The Star Model™: A Framework for Decision Making

The Star Model (Figure 1.1), which serves as our framework, has been used and refined over the past thirty years. Its basic premise is simple but powerful: different strategies require different organizations to execute them. A strategy implies a set of capabilities at which an organization must excel in order to achieve the strategic goals. The leader has the responsibility to design and influence the structure, processes, rewards, and people practices of the organization in order to build these needed capabilities.

Although culture is an essential part of an organization, it is not an explicit part of the model because the leader cannot design the culture directly. An organization’s culture consists of the common values, mind-sets, and norms of behavior that have emerged over time and that most employees share. It is an outcome of the cumulative design decisions that have been made in the past and of the leadership and management behaviors that result from those decisions.

The idea of alignment is fundamental to the Star Model. Each component of the organization, represented by a point on the model, should work to support the strategy. The more that the structure, processes, rewards, and people practices reinforce the desired actions and behaviors, the better able the organization should be to achieve its goals. Just as important as initial alignment is having the ability to realign as circumstances change. The configuration of resources, the processes used, and the mental models that contribute to today’s success will influence the plans made for the future. In a time of stability, this creates efficiency. In a time of change, such static alignment can become a constraint. The organization must have alignment, but it also needs the flexibility to recognize and respond to opportunities and threats.

It is always easier to change a business strategy than to change an organization, just as it is easier to change a course beforehand than it is to turn a large ship that is already under way. The more rapidly the organization can be realigned, the faster the leaders can “turn the ship” and execute new strategies and opportunities as they arise. This is especially important for large companies that must compete against smaller, nimbler organizations. Therefore, alignment is best thought of as an ongoing process rather than a one-time event.

The ideas of strategy dictating organizational form and of organizational elements aligning with strategy are based on a body of thought called contingency theory (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). Contingency theory does not prescribe any one best way to organize, but rather suggests that organization design choices are contingent on both the strategy selected and the environment in which the business is operating. Contingency theory has been extended with complementary systems theory, which comes to organization design from the field of economics (Milgrom and Roberts, 1995). The notion of complementarity holds that design choices work as coherent systems and that the application of one practice will influence the results of a corresponding practice—whether positive or negative. This underscores the practical application of the Star Model. For example, if a strategy depends on cross-unit coordination, contingency theory suggests it would be wise to formally link those units with processes and create measures and rewards that encourage teamwork. Research into complementary systems goes further, suggesting that in order to derive the full benefit of these choices, they should be employed as a system, and that negative consequences may occur if the practices are employed individually and not together (Whittington and others, 1999). This research confirms what many suspect: piecemeal adoption of management practices has little impact on business performance. It also means that simple benchmarking and copying of another company’s structures and processes has little useful application in organization design. For example, using a matrix is neither a good nor a bad practice in itself. But when a matrix is installed without the appropriate and corresponding role clarity, governance processes, reward systems, performance management methods, and training that are needed to make it effective, its introduction can actually have a negative impact on the organization.

Thinking of organization design choices as complementary systems also has implications for the organization design process. While each point on the star in the model represents many choices, they are not as unlimited, and thus not as overwhelming, as they first seem. Once the strategy is set, there are then sets of complementary options available to support that strategy. As we address each major topic in this book, we have structured the discussion around the Star Model and have highlighted the set of complementary choices and considerations that align with each strategy.

Another concept underlying the Star Model is complexity. In this context, it refers to the idea that complex business models cannot be executed with simple organizations (Ashby, 1952). The more dimensions a business has—for example, number of products, business units, or customer sets—and the larger its size, the greater the number of interfaces that will need to be managed internally. In addition, when the company is geographically dispersed, new challenges of national culture, time, and distance are introduced. Many strategies today require high levels of cross-organization collaboration at multiple levels. As a result, units tend to have more “surface area” and a greater number of interactions between units required to get work done (Lawler and Worley, 2006). Such organizations will not spontaneously self-organize. Employees in large companies, no matter how good their intentions, are unlikely to be able to gain a broad enough view to make the right decisions about how units should be configured and who should interact with whom. Complex strategies and organizations need firm and clear guidance, and this is an activity for senior leadership.

The design goal should be to keep the organization clear and simple for customers and the majority of employees. It is the job of leaders and managers to manage the complexity that is created by the organization’s design. The different elements of a design that will need to be managed—the points on the Star Model—are explained in further detail below.

The purpose of a strategy is to gain competitive advantage: the ability to offer a customer better value through either lower prices or greater benefits and services than competitors can (Porter, 1998). These advantages can be gained through external factors such as location or favorable government regulation. They can also be secured through superior internal organizational capabilities. We define organizational capabilities as the unique combination of skills, processes, technologies, and human abilities that differentiate a company. They are created internally and are thus difficult for others to replicate. Creating superior organizational capabilities in order to gain competitive advantage is the goal of organization design. We will also refer to transferring capabilities. To transfer and, when necessary, adapt a company’s capabilities or advantages is one of the key jobs of any manager when opening up a new location or unit.

Business model is a broad term used to encompass the internal logic of a company’s method of doing business. It encompasses the business’s value proposition, target customer segments, distribution channels, cost structure, and revenue model. For example, an Internet music site may operate on a subscription basis (unlimited songs available for a monthly fee) or on a straight fee-per-song basis. Each approach represents a different business model, although both companies are in the same business. Each model is built on a different revenue and cost structure, and therefore each company requires a different set of organizational capabilities to succeed.

A business portfolio is the set of product lines or business units that a firm manages. How similar (or different) the business models are for each of the units in the portfolio drives different organization design decisions. A profit center (often called a business unit) is a unit in an organization that is considered a separate entity for purposes of calculating revenue and cost. How much influence the manager of a profit center has over the variables that generate revenue and costs is also an organization design decision.

Different strategies require different organizational capabilities and therefore different organization designs. The right design choices increase the likelihood of building the right organizational capabilities. Each design decision can be tested against the design criteria to determine if it will be helpful in creating the desired organizational capabilities. We can expand on the definition of organizational capabilities offered above. Organizational capabilities are:

How a company chooses to compete determines the most important organizational capabilities. For example, a pharmaceutical company developing novel prescription drugs requires a strong research and development capability and an ability to build relationships with physicians. But a pharmaceutical company that specializes in selling over-the-counter medicines needs efficient manufacturing processes and a strong consumer marketing capability. Some companies build a capability in product innovation. Procter & Gamble has not only a strong research and development capacity but also the capability of bringing ideas to market. Its Crest Whitestrips product comes from blending the company’s technological expertise in the unrelated areas of bleaching, dental care, and adhesives. Other companies choose to compete based on marketing or distribution capabilities. The Campbell Soup Company does not necessarily make better soup than its competitors do. Instead, it creates innovative packaging and works effectively with retailers on displays that highlight the convenience of its product. Professional service firms such as Bechtel, which provides engineering and construction services, or Accenture, which provides consulting and outsourcing services, need different capabilities than consumer goods companies do. They compete on their abilities to staff and manage large-scale projects and to create and apply knowledge.

As a company’s strategy changes, so do the differentiating organizational capabilities it needs. For example, Thorn Lighting, a U.K.-based firm, had a sixty-year history of innovation in the design and production of light bulbs. In the early 1990s, the company changed its strategy to focus on the more lucrative business of providing lighting solutions. It sold its manufacturing arm and now works with governments and property developers to design and implement lighting projects for stadiums, office complexes, and highways. The company still maintains an expertise in lighting technology. However, the organizational capabilities required by the two business models are quite different. The original business was built on product design, manufacturing, and consumer marketing. The new organization is built on customer relationship management, large-scale project management, and integrated solutions development.

The process of identifying the most important organizational capabilities is the first step in drawing the connection between the strategy and the form of the organization. Once the capabilities have been identified, a set of organizational implications can be generated to form the basis for a discussion of alternatives. Metrics can also be developed as a way to gauge progress. Figure 1.2 illustrates the thought process—from strategy to organizational capabilities to organizational implications—for a Latin American division of a cable television network. This process engaged the network’s leadership in collectively understanding and agreeing on the criteria that an acceptable organizational design would have to meet.

The identification of organizational capabilities is carried out by the leader or leadership team that has ultimate responsibility for design decisions. This is not an activity that can be delegated, as it requires the broad strategic perspective of the leadership level. These organization capabilities become the criteria against which all subsequent design decisions are judged, so they must be agreed on at the most senior level of the organization.

Once the design criteria are in place, the question can be asked at each step in the design process: Which option will better help us preserve or build the organizational capabilities we have said are critical to our success? We suggest that the leaders identify no more than five organizational capabilities to serve as design criteria. It is the act of generating possible capabilities and then narrowing them down into those that can truly differentiate the company that creates healthy discussion and debate about what direction is truly most important to the organization. The Developing Design Criteria tool located in the Appendix provides detailed guidance on identifying, selecting, and using organization capabilities in the design process.

Organization design is not limited to structural considerations, and many variations of a structure can be made to work. But if the structure is not approximately right, then it will be harder to align the other design elements with the strategy. The structure sets out the reporting relationships, power distribution, and communication channels. It determines who comes in contact with whom. The structure projects a message about what work is most important. If the structure does not at least nominally support the strategy, then everyone in the organization will find themselves working around a formidable obstacle.

The four primary building blocks of organizational structure are function, product, geography, and customer. We also refer to these as structural dimensions. Most companies use a mix of all four and add dimensions as the business grows. Small companies and those with a single product line are typically organized by function. As the firm diversifies, each new major product line becomes a product division, with each division organized by function. We would describe this as a multidimensional organization, structured primarily along the lines of product and secondarily by function. When the firm expands into new territories, a geographic dimension may be added. Recently, with the increase in customer buying power, many companies are finding the need to add customer segments and markets as a structural dimension. The complex organizations we discuss in this book generally have multidimensional structures. In order to analyze, understand, and design such organizations, it is useful to briefly review each dimension.

The functional structure is suitable for small businesses. It is also good for large companies that are in a single line of business and need to realize the benefits of scale, such as retailers or semiconductor manufacturers. Variations of functional structures can be used successfully for different purposes. A fast food and a pharmaceutical company both use a functional organization. The fast food company is focused on low price and consistency. Its primary functions are therefore supply chain, marketing, training, real estate, and franchisee relations. A pharmaceutical firm’s primary functions are focused on research and development, government relations, manufacturing, marketing, and sales. Although each company serves a wholly different customer base and relies on a different set of core functions, the functional structure is effective as a primary organizing dimension. Figure 1.3 illustrates a simplified structure for both.

When a company has only one fairly stable product line and long product development cycles are feasible, a functional structure can be used to advantage to create scale, expertise, and efficiency. This structure, however, becomes a barrier once the company diversifies and needs to manage a variety of products, services, channels, or customers, since all the coordination must be done by the senior management team. In a purely functional structure, there is no one with end-to-end responsibility for each product line below the level of the chief executive officer.

The functional dimension is useful under the following conditions:

Separating into product divisions brings three main advantages:

Employees and managers generally like working in the product division structure. They develop a strong team identity around the products they produce and the markets they serve. Managers can focus on customer satisfaction and profitability. Measures and rewards are typically closely linked to business unit success, and both managers and employees can see the results from their decisions and actions. The divisions may share some basic functions at a corporate level, such as purchasing or finance, but most of the functions are housed in the discrete business units. The head of a product division is often referred to as a general manager, as he or she has control over almost all aspects of the business. As a result, the product division is also an effective way to develop well-rounded executive talent with experience running an end-to-end business. Figure 1.4 illustrates a typical structure for a manufacturer of diverse products with some shared functions at the corporate level.

Caterpillar is an example of a large company that moved from a functional structure to a product division structure (for example, loaders and excavators, tractors, mining equipment) in order to gain more focus and accountability for each of its product lines. As a result, the company has been able to reduce its product development cycle time for heavy machinery from seventy-two to thirty-six months by providing managers with a clearer line of sight and control over the variables important to the dynamics of their business units (Neilson and Pasternack, 2005).

Using the product division as a primary structural dimension does introduce some problems. First, knowledge within functions is not as easily shared; for example, a research and development breakthrough in one division that could be applied by another division may go unnoticed. Second, as opposed to leveraging scale, which a functional structure does, there may be duplication of effort by the functions housed in each division. This separation also creates policy and system divergence, as opposed to standardization, which may be problematic if there is a desire to build a common culture and operating practices across the divisions. The final disadvantage is that customers who wish to buy more than one product may be frustrated by having to deal with each division independently.

The product division structure is useful under the following conditions:

Figure 1.5 illustrates the structure of a beverage bottling company that uses geography as its primary organizing dimension. Although the core products are standardized, differences among countries in product packaging, marketing, logistics, and the need to build good relationships with local government officials and retailers all require an organization that allows managers to focus on local conditions.

The disadvantages of the geographic structure are similar to those of the product division. Power and resources are controlled by regional or country managers, who may favor their own unit’s needs over shared global or regional needs. As with the product division, the design challenge is to find the elements that can be shared across geographies while providing autonomy for managers to make local adaptations.

The geographic structure is useful under the following conditions:

Such a structure allows a dedicated service relationship and is often found in professional services firms and investment banks. An interesting example of an organization that uses a customer organization is the Internal Revenue Service (Rossotti, 2001). In the late 1990s, this U.S. government agency, which was originally structured by geography, was reorganized into four customer segments that reflect groups of taxpayers with similar characteristics: wage earners, sole proprietors and small businesses, medium and large businesses, and government and nonprofit entities. Each segment has full responsibility for serving its set of taxpayers. Managers therefore can focus on creating programs, services, and communications targeted for each group. Shared information technology services are housed at the corporate level, as are some small units that need to be independent, such as appeals, criminal investigation, and taxpayer advocacy services.

We can also illustrate here how other dimensions can be used at lower levels of the organization to match additional organizational needs. The medium and large-size business category is further segmented by customer into industry groups. Each of these industries has headquarters located in the city where the activity is concentrated, such as financial services in New York City and natural resources in Houston. The wage earner segment, however, is broken into geographic territories one level down in order to create regional offices close to the taxpayers. The high-level structure is shown in Figure 1.6.

The potential disadvantages of the customer structure are similar to those of the product division. Activities may be duplicated, incompatible systems might be developed to serve different sets of customers, and the advantages of scale can be lost. Such a structure also creates barriers when products or services are sold to multiple customer segments. However, when segments are highly differentiated or each segment is large enough to create scale on its own, then this is not an issue. For example, at the IRS, the wage earners segment serves 116 million taxpayers, allowing enough scale to deliver most functional activities cost-effectively.

The customer structure is useful under the following conditions:

The front-back structure combines the advantages of the customer and product dimensions and is described in Chapter Two. The Structural Options tool located in the Appendix provides a summary of the advantages and disadvantages for each dimension.

All structures create silos. Whenever people are grouped according to one logic, boundaries are created that make it difficult for them to interact with groups formed according to a different logic. This is not a problem if the strategy does not require a high level of interaction or collaboration across these boundaries. But if the strategy does require collaboration, then the organization’s structure—no matter how well thought out—will create some barriers to collaboration. The organizational challenge becomes how to bridge these internal boundaries and integrate activities. Processes and lateral connections provide the required mechanisms of integration.

We use the term process to mean a series of connected activities that move information up and down and across the organization. This includes work processes, such as developing a new product, closing a deal, or filling an order. It also includes management processes, such as planning and forecasting sales, business portfolio management, price setting, standards development, capacity management, and conflict resolution. Processes that cross organizational boundaries force organizational units to work together. Their design has a significant impact on how well units work together vertically or laterally. Clear articulation of roles and responsibilities at the boundary interfaces is essential for the design of good processes. The Responsibility Charting tool located in the Appendix can be used to help provide this clarity.

In addition to processes, lateral connections can be used to bridge barriers erected by an organization’s structure. Lateral connections are generally less well understood than processes, and so are given more attention here. Lateral connections can be thought of as existing along a continuum, as shown in Figure 1.7. The horizontal axis represents the strength of connection between people or units, with personal networks forming a relatively weak connection and a matrix forcing a strong relationship. The vertical axis represents the cost, management time, and difficulty in using the lateral connection successfully. Costs include such things as reconfiguring information systems to aggregate data in new ways or meetings, which are notoriously time-consuming but are the vehicle for much lateral coordination work. Networks are relatively inexpensive and easy to foster, whereas a matrix is one of the most difficult organizational forms to master. Each type of lateral connection is briefly reviewed below.