In this work, the organizational structure of management is understood as an integral set of elements of an object and a management body interconnected by information links, united in the framework of achieving certain goals. It reflects the structure of the management system, the content of which is management functions, the vertical and horizontal ratio of management levels, as well as the number and relationship of structural units within each level (II].
Since the elements in all university management systems are in many respects similar, the main criterion for the difference in structures is the organization of interconnections.
As noted in Z.1., One of the principles of building complex organizational systems is hierarchy. Multilevel management systems based on the concept of a hierarchical structure operate in organizations of various industries.
It seems to us that the management system of a modern university should contain three main levels: strategic, functional and operational.
At the strategic level, a response to global changes in the external environment is developed, the goals of the university are adjusted in accordance with the mission being performed, an activity strategy is selected, systems, structures and management culture are prepared for the implementation of the strategy.
The strategy includes a set of targets for the functional level of management. 11a, the university adapts to changes in the market environment within certain areas and areas of activity, and targets for the corresponding functions are formed.
At the operational level, an activity plan is formed for each department and the development and implementation of educational services and programs, products of research and innovation activities is managed.
The hierarchical structure type has many varieties. The unconditional priority in Russia now belongs to the linear-functional structure. In the overwhelming majority of domestic universities, various variants of linear-functional control schemes are also implemented (see, for example,).
The pros and cons of linear functional structures are well known. Such a management organization is distinguished by the high competence of specialists responsible for the performance of specific functions, and ample opportunities for centralized control of strategic results. The linear-functional management structure is targeted and well suited "for performing constantly repetitive routine tasks that do not require prompt decision-making.
The disadvantages of linear-functional structures include: inadequacy of the response of the control system to the requirements of the external environment; excessive centralization of operational management; the formation of irrational information flows; underdevelopment of horizontal links between structural units.
The existing linear-functional management structure in universities, which has not undergone significant changes in recent years, as noted above, does not allow the university to adequately and promptly respond to changes in the external environment and adapt to modern economic realities. Therefore, it seems necessary to radically reconstruct the university management system in order to ensure the implementation of market mechanisms of behavior.
Such a restructuring presupposes the decentralization of management and the provision of relative operational and financial independence.
to separate subdivisions. This type of management is typical for divisional structures, where the central administration retains the functions of developing a development strategy and strict control on general corporate issues, and part or even all of the “staff” functions (planning, accounting, financial management, etc.) are transferred to subdivisions. ... As a result, the management resources of the upper echelon are freed up for the solution of strategic tasks.
The process of decentralization of university management has a clear internal logic: with the growth of uncertainty and differentiation of the external environment, there is an increase in the complexity of the basic functions of the management system. In turn, decentralization, like any other evolutionary stage, is an adaptation process, an organization's response to the complication of certain basic functions.
The divisive management structure allows us to promptly take into account the changing demands of consumers, anticipate changes in the external environment and promptly respond to them. In addition, the marvelous structure makes it possible to solve the problem of the distribution of material incentives horizontally in a new way, since the middle manager has more reliable information about the degree of employee participation in the implementation of the tasks of his unit.
It seems that in the organizational structure of the university, specialized institutes and branches of the university should act as autonomous subdivisions (divisions). In this case, the central administration of the university delegates to the indicated divisions the functions of developing and implementing educational programs, services and scientific research workers, financial management, and accounting. The most important task of the heads of departments is the search for additional sources of funding. With this management model, in the figurative expression of the authors of the work, "university departments seem to buy the services of the central administration." Important
At the same time, the most important task of the university management is to ensure control over the compliance of the development trends of the departments with the strategic objectives of the educational institution, as well as to coordinate the interests of individual departments.
The divisional principle, as we interpret it in this work, is in good agreement with the concept of strategic economic zones (SZH) and strategic economic centers (SXC) formulated by I. Ansoff 18].
Here iodine as a strategic economic zone is understood as a separate segment of the environment to which the firm has (or wants to get) access. A strategic business center is an intra-firm organizational unit responsible for developing the strategic position of a firm in one or more SZHs.
In the framework of the university, the strategic economic center, in our opinion, can be characterized by the following features:
I
fulfillment of independent market tasks with the help of our own educational services and products within the framework of clearly formulated goals;
the presence of well-defined external competitors with which this strategic unit competes in the market;
relative economic independence in the implementation of key functions; responsibility for the results of their own business activities.
In universities, the management of which is based on a divisional principle, the role of SCC is assigned to separate business units - institutes, educational and research centers.
At the same time, the right to make decisions at the level of these business units is delegated to their leaders. Each department functions as an independent profit center, the head of which is endowed with full responsibility for profit and loss, has complete freedom to dispose of the resources allocated to him and the authority to plan and direct the work of the department so as to optimize performance.
The strategic economic zones of the university and, accordingly, the divisional structures are built on two grounds:
geographically - separate structures of the university (branches);
by type of educational services and products, specialized training institutes.
It should be noted that the heads of business units also carry out strategic planning within their area of ​​business; .they manage resources, finances and powers for the implementation of strategic plans, up to the development of new types of educational products and services, the creation of original educational technologies, and the search for new markets.
However, it is obvious that if the implementation of the strategy depends on the divisions of the university, then the process of all development should be built with their participation and interaction, which imposes a great responsibility on the management of the university. The functions of the central administration of the university include:
formation of the nomenclature of strategic economic zones and the organization of the corresponding structural divisions;
determination of the range of tasks and strategic responsibility for structural units;
ensuring the coordination of the activities of strategic economic centers and the operational redistribution of resources between them;
ensuring a quick response to strategic outrage.
As the tasks of the current activities of the central administration of the university, the following can be distinguished:
organization of investments in structural divisions;
control over the financial activities of departments;
control over the profitability of divisions:
optimization of general university interests;
management of a general university portfolio of orders for educational and scientific consulting services and products;
interaction with the public, creation of a favorable image of the university;
selection, professional development and motivation of heads of structural divisions and functional services;
development of the business potential of the belly.
It seems to us that the divisional scheme of building a university may look as shown in Figure 3.2.1.
The organizational chart of building a specialized educational institute with a divisional structure may be as follows (Figure 3.2.2.). it is obvious that each deputy director has a staff service for the implementation of the assigned functions.
Academic Council Rector's Office Rector Scientific and Methodological CORCT Scientific and Technical Council Strategic level
Functional level Institutions Branches Operational level Fig. 3.2.1. Dnvisional scheme for building a university
X §
a
x s.
and?
with.
S
IE
Y g s
5 C
5
About F
8 X
I am
S
8
X
§
S
Joint venture
II 2 2.
II
II
s: and g
X
x>
v
v
3 about
X C
I
WITH
5 e
> j? 3- 2 5 V
Director

Chairs

The advantages of the linear-functional and diplomatic structure of university management are summarized in Table 3.2.1.
Table 3.2.1. Characteristics of the management structures of the university.
Divi: * Ionic
-Pipe 1 bsh-fu nktsnoi; chy-: ah
Stability
Savings on administrative costs Specialization and competence Orientation to the established market of educational services and scientific products
Flexibility
Efficiency of decision making Fast solution of complex cross-functional problems Orientation to dynamic markets and new types of educational services and technologies
The interest of heads and employees of departments _
Of course, the proposed scheme for the functioning of the belly, based on the relatively independent activity of strategic economic centers (profit centers), has both its advantages and very significant disadvantages that must be taken into account. The undoubted advantages of such an organization include an extremely logical and fundamentally realizable scheme for the transfer of responsibility and delegation of powers 1 "structural divisions; liberation of the central administration of the university from abusive work, which provides an opportunity to engage in the strategy of the university. On the positive side, the fact that the business strategy of each business unit can be more closely aligned with the higher environment should be recognized; an increase in the responsibility of managers of structural divisions is associated with the expansion of their freedom in making managerial decisions, which gives them the opportunity to independently determine key activities, functional requirements for personnel, and methods of their motivation.
When implementing the concept of strategic economic centers, one should probably expect the emergence of a number of difficulties and disadvantages:
at the initial stage of the implementation of the concept, duplication of managerial functions is inevitable at the level of the central administration of the university and the level of structural divisions;
the problem of dividing management functions between the central administration and structural divisions is painful;
there is a certain dependence of the central administration of the university on the heads of structural divisions;
a struggle between structural divisions for the distribution of general university resources and for strategic economic zones is possible;
competition between business units does not facilitate their cooperation, as a result, it is very difficult to develop and
introduction of joint educational services and products, it is difficult to ensure a synergistic effect from the activities of individual structures.
The listed disadvantages can be successfully eliminated only with a high level of professionalism and competence, as well as the presence of leadership qualities in the top management of the university - the rector and vice-rectors in the main areas of activity. This condition is mandatory for the implementation of the concept of decentralization of university management.
However, the marvelous management structure also does not fully correspond to the logic of the development of a modern entrepreneurial university.
Firstly, new tasks arise in the field of educational activities, in particular, in working with corporate clients (retraining and advanced training of personnel), with certain groups of the population of the region (pre-university training of schoolchildren and other persons, training of the unemployed population, training of disabled people, civil retraining officers, training of persons in places of deprivation of liberty, etc.). A separate module is made up of tasks related to the development and implementation of distance learning technologies.
Secondly, in this work, the university is considered, first of all, as an educational organization, i.e. we believe that the operational core of the university is concentrated around the educational programs being implemented. Meanwhile, all major universities provide quality education based on scientific research conducted by their academic staff. Scientific research is not only an auxiliary means of ensuring the educational process, but also an independent product of the university's activity, expressed either in the form of scientific knowledge or in the form of commercialized technologies.
The needs of scientific activity and the operational educational tasks formulated above require the organization of additional structures - educational and scientific centers, research institutes. These structural units can be interpreted as horizontal structures, since they bring together teachers from different educational institutions working part-time.
Managers and functional specialists in certain areas (accounting, financial management, marketing, etc.) can work in horizontal structures both on a regular basis and part-time. The result is a matrix cipyKiypa, which is a lattice organization built on the principle of double subordination of performers; on the one hand - to the immediate head of a functional service or educational institution (branch), on the other - to the head of an educational or research center. In this case, the matrix structure is formed by the imposition of the project structure on the divisional management structure of the university. Obviously, the elements of the matrix structure do not cover the entire university, but only part of it.
The matrix structure of management provides flexibility and efficiency in the redistribution of resources, eliminates intermediate links in the management of individual projects and programs, and allows to establish cooperation and business cooperation between educational institutions and various functional services. Figure 3.2.3. a conditional scheme for building a university based on a divinzional principle with elements of a matrix structure is given.

Since the 60s of the twentieth century, some organizations began to face rapid changes in the external environment, so many of them began to develop and implement new, more flexible types of organizational structures, which, compared to traditional (vertical) structures, were better adapted to the rapid change of external conditions and the emergence of science-intensive and innovative technologies. Such structures are called adaptive because they can be quickly modified in accordance with changes in the environment and the needs of the organization itself. Adaptation is the process of forming a structure that is appropriate for a given environment. Successful adaptation leads to organizational survival. The adaptation of higher education institutions takes place at the expense of material, financial and human resources, market pressure, modern information technologies and state regulation through regulatory documents.

B. Sporn in his book "Structures of Adaptive Universities" provides a detailed analysis of adaptation to the socioeconomic environment of American and European universities. She believes that "the ideal academic organization operates in accordance with a mission oriented change, with a collegial management structure that provides support for faculty to adapt." American researchers pay attention to the vulnerability and dependence of universities on the environment; universities are open systems and therefore are forced to change structures, limit the influence of academic autonomy, responding to the challenges of the time. In fig. 1 shows a model of the environmental impact on the structure of the organization of higher education, from which it can be seen that the structure of the university is influenced by both external factors: legislative and political, economic, demographic, social and cultural, globalization and technology, and internal: mission, tasks, corporate culture, leadership, institutional environment, quality of education, cost of training, efficiency, access. Moreover, each of these factors is significant. For example, P. Senge considers important technological changes that make it possible to build capacity, for the development prospects of the organization, in order to increase the intellectual assets of universities. Baldridge M. views universities as academic organizations with unique characteristics that affect their ability to adapt due to a variety of stakeholders, as well as objectives and goals, corporate culture. Others define universities as loosely coupled systems or organizational anarchies with weak regulatory and control mechanisms that help it quickly adapt to market conditions.

"Not too long ago, the university was perceived by governments as a provider of highly skilled labor and scientific knowledge." In this vein, the university administration worked, relying on an internal culture and managerial collegiality and its own university professors. The globalization of the economy, information and communication technologies, the changing world have put forward new tasks for universities: an increase in the number of students after school, lifelong learning, corresponding to an increasing percentage of people wishing to study in different age groups of the population, competition with other forms of mastering knowledge, adaptation to new teaching technologies and etc. These tasks have challenged the monopoly relationships of public universities with governments in various countries. In the United States, chambers of commerce, business associations and, in general, those involved in the development of the territory become new clients of universities. Therefore, in parallel, new opportunities have arisen in relation to the university know-how and, in particular, to the regional environment. These tasks gave rise to the transformation of the organizational structure of universities, their adaptation.

Rice. 1. The impact of external and internal factors on the structure of a higher education institution

Table 1. Adaptation of universities to the environment

B. Sporn, as a result of a study of the multidimensional activities of American and European universities, which successfully adapted to the external environment in response to the challenges of the time, came to the conclusion that the effective adaptation of universities to the environment can occur only under certain conditions:

1. Universities need a crisis from the outside, which would be the reason for adaptation;
2. Sources of funding that they can use at their own discretion;
3. High horsefly autonomy;
4. Transformational leadership that promotes the realization of the vision by changing the environment and facilitates adaptation;
5. Collegial decision-making forms for successful implementation of adaptation;
6. Professional management;
7. Mission focused on change;
8. Structuring the activities of universities aimed at the market;
9. Decentralization of structures and decision making;
10. A high degree of differentiation of academic structures and disciplines.

Table 1 shows the universities studied that have effectively adapted to the environment.

Let us consider various modern adaptive structures of higher educational institutions: a matrix university, a university focused on the TQM process, a modern university, a technopolis university, an innovative - entrepreneurial university, which appeared in response to the challenges of the time, a rapidly changing external environment.

Matrix University

A matrix structure is optimal when the environment is highly variable and the organization's goals reflect dual requirements, where both divisional links and functional goals are equally important. The dual governance structure facilitates the communication and coordination of actions that are required to respond quickly to environmental changes. It helps to establish the right balance of power between functional unit leaders and senior management. The matrix structure of the organization is characterized by strong horizontal ties.

In a matrix structure, horizontal teams exist on a par with traditional vertical hierarchies. Matrix University is a step towards a modern university. Departments are becoming insufficient to perform training functions, research centers appear that carry out their activities, work on projects and where specialists of various profiles are needed, from various departments and faculties. These centers can be located in the same faculty, or they can be organized as university research centers. Therefore, in addition to communications, when information is exchanged vertically, along a hierarchical chain, there is a horizontal exchange of information, which makes it possible to overcome barriers between structural divisions, departments and provide the possibility of coordinating the actions of teachers and employees to fulfill a common goal, for example, some kind of research project.

Rice. 2. The structure of the matrix university

The mechanisms of horizontal links are usually not depicted on the structural diagram of the organization, but. however, they are part of the organizational structure. In fig. 2 shows a diagram of a matrix university that implements a quality management system.

The matrix structure of the organization is characterized by strong horizontal ties. SHIFT Towards more "flat" structures, horizontal, allows to increase the level of horizontal coordination through the introduction of information systems, direct contact between departments.

A unique property of the matrix structure is that the heads of structural divisions have the same power in the organization, and employees are equally subordinate to both.

The strengths and weaknesses of the matrix structure of the organization are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Weaknesses and strengths of the matrix structure of the organization

Structure of TQM Process Oriented Organizations

It is difficult for institutions operating in a traditional, hierarchical structure to adequately respond to changes in the environment. Strict boundaries, barriers, and old-fashioned views characterize such traditional institutions. One of their features is the lack of a common mission, power hierarchies and dependence on bureaucratic procedures. Such organizations have not developed an emphasis on customer satisfaction, their graduates are more often than others not noticed and are not in demand in the market. Improvements that are being undertaken in such universities are usually aimed at reducing the cost of training, reducing costs, in order to attract applicants with lower tuition fees.

TQM offers an opportunity for educational organizations to adopt a different point of view, the opposite of the traditional bureaucratic model. Organizations that have implemented TQM integrate quality into their structures, and ensure quality at every level and every stage. To achieve this, it is necessary to invest heavily in personnel, in their training and motivation, since they are a key figure in the quality of the organization and its future.

If the university intends to introduce TQM into the organization, then it must work synchronously, update, move on, see its mission in achieving the goal. He must be aware that quality will always provide them with a place and a niche in the market. Most importantly, the leadership of the organization must convey the message to the faculty, staff and administrative and support staff that it is the main partner in the educational process and scientific research. The stimulating force must come from the leaders constantly and the process must be constantly motivated and strengthened.

There are no standard forms for organizing TQM, although under the influence of the introduction of a total quality management system, traditional structures are being transformed. The structure should conform to and facilitate the implementation of the TQM process. Opt suggests that with the development of TQM, the hierarchy disappears to a greater extent and single-level, matrix structures with strong horizontal interconnections are replacing the hierarchy. These organizational forms are simple, flexible, and built on strong teamwork. Development, strengthening of teamwork is a feature of TQM and reduces the need for mid-level supervisors. Instead, middle managers become leaders and champions of quality and take on the role of a supportive team. This new role for middle-even managers is very important because teamwork can have a downside. Groups that are too segregated May be uncoordinated and ineffective. The teamwork management system should be simple but effective. It is important that teams understand the vision and vision of the institution. This is one of the reasons why vision and leadership stand out so much in the TQM literature.

Organization, in terms of TQM. it is a system designed to serve consumers. To do this, all parts of the organization's system must be aligned. The success of each individual part of the organization affects the performance of the entire organization. The difference between a mature TQM-based structure and a conventional organizational form is that traditional organizations build their activities taking into account functions, while TQM - taking into account development goals, functions, management tools.

Rice. 3. Organizational structure of total education quality management

Let's consider the structure of TQM on the example of the Ivanovo State Power Engineering University (ISEU) (Fig. 3), which is focused on the implementation of the philosophy of total quality management of the university.

In this structure, two groups of elements are distinguished:

• elements traditional for higher education (Board of Trustees. Academic Council, services of the rector and vice-rectors);
• new elements focused on university management based on the philosophy of total quality.

In the circuit shown in fig. 4, the unifying subdivision is the Center for Quality Management in Education, which is designed to influence all departments of the university through quality councils under each vice-rector.

Rice. 4. Quality management of the university with a focus on customer satisfaction

To eliminate the duality of the organizational structure at ISEU, it was proposed to orient the weight of the main divisions (institutes, faculties, departments, centers, temporary creative teams) of the university towards the implementation of the mission and strategic goals of the university (Fig. 3). These points apply to both the vertical and horizontal structure of the organization. For example, the first two elements are a structural frame, that is, a vertical hierarchy, the third element is a diagram of interaction between employees of the organization. TQM. with its powerful ingredients such as long-term strategic planning and employee involvement in continuous improvement, it provides a means to overcome difficulties at every stage.

This remark is fundamental, since it indicates that the services of the rector and vice-rectors should not function autonomously, being closed in their own structures. They should help the main departments to fulfill the mission of the university in a quality manner. This means that the rector, vice-rectors and their services should not interfere with the activities of the main divisions after their short-term tasks have been identified and the necessary resources have been allocated to solve these tasks. That is, the functions of the administration of the rectorate should be mixed into the zones of planning and analysis of the results of the implementation of plans, and the functions of the administration services - into the zones of high-quality implementation of standard processes (SDCA cycles) and processes of continuous improvement of their activities (PDCA cycles).

The new management style should be ensured by the Rector's Quality Management Committee. Quality councils for vice-rectors and the Center for Quality Management in Education (CIAM).

The main tasks of the Quality Management Committee:

• development of the mission and vision of the university;
• development of strategic goals of the university;
• development of medium-term goals of the university;
• approval of short-term goals and programs developed in the areas of activity of each vice-rector;
• analysis of the results of the movement towards the set goals. Tasks Quality Council under the Vice-Rector are similar to the tasks of the Quality Committee and differ only in the specifics of the activities of a particular vice-rector:
• deployment of medium-term plans (goals and resources) for individual departments:
• development of short-term plans and programs for individual departments;
• analysis of the results of work and adjustment of plans.

In organizations focused on TQM, the structure is based on the process, and then the necessary features of any quality organization follow:

Optimization of structural parts- every part, program and department must operate efficiently and effectively. Each area should have clear and preferably written quality standards to be followed.

Vertical line- each member of the team should learn the strategy of the institution, its leadership and mission, although they do not need to know the details of the goals.

Horizontal line- there should be no competition between programs, departments and there should be an understanding of the goals and needs of other parts of the organization. Mechanisms must be in place to deal effectively with border problems.

Table 3. The difference between an organization that has implemented TQM and a conventional

Quality management in an educational institution, all activities of which are focused on meeting the needs of the client, is illustrated in Fig. 4. This concerns the quality of the structure of the developed training courses, the quality of teaching and assessment, scientific research and student counseling, human resource management, organization activities. All these factors are taken into account in strategic planning, which is aimed at meeting the needs of the client.

An educational organization that has implemented TQM is significantly different from a regular organization. Sallis, in her work, points out the differences between such organizations. Table 3 below examines the difference between an organization that adopts the TQM philosophy and an organization that does not.

If the idea of ​​total quality management is adopted by the educational organization and it is looking for ways of close cooperation with its consumers, then its stage of maturity can also be a stage of renewal.

The organization should periodically reassess its objectives and continually critically review the institution's actions. Structural reorganizations are necessary only if the quality of education is improved.

Generally accepted modern university

The Generally Accepted Modern University (CUU) has emerged as a result of requests for services from the faculty of matrix universities in connection with the process of professionalization and specialization of professors, which generates a demand for an increasing number of services and resources.

Faculties expand, various centers appear and their needs become more significant than those of departments. Learning in general is incredibly difficult. The Matrix University needs services that go far beyond traditional bureaucratic practices. At the organizational level, normal horizontal services are already required by all curricula, faculties and departments.

The organizational structure of a generally accepted modern university (OSU) focuses on, as Mintzberg called it, "a mixed professional bureaucracy." A mixed professional bureaucracy presupposes a powerful, productive bureaucracy whose services are structured in a certain way. This is very noticeable in universities. To this well-structured professional bureaucracy must be added a mechanical bureaucracy that guides the individual aspects of learning and research with a technological structure whose purpose is to guarantee services.

Internal services provided to students can be extended to the external environment.

For example, libraries, sports and cultural events may be organized by universities and the rest of the community may be allowed to use and participate. Fundraising activities can be formalized if the links between the university and its alumni are strengthened. In fact, a generally accepted modern university, through its hierarchy, is able to tightly manage its contributions to regional development - generally accepted contributions in support of territorial-organizational activities. He is also able to provide significant support to laboratories to meet their needs.

The transition from the matrix university model to the generally accepted modern university model is going through two important organizational changes: the multiplication of demanded and essential services and the inevitable clarification of the role of mechanical bureaucracy in the global functioning of this type of university. The structure of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia can be cited as a model of a generally accepted modern university. Separate structures of RUDN University with the status of a legal entity (Unicum Center, National Information Center for Academic Recognition and Student Mobility of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, International Law Institute) bring elements of a multipolar university into the organizational structure of the university.

Technopolis University (multipolar university)

The generally accepted modern university (OSU) is replacing the university-technopolis (UT). arising from the growth of the needs of society. According to M. Mescon's classification, such a university can be attributed to conglomerate type organizations, in which a matrix structure can be used in one department, an entrepreneurial structure in another, and a functional structure in a third. Forty years ago, Kerr K., former president of the University of California at Berkeley, celebrated the emergence of a multi-university. which is a pluralistic organization in its structure.

The structure of the technopolis has supplemented the organizational structure of a generally accepted modern university with three elements.

1. Independent organizations that often act as separate legal entities... These independent organizations are needed to meet new social needs, such as continuing education, experimental testing centers, organizing research, recognizing academic qualifications, creating blended centers that collaborate with firms, companies and government agencies involved in the creation and dissemination of information.
2. Horizontal subdivisions are needed to ensure horizontal links, or to achieve goals that can be provided by matrix organizations.
3. Endogenous Growth Units are nothing more than research and service organizations... They arise from the initiative of university personnel.

A new figure appears at the university - a "breakthrough" professor, an enterprising professor who is able to load the laboratory with his own projects and is able to lead research groups and create self-financing organizations. The disruptive professor is becoming a key figure in understanding the university's growing ability to contribute to regional development.

The traditional management systems of a generally accepted modern university must be complemented by new, urgently needed services. The new university-technopolis is structured in the same way as a technology park or the so-called new urban structures (the similarity between a university and a technopolis is too obvious. Technopolis is understood as a spatial urban system for which there is synergy to coordinate the actions of individual agents with different functions and requiring coordinated leadership The university-technopolis has a variety of functions: from purely urban to the means of production, research and education. Thus, the university-technopolis physically resembles a reduced Silicon Valley. Such universities include the national multidisciplinary American universities, Fig. 5-7 shows the following organizational structures: New York University School of Education, University of Arizona, Harvard University Harvard University can rightfully be attributed to the university-technopolis, it currently has 144 research centers and 10 colleges. The centers have a matrix structure of subordination, among them 35 research centers are related to the natural and human sciences, 13 centers work in the field of business, 37 centers - in the field of medicine and health, 12 centers - for research related to government, 18 centers - in the sphere of law, etc. Such a number of centers expands the existing and already branched infrastructure of the university, which, on the one hand, allows for fundamental and applied scientific research in a wide range of areas, on the other hand, to train masters and Ph.Ds at the highest level. It is no coincidence that the ratio of training bachelors and masters across the continent sharply differs from generally accepted standards. Usually, in universities, the main field of activity is the training of students in bachelor's programs, and only 15-25% study in master's and postgraduate studies, at Harvard, on the contrary, only 35% of all students study in bachelor's programs, but 65% study for master's and postgraduate programs.

Rice. 5. Organizational structure of the New York University School of Education

In a university-technopolis, various organizational structures can coexist at the same time, here there is a correlation with the space where organizations are considered from the point of view of the complexity of their structure. The existence in space of various units of a dissimilar nature does not exclude either the reality of the organization, or the possibility of management and coordination. The university-technopolis is created through open structuring, when classrooms are connected with laboratories and other university spaces (institutes, horizontal centers, etc.). However, the role of research activity acquires other aspects not only in relation to the "personality-group" formula, but also from an organizational point of view, becoming the result of internal dynamics generated by the ratio of supply and demand.

Rice. 6. Organizational structure of the University of Arizona

Units, fully or partially autonomous, proliferate and require an organizational response to their needs. Research is becoming part of the production system, and the number of people dedicated to research is growing exponentially. There is a certain dependence that predetermines organizational adaptation to the required form of financing. The organization of research involves the distribution of professors to universities. The multiplicity of data collection points and units regulates the distribution of students across three stages of education (student, graduate, graduate student). In Kazakhstan, the existence of such universities has not yet been envisaged, since the university cannot have independent legal entities in its structure, therefore, new legislative initiatives in higher education are needed, which will expand the powers of universities and create conditions for the creation of such structures.

Rice. 7. Organizational structure of Harvard University

The features of corporate universities in the United States include the following factors:

• polyfunctionality of the university, or the ability to both generate and provide the transfer of modern knowledge;
• strong focus on research and development, primarily on basic research:
• availability of a system for training specialists with a scientific degree (doctor, master, bachelor);
• focus on modern areas of science, high technology and the innovation sector in the economy, science, technology:
• a wide range of specialties and specializations, including natural sciences, social sciences and humanities:
• high professional level of teachers recruited on the basis of competitions, including international ones; the availability of opportunities for inviting leading specialists from different countries of the world for temporary work;
• a high degree of information transparency and integration into the international system of science and education;
• receptivity to world experience, flexibility in relation to new directions of scientific research and teaching methodology;
• competitiveness and selective approach in recruiting students;
• the formation of a special intellectual environment around the university;
• the presence of a corporate ethics based on sciences, democratic values ​​and academic freedoms;
• striving for leadership within the region, country, world and educational community as a whole.

An innovative, entrepreneurial university

The new conditions for the functioning of higher education with low state funding for most state universities and tough inter-university competition are forcing state and private universities to operate as a market enterprise. Thus, in order to ensure its self-development, the university must use the principles of work business organization... The main profile markets of an entrepreneurial university are the educational services market, the labor market and the market for science-intensive developments. Innovation management offers universities the implementation of a full innovation cycle from acquiring new knowledge to its commercial implementation in the specialized market. New knowledge obtained in the course of fundamental and exploratory research is further implemented as part of the stages of the full innovation cycle along various trajectories.

Clark B. notes the following characteristics of the entrepreneurial university.

1. Strong management core... The rector and his cadres work as a leadership group, committed to the cause, firmly on their feet. The supporting structure to guide change is being restored, and an "innovative" apparatus is being organized.
2. Decentralization and incentive to create peripheral units (convertible and striving for rapid growth). The concept of a "holding" university is being developed, while new research units are being "invented" in addition to new sourced enterprises, foundations, and so on. The autonomy of rapidly growing units is encouraged.
3. Differentiation of funding sources... Support is being provided for the Technology Transfer Center.
4. putting pressure on classic structural divisions (faculties and departments) to stimulate change. Strategic plans for all structural divisions are being implemented.
5. Entrepreneurial culture becomes common to all cadres.

The new culture predetermines dialogue between all governing bodies. Budgetary relationships between divisions are changing.

However, progress towards an entrepreneurial university cannot happen if the basic conditions are not laid down, some of which are closely linked to the university charter:

• creating goals, concepts:
• transition from a vertical university to a technopolis;
• promoting cultural change to disseminate knowledge of the model to all communities through an innovative program.

The entrepreneurial structure, along with others, can be part of the overall organizational structure of a university for a technopolis university, which is most typical for American universities.

European universities believe that dynamic university development requires close and business relationships with businesses and increased funding from a variety of sources.

Rice. 8. Links of the market of educational services and science-intensive developments with adjacent markets

In connection with this position, the Gelsenkirch Declaration on Institutional Entrepreneurship Management and the Study of Entrepreneurship in European Higher Education Systems was adopted in December 2003. It set the following tasks for the transition of universities to entrepreneurial institutional management:

• professionalization of university management and staff, combined with strong executive leadership;
• diversification of sources of income;
• study and integration of new market management methods, subject to respect for key academic values;
• close ties with business and society:
• developing a proactive and innovative entrepreneurial culture: transferring knowledge, founding new manufacturing companies, continuing education and establishing contacts with alumni, including for raising funds;
• integrating academic and research units through the erosion of traditional disciplinary boundaries and the establishment of project endeavors consistent with new methods of knowledge production and application.

Under the market model of economic relations, marketing plays an important role in the development of the market for educational and scientific services and in strengthening the competitiveness of an educational institution. In fig. 8 shows that the sphere of marketing for higher educational institutions is not only paid education, but also the production of educational literature, the sale of patents, know-how, and science-intensive developments. "The target result of marketing activities is the most effective satisfaction of the needs of: the individual - in education; the educational institution, in the development and well-being of its teaching staff and employees, training of specialists at a high level; society - in the expanded reproduction of the aggregate personal and intellectual potential."

All over the world, great importance is attached to the creation of national innovation systems linking science and business in many respects determining the country's competitiveness in the international market. In October 2003, in Brussels, at a seminar

Higher educational institution- is a single complex, which includes educational, research, production, socio-cultural, administrative and economic and other structural units with varying degrees of economic independence. A higher educational institution consists of: administration; tips; faculties; general university departments; organizations, institutions, enterprises.

The administration includes the rector, vice-rectors, i.e. deputy rectors, and administrative staff (structural units of the administration).

Rector heads a higher educational institution and directs its activities.

Vice-rectors act in accordance with the responsibilities assigned by the rector between them. The rector can delegate to them some of his powers to manage the structural divisions of the university.

One of the collegial governing bodies headed by the rector of the university is administration. The administration includes: rector, vice-rectors, deans of faculties, heads of some structural divisions of the university. The rectorate carries out operational management of the university, coordination of the activities of its structural divisions, solving current issues of educational, financial and economic activities.

Academic Council- an elected collegial governing body of the university. The chairman of the Academic Council is the rector of the university, who exercises general management of its activities. The current activity is provided by the Scientific Secretary, elected by the Scientific Council from among the members.

The university includes faculties. They are created with the aim of organizing the training of students, undergraduates, graduate students and doctoral students, retraining and advanced training of personnel for the relevant sector of the economy. The faculty consists of departments, laboratories and other structural divisions, which, in terms of the content of their work, correspond to the profile of the faculty.

Head of the faculty dean, who guides him. Within the limits of his competence, he issues orders that are obligatory for the teaching staff, employees, students, undergraduates, graduate students and doctoral students of the faculty. Some of the functions of managing the faculty are carried out Deputy Deans and Academic Council of the Faculty.

Faculty Academic Council- an elective collegial management body of the faculty, formed under the dean in order to resolve issues of the faculty's activities. The faculty council consists of the dean (chairman of the council), his deputies, heads of departments, teaching staff, representatives of the trade union and student organizations.

Department is a structural educational and scientific unit of a university or faculty. It ensures the conduct of educational, methodological, scientific and educational work. The activities of the department are aimed at training specialists who possess deep theoretical knowledge, skills and abilities, have a common culture and high moral qualities. The departments consist of the teaching staff: the head of the department, professors, associate professors, assistants, senior teachers, teachers and trainee teachers. Postgraduate students, doctoral students and educational support personnel are assigned to the departments. If the department has the appropriate scientific and pedagogical personnel (doctors of science) by the decision of the rector, postgraduate and doctoral studies can be created.

Departments are general university or faculty. General university departments work at all or a significant number of faculties, and are subordinate to the leadership of the university. The rest of the departments are structural divisions of the faculties.

Head of the Department carries out general management of the department, develops a work plan of the department for the academic year and submits it for approval to the head, participates in the work of all departments of the university, where issues of the department's activities are discussed and resolved, etc.

There are a large number of organizations, institutions, enterprises, whose work is related to the profile of the university and contributes to a better performance of the main tasks and functions. For example, at the BrSU named after A.S. Pushkin: Laboratory for Sociological Research; Information Technology Center; PKI and PC.

UDC 378.14.015.60

ANALYSIS OF MODERN ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

E.L. MAKAROVA, V.D. Serbin, S.V. TATAROV

Southern Federal University (Taganrog) [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Changes in society and in sectors of the economy are occurring quickly enough. Their diversity is also quite wide, so higher education faces the most important task "How to keep up with these changes and ensure the timely transfer of the necessary knowledge to a large number of students?" The solution to this problem affects not only teaching technologies, but also the need to change the institutions and universities themselves in order to maintain a high quality of education. This paper analyzes the management structures for various types of universities, depending on the external conditions and the nature of the tasks to be solved. One of the approaches is proposed for solving the problem of changing the organizational structure of university management in accordance with the set goals.

Key words: management, organization, structure, university.

1. REASONS FOR THE TRANSITION TO HYBRID ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES

Since the end of the twentieth century, higher education institutions, faced with rapid changes in the external environment, began to develop and implement new, more flexible types of organizational structures that

in comparison with traditional (vertical) structures, they were better adapted to the rapid change in external conditions and the emergence of innovative technologies. Such structures are called adaptive because they can be quickly modified in accordance with changes in the environment and the needs of the organization itself (see Figure 1).

The adaptation of higher educational institutions takes place at the expense of material and financial resources, personnel, market pressure, modern innovative technologies and state regulation through regulatory documents.

In the United States, for example, chambers of commerce, business associations and, in general, those involved in the development of the territory become the new founders of universities. Therefore, in parallel, new opportunities have arisen in relation to the university know-how and, in particular, to the regional environment. These tasks gave rise to the transformation of the organizational structure of universities, their adaptation.

Rice. 1. The impact of external and internal factors on the structure of a higher education institution

B. Sporn, as a result of a study of the multidimensional activities of American and European universities, which successfully adapted to the external environment in response to the challenges of the time, came to the conclusion that effective adaptation of universities can occur only under certain conditions:

1. Universities need a crisis from the outside, which would be the reason for adaptation.

2. Sources of funding, which they can use at their own discretion.

3. High horsefly autonomy.

4. Transformational leadership that promotes a vision of environmental change and facilitates adaptation.

5. Collegial forms of decision-making for successful adaptation.

6. Professional management.

7. Mission oriented to change.

8. Structuring the activities of universities aimed at the market.

9. Decentralization of structures and decision making.

10. A high degree of differentiation of academic structures and disciplines.

FEATURES OF CHANGE IN ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES

Economic reforms in Russia have led to an overall economic recession and a crisis by industry. At the same time, leading institutes and universities by inertia produced well-trained specialists without the prospect of finding a job in their profession. The outflow of young personnel abroad began to grow significantly. Without any orientation towards economics, they began to reform higher education, for which it became common:

Self-financing right and many affiliates;

New institutions began to appear with full tuition fees;

Reducing education costs.

The transition from a linear (hierarchical) organizational structure to a matrix structure can formally be represented by the following diagram (Fig. 2).

At the same time, the following ten requirements and characteristics of the formation of effective management structures are relevant:

1) reduction of the size of divisions and their staffing with more qualified personnel;

Rice. 2. Transition from a linear (hierarchical) structure to a matrix

2) reduction in the number of management levels;

3) group organization of labor as the basis of a new management structure;

4) orientation of current work, including schedules and procedures, to consumer requests;

5) creation of conditions for flexible assembly of products;

6) minimization of stocks;

7) quick response to changes;

8) flexibly reconfigurable equipment;

9) high productivity and low costs;

10) impeccable product quality and focus on strong customer relationships.

The World Technological University (see) and Tomsk Polytechnic University (see) are among the higher educational institutions where the use of matrix structures has led to good results.

2.modern forms of organization of university activities

2.1. Technopolis University (multipolar university)

The traditional modern university (TSU) is replacing the university-technopolis (UT), which has arisen as a result of the growing needs of society. According to the accepted classification, such a university can be classified as a conglomerate-type organization, in which a matrix structure can be used in one department, an entrepreneurial structure in another, and a functional structure in the third.

The structure of the technopolis has supplemented the organizational structure of a traditional modern university with three elements.

1. Independent organizations that often act as independent legal entities. These independent organizations are needed to meet new social needs, such as continuing education, experimental testing centers, organizing research, recognizing academic qualifications, creating blended centers that collaborate with firms, companies and government agencies involved in the creation and dissemination of information.

2. Horizontal subdivisions, necessary to ensure horizontal links, or to achieve goals that can be provided by matrix organizations.

3. Units of endogenous growth are nothing more than research and service organizations. They arise from the initiative of university personnel.

The traditional management systems of a modern university must be supplemented with new, urgently needed services. The new university-technopolis is structured in the same way as a technology park or the so-called new urban structures (the similarities between a university and a technopolis are too obvious). Technopolis is understood as a spatial urban system for which there is synergy to coordinate the actions of individual agents with different functions and requiring coordinated leadership.

These universities include national multidisciplinary American universities (see). For example, Harvard University can rightfully be classified as a technopolis university; it currently has 144 research centers and 10 colleges. The centers have a matrix structure of subordination, among them 35 scientific research centers are associated with natural and human sciences, 13 centers work in the field of business, 37 centers in the field of medicine and health care, 12 centers

for research related to government, 18 centers in the field of law, etc. Such a number of centers expands the existing and already branched infrastructure of the university, which, on the one hand, allows for fundamental and applied scientific research in a wide range of areas, on the other hand, to train masters and Ph.Ds at the highest level. It is no coincidence that the ratio of training bachelors and masters in the contingent differs sharply from generally accepted standards. Usually, in universities, the main field of activity is the training of students in bachelor's programs, and only 15-25% study in master's and postgraduate studies, at Harvard, on the contrary, only 35% of all students study in bachelor's programs, 65% study in master's and postgraduate programs.

Technopolis should constantly focus on the technological institutes included in it (or collaborating with it in terms of personnel). Lecturers are often visiting employees of technological institutes.

In a university-technopolis, various organizational structures can coexist at the same time, here there is a correlation with the space where organizations are considered from the point of view of the complexity of their structure. The university-technopolis is created through open structuring, when classrooms are connected with laboratories and other university spaces (institutes, horizontal centers, etc.).

Units, fully or partially autonomous, proliferate and require an organizational response to their needs. Research is becoming part of the production system, and the number of people dedicated to scientific research in technopolises is increasing exponentially. The organization of research involves the distribution of professors to universities. The multiplicity of data collection points and units regulates the distribution of students across three stages of education (student, graduate, graduate student).

CORPORATE UNIVERSITIES

The features of the emergence of corporate universities in the United States include the following factors:

Polyfunctionality of the university, or the ability to both generate and provide the transfer of modern knowledge;

Strong focus on research and development, especially basic research;

Availability of a system for training specialists with a scientific degree (doctor, master, bachelor);

Orientation to modern areas of science, high technologies and the innovation sector in the economy, science, technology;

A wide range of majors and majors, including natural sciences, social sciences and humanities;

High professional level of teachers recruited on the basis of competitions, including international ones; the availability of opportunities for inviting leading specialists from different countries of the world for temporary work;

A high degree of information openness and integration into the international system of science and education;

Sensitivity to world experience, flexibility in relation to new directions of research and teaching methodology;

Competitiveness and selective approach in recruiting students;

Formation of a special intellectual environment around the university;

Having a corporate ethics based on sciences, democratic values ​​and academic freedom;

Striving for leadership within the region, country, world and educational community as a whole.

In the context of Russia, corporate universities have not yet become an effective system for reforming education due to limited financial resources and an almost complete lack of venture capital.

2.2. Innovative Entrepreneurial University

The new conditions for the functioning of higher education with low state funding for most state universities and tough inter-university competition are forcing state and private universities to operate as a market enterprise. Thus, to ensure its self-development, the university must use the principles of the entrepreneurial organization. The links between educational services and other different markets are shown in Fig. 3.

The main profile markets of an entrepreneurial university are: the educational services market, the labor market and the market for science-intensive developments. Innovation management offers universities the implementation of a full innovation cycle - from the acquisition of new knowledge to their commercial implementation in the specialized market. New knowledge obtained in the course of fundamental and exploratory research is further implemented as part of the stages of the full innovation cycle along various trajectories.

Rice. 3. Links of the market of educational services and science-intensive developments with adjacent markets

B. Clarke notes the following characteristics of an entrepreneurial university:

1. Strong management core. The rector and his cadres work as a leadership group, committed to the cause, firmly on their feet. The supporting structure to guide change is being restored and an “innovative” apparatus is being set up.

2. Decentralization and incentive for the creation of peripheral units (amenable to transformation and striving for rapid growth). The concept of a university-“holding” is being developed, with new research units being “invented” in addition to new mixed enterprises, foundations, etc. The autonomy of rapidly growing units is encouraged.

3. Differentiation of funding sources. Support is being provided for the Technology Transfer Center.

4. Putting pressure on classic structural units (faculties and departments) to stimulate change. Strategic plans for all structural divisions are being implemented.

5. The entrepreneurial culture becomes common to all personnel.

The new culture predetermines dialogue between all governing bodies. Budgetary relationships between divisions are changing.

Nevertheless, progress towards an entrepreneurial university cannot happen if the basic conditions are not laid down, some of which are closely linked to the university charter:

Creation of goals, concepts;

Transition from a vertical university to a technopolis;

Promote cultural change to disseminate knowledge of the model to all communities through an innovative program.

The entrepreneurial structure, along with others, can be part of the overall organizational structure of a university for a technopolis university, which is most typical for American universities.

European universities believe that dynamic university development requires close and business relationships with businesses and increased funding from a variety of sources.

Under the market model of economic relations, marketing plays an important role in the development of the market for educational and scientific services and in strengthening the competitiveness of an educational institution. The sphere of marketing for higher educational institutions is not only paid education, but also the production of educational literature, the sale of patents, know-how, science-intensive developments. The target result of marketing activities is the most effective satisfaction of needs:

Personalities (in education);

Educational institution (in the development and well-being of its teaching staff and employees, training of specialists at a high level);

Society (in the expanded reproduction of the aggregate personal and intellectual potential).

All over the world, great importance is attached to the creation of national innovation systems that link science and business and largely determine the country's competitiveness in the international market.

Modern society defines a new social status and the role of universities as a center for the transfer of knowledge for the benefit of the economy and society, therefore, universities need to accurately and actively determine their contribution to the innovation process and social development.

Experts believe that one of the most significant challenges in creating innovative universities is the significant cultural difference between universities and industrial enterprises. In this regard, it seems necessary not only to exchange personnel between production and the academic sector, but also to solve the problem of professional competence of academic workers involved in the "science - production" management process.

To implement innovations, universities need to join this process and create technology parks and innovation incubators based on universities. Innovation incubators are an effective form of "promotion" of innovations, when small enterprises in the form of a legal entity are created specifically to promote scientific and technical or technological developments. Another approach could be the creation of innovation and technology centers or technology transfer centers at the university.

Such changes will make universities more modern and dynamic without compromising traditional academic values. In the now emerging science-intensive economic and social systems, it is precisely such universities of a new type that are needed that can be part of the structure of a university-technopolis.

organizational transformation proposals

When forming the organizational structure of an educational institution, taking into account the linkage of the goals of the university formulated by the management, it is advisable to turn to a well-proven tool in management - the "tree of goals"

The vertices of the "goal tree" can be:

Development of innovative education based on interdisciplinary and problem-oriented learning technologies that provide advanced training of specialists through the integration of academic traditions and scientific research;

Ensuring the educational process in accordance with domestic and international educational standards;

Ensuring the compliance of the research activities of the university with the level of world requirements and standards;

Ensuring high efficiency of strategic and operational management of the university's activities separately in the educational services market and in the personnel training market;

Education at university-wide departments and in specialized laboratories and centers;

Pre-university, post-graduate, external studies, second and regional education with industry orientation;

Research activities of international centers;

Research activities in university-wide centers;

Research activities in the department autonomous laboratories;

Research activities of the teaching staff;

Research management and performance and effectiveness analysis;

Management of administrative activities;

HR management;

International Relations Development Management;

Management of the development of informatization and new education technologies;

Security management;

Management of planning, financial and accounting activities;

Management of methodological activities and book publishing;

Management of organizational and educational activities;

Providing the necessary social and cultural conditions for the activities of the university;

Maintenance of buildings, structures, premises, services, mechanics, energy, material and technical supply, transport and communications in the required condition;

Providing the necessary conditions for the treatment and recreation of employees and students of the university;

Management of information networks and the provision of educational and scientific literature for students and university staff.

In our opinion, the organizational structure of the university is built on the basis of the organizational structures discussed above so as to ensure the achievement of the local goals of the goal tree. The organizational structure of the university, shown in Fig. 4.

Management of a university by the criterion of growth in the value of an organization using the described goal tree allows you to build not only an effective strategy for the development of a university, but also effectively manage the results of educational and scientific activities.

GUARDIAN BOARD

Rector's Council for the Quality of Education

Vice-rector for direction 1

Institute directors

Vice-rector for direction 2

Deans of faculties

Academic Council of the University

University-wide functional units

Vice-rector in the direction of p

Head of EPP

Head of PPO

Directors of training centers

Experimental and production sites (EPP)

Project sites and organizations (PPO)

Rice. 4. An example of the formation of the organizational structure of a higher educational institution

!___________________________________________________________________________

LITERATURE

1. Sporn B. Adaptive universities: ref. monograph B. Sporn. Association for Engineering Education of Russia. - M .: Information and Analytical Center, - 2004.

2. Information and reference portal for support of quality management systems. Quality system. Information in the field of IC. Quality management system in education. Structures of universities. Responsive structures. URL: http://www.quality.edu.ru/quality/sk/menedjment/vuzstructure/663 (date of treatment 11/12/2014).

3. Lankin V.E. and other Research and development of organizational management systems in higher educational institutions. - Taganrog: TTI SFU, 2011. - 178 p.

4. Clark B.R. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. - New York: Pergamon Press, 1998.

5. Official site of the Moscow State Technical University. N.E. Bauman. URL: http: //bmstu.rumstu/info/structure/.

6. Tarasenko FP Applied system analysis. - M .: KnoRus, 2010.

1. Overview of typical organizational structures of universities

1.2. Features of modern organizational structures of universities

Market influence has a profound effect on the higher education system in Russia. Having received new responsibilities and freedoms, universities create new structures. The emerging structures are close to those traditionally used by entrepreneurs. These are the functions and subdivisions inevitable for management in a competitive environment: strategic management, marketing, project management, board of trustees. Universities adjust the strategic goals of their activities and, naturally, make the necessary changes to the organizational structure. At the same time, the emergence of new tasks and services often occurs spontaneously. That is why new divisions sometimes come out heavy, poorly structured.

The structure of a developing university should be viable, flexible and dynamic. In this regard, it is relevant to develop a scientifically grounded structure for managing the educational process, a structure that effectively functions in an open information and educational space, providing easy access to the information being studied, stimulating the generation of new knowledge and ensuring the competitiveness of graduates in the labor market.

Let's consider the most common organizational structures, initially focusing on the accepted typology. In the economic literature, there are classic diagrams of organizational structures:

1) hierarchical (bureaucratic),

2) linear,

3) line-staff,

4) divisional (divisional),

5) organic (adaptive),

6) brigade (cross-functional),

7) design,

8) matrix (program-targeted).

The management structure of the university is largely determined by what the decision-making mechanism is, who makes them and what it is oriented towards. The evolution of the external environment, changes in the requests of agents external and internal in relation to the university make it transform its goals; along with this, the organizational structure of management is also being adapted.

1. Hierarchical (bureaucratic) types of structures. The traditional organization of the university, inherited by Russian higher education from the Soviet period, can be characterized as a hierarchical departmentalization. The educational subsystem of the university, which implements the main task of a higher educational institution, can be characterized as disciplinary departmentization, since the grouping of people and resources is carried out around academic disciplines. Note that disciplinary departmentalization leads to deep specialization of activities, and generates interdepartmental and interdepartmental organizational barriers, which characterizes the university exclusively as a "hierarchical bureaucracy", which means ignoring the substantive component of its activities, identifying it with production organizations or state structures.

Weaknesses and strengths of the functional structure of the organization are shown in table. 1.

Table 1

Weaknesses and strengths of the hierarchical structure

2. Linear organizational structure. The basis of linear structures is the so-called "mine" principle of construction and specialization of the management process according to the functional subsystems of the organization (marketing, production, research and development, finance, personnel, etc.). For each subsystem, a hierarchy of services is formed that permeates the entire organization from top to bottom. The performance of each service is assessed by indicators that characterize the fulfillment of their goals and objectives. The SFedU management structure is currently fully consistent with this classical system with all its advantages and disadvantages.

3. Linear organizational structure. This type of organizational structure is a linear development and is designed to eliminate its most important drawback associated with the lack of strategic planning links. The line-staff structure includes specialized divisions (headquarters) that do not have the right to make decisions and manage any subordinate divisions, but only help the relevant leader in performing certain functions, primarily the functions of strategic planning and analysis. Otherwise, this structure is linear.

4. Divisional (divisional) management structure. The emergence of such structures is due to a sharp increase in the size of organizations, the diversification of their activities (versatility), the complication of technological processes in a dynamically changing environment. In this regard, divisional management structures began to emerge, primarily in large corporations, which began to provide a certain degree of independence to their production units, leaving the development strategy, research and development, financial and investment policy, etc., to the management of the corporation. an attempt was made to combine centralized coordination and control of activities with decentralized management. This principle is implemented in business management in structures such as a financial holding quite applicable for the organization of management of universities.

5. Organic types of structures. Organic or adaptive management structures began to develop around the end of the 70s, when, on the one hand, the creation of an international market for goods and services sharply exacerbated competition among enterprises and life demanded from enterprises high efficiency and quality of work, and a quick reaction to market changes. and, on the other hand, the inability of hierarchical structures to meet these conditions became obvious. The main property of organic management structures is their ability to change their shape, adapting to changing conditions. For classical universities with their production cycle of 4-6 years and a sufficient inertia of the labor market, the use of such structures is very problematic.

6. Brigade (cross-functional) structure. The basis of this management structure is the organization of work by working groups (teams), in many respects directly opposite to the hierarchical type of structures. The basic principles of such a management organization are:

· Autonomous work of working groups (brigades);

· Independent decision-making by working groups and horizontal coordination of activities;

· Replacement of rigid administrative ties of a bureaucratic type with flexible ties;

· Involvement of employees from different departments for the development and solution of tasks.

These principles are destroyed by the rigid distribution of employees inherent in hierarchical structures among production, engineering, economic and management services and are completely unacceptable in the existing system of higher education in Russia and in the world.

7. Project management structure. The basic principle of building a project structure is the concept of a project, which means any purposeful change in the system, for example, mastering and manufacturing a new product, introducing new technologies, building facilities, etc. The activity of an enterprise is considered as a set of ongoing projects, each of which has a fixed start and end. For each project, labor, financial, industrial, etc. resources are allocated, which are managed by the project manager. Each project has its own structure, and project management includes defining its goals, forming a structure, planning and organizing work, coordinating the actions of performers. After the project is completed, the project structure falls apart, its components, including employees, move to a new project or are fired (if they worked on a contract basis).

8. Matrix (program-target) management structure. Such a structure is a network structure built on the principle of double subordination of performers: on the one hand, to the immediate head of the functional service, which provides personnel and technical assistance to the project manager, on the other, to the project manager or target program, who is endowed with the necessary powers to implement the management process. ... With such an organization, the project manager interacts with two groups of subordinates: with permanent members of the project group and with other employees of functional departments, who are subordinate to him temporarily and on a limited range of issues. At the same time, their subordination to the direct heads of divisions, departments, services is preserved. For activities that have a clearly defined beginning and end, they form projects, for permanent activities - target programs. In an organization, both projects and targeted programs can coexist.

It is quite obvious that such an approach can be, and is being successfully implemented in the practice of Russian and foreign universities, applied to the management of scientific research in universities. The only problem is the effective integration of this method in the divisional structure of the university management, as the most expedient in conditions similar to the functioning of SFedU.

Taking into account foreign experience, it should be noted that most public colleges and universities in the United States are not governed by one board, but part of a matrix system: a group of public universities, in which each has its own mission, academic and other programs, internal policies and methods, as well as Chief Operating Officer managed by a unified management board through systemic director. Other universities with their own presidents or nominee heads and academic councils, etc., approve their own faculty, enroll students, develop (in accordance with the system policy) their own programs, standards, curricula, increase their funds through donations and research contracts, allocate these funds (along with government funds and tuition fees) to various competing chapters and channeled to different needs.

The matrix structure of the university is optimal when the environment is very changeable and the goals of the organization reflect dual requirements, when both links with specific departments and functional goals are equally important.

In a matrix structure, horizontal teams exist on a par with traditional vertical hierarchies. Matrix University is a step towards a modern university. Departments are becoming insufficient to perform training functions, research centers appear that carry out their activities, work on projects and where specialists of various profiles are needed, from various departments and faculties. These centers can be located in the same faculty, or they can be organized as university research centers. In fig. 2 shows a diagram of a matrix university that implements a quality management system.

The matrix structure of the organization is characterized by strong horizontal ties. The shift towards more "flat" structures, horizontal, allows to increase the level of horizontal coordination through the introduction of information systems, direct contact between departments.

Rice. 2. The structure of the matrix university

Strengths and weaknesses of the matrix structure of the organization are shown in table. 2.

table 2

Weaknesses and strengths of the matrix structure of the organization

Business‒ Engineering‒ Group. Typology of organizational structures. http://bigc.ru/consulting/consulting_projects/struct/org_typology.php

Grudzinsky A.O. Social mechanism of management of an innovative university. Abstract of dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Sociological Sciences. - SPb, 2005.