| Course | MGT 414 Principles of Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Organizational design analysis |
| Length | About 1,048 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGT 414 Module 5
Ninety-Four Days From Signature to Sunshine: Redesigning the Structure of a Growing Solar Installer
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
MGT 414: Principles of Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Ninety-Four Days From Signature to Sunshine: Redesigning the Structure of a Growing Solar Installer
Valley Sun Solar, a composite company based in Sacramento, California, designs and installs solar panels and batteries on homes. It began in 2021 with 40 employees and now has 160, with offices in Sacramento, Fresno and Reno. Sales have tripled, but customers are increasingly unhappy. The average time from a signed contract to a working system has risen from 51 to 94 days, and about a quarter of calls to the company are customers asking where their projects stand. The founders want to know whether the company's structure has caused the problem and what should replace it.
The Current Structure
Valley Sun is organized by function. Sales, design, permitting, installation and service are separate departments, each led by a vice president in Sacramento. A project moves from a salesperson, who signs the customer, to a designer, who creates the layout, to a permit coordinator, who files with the city and utility, to an installation crew and finally to service. Each department keeps its own queue and measures its own speed. No one owns a project from start to finish.
Where Projects Wait
Tracking 60 recent projects showed that actual work took about 22 days on average, while the other 72 days were spent waiting between departments: for a design to be started, for a permit to be filed, for a crew to be scheduled. Handoffs often lacked information, such as roof photos or the customer's electrical panel details, sending projects back a step. When problems crossed departments, they went up to the vice presidents, who met weekly to sort them out.
Structure and Environment
Burns and Stalker (1961) studied firms in the Scottish electronics industry and found two management systems. Mechanistic systems had clear hierarchies, specialized tasks and vertical communication, and worked well in stable conditions. Organic systems had flexible roles, lateral communication and shared responsibility for problems, and suited changing conditions. Valley Sun's environment changes constantly: state and federal incentives shift, utilities revise rules for connecting home systems and cities differ in permit requirements. Its structure has become more mechanistic as it grew, the reverse of what its environment requires.
Configurations and Coordination
Mintzberg (1980) proposed that organizations tend toward five configurations, each relying on a primary coordinating mechanism. The simple structure relies on direct supervision, the machine bureaucracy on standardized work, the professional bureaucracy on standardized skills, the divisionalized form on standardized outputs and the adhocracy on mutual adjustment. In 2021, Valley Sun was a simple structure; the founders coordinated everything directly. As it grew, it became a functional organization without the standardization to match, so coordination fell back on direct supervision by four overloaded vice presidents.
An Information Processing View
Galbraith (1974) reasoned that uncertain work forces people to exchange more information while the work is underway. Organizations can reduce the need for information processing, for example by creating self-contained units with the resources for a whole task, or increase their capacity, for example through information systems or lateral relations such as liaison roles and teams across departments. Each Valley Sun project involves uncertainty about the roof, the permit and the utility; a functional structure forces that information up through vice presidents.
Three Options
| Criterion | Functional, as now | Matrix with project managers | Regional divisions with project pods |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership of each project | None | Project manager, shared with departments | Pod owns project start to finish |
| Speed of handoffs | Slow queues | Somewhat faster | Fast; pod members work together |
| Fit with local permit rules | Poor; central teams | Moderate | Good; regions know their cities |
| Technical consistency | Strong | Strong | Needs central standards |
| Cost and complexity | Low | High; two bosses | Moderate |
Recommendation
Valley Sun should create three regional divisions, Sacramento, Fresno and Reno, each run by its own general manager who answers for that region's results. Within each region, pods of four, a salesperson, a designer, a permit coordinator and a crew lead, will own projects from contract to switch-on. This creates the self-contained units Galbraith describes and the mutual adjustment of an organic structure. To keep quality consistent, a small central engineering group will set design standards and review complex projects, standardizing outputs as Mintzberg's divisionalized form would. A shared project tracking system, visible to customers, will replace status calls.
What Employees Said
Interviews with twenty employees across departments supported the diagnosis. Designers said they rarely knew which projects were urgent, because salespeople promised dates without checking design queues. Crew leads said they arrived at houses to find the design did not match the roof. Permit coordinators said they spent hours each week chasing missing documents from sales. Almost everyone said they would prefer to work with the same few colleagues on each project, which is what pods provide.
Risks of the New Design
Regional divisions carry risks. Pods may drift from company standards, which is why engineering remains central with authority to stop a design. Regions may compete for scarce specialists, such as electricians qualified for battery work; a shared scheduling pool will handle them. Some vice presidents may resist losing their departments. And pods depend on a steady flow of projects; if sales in one region slow, pod members may sit idle, so crews will be shared across regions when needed.
Decision Rights and Accountability
Pods will decide scheduling and customer communication. Regional general managers will decide staffing and local pricing within limits. The central engineering group will hold authority over design standards and safety. Each pod will be measured on days to switch-on and customer ratings.
Transition
The company will pilot two pods in Fresno for three months, measure their days to switch-on and adjust the design before converting the rest of the company. Vice presidents will become regional general managers or lead central engineering and service.
Measures
Success will show in average days from contract to switch-on, the share of projects returned to an earlier step, customer status calls per project and customer ratings.
Conclusion
Valley Sun's functional structure fit neither its size nor its changing environment, leaving projects waiting between departments and problems climbing to overloaded executives. Research on organic structures, configurations and information processing points to regional divisions with self-contained pods and central standards, a design that gives every project an owner and every region the knowledge of its own rules.
References
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock.
Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4(3), 28-36. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.4.3.28
Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5's: A synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Science, 26(3), 322-341. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.26.3.322
What the MGT 414 Module 5 instructions ask for
Organizing and structure are central to Aspen's MGT 414, and the module's paper typically centers on judging whether a company's design still suits its strategy and surroundings, then proposing a better one. Follow the Module 5 prompt your classroom posts; the example works through one growing company. Describe the current structure, including departments, reporting lines and how work moves between them. Identify symptoms that suggest the structure no longer fits. Explain research linking structure to environment and coordination. Compare at least two alternative designs. Recommend one, explaining how it changes coordination, decision making and accountability. Plan the transition and how results will be judged.
Inside the MGT 414 Module 5 example
The paper opens with Valley Sun Solar, organized in five departments: sales, design, permitting, installation and service, each reporting to a vice president. Projects wait in queues at each handoff, and customers call sales to ask where their systems are. Burns and Stalker's book on innovation in Scottish electronics firms contrasts mechanistic and organic management systems. Mintzberg's Management Science article describes five configurations and coordinating mechanisms such as mutual adjustment and standardization. Galbraith's Interfaces article argues that uncertainty requires more information processing, met by self-contained tasks or lateral relations. A table compares the current functional structure, a matrix and regional divisions with project pods. The recommendation creates three regional divisions, each with pods of a salesperson, designer, permit coordinator and crew lead, with engineering standards kept central.
MGT 414 Module 5 rubric: what earns full marks
Organizational design papers are assessed on accurate description of the current structure, diagnosis based on evidence, correct application of design research and a recommendation that addresses coordination and accountability. This example traces how a project moves through departments and where it waits, which grounds the diagnosis. Burns and Stalker's work links the company's changing environment to the need for organic features. Mintzberg's configurations and coordinating mechanisms explain why overload falls on vice presidents. Galbraith's information processing view supplies the logic for pods. The table compares options on the same criteria, and the transition plan, with a pilot before full rollout, shows practical judgment.
MGT 414 Module 5 help: mistakes that cost marks
Structure papers often recommend a new chart without explaining why the old one fails or how the new one changes the way work is coordinated. Trace how work moves now and where it stalls. Another weakness is choosing a fashionable design without linking it to the organization's environment and strategy. Use research to connect structure with uncertainty and coordination. Compare alternatives fairly, including their costs. Explain who decides what in the new design and who is accountable for results. Plan the transition, since reorganizations disrupt work. Finally, set measures, such as cycle time or customer complaints, that show whether the new structure helps. Name the risks of the new design.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More MGT 414 and Business Administration sample papers
- MGT 414 Module 1: Managers and Management Thought
- MGT 414 Module 2: The Organizational Environment
- MGT 414 Module 3: Ethics and Social Responsibility
- MGT 414 Module 4: Planning, Goals and Strategy
- MGT 414 Module 6: Human Resources and Diversity
- MGT 414 Module 7: Leading, Motivating and Teams
- MGT 414 Module 8: Controlling and Performance Measurement
- BUS 454 Module 3: Stakeholder Mapping
- MGT 464 Module 1: Individual Differences and Perception
- MGT 424 Module 6: Power, Influence and Ethics
- BUS 495 Module 5: Exchange Rate Exposure
MGT 414 Module 5 questions, answered
What does MGT 414 Module 5 usually ask for?
Aspen's MGT 414 covers organizing and structure in this module, so analyzing an organization's structure and recommending a better design is typical. Read your classroom prompt.
What is the difference between mechanistic and organic structures?
Burns and Stalker described mechanistic structures as hierarchical with defined roles, suited to stable conditions, and organic structures as flexible with lateral communication, suited to change.
What are coordinating mechanisms?
Mintzberg's ways organizations coordinate work: mutual adjustment, direct supervision and standardization of work processes, outputs or skills.
Where can I find a free MGT 414 Module 5 sample paper?
The example above redesigns a solar installer's functional structure into regional divisions with project pods, using research on structure and coordination.
How does uncertainty affect structure?
Galbraith argued that greater uncertainty requires more information processing, which organizations meet by creating self-contained units or adding lateral relations.