Rajiv Chandrasekhar \ 210049 20 Aner Appex needed help with organizational inefficiencies. The primary causes for this were: + Too much work in the pipeline ed to rampant hiting- however, expenses were not monitored Overall financial planning and forecasts weze poor (eg: forecasting the nvmber of new employees) + Novus planning and mos of the work was iefightng, Thee was no structure or priostsation of sks. Vy © Dropping customer satisfaction as the query resolution system was getting clogged with the increased tai ‘©’ Failures in product development due to lack of proper communication between teams ‘Answer? Ghosh initially tied to make a circular structute similar to Japanese ozganisations, where the innermost layers are the executives. However, employees could not relate to this, and hence it failed. ‘The second attempt at a horizontal structure also failed to gainer employees’ enthusiasm- this led Ghosh to believe that a conventional structure was the way ahead, Functional strncture: this had a few problems. ‘© Determining the number if teams and leaders ‘+ Initially ask completion improved, however incxeased sub-functions and polarisation Jed to lack. of collaboration. ae © Tewas hard to messure masiagerial competence © The organisation eventually became more bureaucratic with more layers of management Divisional structure: Ghosh implemented a divisional structure with evo broad divisions, Intercarsier Services (ICS) and Cellular Management Information Systems (1S), and a third Operations division to [service the other «wo. This had the following pros and cons | © Improved accountability, budgeting, and planning, allowing Ghosh to spend more time planning the company's stzategic nection ekrucwe | 72 crcl ar* Resource allocation issues and communication barriers between divisions, since all divisions wanted control over its resources, and the senior executives’ decisions about resource allocation were not perceived as equitable + Ench division started manipulating financial statements to meet objectives Aaswees IE were in Shikha’s place, I would have done a few things differently/same: ‘© Obiain organisational buy-in: as an outsider coming into the organisation, it is essential to ‘make the employees feel heard. This can help mitigate some of the approval issues with ‘organisational change. © Persist with a structure and try to optimise performance within the limits of the structure. ‘This reduces dissonance among the workforce ‘Some elements core to the startup culture should be maintained- like giving autonomy to employees and having a relatively informal and flat hierarchy. Organisations like Google have succeeded at doing this. Question the need for a structural overhaul a lot of the problems faced by Appex could be fixed with check me: e beiter hiring, audits, and SOPs for generating accurate forecastsore ieee ircular ‘Sachi a Achal Bhalla 62210263 The following were the challenges faced by Shikhar Ghosh faced when he joined Apex Lack of formal structures/method of operation within the frm ‘or example, customer service people wouldn't arzive in che office until 10 a.m. when in fact they were supposed to start job = tk at 8 asm, People at che fam fllowed ther own approach in terms of doing seit * Poor customer service /lack of customer centricity The aititideapproach cowards the customer was to revert with a response instead of solving cheir issues then and there. For example, one customer claimed to have called 150 times to get the issue resolved + Lack of control within the firm ‘The firm didnot have any meaningfal control structures in place or an appropriate hierarchy that could have brought in the much-needed discipline and customer service focus to the firm + Only firefighting /day-to-day crises management rather than long-term strategy formulation “They was a structure in place to priositize tasks and work was done in a haphazard/ unstructured manner oon the basis of the crisis of the day + No coordina on among workers/ developers who wrote the software code For example, there was hardly any knowledge among developers asta what his/her calleague is doing resulting in their software codes clashing which in turn resulted in the system crashing. + Lack of financial planning at the firm For example, there was a significant mismatch in forecasted and actual growth in the number of employees. ppeieaenne oe ccc by the ne = fee ted er © Was created to * Better flow of information within and outside the firm facilitate the flow of information > © did nor know the power stmicrare and (© Had no clue abour how their perforn evaluated authority ‘eo oo C oe 1 es alPage unce was going to beAchal Bhalla 62210263 *» A mentality/ feeling developed within the firm that the customer is the enemy ‘© The structure was designed coward responsiveness and did not incorporate any planning “iM onginized effort in completing the basic tasks of runaing che company | Hoazomal a Horizontal |» Nobody responded to the structure as was evidenced by the fact structure a structure. with | chat no of showed up for the meeting, — familiar wall, | minimal hierarchy == = could have facilitated faster response by the employees. Hierarchical, [To establish a | Easier to establish |* The source of authority was functional, and was not based on Fonctiomal | basic_evel_of | contol through the | managerial, acumen/ expertise simuerie | control twaditional hierarchy |. pojitics came into the firm as people were concerned about who —— sat where etc. ' 2b Led 10 _mote | Hensehy cold bave sowed down the decison making © Could lead to a lor of bureaucracy in the firm thus affecting the entrepreneutial/ start-up culture in te frm ‘Muli ‘Tunctions productteans | groups ——— _ Jemployee To address the | Greater product needs of various | level management of | and accountability working on | More corporation particular produet | between people working on th same projects, « No system to specify who had the decision-making authority # Constant conflicts benveen fanctional representative in the product teams = + Product teams has no clay about the extent of their autho. ‘© Resource allocation problems within the team ; enne 1 wat glancing but less Fe followed Shikta’s approach of creating a horizontal fanctionalstrictre initially to establish a certain degree of contsol ro facltate the Apex to function asa wlrorganized corporation and carry out ins day-to-day functions efGcienilfT believe Shikhar could have picked clements/positives from ead of the multiple structures to exeate a customized structure for the organization basis the developing needs of Iwould ha the employees and the fism. Twould ty to address the challenges by running a pilot for a new structure within a section of th ascertain its effectiveness and response by the various stakeholders and then go about making tweaks to the same to suit the requirements of the firm. Moreover, I would do periodic tests on the organization's structure co cheek its effectiveness. Additionally, I would also study che matket competitors and industry leaders to figute out the industry best practices and incorporate the same into the origination add an 4 eer+ [so Strategy Implementation (Appex Corporation) - Submitted by: Raunak Daga (62210296) QuestiOP1, Appes Corporation was in an enly startup stage with no formal proceduses when organization, Therefore, Ghosh freed the following challenges while eying to manage the organ hikhar Ghosh had joined che + No Car responsibility distribution: Employees of the company did expertise in cestain capabilities bue chose was no cle Atjob description, and anyone did anything whieh they found interesting + PoOtcash management: The entire work was structuzed around projeees, and as the number of projeets kept increasing, ApP& continued hiving more people to manage the workload, Hewever, no planning was involved in deciding the number of People to be hired and Appes kept spending cash without monitoring its expenses. + Workin silos: The company started facing many failures in product development as avo developers working on the same sys em dida’c communicate with each other. As a resul, their codes used to clash leading to product failres + Poorcommunication between the top and lower management: The top exeeutives made all the key decisions, snd fier'semployees were not involved in the decision-making process. Poorplanning: There was no planning structure in place and the company employees tackled only those crises they faced during a particular day. There was no foresight and any crises which were a week away weren't paid any due attention. The company worked in a lot of chaos with no planning and no meetings or ealls were scheduled to discuss any problem the company faced. Staffing planning issues: Appex couldn't forecast their staffing requirement accurately: Employee attrition: Many employees who couldn't manage the chaotic working style started leaving the firm. + Lackof customer-centric mind: There were consumer complaints which Appes couldn't addsess as che volume increased, They couldn't provide the technical assistance and missed installation dates leading to poor customer satisfaction, * Low accountabi coma Question 2. Shikhar Ghosh made many structural changes in che organization post his the organization, However, each of these changes were important in addressing some of th Employees weren't aware who should attend which meeting. ning to solve the challenges faced by issues and had their own pros and Circulac Stmeture: This structural change was important as it ensured that these is feee low of information continuously within the organization and ies customers. Pros: Circular structure ensured that there is no hierarchy in the organization and a che information flowed freely within and outside the organization —— <= Cons: The employees of the firm were completely unfamilias with the structure and the new hires were not able to fit in the organization es they expected a traditional ofganization seractirE=AM che new hives were not able co undesstand che powcr structure, who had the authority 1o make decisions, and how their performance was evaluated. Also, the employees ofthe frm thought that customer was the enemy, and this structural change wasn't able to enforce effective planning, Horizontal Structure: In my opinion this structural change was not impostant as it didn’t addzess any of the problems exeated by the cireul: a steaeuve. Pros: Just like circular strctare, it ensured that there is a flat hierarchy in the orgnaization and fice flow of information within the organization leading to beter employee engagement. Cons: There was again Jack of accountability on the part of employees and people didn’t rum up for meeting scheduled by the top management, Also, employees were unclear about power structure and authority within the organization leading to insubordination Functional Structure: In my opinion this stnactural change ws important as it was necessary to enforce some control through a Comal crerhie svt to aes the cha hat Appex woe ging hovgh, planing? Pros: This new structure clestly address the problem of division of work as each function had clear job description and responsibilities. Also, to minimize che sense of hierarchy, Ghosh ensured that all functional teams directly report co him. This shifted the focus of the company to completing tasks and developed capabilities within the organization Cons: \ lot of politics came into existence within the organization because of this strucrusal change. Employees of the eompany started worrying about their tiles and desk locacions despite the organization being relatively small. Also, exch ceam grew bath vertically and horizontally within a few months dough creation of sub-functions which led w polarization, The distinec division of each finction led ca 2 poor working relation benween functions resulting in more expendituze of resnunces, There was a lat of ‘ego clash and individuals started enforcing their personality mits For completing a certain task without thinking much about thewhole o*8aization. Additionally, dhe head of exch function was decided on is of functional expertise and not managerial expeties2€¢ which led to mismanagement within each function ~ Broduc/usiness teams: In my opinion tis structural change was important ait was able o faite beter commaniction Denveer? the Faction andthe product cams. Pros: Thisnew steucrare clesty helped the functional and product reams to work in an efficient manner. There was a dedicated funetior3altcam within each product team to facilitate berter communication and sole the problem of ego clash, polasization, and distine division of teams = 1 Cons: Within each mol- functional produet teams, these was lek of authority inthe. final decision making. There was clash berweer People in the product team since everyone looked atthe same problem in different way and no one had the authority to make the final decision, Also, thexe was a Tot of clash berween product teams since they wanted the most senior executive of cach fars¢tional departmenc to work under their product team, There was aso a lot of sesource allocation problem within and, among cheproduct teams ———S To solve the problem of authority and resource allocation, Ghosh created business teams to act as intermediaries between product and management team with the authority of making final decisions. However, this created many problems as 2 lot of time was spent in planning, meetings, and management. Also, the customer focus reduced and people became less concerned ‘with meeting financial goals as there was no P&I. accountability. There were many processes in place and tasks were not getting executed. ‘Divisional structure: In my opinion this struccural change was important to solve the problem of accountability. Each business head was given fall esponsibility of maintaining the P&I. and directly reposted to Ghosh, Pros: This new structure helped in increasing accountability and better financial planning. The focus on meeting Financial targets increased and Ghosh was able (© spend time more in making strategic decisions. Cons: The problem of resource allocation ws still present and there was lithe communication between business divisions Tis lack of communication Rested iv slower development of new products as there was no collaboration beoween the two business divisions. Ako, many new producs dcn’e fall explicitly in any one ofthe business division, leading to fewer brand new ideas ‘Also, each business division became so big after sometime that t started facing the same issues that Appes When itwas relatively simal Iso, chey sued their own business procedures and technical platform considering themselves as a separate entity compared to Appex — Question 3. I would have adopted the following strategies if I was in Shikhat’s place: ‘+ T.would aot have implesnented such rapid structural changes like Shikhar did in the Appes organization. Some of these structural changes were unnecessary ancl done without planning, © Iwould have consulted the other top executives of the firm befoze implementing a strecural change. T would also establish a feedback mechanisin Gnicé a seructural change is implemented ro capture the concerns faced by the employees of the firm. This would ensure that the nest structural change is better planned and addesses al the issues and concerns which the previous organization structure is not able to address. Many of these steuctural changes were unnecessary (horizontal structure) and didn’t address any of the problems created by the previous structural change. Also, Shikhar made these changes very eapid without consulting an collecting feedback from the other top executives of the firm, which led to a very chaotic environment. To address the challenges faced by Appex post the acquisition by EDS, I would adopt the following strategies: ‘© Lwould 6rst identify what are the prociuet and division synergies between the parent company and the subsidiary to see which divisions of the subsidiary could be merged snd which needs to be kept standalone. ‘+ Twould also check what is the organization structure of EDS and its other subsidiaties, Ideally, the organization structure of Appex will have to be adjusted based on the structare of the parent company andl TE subsidizes Also, the culture of EDS could be different from that of Appex. Therefore, to ensure the cultural integration of the parent company (EDS) with Appes. I would work towards promoting a culmuse that sligns with the philosophy of EDS. © The parent company (EDS) was large and bureaucratic organization, so I would ensure that there is effective communication, between -Appex and EDS. Effective communication will be necessary to ensure that Appex is able to make decision making process efficient and take quick decisions. = Also, 10 ensure smooth integrtion of che parent company (EDS) and Appes, I would like co provide the requited wining to employees of Appes 16 ensure s smooth transition post acquisition, Tt 99 a