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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jamescord

MP Guru
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.
 

Attachments

  • Organisational Chart of Agilent.docx
    82.1 KB · Views: 0
Top