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 No Accountability: As no role definition, and no sense
of job description
AND CONTROL
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.

ALL PLANNING FAILED AND SEEMED USELESS !!

DIAGNOSIS:
No Accountability or Sense of Responsibility:
LACK OF Everybody did things in their own time and own
STRUCTURE wish
AND 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
Poor response Ofcustomers
time to Control 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
STRUCTURES :  Being non-hierarchical, current issues
regarding accountability,
1) CIRCULAR control(authority) couldn’t be solved
from this model.
 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 respond
FAILURE OF enthusiastically.
INNOVATIVE
STRUCTURES :  Difficult to relate to for new 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 functional company; Required niche
/technical knowledge & technical skills
skills (level of technology)

2) Required degree of HIGH Different products but DIVISIONAL

interdependence between underlying technology in
functions for each product / the products is similar (eg.
service line database systems)
(interdependence)

3) Economies of scale for HIGH Exponential growth in the FUNCTIONAL

each function (economies of
scale)
4) Number & dis-
homogeneity of product
lines (product lines)
revenues of company
LOW TO MEDIUM Products offerings are FUNCTIONAL
different but nature is
similar
 SUGGESTED STRUCTURE

CEO
CEO

ICS IS
IS R&D HR Operatio
Operatio
ICS R&D Finance HR
Finance ns
ns
PRV/IS4
PRV/IS4
1 AB+
AB+
1

ISS CMIS
CMIS
ISS

QuickCo
QuickCo
llect
llect

RA
RA