It is possible to map almost any organization structure within Hornbill. The organization structure can be hierarchial and can include functional and non-functional organizational unit types. To read more about the capabilities of the Hornbill platform in relation to defining your organizational structure, please see the document Fundamentals : Organization And Team Structure

While on the face of it, being able fully map your org structure in Hornbill (or any other tool where you could do the same) seems like a really good idea, based on our own experience deploying 1000’s of complex service management solutions into a diverse range of organization types and sizes, and over a more than 25 years, mapping an organizational structure into a product can be challenging for a number of reasons:

• Complexity of Organizational Structures: Organizations can have intricate and multifaceted structures, including various departments, teams, roles, and reporting relationships. Translating this complexity into a product’s design and functionality can be difficult, as the product must accommodate various levels of hierarchy and interactions.

• Constant Changes: Organizational structures are not static; they often undergo changes due to growth, restructuring, mergers, or other factors. Incorporating these dynamic changes into a product requires flexibility in design and coding to ensure that the product remains aligned with the evolving organizational structure.

• Differing Information Needs: Different stakeholders within an organization require varying levels of detail and access to information. Balancing these needs while designing a product can be challenging. Some users might need a high-level overview of the structure, while others require granular details about specific roles and relationships.

• Integration with Existing Systems: Many organizations already have software tools and systems in place to manage their organizational structure and HR processes. Integrating a new product with these existing systems can be complex and require a deep understanding of data exchange, synchronization, and interoperability when it comes to different org structure implementations.

• User Experience Design: Designing an org structure that effectively represents the organizational structure while maintaining a user-friendly and intuitive interface can be a challenge. Balancing the need for visual clarity with a clean and organized interface requires careful consideration of design principles.

• Scalability: As organizations grow, the number of employees, teams, and departments can increase significantly. Designing a product that can handle a large-scale organizational structure without compromising performance is a significant technical challenge.

• Cultural and Workflow Variations: Different organizations have unique cultures, workflows, and ways of organizing their teams. Designing a data structure that accommodates these variations while still providing a consistent experience can be complex.

• User Adoption and Training: Introducing a new product to an organization involves user adoption and training efforts. Users need to understand how to use the product effectively to navigate the organizational structure and for assignments, and access to relevant information.

• Feedback and Iteration: Designing a product for an organizational structure is an iterative process that requires ongoing feedback from users. Adapting the product based on user feedback and changing requirements can be challenging and cause significant data impact in terms of managing these changes.

Overall, mapping an organizational structure into Hornbill requires a deep understanding of both organizational dynamics and software functionality. It demands careful consideration of user needs, security concerns, scalability, and design principles to create a product that effectively serves the organization’s goals. So, for most organizations using Hornbill, trying to map your actual organizational structure in Hornbill is not a good idea, and can cause a lot of problems further on in your implementation and use if you do not get this right up front.

Keeping It Simple

Here is a brief outline of how to keep your org structure simple, by adopting a flat structure.

1. Add one, and only one company to your org structure at the top level.
2. Create Child Departments and Cost Centers (these are used/required in other areas of Hornbill) all at the top-level
3. Create a global flat lists of Assignment teams, again all at the top level.
4. Keep it that way if you possibly can.

Things you should definitely know before setting up your organizational structure in Hornbill

• It is very difficult to define a hierarchical organization structure get that right. Generally speaking, organizations are far too dynamic, changing too much and too often to tolerate the ridged definition of a hierarchical org structure in any transactional system, the more complex the structure is, the more likely it will need regular changes and therefore the more complex, the larger the overhead to manage those changes in the future.
• In Hornbill, Organizational units have ID’s, once you start using these, these ID’s are stored and referenced in many parts of the database. If you follow the guidance for keeping the structure Simple, these are singular values, and so from a referential integrity point of view are relatively simple to deal with changes of these ID’s. If you use a hierarchical structure, these ID’s look like paths AAA/BBB/CCC/ type thing, so in this example, renaming the OU ‘BBB’ in your structure becomes very difficult because of the impact that will have across your data sets.

Best practice guidance for setting up your organizational structure in Hornbill

• If at all possible, use a simple, flat structure instead of the hierarchical approach for your organizational structure. A simple structure allows you to create and work with a single organization and a flat list of assignment teams, departments and cost centers, while using a hierarchical structure provides the ability for you to map very complex multi-company hierarchical structures. A simple flat structure should be sufficient for almost all organizations and should be your default choice if at all possible, think very carefully about trying to work with hierarchical structure, because that introduces a significant level of complexity and management overhead that will need dealing with.
• Keep things simple, you should remember that your organization will change, and quicker than you might expect, so even if you do map a hierarchical structure, try to keep that structure as simple and as functional as possible, because you will find yourself having to change things often to keep up, or observe the org structure in use become more and more outdated as time goes on.
• The way you or anyone else sees your organizational structure in relation to the work they do, will be different, which in real life is to say, your perspective will change the way the organizational structure appears, and has to appear to make sense in any given context. Trying to map that to one global version of the truth simply does not work in almost all cases. What you need to do is find the simplest, lowest common denominator that will make sense from the perspective of all users and teams using the system where the organizational structure will be presented.
• Start Simple, no matter how well you feel you know your own structure, you will almost certainly find use cases where your perception does not make sense. So always start simple, use the simple flat model described above if you possibly can.