See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342512952

BUILDING A FRAMEWORK OF ORGANIZATION DESIGN USING

ORGANIZATIONAL DNA PROFILE (CASE STUDY AT PT. LEN RAILWAY
SYSTEMS (LRS))

Article · August 2016

CITATION READS

1 718

2 authors:

Viek Prayoga Pratama Aurik Gustomo

Bandung Institute of Technology Bandung Institute of Technology
4 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   219 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Organizational DNA, Organization Design View project

Sustainability-Driven Enterprise View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Viek Prayoga Pratama on 28 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 BUILDING A FRAMEWORK OF ORGANIZATION DESIGN
USING ORGANIZATIONAL DNA PROFILE
(CASE STUDY AT PT. LEN RAILWAY SYSTEMS (LRS))

Viek Prayoga Pratama, and Aurik Gustomo

School of Business and Management
Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
viek.prayoga@sbm-itb.ac.id

Abstract – Facing domestic market down-turn, and long term strategic plan urgencies, PT. Len
Railway Systems (LRS) should reorganize itself to expand to regional market accordingly, which
requires the organization to have strong execution and highly agile. To design such organization
is not just simply by changing the organization structure, but should also consider the strategic
plan requirements, which aligned with the four organizational DNA (OrgDNA) building blocks.
This research develop new organizational design framework. which shows clearer specific unit
requirements, where the information flow is hampered and also shows which organizational
grouping is more engaging for the employee.The proposed framework for this specific case study
are capable to define new business-process-based organizational grouping, which should clarify
the key process, a new decision making process, an institutionalized internal and external
information flow protocols, a lateral and horizontal promotion or rotation, a non-financial
rewards, and an integrated management system, and also a cross functional process-based
management for core business process on organization structure for LRS .

Keyword : organizational design, process-based organization, information-based organization,

Organizational DNA, organizational design framework, railway system company organization.

1. Introduction
LRS is a subsidiary of a state-owned company (PT. LEN Industries) (PT. Len Industri, 2013),
that engaged in the field of railway system electronic/electrical controller, power systems,
and telecommunication system.
Facing domestic market downturn, LRS strategies is to execute market penetration , market
development, product development, or business forward integration, or horizontal integration.
To achieve that objective, LRS defined the long-term general strategies, which are;
Innovation and value-added solution development, Go Asia and market expansion, Reliable
and highly competence Human Capital, Organization and management system that support
growth, and Integrated and excellent supply chain management.
To achieve this objectives, LRS should reorganize itself into a resilient organization profile ,
which highly agile and have strong execution (Gary L. Neilson, 2008).
By using McKinsey’s 7S tools, it’s clear that LRS is having problems on their Human
Resource Management Systems, as illustrated on Figure 1.

1
 Figure 1 LRS's McKinsey 7S result (PT. Len Railway System, 2014)

Figure 1 represent that LRS’s HR system has the lowest number among other 7S’s
components, to be more detail, the 7S result also could be seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2 shows that the recruitment specification is not yet correct, career path is under
development, training program is only done when needed, prioritizing only “experienced”
employee but not the competence for the job, organizational structure is complete but not
updated, unclear job description and overlapping roles, and also having knowledge and
System HR System 2.32 1.92 Recruitment and selection has been done, but the specification is not fit
Staff Top-Middle 2.30 2.11 Career path has started to plan
Strategy Program 2.28 2.18 Training program is done only when needed and very rare
Skill Performance 2.38 2.18
Skill Human Capital 2.38 2.18 Has vision, mission, targets and performance
Style Vision 2.22 2.21 Prioritize experienced employee on important position
Skill Marketing 2.38 2.21
Style Mission 2.22 2.22
Skill Community 2.38 2.24
System Knowledge 2.32 2.25
Strategy Target 2.28 2.26 Organization structure is complete but not updated
System Decision 2.32 2.30 Job and Role clearly defined
Shared Value Shared Values 2.35 2.35 Rules and Accountabilities is clearly written
Staff Career Path 2.30 2.38 For several position still happens overlapping roles
Skill Operational 2.38 2.39 Structure is aligned with company's activity
Strategy Strategy 2.28 2.41
Staff Analytic 2.30 2.42
Skill Strategic 2.38 2.44 Physical infrastructure is supporting company's needs
System IT 2.32 2.47 Physical Infrastructure is supporting efficiency and effectiveness
Skill Financial 2.38 2.55
Structure Organization Design 2.60 2.60
System Physical 2.32 2.64 The company already have the accurate knowledge and information
Skill Understanding 2.38 2.81 and capable to adapt, but rarely done (industry and competition)
Figure 2 LRS's 7S detail result (PT. Len Railway System, 2014)
2
accurate information and able to adapt, but rarely done in LRS. It also shows initial
identification of the business issues of the case study, which further investigated in this
research.
This research goals is to contribute to organizational design practices, to propose a clearer
path on identifying the problem and treatment in the unit level, it’s information flow, which
organizational grouping that are more engaging to the employee and the appropriate motivator
for the employee.

2. Research Methodology
The methodology for this research is firstly to identify the requirements from the strategic
plan requirements, identify existing organizational DNA requirements by OrgDNA
questionnaire and accompanied by observation, workshop and FGD as shown in Figure 3
below.

Figure 3 Organizational Design Conceptual Framework

Here are the definition for each activities of the research, illustrated in Figure 3. The
identification of strategic plan requirements and consequences should refer to the standards
of railway system product and people, and best-practice business process benchmarking
efforts, the data required for this activities is taken from long-term strategic plan document
of PT. LRS (PT. Len Railway System, 2014) and from the qualitative methods (Observation,
Workshop, Focus Group Discussion (FGD)) that done with the employee of LRS. This
activities followed by identifying the existing OrgDNA building blocks requirements, this
data is gathered by using the OrgDNA profile questionnaire to identify existing four
organizational building blocks.

To support, verifies and validates the symptoms resulted from the questionnaire, is done by
using Qualitative Methods (Observation, Workshop, Focus Group Discussion (FGD)) with

3
the employees and the management team, to gather insights, and if possible the root cause of
the problems.
.
To Define new OrgDNA building blocks requirements, done by combining strategic plan
requirements with the new organizational building blocks to formulates new LRS
organization structure, information flow, decision rights, and motivators.

3. Literature Review
This “Organizational DNA Profile (OrgDNA Profile)” is a metaphor which is useful in
understanding the idiosyncratic characteristics of an organization. Like the DNA of living
organisms, the DNA of living organizations consists of four basic building blocks, which
combine and recombine to express distinct identities, or personalities (see Figure 4). These
organizational building blocks—decision rights, information, motivators, and structure—
largely determine how a firm looks and behaves, both internally and externally. The good
news is that—unlike human DNA—organizational DNA can be modified. An organization’s
DNA strongly influences—and, in some ways, even determines—each individual employee’s
behavior (Pasternack, 2005).

Figure 4 The Four Organizational Building Blocks (Pasternack, 2005)

Deeper in this Organizational DNA profile that the disproportionately heavy influence of
that decision rights and information have on both execution ability and execution agility.
Each of these building blocks is roughly twice as “strong” as structure and motivators in
their correlation with these twin pillars of organizational success (see Figure 5). Put
simply, decision rights and information are the “dominant genes” in organizational DNA.
Structure and motivators are still important and influential, but they are clearly
“recessive.” (Strategy& - Formerly Booz & Company, 2008)

4
 Figure 5 “Decision Rights” and “Information” are the dominant genes of four
organizational building blocks (Strategy& - Formerly Booz & Company, 2008)

Figure 5. shows that information and decision rights is almost twice powerful the
motivators and structure building blocks.

OrgDNA profile define 7 organization profile, 3 of them are considered as healthy

organization profile and (Resilient, Just-in-Time, Military Precision) and the 4 others are
unhealthy organization (Passive-Aggressive, Outgrown, Over-managed, Fit and Starts),
as illustrated on Figure 6

Figure 6 The 7 Organizational DNA Profiles (Strategy& - Formerly Booz & Company, 2008)

Figure 6 shows each organizational profile which describes in details are :

1. “Fits-and-Starts” Organization, This organization lures intellect and initiative—smart
people with an entrepreneurial bent, but they often do not pull in the same direction
at the same time.
2. “Outgrown” Organization, This organization is literally bursting at the seams, having
expanded beyond its original organizational model. Because power is closely held at
the top, the Outgrown organization tends to react slowly to market developments and
often finds it cannot get out of its own way.

5
 3. “Over-managed” Organization, Burdened with multiple layers of management, this
organization is a case study in “analysis paralysis.”
4. “Passive-Aggressive” Organization, This is the seething, smiley-face organization.
Building consensus to make major changes is not a problem; implementing these
changes, however,is next to impossible.
5. “Military Precision” Organization, Everyone knows his role and implements it
diligently in this organization, creating the overall effect of fluid and consistent
execution. The Military Precision organization is hierarchical and operates under a
highly controlled management model that allows it to efficiently execute large
volumes of similar transactions. However, it does not typically deal well with events
not planned for in the playbook.
6. “Just-in-Time” Organization, Although not always proactive in preparing for change,
this type of organization has demonstrated an ability to “turn on a dime” when
necessary, without losing sight of the big picture. In the absence of consistent,
disciplined structures and processes, this organization’s home runs often become
“one-hit wonders,” rather than a reliable source of competitive advantage, leaving
this firm scrambling to stay healthy.
7. “Resilient” Organization, This is the organization that inspires both awe and envy
because everything seems to come so easily to it: profits, talents, respects. While it
may hit a bump in the road—as all companies do—the Resilient organization bounces
back immediately, having learned from the experience. The Resilient organization is
the healthiest of all the profiles, precisely because it doesn’t believe its own press;
rather, it is always scanning the horizon for the next competitive battle or market
innovation. (Strategy& - Formerly Booz & Company, 2013).
In LRS case, using this OrgDNA Profiler questionnaire method which resulting; LRS
perceived as “resilient” organization, the healthiest from the other profiles, but by
comparing and verifying with the observation, workshop, and FGD methods, the result
shows the other way, this leads to further investigation, which shows that categorizing
the questionnaire results by units, by directorates, and by management level will expose
further details and combination possibilities, such as :
 The different organizational perception between units in the whole company
 The different lateral organizational perception between directorates in the whole
company
 The different lateral organizational perception among mid-management and among
top-management
 The different vertical organizational perception between management levels (Top-
Management, Mid-Management, Unit Staffs level)
 The different organizational perception between employee categorized by technical
(electrical, telecommunication, civil mechaninc, etc) and non-technical work
(finance, accounting, HR, etc)
 The different organizational perception between employee categorized by the process
classification, core business process and the non-core/management and support
process.
This data categorization or grouping is illustrated in Figure 7, below :

6
Figure 7 Organizational DNA Data Grouping Method as an Indentification Tools

The grouping methods at Figure 7, could be considered as crosschecked modification of

OrgDNA profiler. By executing this analysis further, it could also identifies that :
 The general OrgDNA profiler result of the whole company have differences in
unit/directorates level of details or in terms of management level, so that could
concluded which unit is having certain perception and what treatment for that specific
unit instead of the one-size-fits-all solution.
 The unsynchronized organizational perception on each management level (top and
mid-management) with the staffs.
 Which information flow is hampered across the organizations.
 Which organizational grouping is more “engaging” for the employee, whether it’s
based on technical or non-technical, or it’s based on core and non-core process in the
company, which could assist consideration to design an organizational structure
groupings. Research shows that Perceived Organizational Prestige (PEP) positively
influences employee engagement and this relationship is partially explained by
identification with the organization (Smith, 2012).

This crosschecking method of OrgDNA profiler and the strategic plan requirements and
consequences of LRS will be aligned into the new and healthy LRS organizational
building blocks to be implemented, to achieve organizational alignment, it will takes
different forms from company to company. There is no right answer or universal
prescription. The only imperative is that the four building blocks of Organizational
DNA—decision rights, information, motivators, and structure—work together rather than
at cross purposes to solve the organizational puzzle, as illustrated in as illustrated in figure
8 (Pasternack, 2005)

7
 Figure 8 Aligning Organizational DNA Building Blocks (Pasternack, 2005)

The verified method of OrgDNA profiler and the following methods of organizational design
in this research could contribute into more formalized method from identifying organizational
symptoms until each organizational DNA building blocks definition.

4. Data and Analysis

The data for this research is consist of the OrgDNA profiler questionnaire, Observation,
Workshop, and Focus-Group Discussion, this data will produce the new four organizational
building blocks requirements, these organizational building blocks should aligned with the
strategic plan requirements, the data from OrgDNA Profiler questions, as illustrated on
Appendix A1., by counting the dominant numbers of each answers of the question as the
representatives of the data ,resulting
1. LRS is a “resilient” company as shown in Appendix A1, point (1),
2. In the contrary with the result from McKinsey 7s, workshop, observation, and FGD shows
the other way, so to get more detail, the data is categorized again with the vertical
hierarchy, Top Management (all of the directors data), Mid-Management (all of the VPs
data), Staffs (all of the employee excluding the top and mid-management) the result is
that the mid-management has “just-in-time” perception (2),
3. This matter is indicated as the “senior-middle management divide” which describe that
senior/top managers were far more likely to be optimistic than their middle-management
colleagues were in their perception of engagement level. Since middle managers are
tasked with handling more day-to-day employee issues, their assessment is likely the
more accurate (Harvard Business Review Analytic Services, 2013), this finding is
encourage deeper categorization to see more granular problems in each units/person in
the organization (3),
4. It shows that every unit or person or function have their own results, which varies between
“resilient”, “military precision”, “just-in-time”, and “fits-and-starts” profile, not a
homogenous “resilient”, so the symptoms and treatment of each unit is adapted
accordingly for each units. As for the new organizational building blocks specifically for
the new structure, besides to cope new units required for the new organization, the new
organization should also provide employee engagement by grouping them with the
similar organizational perception about the company (Smith, 2012), since the current
grouping of the directorate resulting this combination Marketing and Planning
8
 Directorate (Resilient), Technical and Operation (Just-in-Time), and Human Capital,
General Affairs and Finance (Resilient) (4),
5. Along the research it’s found out that grouping the directorate based on Core Process and
the others with Corporate Process is resulting both of the grouping is having the profile
(Resilient), which is better than grouping of Technical (Engineering-based job) with the
Non-Technical (Non Engineering-based job), this grouping (Core and Corporate)
grouping is also indicated by the OrgDNA profiler symptoms and treatment for the “fits-
and-starts” and “resilient” where there should be a cross functional team on the core
process.
Besides those result of symptoms and its treatment. There are also important thing of the
OrgDNA profile, that are top traits of “Strong Execution” and “Highly Agile”, these traits
determine whether the company is having good execution ability and good execution agility,
these traits could be seen from the answers of the OrgDNA questionnaire results.
Question
Top Three "Strong Execution" (Execution Ability) Factors
Number.
3 Everyone has a good idea of the decisions and actions for which he or she is responsible
6 Once made, decisions are rarely second-guessed
16 Important informa on (even bad news) about thecompe ve environment gets to headquarters quickly

Question
Top Three "Highly Agile" (Execution Agility) Factors
Number.
16 Important informa on (even bad news) about thecompe ve environment gets to headquarters quickly
3 Everyone has a good idea of the decisions and actions for which he or she is responsible
17 We rarely send conflicting messages to the market

Question
Top Three Other Symptoms or Confusion among organization members
Number.
19 Confusion whether Leaders here are more focused on immediate objectives or playing for the long term

23 Workarounds (e.g., creating unauthorized processes to get work done) are a common occurrence in this organization
27 Too many people here have overlapping roles

Figure 9 Top Three Traits and Other Symptoms/Confusion in LRS

This research is also highlighting the top three traits that determine the “Strong Execution”
and “Highly Agile”, and the top three confusions and the dominant weakness of in LRS, as
illustrated as the red fonts in Figure 9
Further from the questionnaire data , there are current “Top Three Traits and Confusion
Symptoms” of each of the organizational building blocks that must be change from its current
condition into the target condition, whether to keep up the current positive traits (blue fonts)
or to fix the negative traits (red fonts), details solution on each Organizational DNA building
blocks explanation as follows :

4.1. Structure Building Blocks

From the result of the data at Appendix B2 there are top confusion and symptoms that lies on
specific organizational building blocks, as illustrated on Table 1.

9
 Table 1 LRS's Current and Target Condition of Structure Building Blocks
Structure
Curent Condition Target Condition
Workarounds (e.g., creating unauthorized processes to get work done) are a LRS should have firm and efficient business process, which accomodates field
common occurrence in this organization operation dynamic nature
LRS structure should have the right number of layers, to eliminates unnecessary
Whether our organization’s structure has about the right number of layers or
bureaucracy when there are need quick escalation of authorities, especially in
too many layers and too much complexity
products and services management
LRS should have people which have title and role that are respected by
Influence in this organization depends mostly on title and role or reputation,
reputation, credibility and relationships, ones could respect each other when they
credibility and relationships
know what others do.
Every unit has their own accountabilities and authorities, aligned with the next
Too many people here have overlapping roles process owners and work collaboratively within their jurisdiction, this should
controlled by an entity to aligned activities with the standards
LRS should have single contact points for the market, specifically in the value
Our organizational focus on process and internal issues gets in the way of
creation process based organization, so that it's responsive to the market and
attention on markets and customers
customer change.

Table 1 shows there are workarounds, confusion on organization structure layer, organization
influence, overlapping roles, and alignment of process in LRS’s organizational building blocks.
According to this data, then there should be a directorate that specifically handles core business
process, which named “Directorate of Products and Services” which become the interpretation of
a process-based organization which resembles in several points of Hernaus’s “Process-based
Organization Design Model” (Hernaus, 2008).
While the other directorates which handles the corporates business process, since there are
constraints in LRS that should only three directorates so the “Corporates” grouping itself is
divided into two, the “Integrated Management Systems” and the “Resource and Sustainability
Management”.
Since there are many standards and regulation that LRS should face when entering regional
market (Railway Standards, Local Regulation, etc.), so that requires an “Integrated Management
System” which could manage all of this standards in one place to remove document duplication,
provide control and guide the business process in the most effective and efficient way (Chartered
Quality Institute, 2007), this Integrated Management System Directorate is also acts as an
“Information Based Organization” which explained by Drucker (Drucker, 1988), this function in
the large organization should managed by Information and Communication Technology, since in
Railway System Company the document flow, working evidence, standards and regulation play
important roles and used intensively.
The third directorates are the one which handles the resources and assets management, which
named Resource and Sustainability Management., other parts of the management, such as
business development, risk management, and internal audits is on the “neck” of the President
Director, since those three function roles as the innovation and control units for the whole
company. As illustrated in Figure 10.

10
 Figure 10 New LRS Organization Structure (in general)

4.2. Decision Rights Building Blocks

After the “Structure” organization building blocks is defined as above, the next is to identify and
define the new decision rights, accountabilities and authorities based on the business process they
are assigned by. This assignment of the process to the units is based on LRS classification
framework (Pratama, 2015), which adopts APQC’s Process Classification Framework (PCF) for
Aerospace and Defence Industries (APQC, 2015) and some of the Cross Industry PCF (APQC,
2014). This process assignments will eliminates overlapping roles, creating unauthorized actions,
clarify of each unit decision and actions for which they’re responsible. The decision rights
allocation as shown in Appendix B1 and B2,
For the second-guessing practice in the organization, there are example from Pasternack on his
writing, as illustrated on Figure 11 (Pasternack, 2005)

Figure 11 Example of New Decision-Making Process (Pasternack, 2005)

11
 Figure 11 shows The new decision making principles will includes Propose-Validate-Decide-
Execute principles which explains new decision-making process is should be institutionalized
within the organization and communicated to all of the stakeholders, so that every decision is
taken is a firm one and eliminates second-guessing practices.
The current condition should be manage into the targeted condition to achieve the “Strong
Execution” and “Highly Agile” targets, as illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2 LRS Current and Target Condition of Decision Rights Building Blocks
Decision Rights Building Blocks
Current Condition Target Condition
Not Everyone has a good idea of the decisions and actions for which Each employee have clear decision and action he or she is
he or she is responsible responsible
Propose a new decision making process that eliminates
Once made, Decisions are oftenly second-guessed
second guessing practices

Confusion about : The culture of this organization can best be
described as command and control or persuade and cajole
Confusion about :When we look at new opportunities we put first
financial attractiveness of the market or fit with our strategy and
capabilities
Confusion about : Whether We have a distinctive culture that gives
us a competitive advantage
Corporate values and culture needs to be set which one is
appropriate in which condition
There should be a decision making support mechanism that
provides executives a sufficient information to make a
decision
the company culture/values should provide and flourish
competitive advantages in the organization

4.3 Information Flow Building Blocks

In the current condition and target of the Information Flow building blocks shows that LRS don’t
have metrics they need to evaluate business performance, and there are confusion whether the
organization is generally more people-oriented or task oriented, so there should be a clear and
institutionalized business performance metrics and knowledge management orientation, when
everyone know what they are doing for their decision and action, have similar knowledge level
then task-oriented is possible, this could possible to be done by firstly nurture best practice or
knowledge sharing and benchmarking which socialized and become the culture of the company,
details at Table 3

Table 3 Current and Target Condition of Information Flow Building Blocks

Information Flow
Current Condition Target Condition
Important information (even bad news) about the Keep this up and improve it by also giving decision making
competitive environment gets to headquarters quickly support information
Every message to the external party should be managed
We oftenly send conflicting messages to the market
for each party, and aligned with the strategy

Information not flows freely across organizational Every internal information flow should also be managed
boundaries and aligned with the strategy

Confusion whether leaders here are more Focused on Management should communicate their vision and mission,
immediate objectives or playing for the long term targets and clarify into employee objectives

We don't have the metrics we need to evaluate business Define, clarify and institutionalize business performance
performance metrics
Confusion whether the organization is generally more
LRS should manage where both of this orientation is fit
people-oriented or taks-oriented

12
While other current condition that should be improved is the information flow policies that should
be formalized and aligned, since current condition could leads into send conflicting messages to
the market,
or even internal parties, which will cause confusion and misinformation, this could be worse if
the decision making process of the top-management is influenced by the wrong information and
false calculation, which leads to the whole company misleads, lost opportunity and for worse is
bankruptcy.
The information flow proposed in this research is to manage, align, and accurately transmit and
receive for each stakeholders in the company, and outside the company, by assigning the
“Integrated Management Systems” Directorate as the single point of contact, information and
knowledge hub, value-creation-based information source, resource-based information, and
ultimately the business intelligence and decision support information for the top management, as
illustrated in Figure 11 . Similarly for the external information flow, this directorate take the role
as official press release of the company to the outside world, as presented in Figure 12.

Figure 12 LRS's Internal Information Flow Management

Figure 12 represent the internal information flow for top-management, mid-management, and
employee level, including what kind of information that exchanged each other. While Figure 13
shows the external flow information from the company to the considered as external stakeholders.

13
 Figure 13 LRS's External Information Flow Management

Figure 13 shows managed external information flow, the Integrated Management Systems,
directorate acts as information hub for internal or external information sharing and information
transmitting. for details of the information flow management is on Appendix C

4.4.Motivators Building Blocks

According to the current and expected target condition of the motivators building blocks which
taken from the top three confusion and symptoms of the building blocks, shows that LRS’s
motivators is still in its early stage to cope the strategic plan requirements to compete in regional
market which should attracts the best talents, this finding is also indicated in McKinsey’s 7S
findings in the beginning of this research. Listed on Table 4.

14
 Table 4 Current and Target Condition of Motivators Building Blocks

Motivator
Curent Condition Target Condition
Commitment oriented culture is nurtured with individual performance-
If a colleague here makes a commitment, I can't count on it
based metrics
Confusion whether people are rewarded more based on values LRS should manage which financial rewards and non-financial rewards
and pride or incentives and rewards wisely and clarify those reward systems

Coaching, best practice sharing, knowledge management should be

Confusion whether the senior people here “walk the talk”
institutionalized at LRS

Creating institutionalized cross functional teams for improvements, and

Confusion whether people who innovate get rewarded here
developments, and create incentives and rewards
Confusion, whether The ability to deliver on performance
LRS should build individual performance metrics and provide rewards
commitments is strongly influences career advancement and
for best performer, and their career advancement
compensation or not

Firstly LRS should define the individual metrics, which hooked to the business unit performance
metrics, which in the top level hooked into the company’s objective metrics, and after that LRS
should consider which rewards is appropriate to the metrics, if the objective is achieved, whether
it’s financial or non-financial, defining career path, job enrichment, and challenges for the
employee to keep engage, developing talent management and providing innovation room and it’s
appropriate rewards, at Figure 14 show some samples from the Pasternack’s book (Pasternack,
2005)

Figure 14 Example of Motivator Building Blocks Rewards and

As mentioned before that in the research of Christine L. Smiths (Smith, 2012) that the perception
of organizational prestige will influenced the employee engagement, so as an organizational
leaders could promote employee engagement, not only by providing financial and non-financial
incentives and rewards but also by communicating by all means, the positive perceived
organizational prestige.

15
 5. Conclusions
From this research there are several points, suggestion for the next research and improvements
from the methods proposed, they are :

 Organizational DNA profiling is a powerful tools to find what’s wrong in the company if
added with the data grouping method. The data is grouped into organizational level,
secondly then grouped into unit/person/mid-management and their staffs, each grouping
has it’s own benefit, to analyze the underlying mechanics, and to understand what to do
next. Proposed method of this research are grouping the verified data (with qualitative
data) which could resulting clearer portray the current organizational
 To verifies and gain deep insights, critical questions should be prepared after gaining the
data from the quantitative method (OrgDNA Profiler Questionnaire), this research
propose that qualitative method should also become references to obtain clearer and
sharper source of the organizational problems.
 The top traits or the dominant genes in Organizational DNA to provide “Strong
Execution” and “Highly Agile” will be much improved, if using the benefit of
Information and Communication Technologies to automatized the decision making
process and information flow regulation.
 This research, specially in the structure building blocks, is partly an interpretation and
application of Tomislav Hernaus and Peter F. Drucker works and CQI’s version of
Integrated Management Systems.
 Aligning strategic plan requirements with OrgDNA results data, should consider these
notes, Strategic plan objectives, it’s boundaries and alignment with the OrgDNA building
blocks
 The proposed framework for Organizational design, based on OrgDNA Profile is
illustrated in Figure 15

Figure 15 New Organizational design framework using OrgDNA profiler

16
 Figure 15 shows that functional strategic plan needs the references (Standards and
Benchmarks), as a guidance and boundaries, since strategic plan is to set the objectives
of the organizational design, it should cope everything it takes to win the competition.
Organizational design requirements identification will portray current orgDNA building
blocks, then the data will be verified and aligned with the strategic plan requirements,
this information will be the source for design new organization to achieve the targeted
OrgDNA building blocks.
 The methodologies used in this case will not resulting a one-size-fits-all solutions, the
results may vary according to the condition of the organization.
 This research method should be improved on the clarification and definitive task on the
qualitative methods (workshop, observation and FGD), so that the result on the qualitative
methods could also provide clearer result, instead of general findings and conclusion.
 This research could become a base for further research on integrated organizational
design, organizational performance modelling, and organizational performance
measurements.

17
References
APQC. (2014). APQC Process Classification Framework (PCF) - Cross Industry - PDF Version
5.2.0. Diambil kembali dari http://www.apqc.org/knowledge-base/documents/apqc-
process-classification-framework-pcf-cross-industry-pdf-version-520

APQC. (2015, January). APQC Process Classification Framework (PCF) - Aerospace and Defense -
PDF Version 5.0.2. Diambil kembali dari http://www.apqc.org/knowledge-
base/documents/apqc-process-classification-framework-pcf-aerospace-and-defense-
pdf-version

Cadle, J., Paul, D., & Turner, P. (2010). Business Analysis Techniques - 72 Essential Tools fo
Success. Swindon, UK: British Computer Society.

Chartered Quality Institute. (2007, June). Integrated Management System Definition and
Structuring Guidance. CQI IMSIG(1 -12).

Daft, N. A. (2007). What is the Right Organization Design. Organizational Dynamics, 36, 329-
344.

Daft, R. L. (2007). Organization Theory and Design (9th ed.). Mason, Ohio, USA: South-Western
CENGAGE Learning.

Drucker, P. F. (1988, January). The Coming of the New Organization. Harvard Business Review.

Gary L. Neilson, K. L. (2008, June). The Secret to Successful Strategy Execution. Harvard
Business Review, hal. 61-70.

Harvard Business School. (2005, October). The Passive - Aggressive Organization . Harvard
Business Review, hal. 83-92.

Hernaus, T. (2008). Process-Based Organization Design Model: Theoretical Review and Model
Conceptualization. Working Paper Series.

Hunger, T. L. (2010). Strategic Management and Business Policy Toward Global Sustainability,
13th Ed. Pearson.

International ElectroTechnical Commission. (1998). Functional Safety of

Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems Part 1-3. CEI IEC
61508.

IRSE (Institution of Railway Signal Engineers. (2009). Competence Guidance for Train Borne
Train Control Systems.

Kotter, J. P. (2007, January). Leading Change : Why Transformation Efforts Fail". Harvard
Business Review, hal. 96-103.

McKinsey & Company. (2013, November). A Risk-management approach to successful

infrastructure project. McKinsey Working Papers on Risk, 52.

Merce Bernardo, M. C. (2006). Management Systems : Integration Degrees, Empirical Study.

"The Integrated Management System (IMS) in Spanish Companies".

18
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (1994). System Engineering "Toolbox"
for Design Oriented Engineers. Alabama: NASA.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (1995). NASA Software Safety
Guidebook.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2007). NASA System Engineering
Handbook. Washington.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2014, December). The NASA Program/Project
Life Cycle Process Flow. Diambil kembali dari
http://spacese.spacegrant.org/uploads/Project%20Life%20Cycle/PPF_WallChart_color
.pdf

Neilson, G. L., Martin, K. L., & Powers, E. (2008, June). The Secret to Successful Strategy
Execution. Harvard Business Review, hal. 61-70.

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2014). Value Preposition Design. New
Jersey: Wiley.

Pasternack, G. L. (2005). Results : Keep What' Good, Fix What's Wrong, and Unlock Great
Performance. New York: Crown Business.

Patrick Viguerie, S. S. (2008). The Granularity of Growth. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Pigneur, A. O. (2010). Business Model Generation. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Pratama, V. P. (2015). Len Railway Systems Process Classification Framework. 2.0. Bandung,
Indonesia.

PT. Len Industri. (2013, Juni). Charter Sinergi PT. Len Industri (Persero) Group. Bandung.

PT. Len Railway System, M. T. (2015, January 12). Focus Group Discussion Dir Tek-Op &
Marketing. (P. L., Pewawancara)

PT. Len Railway Systems. (2012). Len Railway Systems Company Profile. Bandung: Len Railway
Systems.

PT. Len Railway Systems. (2012). Rencana Kerja dan Anggaran Perusahaan Tahun 2013.
Bandung: Len Railway Systems.

PT. Len Railway Systems. (2014). Rencana Jangka Panjang Perusahaan PT. Len Railway System
2015-2019. Bandung.

PT. Len Railway Systems, C. a. (2014, October 9). HR Meeting 03. (LRS HR Development Team,
& F. Group, Pewawancara)

PT. Len Railway Systems, C. a. (2014, September 30). HR System Meeting 01. (HR System
Development Team, & F. Group, Pewawancara)

PT. Len Railway Systems, HR System Development Team. (2014, Desember 22). Job Description
Workshop. Bandung.

PT. Len Railway Systems, Quality Management Systems. (2014). Standar Operating Procedures.
19
PT. Len Railway Systems, V. a. (2014). Focus Group Discussion Marketing, Project & Planning.
(H. S. Group, Pewawancara)

PT. Len Railway Systems, V. a. (2015, January 5). Focus Group Discussion HR, GA & Finance PT.
LRS. (H. S. Group, Pewawancara)

Smith, C. L. (2012). Thesis on "The Perception of Organizational Prestige and Employee

Engagement. Colorado: Departement of Psychology - Colorado State University.

Storey, N. (1996). Safety-Critical Computer System. Pearson & Prentice-Hall.

Strategy& - Formerly Booz & Company. (2008). The Dominant Genes - Organizational Survival
of the Fittest. PwC.

Strategy& - Formerly Booz & Company. (2013). How to Design a Winning Company - The Eight
components of your organizational genome hold the secret to unleashing superior
performance. Strategy+Business(72).

Strategy& - Formerly Booz & Company. (2013). Strategy+Business. How to Design a Winning
Company, 72(Autumn).

Technical Committee CENELEC TC 9X, Electrical and electronic applications in railways. (1999).
EN 50126 - Railway applications - The specification and demonstration of Reliability,
Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) . Europe.

Texas Department of Information Resources. (2008). System Development Life Cycle Guide.
Texas.

20
 LRS's Organizational DNA Profile Mapping

2. OrgDNA Profile
1. LRS's OrgDNA Profile Categorization by
in General Vertical
3. Organizational DNA (OrgDNA) Profile Categorization by Unit/Person
Hierarchy

LRS Top- President Director

Management Resilient

All LRS
Marketing & Planning Technical & Operation HR, GA, & Finance
Director Director Director
Resilient
Military Precision Resilient Resilient

LRS Mid- Human Capital,

Marketing & Sales Planning & Logistics Design Engineering, SystemEngineering
Management General Affairs &
VP VP & Production VP & Installation VP
Finance VP
Just-in-Time Just-in-Time Just-in-Time Just-in-Time Just-in-Time

21
Just-In-Time

Resilient

Design Engineering SystemEngineering Human Capital,

LRS Staffs Marketing & Sales Planning & Logistics
& Production Unit & Installation Unit General Affairs & Unreported Unit
Unit Staffs Unit Staffs
Staffs Staffs Finance Unit Staffs
Resilient Just-in-Time Fits-and-Starts Just-In-Time Resilient Resilient
Resilient

Human Capital, General Affairs & Finance

4. Unit Staffs Based on Marketing & Planning Directorate Staffs Technical & Operation Directorate Staffs
Directorate Staffs
their existing Directorate
Resilient Just-in-Time Resilient
Appendix A1 LRS’s Organization DNA Profile Mapping

Corporate (Human Capital, General Affairs

Core Business (Marketing-Planning &Technical-Operation Directorate Staffs), Based on LRS Process Classification Framework & Finance Directorate Staffs), Based on LRS
Process Classification Framework
Resilient Resilient
5. Organizational
Structure Grouping Non-Technical (Marketing-Planning &
Method Non-Technical (Marketing-Planning & Human Capital-General Affairs- Human Capital-General Affairs-Finance
Technical (Technical & Operation Directorate Staffs) based on Technical
Finance Directorate Staffs), based on non Technical Competence Directorate Staffs), based on non Technical
Competence (Electrical, Civil, Mechanical, etc)
(Finance, Human Capital, Communication, etc) Competence (Finance, Human Capital,
Communication, etc)

Resilient Just-in-time Resilient

LRS’s OrgDNA Profile Mapping

 Appendix B1 Process-Based Decision Rights Allocation on Directorates and Units (1)
Process Allocation and Authority-in-Charge Granularity Level

Process Category Process Group 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level
1.0 Develop Vision and Strategy (10002)
1.1 Define the business concept and long-term vision (10014) Board of
1.2 Develop business strategy (10015) Directors
1.3 Manage strategic initiatives (10016)
2.0 Develop and Manage Products and Services (10003) System
2.1 Manage product and service portfolio (10061) Development
2.2 Develop products and services (10062) Product & Process
Railway
3.0 Market and Sell Products and Services (10004) Service Marketing
Process Owner
3.1 Understand markets, customers and capabilities (10101) Directorate Process
3.2 Develop and manage marketing plans (10104)
Principal
3.3 Perform business development (11757)
Corporate
3.4 Perform integrated business planning (11800) Innovation &
Control
3.5 Manage contracts and programs/projects (11838) Marketing
3.6 Develop and manage sales plans (10105) Process
4.0 Deliver Products and Services (10005)
Supply Chain &
4.1 Plan for and acquire necessary resources (Supply Chain
Procurement
Planning) (10215)
Process
4.2 Procure materials and services (10216) Principal

4.3 Produce/Manufacture/Deliver product (10217)

Product & Railway Chief Engineer
4.4 Deliver service to customer (10218) Service Process Owner
Directorate VP
Supply Chain &
4.5 Manage logistics and warehousing (10219)
Procurement
Process
Principal
5.0 Manage Customer Service (10006)
5.1 Develop customer care/customer service strategy (10378) Customer Care
5.2 Plan and manage customer service operations (10379)
Process
Principal
5.3 Measure and evaluate customer service operations (10380)

6.0 Develop and Manage Human Capital (10007) HC Planning &

6.1 Develop and manage human resources (HR) planning,
Information
policies, and strategies (10409) Analysis
6.2 Recruit, source, and select employees (10410)
6.3 Develop and counsel employees (10411) Resource & Human Capital People
6.4 Reward and retain employees (10412) Sustainability management Management
6.5 Re-deploy and retire employees (10413)
HC Planning &
6.6 Manage employee information (10414) Information
Analysis
7.0 Manage Information Technology (10008)
ICT
7.1 Manage the business of information technology (10563)
Management
7.2 Develop and manage IT customer relationships (10564)
7.3 Develop and implement security, privacy, and data Corporate
protection controls
Information &
Relation
7.4 Manage enterprise information (10565) Integrated ICT Management
Management Knowledge
7.5 Develop and maintain information technology solutions
System Management
(10566)
ICT
7.6 Deploy information technology solutions (10567)
Management
7.7 Deliver and support information technology services (10568)

Corporate
7.8 Manage IT knowledge (10569) Information &
Relation

22
 Appendix B2 Process-Based Decision Rights Allocation on Directorates and Units (2)
Process Allocation and Authority-in-Charge Granularity Level
8.0 Manage Financial Resources (10009)
8.1 Perform planning and management accounting (10728)
8.2 Perform revenue accounting (10729)
8.3 Perform general accounting and reporting (10730) Finance &
Finance &
8.4 Manage fixed asset project accounting (10731) Resource & Accounting
8.5 Process payroll (10732)
Asset
Sustainability Management
8.6 Process accounts payable and expense reimbursements
(10733)

Asset
8.7 Manage treasury operations (10734)
Management
Corporate
8.8 Manage internal controls (10735) Innovation &
Control
Finance &
8.9 Manage taxes (10736) Finance &
Resource & Accounting
Asset
8.10 Manage international funds/consolidation (10737) Sustainability Management Asset
8.11 Perform global trade services Management
9.0 Acquire, Construct, and Manage Property (10010)

9.1 Design and construct/acquire non-productive assets (10937)

9.2 Maintain non-productive assets (10938) Finance &

Resource and Asset
9.3 Obtain, install and plan maintenance for productive assets
Asset
Sustainability Management Management
(10939)
9.4 Dispose of productive and non-productive assets (10940)
9.5 Manage physical risk (11207)
10.0 Manage Enterprise Risk and EHS Corporate
Innovation &
10.1 Manage enterprise risk
Control
10.2 Determine health, safety, and environment impacts
(11180)

10.3 Develop and execute health, safety, and environmental Quality &
program (11181) Integrated Performance & Performance
10.4 Train and educate employees (11182) Management Compliance Management
10.5 Monitor and manage health, safety, and environmental Systems Management
management program (11183)
10.6 Ensure compliance with regulations (11184) Corporate
10.7 Manage remediation efforts (11185) Legal & Law
11.0 Manage External Relationships (10012)
11.1 Build investor relationships (11010) Information &
11.2 Manage government and industry relationships (11011)
ICT & Relation
Relation
Management
Management
11.3 Manage relations with board of directors (11012)
Integrated
Management Performance &
Corporate
11.4 Manage legal and ethical issues (11013) Systems Compliance
Legal & Law
Management
Information &
ICT & Relation
11.5 Manage public relations program (11014) Relation
Management
Management
12.0 Manage Knowledge, Improvement, and Change (10013)
12.1 Create and manage organizational performance strategy
(11071)
Integrated Performance & Quality &
12.2 Benchmark performance (11072)
Management Compliance Performance
12.3 Develop enterprise-wide knowledge management (KM) Systems Management Management
capability (11073)

12.4 Manage change (11074)

23
 Internal Information Source
Board of Railway Process Corporate Innovation & Human Capital Finance & Asset Performance &Compliance
ICT &Relation Management All- Employee
Directors Owner Control management Management Management
Board of Strategic Issue Innovation, Risk &Control Corporate Dashboard &Decision Concerns &Field
Process Accountability HC Capacities Financial &Assets Capacities Business Boundaries &Compliances
Directors Sharing Instruments Support Relevant Information
Ask for Performance
Railway Railway Process Budget, Metrics, Competence
Targets & Business Opportunities, Plan, HC Availability & Authority and Working Guidance &
Process Best-Practice Sharing Tools &Assets Availability & Guidance, Methods and Boundaries Standards, Working
Objectives Risk &Control Deployment Integrated Resource Information
Owner Commercialization Guidance &Boundaries,
Tools
Corporate Strategic Plan, HC Alignment, with Financial &Assets Alignment,
Ask for Guidance and NewStrategic Opportunities Corporate Dashboard &Decision Business Boundaries &Compliances Concerns &Field
Innovation & Risk Appetite, Strategy, Risk and with Strategy, Risk and
Control Sharing, Plan, Risk &Control Support Alignment Relevant Information
Control Control Plan Control Control
Personal Competence
Human Strategic HC HC Performance Performance Metrics, Competence
Strategic HCMOpportunities, HC Budget Availability & Information Update,
Capital Capacity Report &Field Best-Practice Sharing HC Dashboard Standards, Working Guidance &
Plan, &Control Payroll Information Personal Availability,
Management Building Appraisal Boundaries
Working Problems
Personal Competence
Strategic ICT& Performance Metrics, Information Update,
Internal ICT &Relation Relation All of Railway Process Strategic ICT&Relation HC Information & ICT &Relation Budget, Assets Communication &Information Personal Availability,
Best-Practice Sharing

24
Information Management Capacity Documentation Opportunities, Plan, &Control Analytics &Tools Availability Protocols, Information Route & Working Problems,
Destination Building Boundaries Tools Request,
Development request
Strategic
Finance & Financial Performance Payroll &HC IFRS Standards Compliances,
Financial & Strategic Finance &Assets
Asset Report &Field Budget Development Financial &Assets Dashboard Best-Practice Sharing Performance Metrics, Risk Tools Request
Asset Capacity Opportunities, Plan, &Control
Management Appraisal Information Management Guidance
Building
Strategic HC Appraisal &
Corporate Strategic Performance & Exsisting
Performance Evidence of Field
Performance Compliances Management Competence Performance &Compliances Performance &Compliances Competence
&Compliance Performance & Best-Practice Sharing
and Opportunities, Plan, Risk & Gaps,Compared with Dashboard Budget Availability Development Request
Management Compliances
Compliances Control Standard
Building Compliances
Communicate
Appendix C1 LRS’s Internal Information Flow Management

Working Guidance,
Vision, Mission
Authority
&Action Plan, Employee Self-Performance Performance Metrics, Competence
Relevant Railway Relevant Strategic Corporate Boundaries,
All- Employee Mediate Dashboard, Knowledge Source and Working Tools Availability Standards, Working Guidance & Best-Practice Sharing
Process Information Rules &Guidance Information and
Culture, Inspire Sharing Media Boundaries
Communication
and Show
Protocols
Gratitude
 Appendix C2 LRS’s External Information Flow Management

Point External Entities From LRS IMS To LRS IMS

A Professional Association Practice Alignment Best Practice Sharing
B Railway Regulator Compliance Effort Regulation
C Customer Requirements Fulfillment Requirements & Complaints
D Partners Collaboration Efforts Mutual Benefits
E Assesssor /Auditor Standards Compliances Gap Information & Feedback
F Investors Business Portfolio Investment
G Government National Infrastructure Strategic Insight Positioned as Strategic Partners
H Competitor Entry Barrier Message Appeared as unbeatable competitors
I Special Group Interests Positive Issues & Clarification Appeared as Positive Company
J Press Media Official Brand Image Bonafide National Brands
K Parent Company (LEN) Collaboration Protocols Appeared as Mutual Benefits Partners
Link and Matched Technology and
L Academic /Research Insitute Technology and Workforce Link and Match
Workforce w' Business Strategy

25

View publication stats