Go Back   ManagementParadise.com | Management & Business Education Learning Platform PUBLISH / UPLOAD PROJECT OR DOWNLOAD REFERENCE PROJECT > Human Resources Management (H.R)

Organisational Structure of Agilent Technologies

Discuss Organisational Structure of Agilent Technologies within the Human Resources Management (H.R) forums, part of the PUBLISH / UPLOAD PROJECT OR DOWNLOAD REFERENCE PROJECT category; Organisational Structure of Agilent Technologies : Agilent Technologies (NYSE: A), or Agilent, is a company which designs and manufactures electronic ...

Reply

 

Thread Tools Display Modes
Organisational Structure of Agilent Technologies
Old
 (1 (permalink))
Netra Shetty
netrashetty is on a distinguished road
 
netrashetty
Student of PGDM at Mats Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship
Bangalore, Karnataka
Management Paradise Guru
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 4,857
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Bangalore, Karnataka
Organisational Structure of Agilent Technologies - February 1st, 2011

Organisational Structure of Agilent Technologies : Agilent Technologies (NYSE: A), or Agilent, is a company which designs and manufactures electronic and bio-analytical measurement instruments and equipment for measurement and evaluation. The company's headquarters are in Santa Clara, California, in the Silicon Valley region.

Many of Agilent's predecessor product lines were developed by Hewlett-Packard, the American computing company founded in 1939. In 1999, the product lines not directly connected with computers, storage, and imaging were grouped into a separate company (Agilent), the stock of which was offered to the public in an initial public offering. The Agilent IPO may have been the largest in the history of Silicon Valley.[7]

The company thus created in 1999 was an $8 billion company with about 47,000 employees, manufacturing scientific instruments, semiconductors, optical networking devices, and electronic test equipment for telecom and wireless R&D and production.


Some organizations find that none of the afore-mentioned structures meet their needs. One approach that attempts to overcome the inadequacies is the matrix structure, which is the combination of two or more different structures. Functional departmentalization commonly is combined with product groups on a project basis. For example, a product group wants to develop a new addition to its line; for this project, it obtains personnel from functional departments such as research, engineering, production, and marketing. These personnel then work under the manager of the product group for the duration of the project, which can vary greatly. These personnel are responsible to two managers (as shown in Figure 3).

One advantage of a matrix structure is that it facilitates the use of highly specialized staff and equipment. Rather than duplicating functions as would be done in a simple product department structure, resources are shared as needed. In some cases, highly specialized staff may divide their time among more than one project. In addition, maintaining functional departments promotes functional expertise, while at the same time working in project groups with experts from other functions fosters cross-fertilization of ideas.

The disadvantages of a matrix organization arise from the dual reporting structure. The organization's top management must take particular care to establish proper procedures for the development of projects and to keep communication channels clear so that potential conflicts do not arise and hinder organizational functioning. In theory at least, top management is responsible for arbitrating such conflicts, but in practice power struggles between the functional and product manager can prevent successful implementation of matrix structural arrangements. Besides the product/function matrix, other bases can be related in a matrix. Large multinational corporations that use a matrix structure most commonly combine product groups with geographic units. Product managers have global responsibility for the development, manufacturing, and distribution of their own product or service line, while managers of geographic regions have responsibility for the success of the business in their regions.


12
CEO
William Sullivan
4
Chairman of the Board
James Cullen
3
Director
Paul Clark
3
Director
Boon Hwee Koh
2
Director
Robert Herbold
8
Director
David Lawrence
2
Director
Barry Rand
CTO
Darlene Solomon
CFO
Didier Hirsch
Legal & Secretary
Marie Oh Huber
3
Chemical Analysis
Michael McMullen
Life Sciences
Nicolas Roelofs
Human Resource
Jean Halloran
Electronic Measurement
Ronald Nersesian
Infrastructure
Rick Burdsall
Development & Strategy
Shiela Robertson
Sales, Service & Support
Lonnie Justice
2
Treasurer
Hilliard Terry
Electronic Instruments Busin...
Soon Chai Gooi
Sales, Service & Support EMG
Saleem Odeh

As corporations become very large they often restructure as a means of revitalizing the organization. Growth of a business often is accompanied by a growth in bureaucracy, as positions are created to facilitate developing needs or opportunities. Continued changes in the organization or in the external business environment may make this bureaucracy a hindrance rather than a help, not simply because of the size or complexity of the organization but also because of a sluggish bureaucratic way of thinking. One approach to encourage new ways of thinking and acting is to reorganize parts of the company into largely autonomous groups,

This scheme is very familiar in the theory of scientific management. For Taylor, in order to produce more production and boost workmen energy up to the limit, management should acclimatize this “initiative and incentive” scheme. Insofar as workers are under paid and receives proper amount of wages, the probability level of “soldiering’ is high, which can cause to destabilize the production level.

Moreover, only when workmen are given an attractive benefits and incentives they become motivated to exert more effort and energy to their work, thereby producing a higher level of productivity and quality of work. In this case, management should take this initiative in order to avoid “soldiering” among workmen and proper distribution of responsibility in accordance to their capability, can produce good and quality output.

In the aspect of organizational behavior, this strategy is still effective in terms of the process of motivating the employees to generate quality work and output. Various organizations are aware of such system and seen it to be effectively create a good atmosphere within the company. However, organizational research stressed that incentives is not only an option or alternative that can motivate employees to work competitively. There are other ways in which employees can be motivated to produce quality work and much a quality output.
Advertisements


Last edited by bhautik.kawa; July 19th, 2016 at 04:15 PM..
   
Friends: (0)
Reply With Quote
Re: Organisational Structure of Agilent Technologies
Old
 (2 (permalink))
James Cord
jamescord is an unknown quantity at this point
 
jamescord
Management Paradise Guru
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2,112
Join Date: Mar 2016
Re: Organisational Structure of Agilent Technologies - March 30th, 2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by netrashetty View Post
Agilent Technologies (NYSE: A), or Agilent, is a company which designs and manufactures electronic and bio-analytical measurement instruments and equipment for measurement and evaluation. The company's headquarters are in Santa Clara, California, in the Silicon Valley region.

Many of Agilent's predecessor product lines were developed by Hewlett-Packard, the American computing company founded in 1939. In 1999, the product lines not directly connected with computers, storage, and imaging were grouped into a separate company (Agilent), the stock of which was offered to the public in an initial public offering. The Agilent IPO may have been the largest in the history of Silicon Valley.[7]

The company thus created in 1999 was an $8 billion company with about 47,000 employees, manufacturing scientific instruments, semiconductors, optical networking devices, and electronic test equipment for telecom and wireless R&D and production.


Some organizations find that none of the afore-mentioned structures meet their needs. One approach that attempts to overcome the inadequacies is the matrix structure, which is the combination of two or more different structures. Functional departmentalization commonly is combined with product groups on a project basis. For example, a product group wants to develop a new addition to its line; for this project, it obtains personnel from functional departments such as research, engineering, production, and marketing. These personnel then work under the manager of the product group for the duration of the project, which can vary greatly. These personnel are responsible to two managers (as shown in Figure 3).

One advantage of a matrix structure is that it facilitates the use of highly specialized staff and equipment. Rather than duplicating functions as would be done in a simple product department structure, resources are shared as needed. In some cases, highly specialized staff may divide their time among more than one project. In addition, maintaining functional departments promotes functional expertise, while at the same time working in project groups with experts from other functions fosters cross-fertilization of ideas.

The disadvantages of a matrix organization arise from the dual reporting structure. The organization's top management must take particular care to establish proper procedures for the development of projects and to keep communication channels clear so that potential conflicts do not arise and hinder organizational functioning. In theory at least, top management is responsible for arbitrating such conflicts, but in practice power struggles between the functional and product manager can prevent successful implementation of matrix structural arrangements. Besides the product/function matrix, other bases can be related in a matrix. Large multinational corporations that use a matrix structure most commonly combine product groups with geographic units. Product managers have global responsibility for the development, manufacturing, and distribution of their own product or service line, while managers of geographic regions have responsibility for the success of the business in their regions.


12
CEO
William Sullivan
4
Chairman of the Board
James Cullen
3
Director
Paul Clark
3
Director
Boon Hwee Koh
2
Director
Robert Herbold
8
Director
David Lawrence
2
Director
Barry Rand
CTO
Darlene Solomon
CFO
Didier Hirsch
Legal & Secretary
Marie Oh Huber
3
Chemical Analysis
Michael McMullen
Life Sciences
Nicolas Roelofs
Human Resource
Jean Halloran
Electronic Measurement
Ronald Nersesian
Infrastructure
Rick Burdsall
Development & Strategy
Shiela Robertson
Sales, Service & Support
Lonnie Justice
2
Treasurer
Hilliard Terry
Electronic Instruments Busin...
Soon Chai Gooi
Sales, Service & Support EMG
Saleem Odeh

As corporations become very large they often restructure as a means of revitalizing the organization. Growth of a business often is accompanied by a growth in bureaucracy, as positions are created to facilitate developing needs or opportunities. Continued changes in the organization or in the external business environment may make this bureaucracy a hindrance rather than a help, not simply because of the size or complexity of the organization but also because of a sluggish bureaucratic way of thinking. One approach to encourage new ways of thinking and acting is to reorganize parts of the company into largely autonomous groups,

This scheme is very familiar in the theory of scientific management. For Taylor, in order to produce more production and boost workmen energy up to the limit, management should acclimatize this “initiative and incentive” scheme. Insofar as workers are under paid and receives proper amount of wages, the probability level of “soldiering’ is high, which can cause to destabilize the production level.

Moreover, only when workmen are given an attractive benefits and incentives they become motivated to exert more effort and energy to their work, thereby producing a higher level of productivity and quality of work. In this case, management should take this initiative in order to avoid “soldiering” among workmen and proper distribution of responsibility in accordance to their capability, can produce good and quality output.

In the aspect of organizational behavior, this strategy is still effective in terms of the process of motivating the employees to generate quality work and output. Various organizations are aware of such system and seen it to be effectively create a good atmosphere within the company. However, organizational research stressed that incentives is not only an option or alternative that can motivate employees to work competitively. There are other ways in which employees can be motivated to produce quality work and much a quality output.
Hello friend,

Here i am uploading Organisational Chart of Agilent, so please download and check it.
Attached Files
File Type: docx Organisational Chart of Agilent.docx (82.1 KB, 0 views)
Friends: (0)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
area of hrm, career development, career management, career path, career planning, company in us, ethics in hr, hr policies, hrm of us company, hrm practices, human resource management, induction process, job evaluation, job rotation, organisational structure, organization development, organizational culture, orientation process, performance appraisal, personnel management, recruitment process, staffing process, strategic hrm, structure of us company, training development
Related to Organisational Structure of Agilent Technologies
 

Similar Threads

Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SWOT ANALYSIS ON Agilent Technologies Abhijeet S Principles of Management ( P.O.M) 1 December 19th, 2017 01:15 PM
Marketing Strategy of Agilent Technologies Anjali Khurana Marketing Management 1 May 19th, 2017 04:18 PM
Human Resource Management of Agilent Technologies Netra Shetty Human Resources Management (H.R) 1 March 22nd, 2016 07:21 PM
Pest Analysis On Agilent Technologies Abhijeet S Principles of Management ( P.O.M) 0 December 3rd, 2010 10:46 AM
Organisational Structure Prerna Rajan Human Resources Management 0 September 6th, 2009 08:18 PM
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


ManagementParadise.com is not responsible for the views and opinion of the posters. The posters and only posters shall be liable for any copyright infringement.



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.