Assessing the activities of a particular organization based on the analysis of its structure, purpose, and other aspects of work is a practice that contributes to describing the features of its operating activities comprehensively. As an object of this work, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) will be reviewed. This government organization was founded in 1973, and its main purpose is to recruit and train soldiers by integrating a specific doctrine and building a strong and capable military unity (U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, n.d.). Evaluating the activities of this organization includes analyzing its key development areas, its structure, the processes that it accomplishes, and the features of the implementation of information technology.
TRADOC is involved in training the U.S. military personnel and developing both civilian and military leaders. Its range of activities falls into the description of Jensen (1983) who state that an organization is a unit with a targeted algorithm of activities. TRADOC follows a strict army doctrine and prepares military personnel by implementing the necessary integrating materials and resources to maintain the national security and civilians’ safety.
TRADOC follows an army doctrine and trains military personnel by implementing the necessary integrating materials and resources. Its members pursue a single recognized goal through collaborative efforts, which is consistent with Ouchi’s (1980) concept of organization. Nevertheless, its activities cannot be called flexible, which contradicts the idea of Miles and Snow (1992) that such unities are dynamic. Conversely, TRADOC has a well-defined strategy of work and adapts only to reallocate human resources and ammunition, while the basic doctrine remains unchanged. Such a strategy does not contradict with Jones’s (2013) concept of an organization as a system united by stakeholders to achieve set goals for the benefit of shared values. Although the general range of activities can be compared to the idea of a business process, which is a mechanism for achieving objectives through clearly coordinated tasks, this government organization does not set the goal of obtaining financial benefits (“Business process definition,” 2019). Therefore, TRADOC cannot be described as a standard entrepreneurial company, and its structure confirms this.
Structure of TRADOC
TRADOC is a well-structured organization in line with an army doctrine. The chosen structure is a functional hierarchy that corresponds to one of the types suggested by Harris and Raviv (2002). This system does not correlate with the ideas of Kribikova (2016) and Tolbert and Hall (2015) about dynamism and flexibility since the mode of activities does not imply significant adaptations. However, the definition by Ahmady et al. (2016) conveys the idea of TRADOC as an organization that operates within well-defined processes and relationships among levels. The choice of such a structure is not accidental because the order of operating activities determines the need to create a subordinate system. Contrary to Merton’s (1940) doctrine of approaches to frame formation, TRADOC maintains a strict order, which is in line with the idea of Marasi et al. (2018) on the principle of centralization. Specific organization parameters mentioned by Moldovan-Borsos and Matei (2016) (control, size, and others) apply to TRADOC. According to Venkatesh and Bala (2007), in beneficial conditions, organizations manage to deliver the set objectives. Therefore, TRADOC’s structure corresponds to the activities performed to conduct efficient high-level processes.
One of the high-level processes accomplished by TRADOC is the oversight of army training. This line of business falls under the definition of Jiang et al. (2015) on promoting improvements constantly. The U.S. Army Combined Arms Center is the department responsible for this activity. At the same time, this objective does not pursue financial gains, for instance, profit capitalization, which Kalpič and Bernus (2006) consider one of the main goals of activities. However, Nishadha’s (2020) stance on tight controls that increase productivity is appropriate. Another essential high-level process is recruiting conducted by the U.S. Army Recruiting Command. When comparing this department’s work to business activities, one can cite an example of Morris and Pinto’s (2010) definition who state that a specific target market is a natural precondition for outreach. In this case, TRADOC recruits military personnel, and in addition to interpersonal interaction practices, information technology systems are actively used.
Information Technology Systems
One of the information technology systems used by TRADOC to implement the aforementioned high-level processes is the use of IT architecture. This system is not automatically generated, which does not coincide with the concept of Dickson (2003), but is an important element of control over the training of military personnel and performs its functions productively. This, in turn, confirms Melo’s (2018) idea of the importance of information technology in the operational environment. The TRADOC Deputy Chief of Staff oversees these activities and monitors the work of subordinates involved in the process. Another technology that allows recruiting personnel successfully is the use of wide-area networks that the command, control, communications, and computers (C4) management implements. This system operates through special control tools, in particular, the integration of personnel data, which, like Davenport and Short (1990) and Davenport (1993) argue, helps improve the entire management process. The presented technologies are significant instruments in enhancing the operational results of TRADOC.
The analysis of TRADOC allows describing the key features of the organization, its structure, the processes used to implement the set objectives, as well as the information technology systems utilized in the operational process. The functional hierarchy of TRADOC is driven by the need to exercise tight control over all the departments. The training and recruiting of military personnel are carried out by using computer networks and special architectures that simplify the monitoring process.
Ahmady, G. A., Mehrpour, M., & Nikooravesh, A. (2016). Organizational structure. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230, 455-462.
Business process definition. (2019). Comidor. Web.
Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process innovation: Reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business School Press.
Davenport, T. H., & Short, J. E. (1990). The new industrial engineering: Information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Management Review, 31(4), 1-31.
Dickson, P. R. (2003). The pigeon breeders’ cup: A selection on selection theory of economic evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13(3), 259-280.
Harris, M., & Raviv, A. (2002). Organization design. Management Science, 48(7), 852-865.
Jensen, M. C. (1983). Organization theory and methodology. Accounting Review, 58(2), 319-339.
Jiang, J., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, V., Wang, S., & Baida, Z. (2015). Regulatory compliance of business processes. AI & Society, 30(3), 393-402.
Jones, G. R. (2013). Organizational theory, design, and change (6th ed.). Pearson.
Kalpič, B., & Bernus, P. (2006). Business process modeling through the knowledge management perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(2), 40-46.
Kribikova, P. (2016). Organizational structure and performance. Aktual’Ni Problems Ekonomiky = Actual Problems in Economics, (175), 109-118.
Marasi, S., Bennett, R. J., & Budden, H. (2018). The structure of an organization: Does it influence workplace deviance and its dimensions? And to what extent? Journal of Managerial Issues, 30(1), 8-27.
Melo, S. (2018). The relevance of technology in business. Data Scope. Web.
Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces, 18(4), 560-568.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1992). Causes of failure in network organizations. California Management Review, 34(4), 53-72.
Moldovan-Borsos, R., & Matei, C. (2016). Organizational structure in impasse. Electrotehnica, Electronica, Automatica, 64(2), 165-169.
Morris, P., & Pinto, J. K. (Eds.). (2010). The Wiley guide to project technology, supply chain, and procurement management (Vol. 7). John Wiley & Sons.
Nishadha. (2020). Importance of business process modeling for your business. Creately. Web.
Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 129-141.
Tolbert, P. S., & Hall, R. H. (2015). Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes (10th ed.). Routledge.
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. (n.d.). About TRADOC. Web.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2007). Adoption of interorganizational business process standards in business-to-business integration: An exploratory study. Systèmes d’Information et Management, 12(2), 53.