Cyber Software Case Study
Introduction
This paper creates a detailed framework for the mini management plan for Cyber Software Inc.. In has been generated at the request of CEO Joseph Jackson, and is designed to revise the current mission and vision of the company, in order to recenter operations on the brands new aims and objectives, based on Mr. Jackson’s overall aims for the brand. As such, this plan will also detail why the changes made are appropriate, and how the brand’s organizational structure should be altered in order to accommodate the change in vision. Implementation and new culture will be highlighted as well, as integral to the change of the company’s overall direction. Finally, in order to ensure that the plan can be meaningfully followed, the POLC model and steps will be outlined for the support of the management team.
Management History
Cyber Software Inc. is a prominent cyber protection software brand, focused on computer protection technology products. Recently, however, a mid-sized client has suffered a significant online security breach. The hacking of the Baltimore City Government’s cyber infrastructure is a major concern for the brand, as it has been determined that nearly 300 people were directly impacted by the breach, including release of personal information. Joseph Jackson, CEO and founder of the Cyber Software brand is hyperaware that this could be damaging to his brand if it is not well controlled, and so, is interested in preemptively working to protect the brand image, and reputation, so that the brand can continue to enjoy growth, in spite of this incident. It is critical that consumers continue to see Cyber Software as a trustworthy, high-quality, service provider.
Mini Management Plan Objectives:
At current, Jackson’s goal is twofold: first, to improve the software to prevent a hack like the one that occurred within the Baltimore City Government from occurring again, while, secondarily, creating a clear clean-up and crisis management procedure so that there is a means of protecting victims faster, in future incidents of this kind. These goals have to be accomplished while maintaining a current business profile, and appearing to remain on the cutting-edge of the software industry.
The business’s current organizational structure lacks a clear chain of command, or meaningful hierarchy for decision making and program implementation. As a result, the employees fail to implement recommended changes, or new policies designed to move the company as a whole toward its vision (Mind Tools, 2016). Further there is an apparent lack of prioritization and follow through on projects. Employees are actively engaged in multiple projects, and as a result the process of delivering complete products to market is slow, and resources are not being used in an efficient way. This ineffective use of resources ultimately damages the quality of the products being delivered to consumers, while undermining profitability. The proposed changes in the company management model will be designed to ensure that new programs are pursued, and implemented in a reasonable time frame, with clear accountability for completion, staff allocation and budgetary consideration, to ensure that the company’s overall resources are being used appropriately in order to move toward the organization’s larger strategic goals.
Mission and Vision
It is essential that Cyber Software’s mission and vision statements be altered to fit the goals and further the development of the brand. The current vision statement states: Cyber Software Inc. is “the top software security company that strives to provide the best protection to our customers." However, it is recommended that the updated vision statement should state: “Cyber software strives to further the development of high quality software products in order to provide customers with a higher level of protection, and enhanced crisis management services, by placing the company on the cutting edge of in industry.”
This vision statement is an improvement because it is written to focus the company’s efforts on the new direction that Jackson has outlined for the brand (Deazeley, 2009). Cyber Securities Inc. has an intention to increase their focus on improving the technologies that they provide, by both innovating their software products in a way that keeps them current within their product niche, but while also improving support protocols to ensure that when hacking or other security breaches occur, they can be cleaned up quickly, and effectively. According to The Saylor Foundation (2014), a company’s vision statement should be focused on the brands concept for future development, and make a clear statement regarding the company’s purpose and strategic objectives. It is a vision of what the company hopes to become through their efforts. The new vision statement for Cyber Software reflects this structure, and helps to establish a clear framework for achieving the company’s new set of goals.
The Mission statement, then, needs similarly revised. As Cyber Software has meaningfully altered their direction, their mission must be changed in order to provide a clear understanding in the company’s purpose and path (Deazeley, 2009). Mission statements are designed as a management tool to communicate the brands purpose, or reason for standing, and assists the brand in determining the best way to meet the needs of all key stakeholders (Saylor Foundation, 2014). The current mission statement for Cyber Software states: “Help customers secure information through innovative services,” in contrast the proposed revision states: “We work to keep customer information safe, and to confidently manage security breaches, quickly and efficiently through dedicated resources and careful planning.”
This statement is designed to reassure customers that they can trust the Cyber Securities brand with their security needs. Previous mishandling of the breach in Baltimore have left the brand’s reputation for providing quality support after a breach damaged. As such, the new mission statement hopes to focus the brand’s purpose, and reassure key stakeholders, that protecting, and recovering information, when necessary, is at the heart of the brand.
Organizational Structure
Up to this point, Joseph Jackson has avoided establishing a strict form of governance, or organizational structure within Cyber Securities. However, it is clear that communication is not traveling throughout the organization in a meaningful way, and resources are being lost as a result. There needs to be a more clear chain of command and process for communication between the departments, and their individual managers. As such, the time has come to establish a more rigid organizational structure within the corporation.
The preferred organizational structure for Cyber Software is the democratic hierarchy model (Community Toolbox, 2016). This organizes the brand, so that the authority is primarily located at the top of the organization, in the hands of owner and C.E.O. Joseph Jackson. This centralization will strengthen the current, somewhat scattered, process for prioritizing tasks and managing resources (Management Study Guides, 2016). Managers at each level are encouraged to communicate with both the CEO and one another, to transfer information and contribute to decision making (Akrani, 2010). However, Jackson maintains sole authority, and must give final approval, for all major decisions. Further, all decisions must strategically align with the goals and objectives outlined by the company, using the mission and vision and a framework for achieving long-term goals (Akrani, 2010).
Benefits of using the democratic hierarchy include a clear chain of command for managing issues, making decisions, and coordinating the supervision and execution of work, and employee actions, as well as the benefit of enabling multiple departments to coordinate their actions and resource use to avoid wasted resources, and to speed the delivery of products into the hands of consumers (Community Toolbox, 2016). This aligns with the primary features of management stressed by Fayol, who specifically outlines the role of management as coordinating and harmonizing business activities in a systematic way that supports the motivation of subordinates, and the coordination of departments to reach the greater goals of the brand in question (1949). Ultimately this ensures that all departments, regardless of their focus, to work in a way that aligns their purpose with the greater goals, and overriding strategies of the organization.
This is preferable to a democratic model, which is currently in use, essentially, because it does create a clear chain of command, with an obvious head of decision making (Leadership Toolbox, 2016). The democratic model also does not provide a clear process for communicating between levels of the organization, or between departments which can lead to miscommunication. Additionally, this is preferable to the classic hierarchic model, because strictly defined hierarchy can discourage interactivity and innovation within the corporation, which will stifle creativity and growth, and deteriorate the investment of lower level employees in the company’s overall vision (Community Toolbox, 2016).
This, overall, will generate a culture in which there is increased investment, by employees in the brand’s mission and vision. This can, in turn, ensure that the company as a whole is moving more meaningfully toward the goals, embracing the innovation and communication needed to provide consumers with not only a high quality, cutting edge product, but also ensuring they receive a high level of service, which is prepared to handle security breaches rapidly, professionally , and comprehensively.
References:
Akrani, G. 2010. Decision Making Process In Management - Problem Solving. Kaylan City Blog. Retrieved from http://kalyan-city.blogspot.com/2010/06/decision-making-process-in-management.html
Community Tool Box. (2016). “Management Plan” KU. Retrieved from http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/leadership/effective-manager/management-plan/main
Deazeley, B. (2009). The importance of vision, mission, and values. Sector Source. Retrieved from http://sectorsource.ca/sites/default/files/resources/files/beth_deazeley_vision_oct_2009.pdf
Fayol, H. (1949). General and Industrial Administration. London: Sir Issac Pitman & Sons, Ltd., 1949.
Management Study Guides (2016). “Centralization and Decentralization” Management Study Guides. Retrieved from http://www.managementstudyguide.com/centralization_decentralization.htm
Mind Tools. (2016). How to make decisions: Making the best possible choices. TED. Retrieved from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_00.htm
The Leadership Toolbox (2016). “Democratic Leadership Style” Leadership Styles. The Leadership Toolbox. Retrieved from http://www.leadership-toolbox.com/democratic-leadership-style.html
The Saylor Foundation. (2014). Principles of Management V.1.1. Retrieved from http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Principles%20of%20ManagementNEW.pdf
