2]
Organizational structures developed from the ancient times of hunters
and collectors in tribal organizations through highly royal and clerical
power structures to industrial structures and today's post-industrial
structures.
As pointed out by Lawrence B. Mohr,[4] the early theorists of
organizational structure, Taylor, Fayol, and Weber "saw the
importance of structure for effectiveness and efficiency and assumed
without the slightest question that whatever structure was needed,
people could fashion accordingly. Organizational structure was
considered a matter of choice... When in the 1930s, the rebellion
began that came to be known as human relations theory, there was
still not a denial of the idea of structure as an artifact, but rather an
advocacy of the creation of a different sort of structure, one in which
the needs, knowledge, and opinions of employees might be given
greater recognition." However, a different view arose in the 1960s,

suggesting that the organizational structure is "an externally caused


phenomenon, an outcome rather than an artifact." [5]
In the 21st century, organizational theorists such as Lim, Griffiths, and
Sambrook (2010) are once again proposing that organizational
structure development is very much dependent on the expression of
the strategies and behavior of the management and the workers as
constrained by the power distribution between them, and influenced
by their environment and the outcome.[6]

Functional organization
is a type of organizational structure that uses the principle of
specialization based on function or role.units, leaving them the
responsibility of implementing, evaluating, or controlling the given
procedures or goals.

Functional Organization Structure


A functional organization structure is a hierarchical organization structure wherein
people are grouped as per their area of specialization. These people are
supervised by a functional manager with expertise in the same field. This
expertise helps him effectively utilize the skills of employees, which ultimately
helps him in achieving the organizations business objectives.
In this kind of organization structure, people are classified according to the
function they perform within the organization. The organizational chart for a
functional organization structure shows the president, vice president, finance
department, sales department, customer service department, administration
department, etc.
Each department will have its own department head who will be responsible for
the performance of his section. This helps the organization control the quality and
uniformity of performance.

These different departments are sometimes referred to as silos. This means the
system is vertical and disconnected. The communication flows through the
department heads to the top management.
Here all authority (i.e. budget allocation, resource allocation, decision making,
etc.) stays with the functional manager. Usually, the position of the project
manager does not exist in this type of organization structure. Even if this position
exists, the role of the project manager will be very limited and he will need
permission from the functional manager to fulfill his requirements. The project
manager may have the title of a coordinator or an expediter.
The functional organization structure is suitable for an organization which has
ongoing operations and produces standard products or goods, such as
manufacturing industries.

Advantages of the Functional Organization Structure


The following are a few benefits of the functional organization structure:

Employees are grouped by their knowledge and skills, which helps achieve
the highest degree of performance.
Employees are very skilled, efficiency is gained because they are
experienced in the same work and they perform very well.
Their roles and responsibilities are fixed, which facilitates easy
accountability for the work.
The hierarchy is very clear, and employees dont have to report to multiple
supervisors. Each employee reports to his functional manager, which
reduces the number of communication channels.
There is no duplication of work because each department and each
employee has a fixed job responsibility.
Employees feel secure, and therefore they perform well without fear.
Since there is a sense of job security, employees tend to be loyal to the
organization.
Employees have a clear career growth path.
Within the department, cooperation and communication are excellent.

Disadvantages of the Functional Organization Structure


The following are a few disadvantages of the functional organization structure:

Employees may feel bored due to the monotonous, repetitive type of work
and may lose enthusiasm for the job.
If the performance appraisal system is not managed properly, conflicts may
arise. For example, an employee may feel demoralized when a lower
performing employee is promoted.
A highly skilled employee costs more.
The departments have a self-centered mentality. The functional manager
pays more attention to his department; he usually doesnt care about other
departments.
Communication is poor among the departments, which causes poor interdepartment coordination. This decreases flexibility and innovation. Moreover,
there is a lack of teamwork among different departments.
Employees may have little concern and/or knowledge about events outside
their department. This causes obstacles in communication and cooperation.
The functional structure is rigid, making adaptation to changes difficult and
slow.
Due to bureaucratic hierarchy, delays happen in decision making.
Generally, the functional manager makes decisions autocratically without
consulting the team members, this may not always work in favor of the
organization.
When the organization becomes larger, functional areas can become
difficult to manage due to their size. Each department may start behaving like
a small company with its own facilities, culture and management style.

Functional departments may be distracted by departmental goals, and focus on


them rather than organizational goal.

All managers must bear that there are two organisations they must deal withone formal and the other informal.

Line Organisational Structure:


A line organisation has only direct, vertical relationships between different
levels in the firm. There are only line departments-departments directly
involved in accomplishing the primary goal of the organisation. For example,

in a typical firm, line departments include production and marketing. In a line


organisation authority follows the chain of command.

Advantages:
1. Tends to simplify and clarify authority, responsibility and accountability
relationships
2. Promotes fast decision making
3. Simple to understand.
Disadvantages:
1. Neglects specialists in planning
2. Overloads key persons.

Line and Staff Organisational Structure:


Most large organisations belong to this type of organisational structure. These
organisations have direct, vertical relationships between different levels and
also specialists responsible for advising and assisting line managers. Such
organisations have both line and staff departments. Staff departments provide
line people with advice and assistance in specialized areas (for example,
quality control advising production department).
Advantages:
1. Committee decisions are better than individual decisions
2. Better interaction between committee members leads to better coordination of activities
3. Committee members can be motivated to participate in group decision
making.

.
Disadvantages:
1. Committees may delay decisions, consume more time and hence more
expensive.
2. Group action may lead to compromise and indecision:
1. Committee decisions are better than individual decisions

2. Better interaction between committee members leads to better coordination of activities


3. Committee members can be motivated to participate in group decision
making.

3. Buck passing may resul

Divisional Organizational Structure In this type of structure, the


organisation can have different basis on which departments are formed

Summary
The functional organization structure helps organizations run their business and
earn a profit. This type of structure suits organizations intended to produce some
product or service on a continuous basis. Here, employees feel secure, perform
well and tend to be highly skilled. The project manager often doesnt have any
role in the functional organization, and even if he exists, his role will be very
limited.

This concludes the post on functional organization structure ends. If you have
something to add, you can do so through the comments section.

Span of Management
Definition: The Span of Management refers to the number of subordinates who can be
managed efficiently by a superior. Simply, the manager having the group of subordinates who
report him directly is called as the span of management.The Span of Management has two
implications:
1.

Influences the complexities of the individual managers job

2.

Determine the shape or configuration of the Organization


The span of management is related to the horizontal levels of the organization
structure. There is a wide and a narrow span of management. With the wider
span, there will be less hierarchical levels, and thus, the organizational structure
would be flatter. Whereas, with the narrow span, the hierarchical levels
increases, hence the organizational structure would be tall.

Both these organizational structures have their advantages and the


disadvantages. But however the tall organizational structure imposes more
challenges:

Since the span is narrow, which means less number of subordinates under
one superior, requires more managers to be employed in the organization. Thus,
it would be very expensive in terms of the salaries to be paid to each senior.

With more levels in the hierarchy, the communication suffers drastically.


It takes a lot of time to reach the appropriate points, and hence the actions get
delayed.

Lack of coordination and control because the operating staff is far away
from the top management.
The major advantage of using this structure is that the cross communication
gets facilitated, i.e., operative staff communicating with the top management.
Also, the chance of promotion increases with the availability of several job
positions.
In the case of a flatter organizational structure, where the span is wide leads to
a more complex supervisory relationship between the manager and the
subordinate. It will be very difficult for a superior to manage a large number of
subordinates at a time and also may not listen to all efficiently.
However, the benefit of using the wider span of management is that the number
of managers gets reduced in the hierarchy, and thus, the expense in terms of
remuneration is saved. Also, the subordinates feel relaxed and develop their
independent spirits in a free work environment, where the strict supervision is
absent.