A furniture maker is profiled across the Star Model's strategy, structure, processes, rewards and people for GM543 Unit 2, and grouping, with its costs, gets the most room. Searches like "gm 543 unit 2 assignment example", "gm543 unit 2 sample" and "gm543 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished GM543 Unit 2 organization profile looks like
Five to six pages under five headings, one per point of the star, after a half-page snapshot: about five hundred people, two plants, sales through roughly [140] dealers plus a small national accounts team, and a strategy adopted two years ago to win large workplace projects and build a healthcare seating line. The strategy section quotes that decision and lists the capabilities it demands. The structure section, the longest, describes the grouping: seven functions under the CEO, plants split by product, sales by region. Each grouping choice then takes one row of a two-column table, the ease it buys and the price it carries, each cost stated in days, headcount or rework. Processes, rewards and people get a page each, and a closing paragraph names the point furthest from the strategy.
How a GM543 Unit 2 example is structured
The profile is descriptive by assignment and holds its judgment for the last paragraph, but description here is not neutral listing. Galbraith's claim that the five points must fit one another sets the test every section applies: does this point help or hinder the strategy the board chose? Structure gets the most room because grouping is the decision every other point inherits. Processes are described as they run, including the weekly order review where cross-functional problems currently land. Rewards come next and carry the sharpest finding: plant bonuses pay on units per labor hour, so a short custom run for a hospital costs the plant bonus money, and sales commissions pay on bookings rather than delivered margin. People closes the profile with the coordinators, hired as order clerks and now expected to run projects.
Snapshot and the strategy in force
About five hundred people, two plants, dealer sales plus national accounts. The board's two-year-old decision, large workplace projects and healthcare seating, is quoted and turned into three demands: custom engineering on a deadline, one accountable owner per project, and clinical buyers served directly.
Grouping, row by row
Functional at the top, product-based in the plants, regional in sales. The table gives each choice what it makes easy, such as long production runs and a single frame design, and what it costs, such as [nine]-week project lead times and three groups quoting fabric separately.
Processes that fill the gaps
Cross-functional work moves through a weekly order review, a shared special-orders spreadsheet and coordinators' email. Each is described as it actually runs, and the profile notes that none of them carries authority to settle a conflict.
Rewards pointed at the old strategy
Plant bonuses pay on units per labor hour, which makes a short hospital run expensive to accept. Commissions pay on bookings. Nobody is paid for a large project delivered on time, the result the strategy most needs.
People in jobs that changed underneath them
Nineteen coordinators were hired as order clerks and now chase engineering, plants and installers with authority over none of them. Turnover in that group, [six] departures in eighteen months, is recorded as a design cost rather than a staffing one.
Where marks go in GM543 Unit 2
Profiles in GM543 are usually judged on whether each description arrives with its cost attached. The weakest version transcribes the organization chart and the mission statement and calls the result a profile, which shows the organization exists without showing how it works. Close behind comes a Star Model applied as five separate essays, so that rewards and structure never meet, when Galbraith's argument is that misalignment between points is the finding. A profile does well when it states the strategy in force, describes grouping in terms of the work, and prices each grouping choice in something measurable. A profile that notices rewards pulling against strategy often picks up analysis marks even though the assignment is descriptive, because later design units build on exactly that observation.
Get a GM543 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Choose the organization you know best, even a single department, and send its rough shape with the Unit 2 prompt and rubric: how the work is divided, who reports where, and what the current strategy asks for. From that, a first profile is written at no charge and returned within 24-48h, on the Star Model unless the prompt prefers another frame.
GM543 Unit 2 questions, answered
Does the profile have to use the Star Model?
Only if the prompt names it, and many sections leave the frame open. The Star Model suits a design course because its five points are all things a designer can change, which sets up the later units. Other frames, such as the McKinsey 7-S or a plain account of how work is divided and joined, can serve if each section still ties back to the strategy.
How can a cost be measured if nobody tracks it?
Estimate it and say so. Lead times can be rebuilt from order dates, duplicated work from how many people touch the same task, and turnover from a count of departures. Brackets mark figures a reader should replace with their own. The sample prices its grouping in days, headcount and rework, and every figure it could not verify is labeled as an estimate.
How much of the strategy belongs in a profile?
Enough to test the design against, usually a paragraph. Quote or closely summarize the strategy as leadership states it, then name the two or three capabilities it demands. Without that, the profile has nothing to measure grouping against, and every structure looks equally reasonable. A strategy described only as growth or excellence leaves the later sections with no standard to apply.