Analysis of Dynacorp Case

The design of an organization is a “formal, guided process for integrating the people, information, and technology of an organization” (Glickman et al., 2007). A good organizational design increases the likelihood that an organization will succeed; that its’ values will be realized and its mission will be attained. An organization begins with a strategy or a purpose, is followed by its philosophy or values, then identifies the mission and finally evaluates the environment and its’ strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the organization (Kelly & Crawford, 2008).

If I am on the Dynacorp task force, my first choice for an alternative design would be front /back structure of strategic design. This structure divides the organization into two parts such that the back end products which include engineering, manufacturing and the logistics and the front end is faced by the marketing and sales division. As Dynacorp is spread across the US and as well as the world, this front/back

Problems inside Dynacorp: When Dynacorp has changed its structure, there are problems of linkage and alignment in the light of Strategic Design Lens. According to the new structure, Research and Advanced Development Group and Business Units (BUs) are

1.3. In order to estimate the peso discount rate, assume that the International Fisher Effect (IFE) holds. Groupe Ariel's Euro hurdle rate for a project of this type was 8%. Assume that inflation rates are expected to be 7% in Mexico and 3% in France.

In the article Mintzberg (1984, pp. 66) argues that companies are incorrectly planning strategy through rationale control, the analysis of competitors and markets, and of companies strengths and weaknesses, and combining all of this information to create their “full-blown strategies”. Inkpen & Choudhury (1995) believed that organisations that relied on strict set routines and focused on consistency would then be unable to become innovative and be able to experiment.

Miles and Snow have produced a typology of business level strategies. Their typology involves four strategic types: defenders, prospectors, analyzers and reactors. Using Miles and Snow’s strategy typology that consist of; defender, analyzer, reactor, and prospector, I will categorize Dollar Tree in its strategy typology. In the first strategy defenders try to carve a niche in the market where stability can be found. As in the prospector strategy, companies are constantly producing innovations. I understand through Miles and Snow typology of business level strategies that defenders, analyzers, and prospectors are forms of organizations. Therefore, if an alignment is reached between a chosen strategy, and organizational structure mentioned above Dollar Tree has the potential to be a

In the past, the booming economy had allowed for year to year increase in their sales because people had larger discretionary incomes. But due to the recession, smaller independent retailers had to markdown their items in order to stay in business because designer outlet stores are getting more traffic; so will Harry Rosen follow in suit? Or in order to maintain the integrity of the quality products they offer, will they continue their higher pricing and settle for a lower market share?

Our course pack touches on the concept of “structure follow strategy” and then is quoted saying, “U.S. Corporations evolved over

As Dynacorp outgrew its functional structure it began to experience common disadvantages of such organizational types. These disadvantages include unresponsiveness to changes in the market and to customers. Restructuring to Front/Back revealed a structural disadvantage that is identical to the functional structure: poor integration between market needs and technology development. An additional disadvantage incurred due to the restructure was inadequate integration and synergy between the front and back ends.

The first concept from this week’s reading that resonated with me was in the interdependence section of Chapter 9. The author outlines a company that has clear visibility and ownership allowing the company to control the manufacturing, sales, marketing, and development. This is an optimal solution in order to control your quality and speed. The part that I found interesting is that not many companies have this capability anymore because it is not fast, customer focused and less costly. Garmin is currently set up in this manner; owning its own manufacturing facilities and having its own marketing agency in the building. My opinion is that because of this the company can quickly turn and change it strategies with the market. This in contrast to the authors. At least in my experience when dealing with third party companies there is a higher cost and slower timeline to change scope with the market. Let me know what your thoughts are on

MediSys is a U.S.-based medical device manufacturer. It has been developing IntensCare project, a new medical system for monitoring patients in intensive care units. This project represents the most ambitious move in the company’s 10-year history. The company had invested large finances in this project and the market eagerly awaits its launch. The product development team consisting of people from several functional areas of the company, has been working on the product for six months but is now facing significant problems with the product design, clinical testing, meeting the production deadlines, and their own group dynamics. The pressure had also increased because of competitors also planning to launch similar products within the year. Several team members are concerned about meeting the team 's goals. The relationship between team members is quite tense and it doesn’t promise much progress.

The infrastructure of Boldflash’s Mobile Division is full of flaws. There’s no communication between departments, each team is stepping on the other teams’ toes, and there is no coordination in the product development process. Discussion Question 1 begs the question of how the conflicting performance metrics of each group contributes to the problem, as well as how the current process fosters coordination issues among the departments. Sales measures its performance strictly based on revenues, while Product Development is based on how many patents it’s holding as well as how many academic papers were published in journals. Additionally, Manufacturing’s performance was evaluated based on how many products it produces, and Marketing’s metric

According to Slack et al. The corporate strategy or business strategy is the guide lines for the whole corporation’s businesses in relation to its markets, customers, and the competitors (2007). In the same context, the same authors discussed the link between the corporate strategy and

1. BYD Company, Ltd. (“BYD”) is the world’s second largest manufacturer of rechargeable batteries. Exhibit 1 shows that between 1999 and 2001, BYD’s annual sales grew three times - exceeding RMB 1.3 billion in 2001. Based on the first four months of 2002, BYD’s annual sales are expected exceed RMB 1.6 billion in 2002. Founded in 1995 by Wang Chuan-Fu, chairman and president, BYD has built its reputation by becoming the largest Chinese supplier of lithium-ion batteries to cell phone manufacturers. Exhibit 3 shows that by 2002, BYD was among the top four manufactures worldwide - and was the largest Chinese manufacturer – in each of the three main battery technologies (with about 9% market share in Li-ion

Accordingly, they were tasked with creating a new strategy based on strategic intent and guided by strategic architecture. The following text discusses and analyzes the strategy of the past and those needed for the future while identifying single biggest problem which will impact the organization’s ability to effectively realize their strategic intent.