| Course | GM543 Strategic Organizational Design and Architecture |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Organization design recommendation |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GM543 Unit 10
Shared Plants, Two Market Units and One Owner Per Project: A Unit 10 Organization Design Recommendation
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM543: Strategic Organizational Design and Architecture
Unit 10 Organization Design Recommendation
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Harrow Contract Furniture, its executives and every figure are composite and illustrative; the frameworks and studies cited are real.
Executive Summary
Harrow Contract Furniture should keep its two plants, its engineering platforms and its supply chain as shared functions and create two market-facing units: Workplace Projects, which owns large office and university projects, and Healthcare, which owns hospital and clinic customers. The dealer catalog business stays with the regional sales organization. Each large project gets one project manager who answers for it from quote to installation.
New roles in the design cost about $1.0 million each year and saves about $0.8 million by removing layers, for a net annual cost of about $200,000. One-time transition costs are about $480,000, and we expect two quarters of reduced plant output while new service terms settle in. The one condition that would change this recommendation is healthcare demand: if healthcare bids do not reach 40 a year by the end of year two, the Healthcare unit should fold into Workplace Projects.
The Current and Proposed Charts
Today the CEO has seven functional vice presidents reporting directly, customer operations among them. Sales is grouped by region, the plants by product, and nineteen project coordinators sit under one supervisor in customer operations.
In the proposed chart, the CEO has eight direct reports. Two are new general managers. The Workplace Projects general manager leads six project managers, drawn from the strongest coordinators and the national accounts team, plus two estimators who can approve standard custom requests. The Healthcare general manager leads a unit of eight: three representatives who sell only to hospitals and clinics, a product manager, a pair of dedicated engineers and a pair of project managers. The vice president of operations keeps both plants, and the production manager layer is removed, so plant managers supervise area supervisors directly. Engineering keeps the seating, tables and special products groups and owns the shared frame standard. Customer operations is folded into the regional sales organization for dealer orders, and its vice president role is removed.
Each market unit buys from the plants and engineering under a written service agreement that sets reserved weekly capacity, lead times for custom work and a transfer price. Jay Galbraith calls this a front-back design: units in front own customers and markets, units in back own products and production, and the design succeeds or fails on the links between them (Galbraith, 2014).
The market units own the customer and the promise; the shared plants own how the promise is built, and a written agreement connects the two.
Alternatives Considered and Rejected
A full divisional split. Giving each market its own plant would end the conflict over plant time but would duplicate the frame lines and lose the long runs that keep our unit cost low. Healthcare volume is far too small to fill a plant.
A company-wide matrix. The healthcare engineering pilot showed how much time a matrix consumes when conflicts lack rules. Extending it to every function would multiply the disputes.
Integrators inside the functional design. Adding project integrators at quoting would fix the worst link but would leave no one with profit responsibility for projects or healthcare, failing the market advantage and accountability tests.
How the Design Meets the Fit Criteria
An owner with profit responsibility for projects and healthcare. Each general manager carries a profit and loss statement, and each large project has one project manager.
Plant efficiency and the shared frame standard. The plants stay shared, and engineering directors approve any change to the frame standard.
A decision maker at the quoting link. Estimators in Workplace Projects and engineers in Healthcare approve standard custom requests, and the project manager confirms a ship date with the plant scheduler before any date is promised.
Rewards tied to the strategy. General managers and project managers are paid on project margin and on-time completion, and plant managers' bonuses count reserved capacity delivered on time as part of on-time output.
No layers without distinct work. The production manager layer and the customer operations vice president are removed, and the plants drop from seven layers to six.
Pricing the Transition
One-time costs. We estimate about $90,000 for a cost allocation system and service agreements, $80,000 to recruit two general managers, $60,000 for project management training and about $250,000 in severance and redeployment for removed roles, a total near $480,000.
The productivity dip. When Harrow centralized customer service four years ago, order errors rose from about 2.1 to 3.4 percent and on-time shipments fell four points for two quarters before recovering. We expect a similar dip as plants learn to schedule against reserved capacity and coordinators move into new roles, costing roughly $300,000 in credits and expediting. Michael Fullan describes a dip of this kind as a normal stage of implementation, not a sign of failure (Fullan, 2001), and the board should accept it before the change begins so that a weak quarter does not end the design.
Three phases. In the first phase, months one to three, the general managers are appointed, service agreements are written and project managers are selected. In the second phase, months four to nine, Workplace Projects goes live first, because large projects are most of the strategy's revenue, followed by Healthcare three months later. In the third phase, months ten to fifteen, the production manager layer is removed and rewards change when the next fiscal year opens.
David Nadler and Michael Tushman warn that a redesign changes power, and that people who lose authority should hear the reasons early and learn where they will stand afterward (Nadler & Tushman, 1997). The five production managers should be offered area supervisor, project manager or plant improvement roles before the change is announced.
Measures After One Year
We will judge the design by five measures after twelve months. Large projects shipped on time should rise from 56 percent to at least 75 percent. The healthcare win rate should rise from 19 percent to at least 26 percent. Plant cost per unit should stay within 2 percent of today's figure. The time from a quote request to a confirmed ship date should fall from about nine working days to three. Turnover among project managers should stay below 10 percent. If the first three measures move in the right direction, the design is working; if plant cost rises more than 2 percent, the service agreements need revision before anything else changes.
References
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.
Galbraith, J. R. (2014). Designing organizations: Strategy, structure, and process at the business unit and enterprise levels (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1997). Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture. Oxford University Press.
What the GM543 Unit 10 assignment asks for
The final GM543 unit asks you to recommend a new organization design and plan the transition. Begin with an executive summary stating the recommendation, its annual and one-time cost and the single condition under which you would choose differently. Describe the current and proposed charts side by side, saying which units own customers, which provide shared services and how the two are connected. Present the alternatives you considered and why you rejected each. Show how the design meets each criterion from your earlier fit assessment. Give the transition at least half the paper: one-time costs, a productivity dip estimated from the organization's own history, a phased sequence and how people who lose authority will be treated. Close with measures that will show whether the design works after a year. Expect eight to nine pages, citing design and change research in APA 7.
Inside the GM543 Unit 10 example
The executive summary proposes Workplace Projects and Healthcare units in front of shared plants and engineering, with a net annual cost of about $200,000 and a condition tied to 40 healthcare bids by year two. The charts describe seven functional vice presidents today and, in the proposal, two general managers, six project managers, estimators, a healthcare unit of eight and the removal of the production manager layer and customer operations vice president. The highlighted sentence summarizes the front-back logic. Three alternatives are rejected. Five criteria from Unit 9 are met in turn. The transition prices $480,000 in one-time costs and a two-quarter dip based on the customer service change four years ago, citing Fullan. Three phases run fifteen months, with Nadler and Tushman on power. Five measures close, from 56 to 75 percent on-time projects to coordinator turnover.
GM543 Unit 10 rubric: what earns full points
GM543 rubric points for this recommendation go to a clear design, an honest price and a transition plan with real weight. Instructors look for an executive summary that states the recommendation, its cost and its key condition. Charts should show who owns customers and how shared units connect to them. Rejected alternatives with reasons show the choice was tested. Linking the design to criteria from the earlier assessment earns credit because it shows the work builds across units. The transition carries significant weight: one-time costs, a productivity dip grounded in the organization's own history, phases and attention to people who lose authority. Measures set in advance let the design be judged fairly. Galbraith's Designing Organizations, Fullan's Leading in a Culture of Change and Nadler and Tushman's Competing by Design provide the references in APA 7.
GM543 Unit 10 help from the desk
Many GM543 Unit 10 recommendations describe a new chart in detail and give the transition a paragraph, though most redesigns struggle in the move rather than the design. Others present one option without alternatives, so the reader cannot see why it won. A frequent gap is cost: a design without annual and one-time figures cannot be approved. Some writers ignore the productivity dip, which leaves leaders to panic when it arrives. State the recommendation and its price first, show both charts, explain the rejected options, tie the design to your fit criteria, price the transition with a dip estimated from past change, sequence it in phases, plan for people who lose roles and name the measures that will judge it.
Get a GM543 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Bring the organization and strategy that Unit 10 focuses on, along with anything earlier units produced: profile, maps, fit results. Include the prompt and rubric. A first recommendation is drafted without charge and returned in 24-48h, alternatives rejected on stated grounds and the transition priced in ranges your section can check. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GM543 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM543 Unit 1: Functional Structure Discussion Post
- GM543 Unit 2: Star Model Organization Profile
- GM543 Unit 3: Functional vs Divisional Comparison
- GM543 Unit 4: Coordination Mechanism Analysis
- GM543 Unit 5: RAPID Decision Rights Map
- GM543 Unit 6: Reorganization Swings Reflection
- GM543 Unit 7: Matrix Dispute Case Analysis
- GM543 Unit 8: Span of Control and Layers Review
- GM543 Unit 9: Nine Tests Fit Assessment Memo
- GM541 Unit 10: Uptime Service Transformation Plan
- GM506 Unit 10: Rising Freight Strategic Report
- GM505 Unit 10: Financial Aid Action Research Cycle
- GM504 Unit 10: Delivery Accuracy Project Report
GM543 Unit 10 questions, answered
What is a front-back design?
A hybrid in which customer-facing units are organized around markets or segments while the back end stays organized around products, technology or operations, serving every front unit. Galbraith describes it as a way to gain customer focus without giving up scale. Its cost is the seam: priorities and prices between front and back must be negotiated continually, which the recommendation should say plainly.
Does the recommendation have to use earlier units' work?
Many prompts expect it, and it makes the paper stronger even where not required. Earlier analyses supply evidence the recommendation would otherwise have to assert, such as decision rights gaps or a redundant layer. Revising earlier findings in view, where later units showed something new, usually reads as better judgment than repeating them unchanged.
Where can I find a free GM543 Unit 10 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM543 Unit 10 front-back design recommendation for a furniture maker, with two market units, shared plants, a priced transition and APA 7 references.
Why not split the company into full divisions?
Giving each market its own plant would duplicate the frame lines and lose the long runs that keep unit cost low, and healthcare volume is far too small to fill a plant. Shared plants with service agreements keep scale while giving markets an owner.
How is the productivity dip estimated?
From the company's own last reorganization. When customer service was centralized four years ago, order errors rose from about 2.1 to 3.4 percent and on-time shipments fell four points for two quarters, so a similar dip is priced at about $300,000.