wisdom of the 1990s. For example, consider the following guideline from The Science of Management “It is necessary in any activity to have a complete knowledge of what is to be done and to prepare instructions... the laborer has only to follow instructions. He need not stop to think.”The current emphasis on "empowerment", "learning organizations", and even "thriving on chaos" stands in sharp contrast to the above advice. Similar contrast can be found with many, if not most, of the other principles that lead to success even as late as the 1960s. For example, there are growing calls for downsizing (vs. economies of scale), total quality (vs. cost leadership), project teams (vs. functional departments), networked organization (vs. clear firm boundaries); performance-based pay (vs. position based), and autonomy (vs. rigid hierarchy). Comparing the present information revolution with the Industrial Revolution, Malone and Rockart (1993) indicated that the latest changes in IT would lead to the evolution of new technology-intensive organizational structures. They project that the advances in IT would result in dramatic decline in the costs of "coordination" which would lead to new, coordination-intensive business structures. IT & ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGNIn this section we review the major factors of change that might affect the Organizational Structure, and explain the difference between the old structure (Mechanistic) and the new one (Organic) and the relationship of IT with them.We then explain how Information Technology changes the structure of such organizations.Factors of ChangeThere are many possible factors for the change regarding organizational design. For instance, it is justifiable to call for change with reference to competitive pressures: although firms that applied the old principles were among the most successful competitors of their day, presumably the nature of competition has changed in some way. Others suggest th...
