Thomas, H R and Bluedorn, A C (1986) Case study of organizational changes. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 112(3), pp. 358-369. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper documents a case study of the organizational evolution, over a ten-year period, of a U.S. electric utility company in support of the construction of a two-unit nuclear generation facility. A number of principles for designing an organization are summarized, and it is suggested that these be used in the organizational planning process. Seven major reorganizations are described, and these changes are compared to the organizational planning principles. The project was half complete before all key engineering and planning functions were consolidated under a single manager. It was approximately 80% complete before the authority of the project director was commensurate with his responsibilities. It is shown how the project authority structure emerged as functional but was later changed to a projectized one. After several realinements, a matrix organization was tried. A strong project structure replaced the matrix structure when the resources of the entire organization were committed to completing the project.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | planning process, case study, electric utility, manager, organizational change, evolution, documents |
| Subjects: | energy systems, environmental science, practitioner, data collection methods, business, project controls, professional development |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Time Control, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here