Introduction
Analyzing the basic components of organizational processes is a valuable approach that allows highlighting the key models and principles of sustainable clusters aimed to support the work of a specific entrepreneurial direction. Assessing the types of these processes, structural frameworks, and some other aspects can help obtain in-depth information about the conditions for ensuring the operations of business projects. Searching for common and distinctive features, in turn, helps determine unique models and development paths and identify what functions individual components perform. In the context of a variety of methodologies and approaches to interpreting specific frameworks, these activities contribute to systematizing information and forming a comprehensive picture of entrepreneurial projects. The purpose of this work is to analyze an organization from the perspective of its structure, processes, boundaries, dimensions, decisions made, and basic components.
Structural Levels of an Organization
Any organization is a structure that functions due to the distribution of responsibilities and the implementation of specific tasks by stakeholders. In a business environment, different models are encountered, but there are typical frameworks that are utilized to create sustainable activities for all involved in the workflow. According to Thanalerdsopit et al. (2014), the structure of most organizations includes three main levels – executive, middle (managerial), and operational. At each of these levels, employees perform specific functions, which allows for maintaining uninterrupted activities to achieve short-term and long-term goals and monitor this work. This type of organizational structure formation is basic and can be extended by individual strategies for the distribution of roles. For instance, as Harris and Raviv (2002) state, by the type of management and regulation, there are distinctive schemes, including hierarchical, flat, matrix, and functional approaches to maintaining the sustainability of the workflow. Nevertheless, the aforementioned three-tier structure is universal and can be used in organizations of different profiles due to its simplicity and efficiency. At the same time, there are also distinctive types of processes applied in companies, and their features largely affect business specifics and outcomes.
Features of the Types of Processes
When applied to generic business processes, one can focus on their common and distinctive features. In particular, Dickson (2003) analyzes the key levels at which corresponding operations are performed and cites core, support, and management processes. Davenport (1993) complements this classification and mentions the division of individual processes into subcategories, for instance, information-oriented management. At the same time, the author argues that two main types may be highlighted – operational and management (Davenport, 1993). While they all serve to achieve ultimate business goals, they are realized distinctively, and different tools are utilized to accomplish them.
The key similarity between the aforementioned generic processes is that they aim to achieve organizational goals through specially designed methods of activity. At the same time, as Dickson (2003) argues, core processes that include basic tasks or routines are the main ones, and all the simplest procedures should be designed to optimize the organization’s work at this level. However, according to Davenport (1993), core processes cannot help fulfill individual business promotion tasks, for instance, implementing effective management practices or providing customer support. This serves as a key distinction between the three main types of processes that should be applied together to achieve high development outcomes. In addition, Mackenzie (2000) states that different decision-making models are based on what processes are utilized within a specific organization. Discussing the types of organizational processes working within and across organizational boundaries may be relevant to determining unique approaches to maintaining business sustainability.
Organizational Processes Within and Across Organizational Boundaries
Organizational processes that determine the direction of the business and the specifics of work can take place both within a single company and its departments and across its boundaries. Davenport and Short (1990) examine this topic and point out three broad categories that are applied across different organizations – inter-organizational, inter-functional, and interpersonal. Each of these types has characteristic features that are essential to consider when establishing sustainable business activities.
Interorganizational processes, as their name implies, take place between individual businesses. As Davenport and Short (1990) note, they serve to coordinate collaborative activities in retail projects or other large-scale business models. Interfunctional processes, according to the authors, cannot exist outside of one organization but help link the functioning of individual departments, thereby performing valuable functions (Davenport & Short, 1990). Finally, interpersonal processes form the smallest category and are applied to a group of employees. Davenport and Short (1990) remark that they allow creating a productive interaction mode in a team. In addition to the types of processes, there are dimensions that unique business approaches demonstrate, and their assessment is a significant aspect of a comprehensive analysis of the business environment.
Dimensions Demonstrated by Organizational Processes
Regardless of which processes are used in a particular organization, the workflow can be characterized from the standpoint of individual frameworks. According to Van de Ven and Delbecq (1974), two dimensions define the manifestations of processes – “task difficulty and task variability” (p. 183). The first dimension shows the degree of complexity of a procedure and the order of actions to take to complete the set task. As the researchers argue, this dimension largely determines what the structure of a particular organization is, its managerial characteristics, and other aspects of the work process (Van de Ven & Delbecq, 1974). The other dimension is more flexible and defines how varied the methods of accomplishing the assigned tasks can be. Van de Ven and Delbecq (1974) note that task variability influences the way of work in a particular organizational structure, for instance, routinized or mechanized. In addition, one should take into account that at the three aforementioned levels of organizations, distinctive types of decisions can be made, and the role of IT in this is important.
Types of Decisions and the Role of IT
A standard organizational structure that includes three main levels (top, middle, and operational) functions stably when performance is controlled through efficient interventions. According to Wijnberg et al. (2002), most often, two types of decisions are promoted within companies, which address specific aspects of productivity: Type 1 refers to measures aimed to improve the performance of the entire organization as a whole, and Type 2 includes decisions aimed to enhance operational productivity. The authors state that Type 1 applies to decisions made at the top level when senior managers set development objectives and general goals that need to be achieved, and Type 2 is utilized at the lower level when specific operational tasks are achieved (Wijnberg et al., 2002). At the middle level, both types can be utilized since this is the link. The use of IT, in turn, enables these decisions and helps speed up the process of communication among the levels due to the constant flow of information within a single organizational system. At the same time, business processes are coordinated not only by digital technologies but also by functional schemes, one of which is IDEF0.
Components of a Business Process (IDEF0)
The schematic methodology called IDEF0, which is utilized to build solution algorithms, has found its way into the business environment. Baghbani (2019) notes that this approach “is used to business processes mapping in different manufacturing engineering organizations” (p. 57). Jang (2003) also considers this model and notes that each of its components (input, control, output, mechanism, and call) carries individual significance. In the context of business processes, each component is essential and cannot be removed. For instance, removing the control aspect from the scheme, the input information cannot be processed by the necessary regulations, and the separation of the mechanism from the general framework will not allow obtaining the necessary result due to the lack of required resources. According to Kim and Jang (2002), every business process can be characterized in terms of sustainable elements, in particular, time, costs, tools, and other components. They all fit into the IDEF0 structure, and only through the use of each of them, a comprehensive analysis of a specific issue and an algorithm for its resolution can be performed.
Conclusion
Analyzing the organizational features of the business environment from the perspectives of structure, processes, dimensions, decisions, boundaries, and components allows highlighting both general principles for the formation of a sustainable work process and unique approaches to establishing specific labor conditions. The considered aspects help identify significant elements that need to be taken into account to achieve operational objectives. The theoretical and practical tools provided are valuable components for maintaining productivity in a dynamic business environment.
References
Baghbani, M. (2019). IDEF0 modeling standard: A tool for process map drawing under requirements of ISO 9001: 2015: A case study. Journal of Modern Processes in Manufacturing and Production, 8(4), 57-66.
Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation: Reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business School Press.
Davenport, T. H., & Short, J. E. (1990). The new industrial engineering: Information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Management Review, 31(4), 1-31.
Dickson, P. R. (2003). The pigeon breeders’ cup: A selection on selection theory of economic evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13(3), 259-280.
Harris, M., & Raviv, A. (2002). Organization design. Management Science, 48(7), 852-865.
Jang, K. J. (2003). A model decomposition approach for a manufacturing enterprise in Business Process Reengineering. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 16(3), 210-218.
Kim, S. H., & Jang, K. J. (2002). Designing performance analysis and IDEF0 for enterprise modelling in BPR. International Journal of Production Economics, 76(2), 121-133.
Mackenzie, K. D. (2000). Processes and their frameworks. Management Science, 46(1), 110-125.
Thanalerdsopit, P., Meksamoot, K., & Chakpitak, N. (2014). Responding to higher education change through the lens of governance, risk management and compliance (gRC): The case of autonomous public universities in Thailand. ASR: CMUJ of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1(1), 39-56.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Delbecq, A. L. (1974). A task contingent model of work-unit structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 183-197.
Wijnberg, N. M., van den Ende, J., & de Wit, O. (2002). Decision making at different levels of the organization and the impact of new information technology: Two cases from the financial sector. Group & Organization Management, 27(3), 408-429.