This BUS 210 Module 6 assignment is written out in full: a description of a functional structure with its reporting lines, three problems traced to the structure, a comparison of alternative designs, and a recommended hybrid structure with changes to span of control and decision authority. Searches like "bus 210 module 6 assignment", "bus210 module 6 organizational structure assignment" and "bus 210 module 6 example" land here.
The BUS 210 Module 6 example, in full
Grooming Reports to Merchandising: Evaluating and Redesigning the Structure of a Composite Regional Pet Supply Chain
[Student Name]
Southern New Hampshire University
BUS 210: Managing and Leading in Business
Module Six Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.
Grooming Reports to Merchandising: Evaluating and Redesigning the Structure of a Composite Regional Pet Supply Chain
The Current Structure
Maple and Mutt, the composite 18-store pet chain used in this course, runs on a structure organized by function. At headquarters, a chief executive oversees four departments: merchandising, which buys products and also manages the grooming salons in 14 stores; marketing; finance and human resources; and store operations. Store operations has three district managers, each responsible for six stores. Each store manager reports to a district manager, and each store's groomers report to the store manager for scheduling but to a merchandising grooming coordinator for pricing, services and equipment. The chain grew from six to 18 stores in five years without changing this structure, which was designed when grooming was a small add-on to retail sales.
Three Problems Traced to the Structure
The first problem is slow decisions about grooming. When a store wants to add evening appointments or a new service such as nail grinding, the request moves from the store manager to the district manager, across to merchandising and back, which took an average of seven weeks for the last five requests. The structure routes grooming decisions through a department whose main job is buying products, so they compete with vendor negotiations for attention.
The second problem is conflicting direction for groomers. Because they report to the store manager for schedules and to merchandising for services and prices, groomers receive instructions from two bosses who rarely talk to each other. Last spring, merchandising raised prices for large-breed grooming while store managers were promoting a discount, and customers received conflicting information. Unity of command, the principle that each employee should have one clear line of authority for each type of decision, is weak here (Robbins & Coulter, 2021).
The third problem is that store managers lack authority to fix local issues. Pricing, service menus and even the hours of grooming appointments are set centrally, so a manager facing a new competitor cannot respond quickly. The structure was built to control a small retail chain and now slows a service business that needs local judgment.
Alternative Designs
Table 1 compares three options against what the chain needs: faster grooming decisions, clear direction for groomers, local responsiveness and efficient use of shared resources.
Table 1
Comparison of Structural Options
| Design | Faster grooming decisions | Clear direction for groomers | Local responsiveness | Efficient shared resources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keep the functional structure | No | No | Low | High |
| Full divisional structure by region | Moderate | Moderate | High | Low; duplicates buying and marketing |
| Hybrid: functional support plus a services line and more store authority | Yes | Yes | High | High |
Note. Assessments are the author's judgments based on the chain's recurring problems.
The Recommended Structure
The chain should adopt a hybrid structure. Merchandising, marketing and finance would remain centralized functions, because buying power and a single brand depend on scale. Grooming would move out of merchandising into a new services department led by a director of services, with two regional grooming leads, each responsible for about seven salons. Groomers would report to the store manager for daily operations, and the regional grooming lead would provide training, quality standards and service development in a clearly defined advisory role, so that each type of decision has one owner. Service pricing would be set by the director of services within ranges approved annually, and store managers would be allowed to set appointment hours and run local promotions within those ranges.
The change also widens decision authority at the store level, which fits the chain's environment. Organizations in stable settings can rely on central rules, but those facing changing local competition need more decentralized, adaptive structures (Burns & Stalker, 1961). Moving decisions closer to where the information is reduces the load on headquarters, which the growth to 18 stores had overwhelmed (Galbraith, 1974).
What Stays the Same, and Why
A redesign should change only what is causing problems. Several features of the current structure work well and should be kept. Centralized merchandising gives the chain buying power with national pet food brands, and splitting buying by region would raise costs on the products that make up most of its sales. A single marketing department keeps the brand consistent across stores and runs the loyalty program, which depends on shared customer data. The district manager layer remains, because six stores per district is a reasonable span for coaching store managers on retail operations. Finance and human resources stay central for payroll, compliance and benefits. The recommendation therefore touches one department, grooming, and one type of authority, local decisions on hours and promotions, rather than reorganizing the whole company. Limiting the change also limits disruption: most employees will notice little difference, and the people most affected, groomers and store managers, gain clearer lines of authority rather than losing them.
Introducing the Change and Its Risks
The change should be introduced over one quarter. The director of services would be appointed first, then the regional grooming leads, chosen from among the best current lead groomers, which rewards expertise and signals that the change values grooming. Store managers would receive written decision rights listing what they can now decide alone. The risks are real. A new department adds cost, estimated at two regional lead salaries and one director, which grooming growth must cover. Store managers given new authority may make inconsistent choices, so the pricing ranges and monthly reporting must be clear. And groomers used to merchandising coordinators may resist new relationships, which calls for early, honest explanation of the reasons for the change and of what will differ in their working day. If grooming decision times, groomer turnover and grooming revenue are tracked before and after the change, the chain will know within two quarters whether the new structure is working.
Measuring Whether the Structure Works
Structural change is worth making only if it fixes the problems that prompted it, so each problem has a matching measure. Decision speed will be tracked as the number of days from a store's request for a grooming change to a decision, with a target of under two weeks. Conflicting direction will be tracked through a short quarterly survey asking groomers whether they know who decides what, and through customer complaints about inconsistent prices. Local responsiveness will be judged by grooming revenue and appointment fill rates in stores facing new competitors, compared with their results before the change. The chief executive should review these measures with the director of services after six months and adjust decision rights if some stores are struggling with their new authority.
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
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2021). Management (15th ed.). Pearson.
How this BUS 210 Module 6 example is structured
The assignment follows the logic of structural diagnosis. It describes the current structure precisely, then links each problem to a specific structural feature rather than to people. Alternative structures are compared against the chain's needs in a table. The recommendation explains exactly what changes, what stays the same and how the change should be introduced, and it closes with risks.
Get BUS 210 Module 6 written to your instructions
Send the BUS 210 Module 6 prompt and rubric with the organization you were asked to evaluate. A structural analysis with recommended changes for that organization comes back within 24 to 48 hours; the first is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.
BUS 210 Module 6 questions, answered
What does the BUS 210 Module 6 assignment ask?
The Module 6 assignment commonly asks students to evaluate an existing organizational structure and recommend structural changes that could address issues the organization faces. Students typically describe the current structure, identify problems it causes and justify a revised design.
What is the difference between a functional and a divisional structure?
A functional structure groups employees by specialty, such as merchandising, marketing and operations, which builds expertise but can slow coordination across functions. A divisional structure groups them by product, service, customer or region, which speeds response for each division but can duplicate resources.
What does span of control mean?
Span of control is the number of employees who report directly to one manager. A wide span means fewer layers and more autonomy for employees; a narrow span allows closer supervision but adds layers and can slow decisions.