CASE STUDY: APPEX

CORPORATION

TEAM # 9 :
Alok Kaushik
Amit Kumar
Apurv
Kunal Basantani
Rahul Shukla
Rajan Chauhan
Sravan Dokku
DIAGNOSIS: Issues From Lack Of
LACK OF Structure
STRUCTURE AND No Accountability: As no role definition, and
CONTROL no sense of job description
REACTIVE approach : Only FIRE-FIGHTING to
the crisis of that day
No Proactive Long-Term Planning: No priority
to anything a week away
No Financial Planning : Haphazard and quick
spending of Cash w/o monitoring expenses
Poor Information flow : Company experienced
product development failures, system crashes,
software code clashes
Missing On Customer-Delivery: Appex started
to - Fall behind schedule; Miss Installation
Dates
Not ready for large scale expansion and
growing market: Incapability to handle
increased volume of customers and orders.
DIAGNOSIS:
LACK OF No Accountability or Sense of Responsibility:
Everybody did things in their own time and
STRUCTURE AND own wish
CONTROL No control in office hours or timings

Coordination and Integration started falling

apart
Not putting customers as first priority:
Increased Customer Complaints
Issues From Lack Of Control
Poor response time to customers and non-
professional behaviour

Examples of Losses: Caused loss of customer

accounts, one customer called 150 times
before he received a response

Entrepreneurial to Chaotic !
REASONS OF
FAILURE OF
INNOVATIVE  Being non-hierarchical, current
issues regarding accountability,
STRUCTURES : control(authority) couldn’t be
solved from this model.
1) CIRCULAR
 Unclear chain of command
 No clarity about one’s position
in the organisation => Confused
employees
 New hires could not relate to
the structure and find their fit
 No clearly defined authority
structure to get things done
 Reactive and not pro-active
structure. The tasks involving
planning were not being
executed.
REASONS OF  Failed as employees did not
FAILURE OF respond enthusiastically.
INNOVATIVE  Difficult to relate to for new
STRUCTURES : hires
TRADITIONAL
HORIZONTAL
STRUCTURE TURNED
ON ITS SIDE
NUTSHELL EVALUATION:
Both the structures could not substitute chaos with
the needed orderliness.
The conversion of the initial loosely tied structure
into a formal well organised structure could not take
place.
The steering control and authority to drive the
organisation through the rapid growth phase could
not be established.
NECESSITY OF STRUCTURAL CHANGES
REVIEWED
 Given the rapid increase in size, the structural
changes were indispensable.
 Changing the structure too frequently is the not the
solution.
 Establishment of authority and control is vital rather
than forming new lines and structural levels.
 Too many changes can create chaotic and
unstable work environment within the organisation.
A) FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE:
Importance: Necessary.
Reason:
 Provided much needed control and direction to the
company. For instance, Ghosh was reported regularly by
the team heads due to the presence of an
accountability system.
 Employees could focus on the tasks respective to the
assigned departments that facilitated their completion.
Drawbacks:
 Politics came into existence and Polarization of teams
occurred.
 CEO still was not able to focus on strategic planning due
to high involvement.
B)DIVISIONAL STRUCTURE
Importance: Necessary
Reason:
 As the organization became very large, it became
important to segregate the work responsibilities
according to the new product offerings.
 The focus on achievement of financial goals was
established.
 The CEO could now focus on strategic planning
due to less burden.
Drawbacks:
 Difficulty in equitable distribution of resources.
 Lack of flow of communication and ideas across
divisions.
 ANALYSIS USING GALBRAITH 1 MODEL
TYPE OF VARIABLE CURRENT REASONS STRUCTURE AS PER
LEVEL GALBRAITH MODEL
1) Required degree of HIGH High technology-driven FUNCTIONAL
complexity of company; Required
functional /technical niche technical skills
knowledge & skills (level
of technology)
2) Required degree of HIGH Different products but DIVISIONAL
interdependence underlying technology
between functions for in the products is similar
each product / service (eg. database systems)
line (interdependence)
3) Economies of scale HIGH Exponential growth in FUNCTIONAL
for each function the revenues of
(economies of scale) company
4) Number & dis- LOW TO MEDIUM Products offerings are FUNCTIONAL
homogeneity of different but nature is
product lines (product similar
lines)
 SUGGESTED STRUCTURE

CEO

ICS IS R&D HR Operati

Finance ons
PRV/IS4
1 AB+

ISS CMIS

QuickC
ollect

RA