Portuguese Journal of Management Studies 01/2005; X(1):35-55.
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT A concepção das organizações enquadra-se na resposta às mudanças frequentes e drásticas da própria concepção dos produtos/serviços. A Gestão por Processos, requerida pela norma ISO 9001 publicada em finais de 2000, encaminhou as organizações com sistemas da qualidade certificados para a aplicação desta abordagem. Contudo, os resultados estão, em grande parte das organizações, abaixo das expectativas. Esta constatação conduziu-nos à sistematização de uma Metodologia para a Concepção das Organizações baseada em dois macro processos. O primeiro transpõe os requisitos organizacionais para formatos estruturais e estratégias. Este processo, para além dos requisitos funcionais, tem como entradas as características da envolvente, a missão e a visão da organização. As saídas são constituídas pelas soluções estruturais e pelas estratégias, os mercados e as tecnologias. O segundo macro processo transpõe os objectivos estratégicos para uma rede de processos (gestão, operacionais e de suporte). Este artigo apresenta a validação da metodologia ao nível do segundo macro processo, em que visámos compreender as relações existentes entre as soluções estruturais e os modelos de gestão dos processos adoptados através de uma amostra de 20 empresas. Concluímos que não existiam interacções entre a estratégia e a estrutura, que a coerência entre os objectivos dos processos era débil e que estes estavam, insuficientemente, alinhados com os objectivos estratégicos. Neste artigo são ainda apresentados e discutidos, os modelos de processos, as formas de gestão e os respectivos indicadores, apontando as respectivas tendências, vantagens e limitações.


Available from: Virgilio Cruz-Machado, Mar 10, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many companies have succeeded in reengineering their core processes, combining related activities from different departments and cutting out ones that don't add value. Few, though, have aligned their organizations with their processes. The result is a form of cognitive dissonance as the new, integrated processes pull people in one direction and the old, fragmented management structures pull them in another. That's not the way it has to be. In recent years, forward-thinking companies like IBM, Texas Instruments, and Duke Power have begun to make the leap from process redesign to process management. They've appointed some of their best managers to be process owners, giving them real authority over work and budgets. They've shifted the focus of their measurement and compensation systems from unit goals to process goals. They've changed the way they assign and train employees, emphasizing whole processes rather than narrow tasks. They've thought carefully about the strategic trade-offs between adopting uniform processes and allowing different units to do things their own way. And they've made subtle but fundamental cultural changes, stressing teamwork and customers over turf and hierarchy. These companies are emerging from all those changes as true process enterprises--businesses whose management structures are in harmony, rather than at war, with their core processes. And their organizations are becoming much more flexible, adaptive, and responsive as a result.
    Harvard business review 77(6):108-18, 216. · 1.27 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article discusses the contributions that field methods have made to the theory-development process in strategic management. Field studies drawn from the literature are classified according to their research goal (description, explanation, or prediction) and according to whether they built or tested theory. the overall conclusion is that field research methods will continue to be used heavily to develop strategy theory. However, certain conditions must be met to maximize the contribution of field methods to strategy research. These conditions include a balanced research agenda, multifaceted research approaches, innovative datagathering techniques, and an applied futuristic orientation.
    Journal of Management Studies 05/2007; 31(4):457 - 480. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00626.x · 4.26 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Process redesign is not always successful and is almost always accompanied by pain or at least unpleasant side effects. Many companies have undertaken reengineering efforts only to abandon them with little or no positive results. As important as it is to understand how to reengineer, it is crucial to understand how to avoid the traps. A disciplined, step-by-step approach to implementing process redesign is critical to the effort. This article offers a framework for the successful design and construction of the reengineering solution.
    Journal of Management Development 10/2000; 19(9):794-801. DOI:10.1108/02621710010378237 · 0.32 Impact Factor