Case Study - Wildfire Entertainment

Question 1

What is it that Wildfire Entertainment offered?

Answer 1

Mobile games (2006), and by 2009 it had over 50 games, and was working on short films and learning apps for pre-schoolers and primary school kids.

Question 2

What was the name of the game that took off for the Wildfire Ent.?

Answer 2

“Squealers” - a puzzle game for the iPhone.

Question 3

What was the organization like?

Answer 3

Focused on hard work, but no formal written rules/policies. Very personable atmosphere with only ~40 employees total, all within a short walk of each other should they need to coordinate.

As far as hierarchy, there were two levels. The two founders, and one level down, the rest of their employees.

Wildfire was thus responsive and effective at completing objectives quickly and relatively cheaply. Could bring apps into the market with no delay.

Question 4

What changed?

Answer 4

Projects increased –> workload increased and projects became more complex. –> need to hire more people –> no hierarchy made a mess of communication, no way of prioritizing issues –> no longer just developing games, but having to do testing, provide software support, etc.

Question 5

What was their solution to the crisis?

Answer 5

Hired Elizabeth Ranking (INSEAD MBA) as a consultant –> move to a functional structure (the free flowing, flexible environment that had got them to this place, was preventing them continuing to grow)

Split them up based on fundamental tasks they were perfoming

1) technical roles -operations unit - storyline dev., animation specialists, and mainstream software engineers.
2) R&D forward-looking roles
3) core support functions (finance, accounting, and marketing).

Hierarchy and layers - specialization and a way to rise through the ranks.

Question 6

What was the next hurdle for the company?

Answer 6

It became too big, too bogged down. Too widespread.

Move to Matrix Structure (Restructuring) - proposed by Elizabeth after 3 years working with W.E.

Now functional teams + production teams (more dedicated to their task)

It worked for a year, but then inside competition over resources (budget, best engineers, final say over product features, etc.). Workplace atmosphere became increasingly more political, confusing, and dishonest.

2 problems with the matrix: 1. How well the structure was implemented, 2. Logic of the formal structure began to fall apart (integrated no longer made sense over a divisionalized structure).

Question 7

What is meant by “Beyond archetypes” in the case study?

Answer 7

Elizabeth’s experience taught her companies went through cycles of:

centralization (technologies, operations, and customers converge)

and decentralization (disruptive and novel business models/technologies)

Question 8

holacracy

Answer 8

Holacracy is a method of decentralized management and organizational governance, which claims to distribute authority and decision-making through a holarchy of self-organizing teams rather than being vested in a management hierarchy

Question 9

Network Organizational Structure

Answer 9

The network structure is a newer type of organizational structure viewed as less hierarchical (i.e., more “flat”), more decentralized, and more flexible than other structures.

In a network structure, managers coordinate and control relationships that are both internal and external to the firm.

The concept underlying the network structure is the social network—a social structure of interactions. Open communication and reliable partners (both internally and externally) are key components of social networks.

Question 10

Functional Structure Image

Answer 10

Question 11

Matrix Structure Image

Answer 11

Question 12

Divisional Structure Image

Answer 12