Case Study Of Organization Whitlam Memorial Hospital: Analysis & Recommendations

Strengths and limitations of the current functional (traditional bureaucratic) structure

Discuss about the Case Study Of Organization Whitlam Memorial Hospital.

The essay is focused on the case study organization Whitlam Memorial Hospital (WMH) and the latest decision to consider a restructuring of organizational structure. There is a reason behind the restructuring decision. They are now considering enhancing their existing bed capacity from 130 to 250 and also they are expanding with the list of medical services such as cardiovascular, renal services, cancer, paediatric, aged care, trauma services and community services. The management has felt that the existing organizational structure may not be effective enough to handle the enhanced operation. They have come up with a new vision and mission statement. There are also some changes in the overall strategic goals. Hence, the study looks for a more feasible organizational structure that could effectively help the management in managing the enhanced service related responsibilities.

Thesis statement: “Divisional Organizational Structure is more effective to support the management of elevated services”

Strengths: The entire team is dedicated or aligned with a manager who is well versed in the product knowledge. Hence, the manager is skilled enough to judge and reviews the work of others in the team. This is quite effective in the healthcare centers because experts can easily be reached and consulted in a very less span of time. It is a good utilization of expert’s skills and abilities (Islam, Jasimuddin & Hasan, 2015). Since they work in a team or with the seniors; juniors are more likely to gain the knowledge. This is indeed a good resource for knowledge management. Promotions are also a likely fact as juniors working in a team with the seniors can then be able to prove their skills. Seniors will be able to closely follow the development of skills and abilities in juniors. In the health care sector, many junior doctors work with the seniors when needed. Hence, the cases will be resolved faster. The effectiveness will also be high. Nevertheless, employees will also feel motivated. They will not be under pressure as they are not just connected to seniors but, the connectivity is also very faster. This structure is ideal for those firms that focus on one or very fewer products range (Zaridis & Mousiolis, 2014).

Weaknesses: In functional structure, there can be unhealthy competition. In such structure, works are performed based on urgency level. This means that one department is given the preference over other if that department is in some kind of urgency. Hence, an internal competition may arise with such structure. In such structure, teams are grouped based on their expertise. Hence, any change at the organizational level may not get a wide reception (Carley & Prietula, 2014). Another disadvantage of such structure is that it does not facilitate communication on a frequent basis. Communication happens only when juniors are not able to tackle the case on their own. This may slow down the process of innovation and flexibility. Management issues may also arise. Actually, departments are not accountable to each other if there is an issue in one department. The high level of professionalism which is part of the organizational structure may hamper the faster decision making. A cooperative work is compromised because a functional distribution of different departments may produce a feeling of unwillingness which may decelerate a frequent coordination between the different departments (Deng, Hu & Srinivasan, 2017).     

Mission: The restructured mission of the case study company is to provide the highest quality and specialist care in collaboration with patients, carers, communities and the other health care providers. The mission looked good; however, not feasible with the existing organizational structure. The existing organizational structure does not allow a frequent communication between the seniors and the juniors. It means the process of skills development is a bit slower with the functional structure (Lupton & Beamish, 2014). The mission is committed to offering the best services to customers in collaboration with other carers as well. The services may be good as juniors when required may follow a professional approach to reach to seniors and get the case done. However, their personal progress as an expert is very slow. Hence, the mission is not entirely fulfilled due to less frequent communication between seniors and juniors (Bolman & Deal, 2017).

Vision: The restructured vision is to provide health experiences which are effective in responding to the needs of the growing community. The restructured vision may also fall short due to the existing functional structure. The existing functional structure is divided into departments where one department is not accountable for others (Ravasan, Nabavi & Mansouri, 2015). On the other hand, the population is growing in the nearby community which is why the restructuring was also considered in WMH. Departments must be closely connected to each other, so that, a large population can be handled effectively with the different expertise. However, as understood earlier this is not realizable in the existing structure. At least, different departments must have an internal communication between those, so that, if the patient makes a query then this could be identified at a faster rate by communicating to the concerned department (Zaridis & Mousiolis, 2014).

Strategic goals: The changed or restructured goals are to provide high quality service to a larger community with the help of multidisciplinary teams. However, in the existing functional structure, the teams are not closely connected and also not accountable to anything in the other departments. Concerning the scenario, it is never feasible to respond to the rising urgency and fulfill the changed strategic goals or objectives (Carley & Prietula, 2014).

Considering the changed mission, vision and the organizational goals, the divisional organizational structure looks the most feasible. The changed mission, vision, and the goals had needed a structure where departments are closely connected and are also accountable to one another. A structure was needed to support the learning environment at WMH, so that, innovation and creativity is revealed at its best. A creative move will only ensure the specialized services being given to the community. The divisional structure looks the most effective from the identified perspective. In the divisional organizational structure, there will be one specialist expert will be taking care of the one division. In the context of the case study healthcare center, the new services along with the existing services will be aligned to different departments. The different departments will represent to the senior of the department and those senior will report to the CEO or the senior management in the case study center (Deng, Hu & Srinivasan, 2017).

Proposed structure to support the changed mission, vision and goals

Strengths: The recommended divisional structure is suitable because it gives emphasis on the end result. The one service is attached to one product or the service line. This will help to attract the entire attraction to be focused on the end result. Hence, the quality of offers will be maximized. The case study company does exactly need the same result. The vision is to deliver the best experience through the maximized specialty services. In this structure, special emphasis will be given to a single product line. Hence, performance can be easily measured then. This also means that any shortfalls will be identified and be nullified in a very less time (Bolman & Deal, 2017).

A divisional structure is also beneficial in a case when there is a need for introducing another separate division. This will not hamper the progress of either of the product line. Coordination will also improve. Every single product or service lines have a different division. Hence, any overlapping can then be avoided. The structure is also beneficial in producing managers for different service line (Deng, Hu & Srinivasan, 2017). In the given case company, WMH will be able to get more managers in future. This is because every single division will be looking after the assigned division only. Hence, they are less burdened. Moreover, chances will increase for them to be the managers in future. The different division will be held accountable for their own division only. Hence, efforts will increase to attain the maximum benefits (Zaridis & Mousiolis, 2014).

Limitations: Budget can be a limitation as more divisions will be formed tom takes care of the different services. Hence, the total cost will increase. Additionally, this will also need separate managerial positions for each division. Hence, more specialist doctors for separate planned services will be needed. Information monitoring system can also be tested if not being handled appropriately (Lupton & Beamish, 2014).

Justifying the selection: The divisional structure is being given the preference over other numerous kinds of organizational structures because; this will provide a controlled operation of different specialty services. Moreover, coordination will also improve and hence, the resolution of the problem (Bolman & Deal, 2017).

Conclusion:

Therefore, the divisional structure will be the best possible restructuring for WMH as the separate monitoring of the performance will then be possible. The enhanced focus could then be given to the separate division. An improved coordination will then assist in quick diagnosing of the issues and hence, the fixing of the same. Moreover, the case company will be in good position to fulfill its restructured mission, vision, and organizational goals.

References:

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. John Wiley & Sons.

Carley, K. M., & Prietula, M. J. (2014). The" virtual design team": Simulating how organization structure and information processing tools affect team performance. In Computational organization theory (pp. 19-36). Psychology Press.

Deng, Y., Hu, M. R., & Srinivasan, A. (2017). Information Asymmetry and Organizational Structure: Evidence from REITs. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 55(1), 32-64.

Islam, M. Z., Jasimuddin, S. M., & Hasan, I. (2015). Organizational culture, structure, technology infrastructure and knowledge sharing: Empirical evidence from MNCs based in Malaysia. Vine, 45(1), 67-88.

Lupton, N., & Beamish, P. (2014). Organizational structure and knowledge-practice diffusion in the MNC. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(4), 710-727.

Ravasan, A. Z., Nabavi, A., & Mansouri, T. (2015). Can Organizational Structure Influence ERP Success?. International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management (IJISSCM), 8(1), 39-59.

Zaridis, A. D., & Mousiolis, D. T. (2014). Entrepreneurship and SME's organizational structure. Elements of a successful business. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148, 463-467.