Organisation structure at Nokia Introduction Nokia is an international producer of computer software, internet and telecommunication equipment, it is one of the major candidates competing in the smart phone industries (Studymode2013). Dominating the market around 15 years, Nokia was perceived as the more dominant and relentless brand within its industry. However, due to a number of problematic issues within the company, Nokia was forced into making implosive and drastic design resulting in the “down fall” of the company.
One of the major issues which contributed to Nokia down fall was the lack of organisational structure within the Nokia organisation.
The organizational structure had become so convoluted that it was hard for the teams to work as a coherent group being consistent in their products as information often took long to process and correspond too. The lack of organisational structure within the company left Nokia exposed to external rivalry such as Apple and Samsung, as crucial decisions were either made too early or too late.
Another issue is that separate departments within the organisation focused on different goals and objectives, as other sectors were more concerned politically instead of focusing on the future development of the company. Organisational structure and innovation are key component in the success or prosperity of a company and can be the difference between being prosperous and coming up short. This report will argue that Nokia’s organisational structure was of a poor quality and led to poor decision making and lack of innovation.
Furthermore, this paper will provide recommendation for implementing a stronger and more effective organisational structure. Analysis a Critical Evaluation The organisational structure is an important foundation, for organising and managing function within the company; as it establishes a system of task, workflow, reporting relationships and communication channels that link to the work of diverse individuals and groups (Schermerhorn, John, R, 2011, 244). Chimay, Catherine and Malik (2002) agree, placing emphasis on team structure being an absolute essential component of an effective organisational structure.
It has been well documented (Lambert, E, G, Hogan, N, L, Allen, R, I. 2006; Stok, K, M, MArrkic, M, Bertoncelj, A, Mesko, M 2010) that successful organisation have gain competitive advantages through an effective organisation structure. However, there is no ideal structure for an organisation, as each company will have to implement a structure which caters for the personal needs. Organsational structure has been changing fast in recent years and it seems likely that this will continue (Siobhan, T, 1993).
It can be seen that in today modern westernized society, companies need to be flexible with their organisational structure in order to gain competitive advantages. For instance, large organisations such as Westpac are frequently publicized throughout the media, when implementing new organizational culture. In the case the organisational structure was ineffective, as different sectors found it hard to work as a group. It was noted that the team struggled as a unit, to the extent in which the company spent three days trying to develop new ideas and concepts.
The poor organisational structure led to lacks C communication between the different departments within the company. As a result of this, Nokia was left with insufficient within the organization information in time of crucial decision. Thus, Nokia was forced into making implosive and meager design in order to respond too external rivalry and up hold a competitive advantage. It is clearly evident that a lack of organisational structure is present within the organization and has been one of the major factors which influenced Nokia down fall.
However, a lack of organisation structure was not the only factor which contributed to Nokia’s downfall, as there was a clear inconsistency in productivity as a lack innovation was also present. Innovation is an important aspect of communication (Fagerbery, J. 2003), as it provides institution the sufficient freedom needed to experiment with new ideas, concepts and knowledge’s required when facing new challenges. Moreover, it is a crucial role which influences the development of idea generator, information gatekeepers, product champion, innovation leader and project anager (Schermerhorn, John, R, 2011, 404). Further studies (Roper, S. 1996) found that company with higher levels of success, employed and placed emphasizes on communicate and innovation with the work place. Innovation is not new phenomenon (Fagerbery, J. 2003), it has been commonly utilized throughout the business environment to obtain a competitive advantages. Another problem found in the case, is that separate departments within the organisation focused on different goals and objectives, as other sectors were more concerned politically instead of focusing on the future development of the company.
It can be seen that because of all the internal fighting the company lost sight of its goals and prospects and didn’t place enough emphasis on product innovation. As an example of this the case states that Nokia spent nearly four times the amount as its competitor Apple in research and development. The company spent more time fighting politics than working on the design of the phone. On the other hand the company produce a number of good products however, were released too early. For instances, Nokia release their new lines of smart phone when wireless internet wasn’t available for the public.
In spite of releasing product to early, Nokia also released products too late. The company released products too late which resulted in the consumers purchasing the competitors’ products, as a majority of the market was dominated by Nokia’s competitors. As such, a lack of innovation resulted in; external competitors inherited market shared which Nokia could never recover, the company was unable to make sufficient judgment (analysis) on external environment and weren’t able to identify passing opportunity’s.
Additionally, the lack of innovation and communication within organization, strongly contribute to the downfall of Nokia. Recommendations Nokia must act immediately to implement a more effective organisational structure. The company must ensure that both short and long term Goals and objectives can be clearly visual throughout the entire company. In order to implement a clear goals and ambitions into the company, Nokia should establish new board which consists of members from different depart and sections. The board should consist of two members from each department.
Prior to the selection, the board of member should include a selected member throughout the department, which should be determined through a democratic vote along with the head of the department. Therefore, the two selected employees from each department will establish the new board. However, the selected employees can only be once every second month. The board should meet on a monthly basis and discuss the goal and of objective of the upcoming month and if they comply with the company future ambitions, as well as, applying with the S.
M. A. R. T goal principle. The S. M. A. R. T principles include; Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Realistic and Time appropriate. The board should further discuss the future goal of company and evaluate if the current goal and objectives are relent and to what extent they were achieved. Additionally, the board will provide recommendation to better approve the company efficacy and effectiveness. Furthermore the establishment a new board will help monitor the goals and objectives of the Nokia Company.
This new board will also aid the company into achieving its overall ambitions. Conclusion This report has argued that Organisational structure plays a vital role within any organisation and company around the world. A brief description outlining the issues and problems within the Nokia organisation has been discussed, including some recommendations on how the Nokia Company can fix relevant issues. It is clear that organisation structure is a crucial element which contributes to an organisation helping it function and expand.
It is important that Nokia act immediately to implement the recommendations previously discussed, in order to improve the overall organisational structure of the company. References Anumba, C, J, Catherine Baugh, C, Khalfan, M, M. A. (2002), “Organisational structures to support concurrent engineering in construction”, Industrial Management & Data systems Fagerberry, J. 2003a, “Innovation: A Guide to the Literature”, New Oxford Handbook and innovation Lambert, E, G, Hogan, N, L, Allen, R, I. 2006, “Correlates of Correctional Officer Job Stress:
The impact of organizational Structure”, Southern Crminal Justice Association Roper, S. 1996, “Production and Small Business Growth:A Comparison of the Strategies of German, U. K. and Irish Companies”, Kluwer Academic Publishers Schermerhorn, John, R, 2011, “Managament Foundations and Application, 1st Asia-Pacific Edition,” John Wiley & Sons Ausrtralia, Ltd Siobhan, T, 1993, “Innovations in organisation structure”, British and Administrative Research Stok, K, M, MArrkic, M, Bertoncelj, A, Mesko, M 2010, “Elements of organizational culture leading to business excellences”, Preliminary communication, vol. 8. Studymode(2013)“Telecommunications Industry Analysis, Wireless Telecommunications Industry Analysis, Indian Telecom Industry Analysis” 27april <http://www. studymode. com/subjects/nokia-industry-analysis-page1. html>
Cite this Nokia Case Study
Nokia Case Study. (2016, Oct 24). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/nokia-case-study/