Thursday, November 13, 2014

Nokia: From a paper mill, to the world’s biggest mobile company to being acquired by Microsoft
Recently, Microsoft completed the acquisition of Nokia’s smartphone business bringing an end to an era, which has seen plenty of ups and an equal number of downs. Let’s take a look at the brief history of the company that started out as a paper mill in small village in Finland.
THE EARLY YEARS
In the year 1865 Fredrik Idestam built a paper manufacturing mill in Southern Finland and followed it up by launching a second mill in the nearby town of Nokia in 1868. Three years later Idestam transformed his company to a share company and the Nokia company was formed.
Nokia kept growing through the 19th century and in the 1960s the company branched out into electronics. In the next two years it developed a host of electronic devices including radio telephones for the army. In 1979 Nokia took its first steps into telephony by creating Mobira Oy in a JV with Finnish TV maker Salora, and they created the Nordic Mobile Telephone (NMT) service. This was the world’s first international cellular network and in the 80s, Nokia launched its first car phone called the Mobira Senator.
Five years later Nokia launched the Mobira Cityman, the first mobile phone that would run on the company’s NMT network. At 800 grams and priced at $6,308, it may be heavy and pricey by today’s standards, but the device soon hit cult status when Mikhail Gorbachev was photographed using the device.
THE GLORY YEARS
The 90s were the glory years for the Finnish company. In 1994, Nokia launched the 2100 with the now iconic Nokia ringtone. Three years later it launched Snake, one of the most widely recognized mobile games of all time. The Nokia 2100 was such a big hit that it went on to sell more than 20 million handsets worldwide, much higher than what the company had predicted.
In 1997, Nokia also launched the Communicator, which 11 years before the first iPhone was considered to be much ahead of its time. The device not only looked cool, but also offered features like email, fax, calendar and a massive display.
The same year, Nokia also launched the 6110 and the 5110 two more devices, which were way ahead of their time and competition. These devices offered a much sleeker way of text messaging, a beautiful menu system customization options like multiple color snap-on covers. These devices were followed by the 7110, which offered basic web functions, the 7650, with a built-in camera and the 6650, the company’s first 3G enabled smartphone.
By 1998, Nokia had firmly established itself as the global leader. Where its rivals like Apple, Sony and Siemens had failed to predict the global demand, Nokia sailed through these years with a turnover that increased 500 percent from $ 8.9 billion to $42.8 billion.
THE DOWNFALL
There is an old Finnish tale, which talks about Sampo, an engine of eternal wealth created by the poor people of Kalevala. Sampo essentially grinds out gold, salt and wheat from three horns, day and night, but as nothing good lasts forever, one day Sampo drowns to the bottom of the lake and the people of Kalevala are returned to their gloom and poverty.
As is with old tales, one can easily relate Nokia to the Sampo. After the glorious 90s, in 2007 things began to go downhill — and rapidly. In the year 2009, Nokia posted its first quarterly loss in more than a decade. This was largely due to HTC developing a smartphone running on the yet new Google Android operating system. With the iPhones and various Android smartphones taking the market by storm, Nokia failed to keep up with them. Instead of joining the horde of Android adopters, Nokia’s new CEO Stephen Elop joined hands with Microsoft to develop smartphones running on the Windows Phone platform.
Though the partnership saw the development of Nokia’s popular Lumia series of smartphones, Nokia wasn’t able to rekindle its glory days.
END OF AN ERA
On September 3, 2013, Nokia announced that its hardware department would be acquired by Microsoft in a deal worth $7.2 billion. After eight months, the deal was completed today and with it came the end of an era.

t is official: Nokia’s shareholders have signed off on the $7.2 billion acquisition of the company’s handset division by Microsoft. The Financial Times reports that 99.7 percent of the investors at a general meeting in Helsinki voted in favor of the deal.
The investors who approved the deal hold nearly four-fifths of Nokia’s total shares. The meeting is expected to continue for quite some time, however, “as various small Finnish shareholders vent their anger over the deal” and Stephen Elop’s hefty payday. Ever since the deal was announced, Nokia has been on something of a rebound, surpassing Motorola to become the fourth-largest smartphone vendor in the U.S. and moving a record number of Lumia smartphones. Once the venting has ended and the meeting adjourns, Nokia will be one step closer to becoming a subsidiary of Microsoft.
Nokia and Microsoft today announced that the acquisition of Nokia’s devices and services unit is finally expected to close on April 25. While the deal is almost done, the fate Nokia’s Chennai manufacturing facility, which is also one of its largest, hangs in a state of limbo. The plant is in the centre of a tax row and has been frozen by Indian authorities.
“The situation is a complicated one, and Nokia is continuing to weigh its options. As there is still time before the closing of the deal, we cannot speculate on possible outcomes at this point. With Chennai, it is worth remembering that we have said we will consider a services agreement with Microsoft should our Indian assets not be able to transfer at the close of the global deal,” a Nokia spokesperson told BGR India.
Microsoft too announced that there were a few adjustments made from the original deal that was announced on September 3, 2013.
As with any multinational agreement of this size, scale and complexity, our two companies have made adjustments to the original deal throughout the close preparation process. We’ve entered into numerous agreements to address items ranging from manufacturing to IT. These include the following:
· While the original deal did not address the management of online assets, our two companies have agreed that Microsoft will manage the nokia.com domain and social media sites for the benefit of both companies and our customers for up to a year.
· The original deal had all employees in Nokia’s Chief Technology Office continuing with Nokia. We’ve adjusted the agreement so the 21 employees in China working on mobile phones will join Microsoft and continue their work.
· The original deal had Microsoft acquiring Nokia’s Korean manufacturing facility. The agreement was adjusted and Microsoft will not acquire the facility.
End of an era: Nokia to be renamed Microsoft Mobile after acquisition
Nokia’s handset and services business will be known as Microsoft Mobile Oy, Nokia said in a mail sent out to existing users with a Nokia account. Microsoft and Nokia are expected to close the $7.2 billion acquisition before the end of this month, which would mark the end of Nokia as we know it. However, Nokia will continue to exist with its telecom networks and infrastructure business NSN, its mapping and location based services HERE and its Advanced Technologies business that handles its IP and patents. Microsoft Mobile Oy will become a subsidiary of Microsoft Corp.
“With the completion of this sale, the Nokia Devices & Services business will be part of this Finnish entity, Microsoft Mobile Oy, a subsidiary of Microsoft Corp,” the letter said.
Nokia’s handset and services business is expected to run as usual after Microsoft acquires it. Stephen Elop, who was the CEO and President of Nokia before the acquisition deal was announced will head the division under Microsoft.
:



PYRAMID SAIMIRA ENTERTAINS A DICEY STRATEGIC OPTION

Leisure and entertainment usually gain prominence  in an economy that is growing fast and provides leeway to the consumer to spend on things other than necessities. India's entertainment and media industry is one of the sunrise industries, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 18 per cent, much faster than the 7 per cent national economic growth rate. According to a study conducted by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Price waterhouse Coopers, the industry size is Rs. 437 billion presently and is projected to grow to Rs. 1 trillion by 2010. Positive measures taken by the government, technological advancement and entry of large corporate houses in all the segments of the industry are fuelling the impressive growth.
Among the various segments of the industry, there are radio, television, films, out-of-home
advertising and live entertainment. While radio and television make up the fastest growing segments, film entertainment growing at 16 per cent annually, is another potential segment.
The film entertainment segment of the entertainment and media industry has several strategic groups that could be roughly categorized along the value chain of film making and distribution. These strategic groups could be: production, distribution, retail, music and home video. While many of the companies operate in more than one activity area on the value chain, such as Yash Raj Films operating in all activity areas except retail, there are a few that concentrate on just one or two activity areas, such as RGV Film Factory that operates only in production of films.
Size based on revenue could be another basis for categorization of the film entertainment companies in India. Among the large size companies are Adlabs, Sahara, Percept, Yash Raj Films and UTV, that could touch or exceed Rs. 1000 revenues by 2010. The middle-rung is of companies of revenue size of Rs. 300 - 500 crore, such as pure retail and distribution companies such as Inox Leisure, PVR Cinemas, Pyramid Saimira and Valuable Group, C pure content companies such as Pritish Nand Communications, Vishesh Films or RGV Film Factory. The third category is of emerging companies in the revenue size range of Rs. 100-300 crore, such as Real Image, Red Ice and Seven Entertainment.
Major investments in the media and entertainment industry in recent years have been ploughed into infrastructure, largely into multiplex chains and digital theatre chains. These investments are made by companies that are pure retail and distribution companies. Among the major ones in this strategic group is the Chennai-based Pyramid Saimira Theatre Limited (PSTL)-India's largest theatre chain company with over 29 multiplexes in operation, with over 371 screens in 2007, projected to increase to 2000 screens by 2010. It was incorporated in 1997 as Pyramid Films International Private Limited and has gone through severe changes of name to emerge as Pyramid Saimira Theatre Limited, reflecting its concentration on the theatre business, though it operated in film production and TV content production in the past.
Film making and distribution in India has been traditionally an unorganized and fragmented industry, managed through experience rather than systems. In recent years, one trend in the film industry is corporatization. Under corporatization the traditional organizations dealing with the various aspects of film making and distribution become formal organizations registered under the legal process, such as the Companies Act, 1956. Along with corporatization comes increasing professionalization in the management of organizations Technology, especially information and communication technology, has played its part in heightening the chances of making corporatization and professionalization successful. A new breed of organizations has emerged on the horizon that deals with the various activities in an organized and systematic manner. Pyramid Saimira intends to be one of such organizations.
The people behind Pyramid Saimira include Mr. V.         Natarajan, a Gemini-studio's veteran of the Tamil film industry, Mr. P. S. Saminathan, the finance and technology brain behind the flagship project and Mr. N. Narayanan, the management man. The financials for the year 2006-2007, show net sales of Rs. 1661.52 crore and net profit of Rs. 158.82 crore on equity capital of Rs. 282.76 crore.
The flagship project of the Pyramid Saimira is the mega digital theatre chain project being  implemented in two phases, with a total cost of Rs. 414.5 crore. This is an information technology- driven venture that is a first-mover in the film industry in India. The basic idea is to have a chain of theatres for exhibition of films that have been encrypted in the digital medium. The theatres are linked through a satellite-based communication network. The films are released in the digital format and simultaneously exhibited in the digitally- enabled theatres through the satellite network. The one-stroke release and exhibition of films is claimed to reduce the chances of films being pirated, which is the Achilles' heel of the film industry in the world. It also avoids the use of costly film rolls and reels now used to photograph and distribute films. The digitized theatres also offer the potential of developing them as value-added service providers, enlarging their role from that of entertainment providers to commercial infrastructure providers such as shopping malls, exhibition spaces and education and training venues.
The business model of the digital theatre concept is based on a vertically-integrated theatre chain on long-term lease, where the revenue streams emanate mainly from the ticket sales at the individual theatres at the demand end, much like it does now. The critical difference is on the supply side where the distribution, retailing and exhibition of films are done in an integrated manner through digital means connected through a communication network. This effectively eliminates the film distributor and tries to achieve economies of scale through volume sales. The centralized network operating centre is the nodal supply point.
A standardized delivery process makes the process operationally low-cost, albeit at a high initial investment. Additional revenue streams, generated through exploitation of the theatre infrastructure to provide other services than entertainment, help to recoup the high initial investment. Creating a franchise system for a long-term lease enables sharing of the initial high costs of realty by engaging partners who own the theatre space but use Pyramid Saimira's digital distribution and exhibition facilities at a price. There are additional possibilities of creating content library of films, extending networks abroad and building integrated family entertainment centers.
The digital theatre is a compact model, having various elements such as digital projectors, servers, connectivity equipments, high-definition recorder and telecine, system integration and software solution providers. For each of these, there are in-house and external agencies in partnership. For instance, connectivity equipments are being provided by TataNet while servers are arranged by a partnership of Saimira Access Technologies with Real Image Media.
Pyramid Saimira's SWOT analysis indicates the following factors:
·      Strengths: Established organization, experienced promoters and networking with financially strong and capable partners.
·      Weaknesses: Lack of in-depth technological experience, risks of being the first-mover and limited financial capability.
·      Opportunities: Favorable demographics, increasing spending on entertainment, potential expatriate demand, availability of technological infrastructure such as broadband and digitized films a regenerative asset that has multiple uses.
·      Threats: Unorganized film industry, fickle nature of demand for films, powerful industry bodies with political lobbying capabilities, high entertainment taxes, piracy, high cost of infrastructure and faulty governmental policy implementation.         .
Pyramid Saimira's global ambitions are reflected in its vision statement, which is 'to be the largest vertically integrated theatre chain in the world carving a unique space in mass access using theatre infrastructure to deliver education, entertainment and information at affordable cost to all sections of society'. The digital theatre project is being implemented in Tamil Nadu and is planned to be expanded throughout India and abroad in areas where there are a large number of Indian expatriates such as South East Asia, Europe and the U.S. The acquisition of the Texas-based Fun Asia made through the subsidiary Pyramid Saimira Entertainment America, targeting the Asian film market, marked the entry of Pyramid Saimira in the U.S. and Canada. There are subsidiaries operating in Singapore and Malaysia, where there is a substantial number of people of Indian origin.
Questions
1 (a.) Attempt   Porter’s five-forces analysis for the Indian film industry, highlighting the factors relevant for   Pyramid Saimira’s strategic planning.
  (b) Attempt a strategic groups analysis highlighting the factors relevant for Pyramid Saimira’s strategic planning.
2.    In the light of the concept of business definition, discuss the possible expansion strategies for the company. Which of them will be a better option for Pyramid Saimira?



Thursday, October 14, 2010

Competition from where? You never know-------

"Have Breakfast... or...Be Breakfast!" Who sells the largest number of cameras in India ? Your guess is likely to be Sony, Canon or Nikon. Answer is none of the above. The winner is Nokia whose main line of business in India is not cameras but cell phones Reason being cameras bundled with cell phones are outselling stand alone cameras. Now, what prevents the cell phone from replacing the camera outright? Nothing at all. One can only hope the Sony's and Canons are taking note. Try this. Who is the biggest in music business in India ? You think it is HMV Sa-Re-Ga-Ma? Sorry. The answer is Airtel. By selling caller tunes (that play for 30 seconds) Airtel makes more than what music companies make by selling music albums (that run for hours). Incidentally Airtel is not in music business. It is the mobile service provider with the largest subscriber base in India . That sort of competitor is difficult to detect, even more difficult to beat (by the time you have identified him he has already gone past you). But if you imagine that Nokia and Bharti (Airtel's parent) are breathing easy you can't be farther from truth. Nokia confessed that they all but missed the smart phone bus. They admit that Apple's I phone and Google's Android can make life difficult in future. But you never thought Google was a mobile company, did you? If these illustrations mean anything, there is a bigger game unfolding. It is not so much about mobile or music or camera or emails? The "Mahabharata" (the great Indian epic battle) is about "what is tomorrow's personal digital device"? Will it be a souped up mobile or a palmtop with a telephone? All these are little wars that add up to that big battle. Hiding behind all these wars is a gem of a question - "who is my competitor?"
"What Apple did to Sony, Sony did to Kodak, explain?" The smart ones get the answer almost immediately. Sony defined its market as audio (music from the walkman). They never expected an IT company like Apple to encroach into their audio domain. Come to think of it, is it really surprising? Apple as a computer maker has both audio and video capabilities. So what made Sony think he won't compete on pure audio? "Elementary Watson". So also Kodak defined its business as film cameras, Sony defines its businesses as "digital." In digital camera the two markets perfectly meshed. Kodak was torn between going digital and sacrificing money on camera film or staying with films and getting left behind in digital technology. Left undecided it lost in both. It had to. It did not ask the question "who is my competitor for tomorrow?" The same was true for IBM whose mainframe revenue prevented it from seeing the PC. The same was true of Bill Gates who declared "internet is a fad!" and then turned around to bundle the browser with windows to bury Netscape. The point is not who is today's competitor. Today's competitor is obvious. Tomorrow's is not. In 2008, who was the toughest competitor to British Airways in India ? Singapore airlines? Better still, Indian airlines? Maybe, but there are better answers. There are competitors that can hurt all these airlines and others not mentioned. The answer is videoconferencing and tele presence services of HP and Cisco. Travel dropped due to recession. Senior IT executives in India and abroad were compelled by their head quarters to use videoconferencing to shrink travel budget. So much so, that the mad scramble for American visas from Indian techies was nowhere in sight in 2008. ( India has a quota of something like 65,000 visas to the U.S. They were going a-begging. Blame it on recession!). So far so good. But to think that the airlines will be back in business post recession is something I would not bet on. In short term yes. In long term a resounding no. Remember, if there is one place where Newton 's law of gravity is applicable besides physics it is in electronic hardware. Between 1977 and 1991 the prices of the now dead VCR (parent of Blue-Ray disc player) crashed to one-third of its original level in India . PC's price dropped from hundreds of thousands of rupees to tens of thousands. If this trend repeats then tele presence prices will also crash. Imagine the fate of airlines then. As it is not many are making money. Then it will surely be RIP! India has two passions. Films and cricket. The two markets were distinctly different. So were the icons. The cricket gods were Sachin and Sehwag. The filmy gods were the Khans (Aamir Khan, Shah Rukh Khan and the other Khans who followed suit). That was, when cricket was fundamentally test cricket or at best 50 over cricket. Then came IPL and the two markets collapsed into one. IPL brought cricket down to 20 overs. Suddenly an IPL match was reduced to the length of a 3 hour movie. Cricket became film's competitor. On the eve of IPL matches movie halls ran empty. Desperate multiplex owners requisitioned the rights for screening IPL matches at movie halls to hang on to the audience. If IPL were to become the mainstay of cricket, as it is likely to be, films have to sequence their releases so as not clash with IPL matches. As far as the audience is concerned both are what in India are called 3 hour "tamasha" (entertainment). Cricket season might push films out of the market. Look at the products that vanished from India in the last 20 years. When did you last see a black and white movie? When did you last use a fountain pen? When did you last type on a typewriter? The answer for all the above is "I don't remember!" For some time there was a mild substitute for the typewriter called electronic typewriter that had limited memory. Then came the computer and mowed them all. Today most technologically challenged guys like me use the computer as an upgraded typewriter. Typewriters per se are nowhere to be seen. One last illustration. 20 years back what were Indians using to wake them up in the morning? The answer is "alarm clock." The alarm clock was a monster made of mechanical springs. It had to be physically keyed every day to keep it running. It made so much noise by way of alarm, that it woke you up and the rest of the colony. Then came quartz clocks which were sleeker. They were much more gentle though still quaintly called "alarms." What do we use today for waking up in the morning? Cell phone! An entire industry of clocks disappeared without warning thanks to cell phones. Big watch companies like Titan were the losers. You never know in which bush your competitor is hiding! On a lighter vein, who are the competitors for authors? Joke spewing machines? (Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple, himself a Pole, tagged a Polish joke telling machine to a telephone much to the mirth of Silicon Valley ). Or will the competition be story telling robots? Future is scary! The boss of an IT company once said something interesting about the animal called competition. He said "Have breakfast ...or.... be breakfast"! That sums it up rather neatly.

Monday, September 20, 2010

CEREAL PARTNER'S STRATEGIC MOVES-- CASE STUDY

CEREAL PARTNSER’S STRATEGIC MOVES
The case we're going to look at is an important strategic battle between two of the world's largest food companies. On one side, we have the Swiss company Nestle, which was exploring how to enter the market for prepared breakfast cereals in recent years. On the other side, we have the American company Kelloggs, which has dominates the market.Kelloggs launched its first breakfast cereals many years ago and went on to establish itself as the leading branded breakfast cereal company worldwide.
Before analysing the market from prescriptive and emergent perspectives, it makes sense to begin by setting out the basic facts. That's the next two sections of this videocase - how Nestle chose to attack the breakfast cereal market. The sections that come afterwards then explore the strategic reasoning behind the facts.
To get the most out of the case, you may like to pause after you've seen the data sections and think about how you would develop a strategy to attack Kelloggs. You may want to make a note of some of the basic data and use various strategy frameworks and concepts to explore the strategic implications.
After that, you can then play the sections on the strategic reasoning behind the decisions. They look at strategy from prescriptive and emergent perspectives and apply some of the strategic principles explored in various chapters of the book. Understanding the logic underpinning strategic decision-making should help you to gain higher marks in strategy. And, just as importantly, to make better strategic decisions in the long run.
Kelloggs breakfast cereals began in the USA but they are now a truly international company. They have worldwide ingredient product sourcing and modern factories. They also have experienced marketing and selling subsidiaries in every part of the world with very good contacts with supermarkets and other food chain distributors of their products. They also have a strong brand name, good quality products and a range that is tailored for individual countries.
What this means for a company thinking of challenging Kelloggs is that the competitive advantage of Kelloggs is very substantial indeed and it's going to be tough to make headway against such a company.
For the purposes of our case, we're going to focus on the European part of the world wide breakfast cereal market. And we're starting with the late 1980s when Nestle was examining whether it would enter the market and, if so, how.
Nestle knew that the European market was large with a projected figure of 3 billion dollars for 1990. The United Kingdom within that was the largest part of the European market with sales of 1.4 billion US dollars. This was followed by Germany at 350 million US dollars and France at 250 million dollars.
From a strategy perspective, this data is already significant. The German population is the largest in Europe, yet their consumption of breakfast cereals was below that of the United Kingdom. This suggests that the UK might need to be treated differently from Germany in strategic terms.Not only was the European market large and therefore attractive, it was also growing much faster than other food products.

Breakfast cereals across Europe had an average market growth of around 10 per cent. This compared very favourably with other food markets like chocolate confectionery where the market growth was only around 1 to 2 per cent. For a company with the strategic purpose of growth in sales and profits, such as Nestle, breakfast cereals were much more likely to deliver its growth objectives. In BCG Matrix terms, the breakfast cereal market would probably be classified as a star.
Within the average growth across Europe of 10 per cent, the UK was growing a little more slowly around 7 per cent. This reflected the greater size and maturity of the UK market. This lower growth was then counterbalanced by growth around 14 per cent in Germany, 15 per cent in Spain and as much as 25 per cent in France.
Although much of the European market was still embryonic in strategic lifecycle terms, there were some clear market segments in the early 1990s. There were three main parts to the market - staple products, healthy products and children's products. Although the children's market was the smallest segment, some strategists considered that it had the most potential because children were more likely to try new tastes and be attracted to strong brand concepts.And within each market segment, one company - Kelloggs - was both the market leader and was highly profitable, suggesting that the market was highly attractive.From a strategy perspective, all this raises important questions of how a company tackles the European market. For example, do you treat the UK differently because it is more mature? For example, do you enter the whole of western Europe simultaneously or do you pick off individual countries or groups of countries? Do you target particular market segments or launch products for all segments?
All these considerations made Nestle very interested in breakfast cereals in the late 1980s. The market was large, but clearly still had growth potential and good profitability. The difficulty was that a dominant company, Kelloggs, would be very difficult to attack. In the late 1980s, Nestle had no manufacturing expertise in breakfast cereals, no breakfast product range and no reputation in this product area.
Clearly, one strategic option would be for Nestle to acquire a company making breakfast cereals - possibly even Kelloggs itself. But Kelloggs was a public company so the acquisition price would probably have been high - perhaps well in excess of the profit stream from Kelloggs products after acquisition by Nestle. So Nestle needed to consider other, lower cost strategic options.
So, now we have the strategic opportunity for Nestle in the late 1980s:
" A large, fast-growing market
" Strong branding with good profit margins
" Clear market segments to provide entry opportunities
But there were also some real strategic problems. In essence, Nestle had no strategic resources in the breakfast cereals market. And then the company had a bit of luck. We'll look at this in the next section. In the meantime, you might like to think about Nestle's strategy for entering the European market.
Luck is important in strategy. And in 1989, Nestle had some of it. There was another big branded company making breakfast cereals called General Mills. But GM was operating mainly in the United States of America.
During the 1980s, GM had become increasingly successful against Kelloggs in the USA. The GM market share had risen from a lowly 15 per cent to a high 22 per cent of the market over this period. And it was Kelloggs' share that was taking a beating. How had GM been so successful? By introducing new products, by selling quality products, by developing strong marketing and by delivering good value for money. All classic tools in business strategy.
Importantly, GM in the late 1980s into the early 1990s had a strategic purpose of growing internationally. It had tried to export its American range of products but without major success. And then along came Nestle looking for a way into the breakfast cereals market. In 1989, General Mills and Nestle agreed to combine forces in a new joint venture to launch prepared breakfast cereal products outside the USA. It was a fifty fifty partnership between the two parents to be called Cereal Partners.
The new company had its own staff and headquarters in Switzerland. And it brought the expertise and strategic resources of its two parents. From Nestle, it was agreed that it would use the Nestle brand name, which was much better known worldwide than the General Mills brand.
From Nestle also, it brought its extensive contacts in each country with the powerful supermarket chains like Tesco in the UK and Carrefour in France.
From General Mills, the new joint venture acquired its expertise in manufacturing high speed, quality products. It is not a simple task to pack millions of boxes of breakfast cereals every week and to undertake this at the lowest possible costs. GM also supplied a ready-made range of products that had been successful against Kelloggs in the USA.
Importantly, Cereal Partners agreed its strategic purpose with its parents: it would take 20 per cent of the European breakfast cereal market by the year 2000. What strategies did the new company then adopt for Europe?
Cereal Partners started its European strategy in the UK. In 1990, it acquired the UK breakfast cereal company Shredded Wheat for around 180 million US dollars from a UK company that was keen to withdraw from the market. This gave Cereal Partners an immediate presence in Europe's largest market. It also gave the company two large factories and a well-established brand.
In strategy, it's not only what moves you make in the market that are important but how your competitor reacts to your moves. In the case of Shredded Wheat, Kelloggs had known about the Shredded Wheat product for many years and therefore made no specific competitive response to its acquisition by Cereal Partners.
Over the next five years, Cereal Partners went on to launch a series of products into the UK market. It began in May 1991 with Golden Grahams. This was a product that had been successful for General Mills in the USA and CP hoped that it would be equally successful in Europe.
Kelloggs immediately responded with a relaunch of its own product Golden Crackles. This had a similar name but was not the same product as the Cereal Partners product. It had some success in blunting the CP launch but in the long term the Golden Grahams product is still around, rather than Golden Crackles.
Cereal Partners then targeted the UK children's market with the top-selling children's product from the USA - General Mill's Lucky Charms. It launched this product into the UK in early 1992. The product was a combination of oat grain cereal and crispy marshmallow in primary colours, specially designed to appeal to young children with a sweet tooth.
Kelloggs immediately responded with its own product - a relaunch of Kelloggs Ricicles - also with marshmallow pieces. In spite of initial interest, Lucky Charms was not successful for CP and was withdrawn after about one year. But its lack of success had nothing to do with Kelloggs' perfectly proper competitive response. Lucky Charms was simply not acceptable to British tastes and customer demand.
There's an important strategic lesson here. Although much of strategy theory focuses on competitive advantage, customers also matter. It is the customer that buys the product at the end of the day, not the competitor [Ref chapter 5]. Thus, products like Lucky Charms have to appeal to customers as well as beat competitors. And in this case Cereal Partners was not successful.
In May 1992, CP then introduced a totally new product for the UK market place - Clusters. This particular product was not a copy of any product from the GM portfolio in the USA. Kelloggs struggled to find a competitive response. Initially, it responded with a revamped Kelloggs Golden Oatmeal Crisp product. This was then followed by a similar product to Clusters, Kelloggs Nut Feast.
Unfortunately for Kelloggs, the Nut Feast product was good but offered no real reason to switch for those customers buying Clusters - it had no competitive advantage in strategic terms. Thus, the Nut Feast product was quietly withdrawn after several years.
In spite of failure with Lucky Charms, Cereal Partners continued to seek products that would appeal to the children's segment of the breakfast cereal market. For example, the company considered the competitive resources of one of its parents - the Nestle company. Nestle owned the well-known, branded children's chocolate drink - Nesquik.
Cereal Partners applied the concept to a chocolate flavoured breakfast cereal. Nesquik was launched in 1995 and targeted at children. The product invited a response from Kelloggs in terms of its existing chocolate flavoured cereal and this was duly forthcoming - a relaunch of Kelloggs Coco Pops.
From the perspective of strategic theory, the launch of Nesquik cereal is important. This particular well-established brand could never be entirely matched by Kelloggs, which did not possess a chocolate drink brand. This meant that the Nesquik product had a competitive advantage over Kelloggs. Cereal Partners borrowed this resource-based strength from one of its parents and used it to launch a new product, which had significant value added. You should make sure that you understand the concepts of competitive resources and value added. And you can read more about this in the book if you are uncertain.
Although we've so far concentrated on the UK, Cereal Partners was also developing its strategy in other European countries. It did this on a phased basis:
France, Spain and Portugal were entered in 1991. Italy followed in 1992. Then came Germany in 1993 and Benelux in 1995. Other western European countries then followed with Russia and central Europe by year 2000. Importantly, it was only in the UK that Cereal Partners acquired a company. For the rest of Europe, it developed new breakfast cereals - in some cases, the same as in the UK.
An important part of the Cereal Partners strategy was to vary the product range launched in each country. There were two reasons for this. First, to meet differences in national demand for breakfast cereals - for example, children's products in one country, staple products in another. Second, to keep Kelloggs guessing as to which products and which segments would be under competitive attack during the launch. Cereal Partners never launched Shredded Wheat outside the UK and it never launched a corn flake product in Europe.
From a strategy perspective, you might like to think about why CP didn't launch corn flakes in Europe. And why, nevertheless, it went on to launch corn flakes in some Asian markets. There are useful strategic principles here that are answered in a later section of this case.
Turning to the future from a strategy perspective, there are some important considerations that apply now. They are particularly useful when considering emergent strategies.
The breakfast cereal market is changing with a demand for healthy eating from some customers. This means developing products that have lower sugar, lower fat, more fruit and perhaps products with a healthy image like yogurt.
And there is also a growing demand for products that don't require sitting down and having a meal at breakfast time. As people's lives become busier and the traditional concept of a family breakfast diminishes, some people don't want to take time for a sit-down breakfast meal. Both Kelloggs and Cereal Partners have responded to these trend by launching new breakfast bars. And there are probably also other products that they could launch into this area. This is a new approach and a new phase for breakfast cereal strategy. It probably requires experimenting with new products to find those that have the most demand. So, let's summarise the strategic issues at the end of this section on the battle for the breakfast cereal market. Each of them can be explored using chapters from the book. The relevant chapters are shown on the screen against each issue.
Issue 1 - How would you analyse the strategic environment for breakfast cereals?
Issue 2 - From the perspective of Cereal Partners, what strategic resources did it bring to the market place? What are its competitive advantages? And where was the value added?
Issue 3 - What was Cereal Partner's strategic purpose? What were its vision, mission and objectives and over what timescale?
Issue 4 - What strategic options were available to Cereal Partners to achieve its objectives? From a prescriptive and an emergent perspective? You might want to look at prescriptive options And also emergent options. And for emergent options, you might like to explore particularly the Learning-based strategic route forward.
Issue 5 - What choice did Cereal Partners make from a prescriptive perspective? And what is the strategic reasoning behind such a choice?
Issue 6 - And, finally, what was the evidence of an emergent strategic process here? What experimentation and dynamic happened in the market place?

Monday, March 31, 2008

Organisational Diagnosis

Block II-Unit 2. Diagnostic Methodology: Salient Features
Objectives: After going through this unit you should be able to:
appreciate the need for diagnostic methodology
understand the concept of open systems model
understand the framework to diagnose organizations
Structure
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Diagnosing the system, subunits and processes
2.3 The need for diagnostic methodology
2.4 The open systems model
2.5 Case Analysis
2.6 Summary
2.7 Self assessment / test questions
2.8 Suggested readings

2.1 Introduction
Diagnosing the system is at the heart of an action program. It is based on valid information about the current problems and opportunities. Diagnostic activities are designed to provide an accurate account of things as they really all. An understanding of these activities, as discussed in this unit is needed for two reasons. The first reason is to know the state of things as they are i.e. ‘what is’. The second purpose is to assess the effects or consequences of actions as and when they are initiated after the diagnosis.
Diagnosis is crucial for OD and change effort. It, therefore, requires methodology. Both, the client and the practitioner, have to be very careful regarding ‘what to look at’ and ‘how it is to be done’. It is therefore critical how one would proceed to diagnose the total organization and its subsystems. A critical and well laid out methodology helps the practitioners to start the diagnostic process in the right earnest.
2.2 Diagnosing the system, subunits and processes
Bringing improvement in an organization requires the examination of the present state of things. This kind of analysis focuses on two aspect. First is the diagnosis of subsystems, which taken together make up the entire organization. These subsystems are in the form of departments, functional areas, hierarchies, or teams. The second area for attention is the processes being carried out in the organization. Some of these processes are decision-making process, communication patterns, goal setting process, interpersonal relationship & roles, planning process, and management of conflict.
Therefore, the subsystems and the process becomes the focus of diagnostic activities. Each of the major aspect of the organization provides sufficient relevant information if probed carefully. The OD practitioner may be interested in all these target groups or some of them, as and when the need arises. For example, the initial diagnosis starts with the total organization and than moves on to different departments.
We consider that the information desired at organizational level is as follows:
What are the existing norms of the organization?
What is the prevailing organization culture?
What is the organization’s climate; Open vs. close, authoritarian vs. democratic?
Are organization goals and strategies understood and accepted by members?
What is organization’s performance?
What are the attitudes and feelings toward such things as compensation, supervision, top management etc.?
By carefully examining the organization or its subunits the necessary data is generated. In the approach we focus on the primary target groups to carry out the diagnosis of the organization.
An alternative way to diagnosis is to emphasise the organization’s principal process rather than its primary target groups. Each process provides sufficient information regarding the problem. Organization processes are the ‘what’ and how’ of the organization. That is what is going on? And how is it being achieved? Organization processes reflect organization in its dynamic and complex reality. We consider that the information desired at one of the processes, namely, managing interface relations is as follows:
What is the nature of relations between two groups?
Are goals and responsibilities clear?
What major problems does the group face?
Where does conflict exist?
What are the system norms for dealing with conflict?
What structural conditions promote/ inhibit effective interface management?
Likewise other process such as goal setting, decision-making, communication etc. also provide relevant information which throws light on the functioning of the organisation.
In practice the OD consultant works on both the areas that is target groups and processes.
2.3 The Need for Diagnostic Methodology
To diagnose an organization, organization members and OD practitioner need to have an idea about what information to collect and analyze. Choices about what to look for depend on how they perceive the organization. They look for the information in a systematic manner using the methodology, which is based on conceptual framework. Conceptual framework that people use to understand organizations are referred to as ‘diagnostic models’. The diagnostic methodology is based on the diagnostic models. They describe the relationship between different features of the organization, its context, and effectiveness.
This section presents a general framework for diagnosing organization rather than attempting to cover the diversity of OD diagnostic models. The framework draws upon the systems perspective. The methodology provides a useful starting point for diagnosing organization or departments.
2.4 The Open Systems Model
The open system model is a general system model for diagnosing organizations. The model represents an open system view of organizations that may be applied to diagnosis at three levels of analysis: the total organization, the work group, and the individual job or position.
Systems theory is a set of concepts and relationship describing the properties and behaviors of thing called ‘System’ – organizations, groups and people. Systems are viewed as unitary whole composed of parts or subsystem and serve to integrate the parts into a functioning unit.
Systems can vary in how open they are to their outside environment. ‘Open system’ exchange information and resources with their environment freely. They cannot completely control their own behavior and are influenced by external forces. For example many environmental conditions such as the availability of raw materials, customer demands, government regulation, new technology etc. affect the organizations. Systems are composed of inputs, transformations, and outputs; have boundaries and a feedback mechanism. Open systems display hierarchical order. Each higher level of system is composed of lower-level systems.
Diagnosing organization Systems
Organizations can be diagnosed at three levels, namely, organization level, group level, and individual level. Diagnosis can occur at all three levels, or it may be limited to problems occurring at a particular level. The key to effective diagnosis is to know what to look for at each level. It is also necessary to know how the levels affect each other. A particular relationship exists between two levels. For example, if you are diagnosing a work group, it is necessary to know what characteristics of group are important for its effectiveness and how the larger organization affects the group.
Figure 1 presents a model for diagnosing different organizational systems. It includes dimensions needed to understand organizational systems at three levels: organizational, group, and individual job. For each level, it shows:
(1) the inputs that the system has to work with,
(2) the key design components of the transformation subsystem, and
(3) The system’s outputs
Input’s transformation subsystem and output are interdependent system. Outputs would be effective when the design components fit and mutually supports the inputs. In figure 1 the fit is shown by double headed arrow; connecting inputs to design components and the mutual support is shown by linkages among the design components. Figure 1 shows how each organization level affects the lower levels. The external environment is an input to organization design; organization design is an input to group design, which serves as an input to individual design.
Organization Level Diagnosis
The diagnosis done at the organizational level is the systems perspective. The key areas to be diagnosed at this level are discussed below:
Inputs
To under stand the functioning of the organization we must look at inputs and design components and must examine the fit between the two. Strategy and external environment are the inputs which affect the organization design.

Figure 1 --Model for Diagnosing Organizations
Organizational Level
Design Components

Technology


Structure Culture Measurement
Systems


Human Resource Systems
Outputs
Inputs
Strategy
Environment

Organization Effectiveness








Design Components Group Level
Inputs
Organization Design
Task Structure


Performance Culture Measurement
Norms Systems


Interpersonal Relations



Group Effectiveness









Design Components Individual Level

Inputs
Organization Design

Group Design

Personal Characteristics
Technology


Structure Culture Measurement
Systems


Human Resource Systems


Individual Effectiveness







Source: T.G. Cumings and C.G. Worley, “ Organizational Development and Change”, 5th ed., St. Paul:West 1993.
Strategy is formulated to gain and sustain the competitive advantage in the large environment. Strategic choice often takes place along three dimensions. The products or services to be offered, the markets to be served, and values to guide the organization. External environment includes elements and forces that can affect the attainment of strategic objectives. The environment moves along a static-dynamic continuum and provides context within which organizations operate. Static environment is predictable while dynamic environment changes rapidly and is unpredictable. Organizations must be more responsive when operating in the dynamic environment.
Design components
Organizations have five major design components (1) technology (2) Structure (3) Measurement Systems (4) Human Resource System and (5) Culture
How organization convert raw material into product does depend on its technology. It is the core of the organizational design and includes production methods, work flow and equipment. Two dimensions of technological core influence other design component; technical interdependence and technical uncertainty.
Technical interdependence involves ways in which the different parts of a technological system arc related. High interdependence requires considerable coordination among task. For example, to bring out a new product the project development team must work together. Technical uncertainty refers to the amount of informa­tion processing and decision making required during task performance. Gen­erally, when tasks require high amounts of information processing and decision making, they are difficult to plan and routinize. The development of new software requires high level of coordination among the team members.
Structure includes the ways an organization divides labor or differentiates its parts-horizontally into departments and groups and vertically into managerial hierarchies. Horizontally, organizations may be divided by function, by product or service, or by some combination of both. Vertically, organizations may be tall and include many managerial levels or they may be relatively flat. Structure is also con­cerned with integration-joining and coordinating departments for overall task achievement. It involves specifying rules, procedures, goals, and plans for directing organizational behaviors. Measurement systems are methods of gathering, assessing, and disseminating information on the activities of groups and individuals in organizations. Such data tell how well the organization is performing and are used to detect and control deviations from goals. For example, management control systems help to ensure that each department's activities are in line with overall company objectives.
Human Resource Systems include mechanisms for selecting, training, and de­veloping employees. These influence the mix of skills and personalities of organization members. Human resource systems also include the rewards used by organizations to encourage people to join and remain with the organization and to work toward specific objectives. Reward systems may be tied to performance measurement systems so that rewards are allocated on the basis of prespecified results.
Culture is concerned with the basic assumptions, values, and norms shared by organizational members. These cultural elements are generally taken for granted and serve to guide members' perceptions, thoughts, and actions. For example McDonald's culture emphasizes "efficiency," "speed," and "consis­tency." It orients employees to company goals and suggests the kinds of be­haviors necessary for success.
Fits
The diagnostic model in Figure 1 shows that the design components must have a fit with the input components if organization outputs (market share or net profits, for example) are to be effective. The following fits must take place between the inputs and design dimensions:
When strategic choice results in an environment that is highly dynamic (changing and uncertain), organization design should be organic. This means an adaptable set of technologies, structures, measurement systems, human resource systems, and culture. These components should support flexible and innovative organizational behaviors.
2. When strategy results in a static environment, organization design should be more mechanistic. The design components should be formalized and should support standardized organizational behaviors.
Group Level Diagnosis
After the organization level, the next level of diagnosis is the group. Many large organizations have groups or departments that are themselves huge. Diagnosis of large groups can follow the dimensions and relational fits applicable to organization-level diagnosis.
Often small departments and groups behave differently than large organizations. Therefore, there is a need for separate diagnostic models to reflect these differences. In this section, we discuss the approach of diagnosing small work groups. Such groups generally consist of a relatively small number of people working face-to-face on a shared task. They can be relatively permanent and perform an ongoing task, or they can be temporary and exist only to perform a certain task or to make a specific decision. Figure 1 shows the inputs, design components, out­puts, and relational fits for group-level diagnosis.
Inputs
Organization design is the major input to group design. It consists of the design components of the larger organization within which the group works. These include technology, structure, measurement system, human resource systems, and culture. The environment of work groups is affected by organizational design. It determines the technological characteristics of the group's task and influences the group behaviors. As discussed earlier, organization design can vary along an organic­/ mechanistic dimension. Organic designs support flexible and innovative behaviors; mechanistic designs are highly formalized and promote standardized behaviors.
Design Components
Figure 1 shows that groups have four major components: (1) task struc­ture, (2) composition, (3) performance norms, and (4) interpersonal relations.
Task structure is concerned with how the group's task is designed. Task structures can vary along two key dimensional -coordination of members' efforts and regulation of their task behaviors. The coordination dimension involves the degree to which group tasks are structured to promote effective interaction among group members. Coordination is important in groups per­forming interdependent tasks, such as project teams and problem solving groups. It is relatively unimportant in groups composed of members performing independent tasks, such as salespersons.­
The regulation dimension involves the degree to which members can control their own task behaviors and be relatively free from external controls. Self-regulation generally occurs when members can decide on such issues as work schedule, work methods, production goals, and membership.
Composition concerns the membership of groups. Members can differ on a number of dimensions which are relevant to group behavior. Demographic vari­ables, such as age, education, experience, and skills and abilities, can affect how people behave and relate to each other in groups. Demographics can determine whether the group is composed of people having task-relevant skills and knowledge, including interpersonal skills. People's internal needs can also influence group behaviors. Individual differences in social needs can deter­mine whether group membership is likely to be satisfying or stressful. Performance norms are member beliefs about how the group should perform its task and include acceptable levels of performance. Norms serve as guides to group behaviors. Once members agree on performance norms they routinely perform tasks according to those norms. For example, members of problem-solving groups often decide early in the life of the group that decisions will be made through consensus. Consensus then becomes a routine part of group task behavior.
Interpersonal relations are the underlying basis of group life. How members relate to each other is important in work groups because the quality of rela­tionships can affect task performance. In some groups, for example, interper­sonal competition and conflict among members lead to no support and help for each other. Therefore, efforts are required to help work groups develop healthy interpersonal relations.
Fits
The diagnostic model shows that group design components must fit inputs if groups are to be effective in terms of such things as high­ quality decisions, teamwork, and cohesiveness. The follow­ing fits must take place between the inputs and design dimensions:
Group design should match with the larger organization design. Organic organizations should have work groups that are organic and promote flexible and innovative behaviors. Mechanistic organizations should promote groups that are highly formalized and support standardized behaviors. When group designs are not compatible with organization designs, groups often conflict with the organization. They may develop norms that are against organizational effectiveness leading to counterproduc­tive behaviors.
When the technology component of organization design results in interde­pendent tasks, group task structure, composition, performance norms, and interpersonal rela­tions should promote coordination among members. When technology permits independent tasks, the design components should promote individual task performance.
When technology is relatively uncertain and requires high amounts of information processing and decision making, group task structure, compo­sition, performance norms, and interpersonal relations should promote self-regulation. Members should have the necessary freedom, information, and skills to assign members to tasks, to decide on production methods, and to set performance goals. When technology is relatively certain, group designs should promote standardization of behavior, and supervisors, schedules, and plans should externally control groups.
Individual-Level Diagnosis
The lowest level of organizational diagnosis is the individual job or position. This section discusses the inputs, design components, and relational fits for diagnosing jobs. Figure 1 shows inputs, job characteristics, and output.
Inputs
Three major inputs affect job design: (1) organization design, (2) group design,
and (3) the personal characteristics of jobholders.
Organizational design is concerned with the larger organization within which the individual job is the smallest unit. Larger organization environment has direct impact on the individual job. For example, company training and development policy can orient employees to particular job behaviors.
Group design concerns the larger group or department containing the indi­vidual job. Group task structure, composition, performance norms, and in­terpersonal relations serve as inputs to job design. They typically have a more immediate impact on jobs than the larger, organization-design components. For example, group composition can influence the kinds of people that are available to fill jobs. Group performance norms can affect the kinds of job performance that are considered acceptable. Interpersonal relations can affect how pow­erfully the group influences job behaviors.
Personal characteristics of individuals occupying jobs include their age, edu­cation, experience, and skills and abilities. All these can affect job perfor­mance as well as how people react to job designs. Individual needs and ex­pectations can also affect employee job responses. For example, individual differences in growth need can determine how much people are motivated.
Design Components
Figure 1 shows that individual jobs have five key dimensions: (1) skill variety, (2) task identity, (3) task significance, (4) autonomy, and (5) feedback about results.
Skill variety identifies the degree to which a job requires a range of activities and abilities to perform the work. For example, assembly-line jobs generally require limited skill variety while managerial jobs require different skills in performing work.
Task identity measures the degree to which a job requires the completion of a relatively whole, identifiable piece of work. For example, project manager is able to see a job through from beginning to end. Contrary to this, assembly-line jobs involve only a limited work and score low on task identity, therefore, assembly line workers are unable to identify with the complete job.
Task significance identifies the degree to which a job has a significant impact 'on other people's lives.
Autonomy indicates the degree to which a job provides freedom in scheduling the work and determining work methods. Assembly-line jobs generally have little autonomy.
Feedback about results involves the degree to which a job provides employees with direct and clear information about the effectiveness of task performance
The five job dimensions can be combined into an overall measure of job enrichment. Enriched jobs have high levels of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback about results. They provide opportuni­ties for self-direction, learning, and personal accomplishment at work. Many people find enriched jobs internally motivating and satisfying.
Fits
The diagnostic model suggests that job design must fit job inputs to produce effective job outputs, such as high quality and quantity of individual performance, low absenteeism, and high job satisfaction. The following fits must take place between job inputs and job design:
Job design should be congruent with the larger organization and group designs. Organic organizations and groups, where members are self-regulating, have a better fit with enriched jobs. These larger organizations and groups promote autonomy, flexibility, and innovation at the individual job level. Conversely, mechanistic orga­nizations and groups relying on external controls are congruent with job designs scoring low on the five key dimensions. As suggested earlier, congru­ence across different levels of organizational design promotes integration of the organization, group, and job levels. Whenever the levels do not fit each other, conflict is likely to emerge.
Job design should fit the personal characteristics of the job holders. Individuals are then expected to perform effectively and derive satisfaction from work. Generally, enriched jobs match well with people who have strong growth needs. These people derive satisfaction and achievement from performing jobs involving skill vari­ety, autonomy, and feedback about results. Enriched jobs also fit people having moderate to high levels of task-relevant skills, abilities, and knowledge. Enriched jobs generally require complex information process­ing and decision making; people must have specialized skills and abilities to perform effectively. Jobs scoring low on the five job dimensions generally fit people with elementary skills and abilities and with low growth needs. Simpler, more routine jobs require limited skills and experience; they fit better with people who place a low value on opportunities for self-direction and learning.
Block II-Unit 2. Diagnostic Methodology: Salient Features
Objectives: After going through this unit you should be able to:
appreciate the need for diagnostic methodology
understand the concept of open systems model
understand the framework to diagnose organizations
Structure
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Diagnosing the system, subunits and processes
2.3 The need for diagnostic methodology
2.4 The open systems model
2.5 Case Analysis
2.6 Summary
2.7 Self assessment / test questions
2.8 Suggested readings

2.1 Introduction
Diagnosing the system is at the heart of an action program. It is based on valid information about the current problems and opportunities. Diagnostic activities are designed to provide an accurate account of things as they really all. An understanding of these activities, as discussed in this unit is needed for two reasons. The first reason is to know the state of things as they are i.e. ‘what is’. The second purpose is to assess the effects or consequences of actions as and when they are initiated after the diagnosis.
Diagnosis is crucial for OD and change effort. It, therefore, requires methodology. Both, the client and the practitioner, have to be very careful regarding ‘what to look at’ and ‘how it is to be done’. It is therefore critical how one would proceed to diagnose the total organization and its subsystems. A critical and well laid out methodology helps the practitioners to start the diagnostic process in the right earnest.
2.2 Diagnosing the system, subunits and processes
Bringing improvement in an organization requires the examination of the present state of things. This kind of analysis focuses on two aspect. First is the diagnosis of subsystems, which taken together make up the entire organization. These subsystems are in the form of departments, functional areas, hierarchies, or teams. The second area for attention is the processes being carried out in the organization. Some of these processes are decision-making process, communication patterns, goal setting process, interpersonal relationship & roles, planning process, and management of conflict.
Therefore, the subsystems and the process becomes the focus of diagnostic activities. Each of the major aspect of the organization provides sufficient relevant information if probed carefully. The OD practitioner may be interested in all these target groups or some of them, as and when the need arises. For example, the initial diagnosis starts with the total organization and than moves on to different departments.
We consider that the information desired at organizational level is as follows:
What are the existing norms of the organization?
What is the prevailing organization culture?
What is the organization’s climate; Open vs. close, authoritarian vs. democratic?
Are organization goals and strategies understood and accepted by members?
What is organization’s performance?
What are the attitudes and feelings toward such things as compensation, supervision, top management etc.?
By carefully examining the organization or its subunits the necessary data is generated. In the approach we focus on the primary target groups to carry out the diagnosis of the organization.
An alternative way to diagnosis is to emphasise the organization’s principal process rather than its primary target groups. Each process provides sufficient information regarding the problem. Organization processes are the ‘what’ and how’ of the organization. That is what is going on? And how is it being achieved? Organization processes reflect organization in its dynamic and complex reality. We consider that the information desired at one of the processes, namely, managing interface relations is as follows:
What is the nature of relations between two groups?
Are goals and responsibilities clear?
What major problems does the group face?
Where does conflict exist?
What are the system norms for dealing with conflict?
What structural conditions promote/ inhibit effective interface management?
Likewise other process such as goal setting, decision-making, communication etc. also provide relevant information which throws light on the functioning of the organisation.
In practice the OD consultant works on both the areas that is target groups and processes.
2.3 The Need for Diagnostic Methodology
To diagnose an organization, organization members and OD practitioner need to have an idea about what information to collect and analyze. Choices about what to look for depend on how they perceive the organization. They look for the information in a systematic manner using the methodology, which is based on conceptual framework. Conceptual framework that people use to understand organizations are referred to as ‘diagnostic models’. The diagnostic methodology is based on the diagnostic models. They describe the relationship between different features of the organization, its context, and effectiveness.
This section presents a general framework for diagnosing organization rather than attempting to cover the diversity of OD diagnostic models. The framework draws upon the systems perspective. The methodology provides a useful starting point for diagnosing organization or departments.
2.4 The Open Systems Model
The open system model is a general system model for diagnosing organizations. The model represents an open system view of organizations that may be applied to diagnosis at three levels of analysis: the total organization, the work group, and the individual job or position.
Systems theory is a set of concepts and relationship describing the properties and behaviors of thing called ‘System’ – organizations, groups and people. Systems are viewed as unitary whole composed of parts or subsystem and serve to integrate the parts into a functioning unit.
Systems can vary in how open they are to their outside environment. ‘Open system’ exchange information and resources with their environment freely. They cannot completely control their own behavior and are influenced by external forces. For example many environmental conditions such as the availability of raw materials, customer demands, government regulation, new technology etc. affect the organizations. Systems are composed of inputs, transformations, and outputs; have boundaries and a feedback mechanism. Open systems display hierarchical order. Each higher level of system is composed of lower-level systems.
Diagnosing organization Systems
Organizations can be diagnosed at three levels, namely, organization level, group level, and individual level. Diagnosis can occur at all three levels, or it may be limited to problems occurring at a particular level. The key to effective diagnosis is to know what to look for at each level. It is also necessary to know how the levels affect each other. A particular relationship exists between two levels. For example, if you are diagnosing a work group, it is necessary to know what characteristics of group are important for its effectiveness and how the larger organization affects the group.
Figure 1 presents a model for diagnosing different organizational systems. It includes dimensions needed to understand organizational systems at three levels: organizational, group, and individual job. For each level, it shows:
(4) the inputs that the system has to work with,
(5) the key design components of the transformation subsystem, and
(6) The system’s outputs
Input’s transformation subsystem and output are interdependent system. Outputs would be effective when the design components fit and mutually supports the inputs. In figure 1 the fit is shown by double headed arrow; connecting inputs to design components and the mutual support is shown by linkages among the design components. Figure 1 shows how each organization level affects the lower levels. The external environment is an input to organization design; organization design is an input to group design, which serves as an input to individual design.
Organization Level Diagnosis
The diagnosis done at the organizational level is the systems perspective. The key areas to be diagnosed at this level are discussed below:
Inputs
To under stand the functioning of the organization we must look at inputs and design components and must examine the fit between the two. Strategy and external environment are the inputs which affect the organization design.

Figure 1 --Model for Diagnosing Organizations
Organizational Level
Design Components

Technology


Structure Culture Measurement
Systems


Human Resource Systems
Outputs
Inputs
Strategy
Environment

Organization Effectiveness








Design Components Group Level
Inputs
Organization Design
Task Structure


Performance Culture Measurement
Norms Systems


Interpersonal Relations



Group Effectiveness









Design Components Individual Level

Inputs
Organization Design

Group Design

Personal Characteristics
Technology


Structure Culture Measurement
Systems


Human Resource Systems


Individual Effectiveness







Source: T.G. Cumings and C.G. Worley, “ Organizational Development and Change”, 5th ed., St. Paul:West 1993.
Strategy is formulated to gain and sustain the competitive advantage in the large environment. Strategic choice often takes place along three dimensions. The products or services to be offered, the markets to be served, and values to guide the organization. External environment includes elements and forces that can affect the attainment of strategic objectives. The environment moves along a static-dynamic continuum and provides context within which organizations operate. Static environment is predictable while dynamic environment changes rapidly and is unpredictable. Organizations must be more responsive when operating in the dynamic environment.
Design components
Organizations have five major design components (1) technology (2) Structure (3) Measurement Systems (4) Human Resource System and (5) Culture
How organization convert raw material into product does depend on its technology. It is the core of the organizational design and includes production methods, work flow and equipment. Two dimensions of technological core influence other design component; technical interdependence and technical uncertainty.
Technical interdependence involves ways in which the different parts of a technological system arc related. High interdependence requires considerable coordination among task. For example, to bring out a new product the project development team must work together. Technical uncertainty refers to the amount of informa­tion processing and decision making required during task performance. Gen­erally, when tasks require high amounts of information processing and decision making, they are difficult to plan and routinize. The development of new software requires high level of coordination among the team members.
Structure includes the ways an organization divides labor or differentiates its parts-horizontally into departments and groups and vertically into managerial hierarchies. Horizontally, organizations may be divided by function, by product or service, or by some combination of both. Vertically, organizations may be tall and include many managerial levels or they may be relatively flat. Structure is also con­cerned with integration-joining and coordinating departments for overall task achievement. It involves specifying rules, procedures, goals, and plans for directing organizational behaviors. Measurement systems are methods of gathering, assessing, and disseminating information on the activities of groups and individuals in organizations. Such data tell how well the organization is performing and are used to detect and control deviations from goals. For example, management control systems help to ensure that each department's activities are in line with overall company objectives.
Human Resource Systems include mechanisms for selecting, training, and de­veloping employees. These influence the mix of skills and personalities of organization members. Human resource systems also include the rewards used by organizations to encourage people to join and remain with the organization and to work toward specific objectives. Reward systems may be tied to performance measurement systems so that rewards are allocated on the basis of prespecified results.
Culture is concerned with the basic assumptions, values, and norms shared by organizational members. These cultural elements are generally taken for granted and serve to guide members' perceptions, thoughts, and actions. For example McDonald's culture emphasizes "efficiency," "speed," and "consis­tency." It orients employees to company goals and suggests the kinds of be­haviors necessary for success.
Fits
The diagnostic model in Figure 1 shows that the design components must have a fit with the input components if organization outputs (market share or net profits, for example) are to be effective. The following fits must take place between the inputs and design dimensions:
When strategic choice results in an environment that is highly dynamic (changing and uncertain), organization design should be organic. This means an adaptable set of technologies, structures, measurement systems, human resource systems, and culture. These components should support flexible and innovative organizational behaviors.
2. When strategy results in a static environment, organization design should be more mechanistic. The design components should be formalized and should support standardized organizational behaviors.
Group Level Diagnosis
After the organization level, the next level of diagnosis is the group. Many large organizations have groups or departments that are themselves huge. Diagnosis of large groups can follow the dimensions and relational fits applicable to organization-level diagnosis.
Often small departments and groups behave differently than large organizations. Therefore, there is a need for separate diagnostic models to reflect these differences. In this section, we discuss the approach of diagnosing small work groups. Such groups generally consist of a relatively small number of people working face-to-face on a shared task. They can be relatively permanent and perform an ongoing task, or they can be temporary and exist only to perform a certain task or to make a specific decision. Figure 1 shows the inputs, design components, out­puts, and relational fits for group-level diagnosis.
Inputs
Organization design is the major input to group design. It consists of the design components of the larger organization within which the group works. These include technology, structure, measurement system, human resource systems, and culture. The environment of work groups is affected by organizational design. It determines the technological characteristics of the group's task and influences the group behaviors. As discussed earlier, organization design can vary along an organic­/ mechanistic dimension. Organic designs support flexible and innovative behaviors; mechanistic designs are highly formalized and promote standardized behaviors.
Design Components
Figure 1 shows that groups have four major components: (1) task struc­ture, (2) composition, (3) performance norms, and (4) interpersonal relations.
Task structure is concerned with how the group's task is designed. Task structures can vary along two key dimensional -coordination of members' efforts and regulation of their task behaviors. The coordination dimension involves the degree to which group tasks are structured to promote effective interaction among group members. Coordination is important in groups per­forming interdependent tasks, such as project teams and problem solving groups. It is relatively unimportant in groups composed of members performing independent tasks, such as salespersons.­
The regulation dimension involves the degree to which members can control their own task behaviors and be relatively free from external controls. Self-regulation generally occurs when members can decide on such issues as work schedule, work methods, production goals, and membership.
Composition concerns the membership of groups. Members can differ on a number of dimensions which are relevant to group behavior. Demographic vari­ables, such as age, education, experience, and skills and abilities, can affect how people behave and relate to each other in groups. Demographics can determine whether the group is composed of people having task-relevant skills and knowledge, including interpersonal skills. People's internal needs can also influence group behaviors. Individual differences in social needs can deter­mine whether group membership is likely to be satisfying or stressful. Performance norms are member beliefs about how the group should perform its task and include acceptable levels of performance. Norms serve as guides to group behaviors. Once members agree on performance norms they routinely perform tasks according to those norms. For example, members of problem-solving groups often decide early in the life of the group that decisions will be made through consensus. Consensus then becomes a routine part of group task behavior.
Interpersonal relations are the underlying basis of group life. How members relate to each other is important in work groups because the quality of rela­tionships can affect task performance. In some groups, for example, interper­sonal competition and conflict among members lead to no support and help for each other. Therefore, efforts are required to help work groups develop healthy interpersonal relations.
Fits
The diagnostic model shows that group design components must fit inputs if groups are to be effective in terms of such things as high­ quality decisions, teamwork, and cohesiveness. The follow­ing fits must take place between the inputs and design dimensions:
Group design should match with the larger organization design. Organic organizations should have work groups that are organic and promote flexible and innovative behaviors. Mechanistic organizations should promote groups that are highly formalized and support standardized behaviors. When group designs are not compatible with organization designs, groups often conflict with the organization. They may develop norms that are against organizational effectiveness leading to counterproduc­tive behaviors.
When the technology component of organization design results in interde­pendent tasks, group task structure, composition, performance norms, and interpersonal rela­tions should promote coordination among members. When technology permits independent tasks, the design components should promote individual task performance.
When technology is relatively uncertain and requires high amounts of information processing and decision making, group task structure, compo­sition, performance norms, and interpersonal relations should promote self-regulation. Members should have the necessary freedom, information, and skills to assign members to tasks, to decide on production methods, and to set performance goals. When technology is relatively certain, group designs should promote standardization of behavior, and supervisors, schedules, and plans should externally control groups.
Individual-Level Diagnosis
The lowest level of organizational diagnosis is the individual job or position. This section discusses the inputs, design components, and relational fits for diagnosing jobs. Figure 1 shows inputs, job characteristics, and output.
Inputs
Three major inputs affect job design: (1) organization design, (2) group design,
and (3) the personal characteristics of jobholders.
Organizational design is concerned with the larger organization within which the individual job is the smallest unit. Larger organization environment has direct impact on the individual job. For example, company training and development policy can orient employees to particular job behaviors.
Group design concerns the larger group or department containing the indi­vidual job. Group task structure, composition, performance norms, and in­terpersonal relations serve as inputs to job design. They typically have a more immediate impact on jobs than the larger, organization-design components. For example, group composition can influence the kinds of people that are available to fill jobs. Group performance norms can affect the kinds of job performance that are considered acceptable. Interpersonal relations can affect how pow­erfully the group influences job behaviors.
Personal characteristics of individuals occupying jobs include their age, edu­cation, experience, and skills and abilities. All these can affect job perfor­mance as well as how people react to job designs. Individual needs and ex­pectations can also affect employee job responses. For example, individual differences in growth need can determine how much people are motivated.
Design Components
Figure 1 shows that individual jobs have five key dimensions: (1) skill variety, (2) task identity, (3) task significance, (4) autonomy, and (5) feedback about results.
Skill variety identifies the degree to which a job requires a range of activities and abilities to perform the work. For example, assembly-line jobs generally require limited skill variety while managerial jobs require different skills in performing work.
Task identity measures the degree to which a job requires the completion of a relatively whole, identifiable piece of work. For example, project manager is able to see a job through from beginning to end. Contrary to this, assembly-line jobs involve only a limited work and score low on task identity, therefore, assembly line workers are unable to identify with the complete job.
Task significance identifies the degree to which a job has a significant impact 'on other people's lives.
Autonomy indicates the degree to which a job provides freedom in scheduling the work and determining work methods. Assembly-line jobs generally have little autonomy.
Feedback about results involves the degree to which a job provides employees with direct and clear information about the effectiveness of task performance
The five job dimensions can be combined into an overall measure of job enrichment. Enriched jobs have high levels of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback about results. They provide opportuni­ties for self-direction, learning, and personal accomplishment at work. Many people find enriched jobs internally motivating and satisfying.
Fits
The diagnostic model suggests that job design must fit job inputs to produce effective job outputs, such as high quality and quantity of individual performance, low absenteeism, and high job satisfaction. The following fits must take place between job inputs and job design:
Job design should be congruent with the larger organization and group designs. Organic organizations and groups, where members are self-regulating, have a better fit with enriched jobs. These larger organizations and groups promote autonomy, flexibility, and innovation at the individual job level. Conversely, mechanistic orga­nizations and groups relying on external controls are congruent with job designs scoring low on the five key dimensions. As suggested earlier, congru­ence across different levels of organizational design promotes integration of the organization, group, and job levels. Whenever the levels do not fit each other, conflict is likely to emerge.
Job design should fit the personal characteristics of the job holders. Individuals are then expected to perform effectively and derive satisfaction from work. Generally, enriched jobs match well with people who have strong growth needs. These people derive satisfaction and achievement from performing jobs involving skill vari­ety, autonomy, and feedback about results. Enriched jobs also fit people having moderate to high levels of task-relevant skills, abilities, and knowledge. Enriched jobs generally require complex information process­ing and decision making; people must have specialized skills and abilities to perform effectively. Jobs scoring low on the five job dimensions generally fit people with elementary skills and abilities and with low growth needs. Simpler, more routine jobs require limited skills and experience; they fit better with people who place a low value on opportunities for self-direction and learning.