The document presents a new model called the MIOS (Model Innovation and Organization Structure) that was developed to address gaps in the existing Dutch STS-Design approach. The MIOS contains 12 functions that can be used to systematically describe organizational structures and diagnose them. It was tested on 5 Dutch companies and was found to effectively describe and compare their structures. The MIOS fills an important need for both organizational consultants and researchers.

1. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 1
(work in progress)
Title
Towards better innovation structures using the Dutch STS-Design approach.
For: SocioTechnical Systems Round Table
2012 Working Conference, September 12-15, Canterbury, UK.
Presented in Stream ‘Intra-Organisational change’ by L.J. Lekkerkerk
Author(s): L.J. Lekkerkerk (Hans) (and B. Dankbaar (Ben))
E-mail: h.lekkerkerk@fm.ru.nl
Abstract
It appeared that the Dutch version of the SocioTechnical
Systems Design Methodology, developed in the 1980’s and
‘90’s by De Sitter (1998) and others, has two gaps limiting its
usability. First, it lacks clear design rules for the ‘innovation
structure’ embedded in the organizational structure of any
organization that aims to remain viable. Second, it misses a
normative function model containing necessary and sufficient
functions for viability. Such a model would help to diagnose
actual or redesigned organizational structures. It also enables
the making of systematic descriptions of organisational
structures needed to do comparative case studies by which the
design guidelines for the innovation structure should be found.
This paper presents the model that is developed and tested. It
focuses on the innovation structure and was tested for its
diagnostic and research potential in five Dutch industrial firms.
The test showed that the five organizational structures could be
systematically described, and be compared and diagnosed.
Hence this model fills the second gap in Dutch STSD, and
proved to be a promising tool for designers and for researchers.
This paper is based on the PhD-thesis research of Lekkerkerk (2012). The idea to
study the organization of innovation has its origin in the early 1990’s when he was
working at Fokker Aircraft Composite Structures Division. He noticed that doing
innovation projects was very rewarding, when a project was implemented with
success and really solved a problem or filled a long-felt need. On the other hand it
could be quite frustrating, because of the many small mistakes and some outright
failures, especially the ones that might have been easily prevented.
Innovation success is 30% or less on average, which is rather poor compared to
manufacturing processes that may reach a six-sigma level of perfection. Improving
the performance of the primary process at Fokker’s Composite Structures Division
was realized by combining a restructuring along the design guidelines of Dutch
SocioTechnical Systems Design (from now on D-STSD), in combination with building
a largely new plant with a flow layout, and adding a Just-In-Time philosophy to install
continuous improvement as a normal habit in each process. So, it appeared that D-

2. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 2
STSD did have ready to use and effective design rules for designing the production
structure and the operational control layer of the control structure. However, it lacked
these rules for what Achterbergh et al. named the ‘innovation structure’ (Achterbergh
et al. 1999, also see ‘Stap 10’, the last chapter in De Sitter 1998). See Appendix 1 for
a brief introduction in D-STSD.
Apart from these missing rules, labelled the first gap here, D-STSD appeared to have
a second gap. It lacked a detailed normative model describing the necessary and
sufficient functions for viability. A system exists of operational transformations and
regulatory transformations (Achterbergh & Vriens 2009 Ch.7). Following Ashby
(1956) the regulatory transformations are threefold: control or strategic regulation,
regulation by design and operational regulation. All innovation related activity in an
organisation is part of ‘regulation by design’. A designer having a more detailed
model could use it both as a diagnostic tool and as a design guideline. On at least
two points in a redesign process such a tool is needed. In a preliminary phase it
helps to answer the question whether the problems (or challenges) the organisation
is facing, are caused (or can not be met) by the existing organizational structure. If
so, merely rearranging the existing activities may not solve the problems or meet the
challenges, because certain functions from the set of ‘necessary and sufficient’
functions may be missing in the existing formal or informal organisational structure.
During the redesign the alternative structures should be judged using the normative
set of functions, and of course against criteria derived from the organisational goals.
Next to this practical application, such a model would serve researchers too, as a
mapping tool to describe existing organisational structures and the embedded
innovation structures in a systematic way, enabling them to compare and contrast
structures and eventually derive the design rules for the innovation structure now
lacking in D-STSD.
To fill both gaps more research needed to be done than could be carried out in one
PhD-thesis project. Therefore, the ambitions had to be lowered to a more realistic
level, and the scope of the project was narrowed down to answering the question:
How can organizational structures be described systematically and
unambiguously to facilitate both diagnosis and efficient comparative research
about what organizational structures, and embedded innovation structures, are
most effective and efficient?
Neither frequently used dimensions of structure (e.g. formalization, centralization and
specialization (complexity), nor configurations (e.g. Mintzberg 1989, 1993) enable the
making of unambiguous descriptions of a structure. De Sitter used systems theory to
build a theoretical basis for the design rules of the D-STSD. Models from
organizational cybernetics (e.g. Ashby (1956), Beer (1994, 2000), In ‘t Veld (1994 or
in Veeke et al. 2008), and De Sitter (1998)) are used by practitioners for diagnosis
and design, but were not really suitable for the purpose of answering this research
question. As mentioned, De Sitter has only ‘regulation by design’ as a function for
innovation. Beer presents a Viable System Model (VSM) with five functions and three
are necessary to innovate. A model by In ‘t Veld gives five functions for innovation,
but there is no convincing logic behind it to claim that all its functions together are
necessary and sufficient. Beer claims this for the VSM, and according to Achterbergh
and Riesewijk (1999) nobody argued convincingly against it. However, the three

3. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 3
innovation related functions in the VSM do not give sufficient details of an innovation
structure to be described. Apart from that, it is very abstract, which makes it difficult
for practitioners to understand it, and it stresses exchange of information between
functions rather than transformation of inputs into outputs using technical resources.
So a new function-model had to be developed, to fill the second gap in D-STSD.
Design specifications for the model are:
1. enable a systematic & integral description of any organizational structure,
2. have a detailed innovation structure,
3. contain necessary & sufficient functions for viability,
4. incorporate levels of recursion,
5. focus on both social and technical part of the system in focus,
6. understandable by practitioners.
Based on the mentioned models a new open system model was developed (for
details see: Lekkerkerk 2012) containing twelve functions, which are related to each
other and/or to the relevant environment of the organization. According to D-STSD-
rules the innovation structure in the model is linked to the production structure. Figure
1 presents the model. The functions are numbered bottom-up and the characters I,
C, and V are shorthand for innovation, central, and supply (in Dutch voortbrengen)
functions.
Figure 1 The ‘Model Innovation and Organization Structure or ‘the MIOS’
(some relations, e.g. those of Remember-C1 with all the other functions,
are omitted for clarity of drawing). (Lekkerkerk 2012 p.296)

4. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 4
The contributions of each of the twelve functions are summarized in the Table 1
below. The relations between them are described in detail in Lekkerkerk (2012), but
are left out here due to space constraints. Because the model is based on the logic of
Beer’s VSM, its 12 functions are ‘necessary and sufficient’ too. So, if an organization
implements all these functions and their relations in its structure, (and of course, if
they are executed well by competent employees and managers), the organization is
supposed to be able to remain viable. Viable meaning ‘able to maintain its separate
existence’ (Beer 1994:113). For most stakeholders in any organisation viability is
important, because it means job security for employees and managers, continuous
business for suppliers, return on investment for the owners and it assures service
and supply for customers. Staying viable without innovation is impossible.
Before the empirical test the model was presented to four organization consultants,
experienced in using the Dutch STSD approach for designing organizational
structures. They were positive about the potential usability of the model in their
projects on diagnosing and (re-)designing structures.
The model meets the six design specifications in the following way:
1. enable a systematic & integral description of any organizational structure; using
the 12 functions as headings a systematic description can be made, and it is
integral because the system boundaries are chosen around a whole organisation;
2. have a detailed innovation structure; eight functions together form the innovation
structure (or the regulation by design-layer of De Sitters Control Structure);
3. contain necessary & sufficient functions for viability; the five functions from the
VSM are in the model with some of Beer’s black boxes opened;
4. incorporate levels of recursion; this can be seen in Supply-V1 were the mini
versions of the model indicate that a system may consist of several subsystems
that again are viable on their own (like divisions or business units in larger
organisations may or should be),
5. focus on both social and technical part of the system in focus; this is not directly
visible, but when detailing the processes within the functions both the employees
and the hardware involved are described;
6. understandable by practitioners; verbs should be used to label functions, and at
least the ones chosen for the Dutch version were understood by respondents.
The next step in the research was an empirical test of the model. It was agreed that
trying it in five companies of different size, product and Master Production Schedule
characteristics (engineer to order, assemble to order and make to order) should give
sufficient insight in the potential of the model for both its intended future applications.

5. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 5
Table 1 Brief description of the functions in the MIOS (Lekkerkerk, 2012 p.297)
Five Dutch companies (100 - 580 employees, see Table 2) agreed to participate in
the empirical part of this research, carried out in the first half of 2010, and aimed at
testing the model. Five questions had to be answered in the test:
1) How can systematic descriptions of structures be made using the model?
2) How can structures be diagnosed using the descriptions?
3) How can comparisons be made using the descriptions?
4) Is it an efficient tool for data collection? and
5) What competencies does the user need to work with it?

6. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 6
Table 2 The five anonymous test companies
(Lekkerkerk 2012 Table 6.1.1, translated)
# Name MPS, Main product sites employees
1 Eline EtO, Electrotechnical 3 120
2 Amelie EtO, Marine electrotechnical 9 580
3 Ezra MtO, Seed improvement 11 300
4 Leon AtO, Trailers, OEM-modules 1 130
5 Rik AtO, Mobile Cranes 1 140
The 29 practitioners that were interviewed, on average six per company, recognised
the functions in the model and were able to relate some or all of them to their jobs.
One of the respondents declared: ‘Yes, we covered everything we do around here.’
This may be regarded as an indication that no essential function was missing in the
model.
All answers to the first four questions were positive. The systematic descriptions
resulting from analysing the interviews and some additional documents, provided
sufficient detail about each structure to compare and contrast the structures and to
diagnose each structure (q. 1, 2 & 3). An average of six interviews per company,
following an introduction meeting with the owner or a member of the top management
team, proved to be sufficient. It took the researcher about two to three weeks to
process the data into a rich and usable case description. So it is efficient for both the
company and the researcher (q.4).
That the author had the competencies to use his own model is self-evident. But the
fifth question relates to other potential users, consultants or researchers, who would
want to use the MIOS. They should have at least basic knowledge about the
underlying systems theory, organization design (D-STSD), and preferably about
innovation and operations management too, to fruitfully use the model. A number of
MSc-students used it in their graduation projects supervised by the author during
academic years 2010/’11 and 2011/’12. They lack experience in organisations, but
the basics of the areas mentioned are in their curriculum, and they successfully
graduated.
Following the successful test of the model the author decided to name it ‘the MIOS’,
an acronym for: Model Innovation and Organization Structure.
Further research to fill the first gap in D-STSD (design rules for the innovation
structures) will be done by the author and by MSc-students under his supervision.

7. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 7
The MIOS may also be used by:
1. consultants or managers; to diagnose existing organizational structures and the
redesigned alternatives,
2. researchers; to make systematic and unambiguous descriptions of organizational
structures, and compare and contrast them. By additionally linking (innovation)
performance data of the organisations to the structures, it should be possible to
find characteristics of more effective and efficient (innovation) structures. This
multiple comparative case study should lead to more specific design rules for the
innovation structure now lacking, to complement those for the production and
operational control structure already available in the D-STSD-approach,
pioneered by De Sitter.
The review of innovation management literature by Crossan and Apaydin (2010)
sparked the idea to try whether the MIOS is usable as a framework to integrate the
various strands of research focussing on the internal structure of innovation
departments or subsystems (e.g. R&D, NPD, portfolio management) and maybe find
a way to link it to the operations organization.
References
• Achterbergh, J., B. Dankbaar, H. Lekkerkerk, W. Martens (1999) Bestendiging door vernieuwing,
over functies en structuren voor innovatie, Management & Organisatie, themanummer Innovatie,
53e jrg, nr. 4, juli/augustus 1999, pag. 147-162.
• Achterbergh, J.M.I.M., B. Riesewijk (1999) Polished by use; four windows on organization,
Eburon, Delft, proefschrift KUN.
• Achterbergh, Jan, Dirk Vriens (2009) Organizations; Social systems conducting experiments,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
• Ashby, W.R. (1956) An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman & Hall, London; Internet 1999:
http://pcp.vub.ac.be/books/IntroCyb.pdf .
• Beer, S. (1994) The Heart of Enterprise, ‘The Stafford Beer Classic Library’, Wiley, Chichester
(first edition 1979).
• Beer, S. (2000) Diagnosing the system for organizations, ‘The Stafford Beer Classic Library’,
Wiley, Chichester (first edition 1985).
• Berniker, E. (1992) Some principles of sociotechnical systems analysis and design, working paper
School of Business Administration, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, Washington 98466,
• Burton, R.M., G. DeSanctis, B. Obel (2006/2011) Organizational design; a step by step approach,
(2011 is 2
e
ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Burton, R.M., B.H. Eriksen, D.D. Hakonsson, T. Knudsen, C.C. Snow (2008) Designing
organizations; 21
st
century approaches, Springer, New York.
• Burton, R.M., B. Obel (1995) Strategic organizational diagnosis and design, developing theory for
application, Kluwer academic publishers group, Dordrecht (3rd printing ‘97).
• Crossan, M.M., M. Apaydin (2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a
systematic review of the literature, Journal of management studies, Vol. 47, Issue 6, September
2010, pp.1154-91.
• Hammer, M., Champy, J. (1994) Reengineering the corporation, a manifesto for business
revolution, paperback ed., Harper Business, New York (eerst druk 1993).
• Hammer M. (1996) Beyond reengineering, How the process centered organization is changing our
work and our lives, Harper Business, New York
• Kuipers, H., P.J. van Amelsvoort, E.H. Kramer (2010) Het nieuwe organiseren; alternatieven voor
de bureaucratie, Acco uitgeverij, Leuven.
• Lekkerkerk, L.J. (2012) Innovatie- en Organisatiestructuur. Ontwikkeling en test van een
functiemodel voor structuuronderzoek en diagnose, PhD-thesis Radboud Universiteit, Innovatica
Nijmegen. Pdf available: http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/93601
• Mintzberg, H. (1989) Mintzberg on management; inside our strange world of organizations, The
free press, New York.

8. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 8
• Mintzberg, H. (1993) Structure in Fives; designing effective organizations, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River (1
e
in 1983).
• Mumford, Enid (2006) The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes, failures
and potential, In: Info Systems Journal, Vol. 16, Pages 317-342.
• Sitter, L.U. de (1998/1994) Synergetisch produceren; Human Resource Mobilisation in de
produktie: een inleiding in de structuurbouw, 2
e
herziene druk, Van Gorcum, Assen (1
st
ed. 1994).
• Sitter, L.U. de, J.F. den Hertog, B. Dankbaar (1997) From Complex Organizations with Simple
Jobs to Simple Organizations with Complex Jobs. Human Relations, Volume 50, Number 5 / May,
pp.497-534.
• Veeke, Hans P. M., Ottjes, Jaap A., Lodewijks, Gabriël (2008) The Delft Systems Approach;
Analysis and Design of Industrial Systems, Springer Verlag, London. (vertaling en bewerking van
In ‘t Veld 1994).
• Veld, J. in ‘t (1994) Analyse van organisatieproblemen; Een toepassing van denken in systemen
en processen, 6
e
herziene druk Stenfert Kroese/EPN, Houten (eerste druk: Elsevier, Amsterdam,
1975).
• Waterson, P.E., M.T Older Gray, C.W. Clegg (2002) A sociotechnical method for designing work
systems, In: Human factors: The journal of the human factors and ergonomics society, Vol. 44, p.
376-391, DOI 10.1518/0018720024497628
• Womack, J.P., D.T. Jones, D. Roos (1991) The machine that changed the world; the story of lean
production. How Japan’s secret weapon in the global auto wars will revolutionize western industry,
paperback ed. Harper Perennial, New York (1st ed. hardcover, MacMillan).
• Womack, J.P., D.T. Jones (2003) Lean thinking; banish waste and create wealth in your
corporation, Fully revised and updated ed., Free Press, London (1
st
ed. 1996).
Resume of the author(s)
L.J. Lekkerkerk (Hans) was born in 1959 and graduated from the Delft University as a mechanical
engineer (MSc) with a specialisation in systems thinking and organisational design in 1985. He joined
the Composite Structures Division of the late Fokker Aircraft Company as an industrial engineer and
later served as a quality engineer and project leader, until it went bankrupt in March 1996. After a brief
period as a consultant (1996-’97) he joined the Nijmegen School of Management with the idea of
doing research on the organization of innovation. He is teaching subjects like Operations
Management, Organisation Design and Innovation Management and supervised 80 MSc-thesis
projects and BSc-thesis projects.
Ben Dankbaar (1948) holds the chair of Innovation Management at the Nijmegen School of
Management and supervised the PhD-project by Lekkerkerk.

9. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 9
Appendix 1 A brief explanation of Dutch SocioTechnicalSystemsDesign (D-STSD)
The Dutch STSD-approach has a number of distinct features that sets it apart from other approaches
to organisational structure design, like the configurational (Mintzberg), the contingency approach
(Burton & Obel 1995, Burton et al. 2008, 2006/2011), and process based approaches like BPR
(Hammer (& Champy)) or Lean thinking (Womack & Jones (& Roos) 2003, 1991).
It is also different from Sociotechnical systems design as described by e.g. Berniker (1992), Waterson
et al. (2002) and Mumford (2006). In these papers the STS-focus seems to be to design individual jobs
with a high ‘Quality of Work’ and aiming at good Quality of Working Relations. In D-STSD the Quality
of Organisation is added as a set of requirements that the overall structure should help to fulfil.
D-STSD sees any structure as being composed of a Production Structure and a Control Structure. The
Production Structure contains the activities transforming the inputs into outputs, which are triggered by
customer orders (or orders based on demand forecasts). Usually before work on an order can be
started some preparatory tasks need to be done, and these are part of the production structure too.
Finally Supporting activities, like maintenance, internal transport, staffing, are also defined as being
part of the production structure.
The Control Structure has three layers inspired by Ashby’s Control, Design, and Operational
Regulation of a system: the operational control of the order flow, the layer ’regulation by design’ and
the strategic regulation layer.
The complexity of a structure can be greatly reduced by reducing the number of interfaces between
the departments or groups. The more in-/outputs, the greater the variety a group has to deal with. So
instead of having a functional department for every type of task, leading to everybody dealing with
everybody, and each customer order passing a lot of departments, D-STSD advocates a design
consisting of self contained units, or plant within plants, that are responsible for and have all the
resources to deliver a set of customer orders. These orders may be for a particular type of product or
service, products for a geographical area or a market segment.
D-STDS has a specific six phase design sequence and strongly advocates redesign the whole
organisation instead of a department or some other sub-system (e.g. Division, Business Unit). These
phases (and the figure) are from the recent Dutch handbook by Kuipers, Van Amelsvoort
1
& Kramer
(2010).
After defining the boundaries of the system, i.e. the organisation to be redesigned, it explicitly states
the mission and goals of the organization in the second phase.
The third phase leads to the Design Specifications for the structure. These are detailed further in three
groups: Quality of Organization, and the traditional STS twin Quality of Work (avoiding stress,
alienation, and enhancing opportunities to learn and grow), and Quality of Working Relations. Quality
of Work is inspired by Karasek’s job demand-job control theory. Working Relations refer to interactions
between management and employees that should be co-operative and seeking solutions that serve all
stakeholders instead of just shareholders. So apart from being holistic, it D-STSD may be seen as a
multiple stakeholder approach, although this may be developed further. The specifications derived
from external and internal demands are quite detailed. A short lead time may be desirable in general,
but too vague as a criterion to judge both the present structure (e.g. enabling 10 working days as a
minimum) and the alternatives to be designed (must enable 3 working days to regain competitive
edge).
1
Pierre van Amelsvoort is among the STS-RT 2012-conference participants.

10. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 10
The fourth phase in the integral design
sequence, starts with a top-down design of the
Production Structure, followed by a bottom-up
design of the Control Structure. Activities are
divided in groups, with the aim of minimizing
interfaces between them. Depending on the
number of employees, and a natural group size
of about 8-12 employees, the designer has to
‘cut’ once or more. Because functional division
of labour leads to a lot of interfaces between
many departments that all have to deliver some
contribution to most customer orders, Dutch
STSD prefers a flow-based structure (some
similarity with BPR and lean are apparent). In
such a design each unit focuses on a sub-set of
customer order types, and has its own support
and prepare tasks, avoiding the shared service
centres. Suppose an organization having 300
employees involved in PS activities and three
distinct order groups of similar size. Then the
designer will form three groups each having 100
people, obviously too big for just one manager.
So another ‘cut’ is needed in each of the 3
groups, preferably again independent parallel
flows are formed, e.g. eight sub-flows with 12-13
employees responsible for a particular type of
orders. This is only possible if each of the three
main order groups has 8 subgroups of products
with a roughly equal demand. After two ‘cuts’ the
designer has three units each consisting of 8
subgroups, so in total 24 groups. Each group
has 12-13 employees, which may seem in the
first iteration to be a workable span-of-control.
These 24 groups are also doing all preparation
and support for their product, so no ‘shared
service centres’ or functional groups (facilities,
maintenance, internal transport, etc.) are
formed.
In the next step within the fourth phase, the
designer starts allocating operational regulation
tasks to the group. This may lead to some
growth in the number of employees, sometimes
to above the desired span-of-control. Should this
happen, then the PS-design has to be
reconsidered. After taking care of the operational
regulation, including the remaining inter-group
regulation, this layer is finished. Decentralization of regulatory activities to the group level is the main
rule, so problems can be solved on the spot where they occur, and by the employees directly involved.
This greatly enhances the Quality of Work. De Sitter leaves the design of the division of labour within
each group to the group itself, which is a form of decentralizing responsibility too. Kuipers et al. (2010)
seem a little more pragmatic; if wanted by the group the designer may help, but in the end the group
decides. Only after implementation of a team-based structure these groups will eventually, through a
lot of training and after gaining experience, develop into a truly self-directing work group, with the
group leader position rotating over its senior members. In a sheltered workshop for mentally disabled
workers this will be a less probable growth path. In groups with highly skilled employees rotating
leadership it may be an attainable and desirable goal.

11. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 11
The design of the structure then continues with the next control layer ‘regulation by design’. This layer
comprises the activities aimed at innovation that ‘redesign’ the operations. Because of the specialist
nature of these activities separate groups may be needed, but the operational groups will be involved
in innovation in a D-STS-design.
And finally the strategic control layer is designed. At the latter two design levels concrete design rules
are lacking, so here the first gap in D-STSD mentioned in the main text becomes visible.
The fifth design phase is dealing with the hardware, the technical parts of the sociotechnical system,
like manufacturing equipment, ICT, housing. De Sitter advocates making a greenfield or ideal
organization design first, without much consideration for the constraints the existing hardware
(equipment, building, legacy-ICT-system) may cause for the design team. Of course the recently build
glass tower will not be sold just because the organization designer says that its one department per
floor design severely limits communication and cooperation between the groups. And from a cost
perspective it seems better to have two independent product lines use the same paint spray boot.
However, this introduces an interface, which are notorious causes for trouble.
The sixth phase is not really a design phase, but rather the implementation stage in which the softer
systems and culture are further developed to come in line with the vision behind the newly structured
organization, e.g. leadership style and employee behaviour.
This may appear a straightforward linear design approach, but like any designer knows, iterations are
inevitable and symbolised by the two arrows between the boxes. Design proposals may be judged
using the Quality of Organization, work and Work relations-criteria. Another question is, whether in an
existing situation and in the proposed alternatives all necessary and sufficient functions for survival are
allotted in the (design for) the structure. Here the MIOS helps to find an answer.