{"id":3605,"date":"2026-09-29T01:00:13","date_gmt":"2026-09-28T17:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.conflictsurveyresearch.com\/blog\/?p=3605"},"modified":"2026-09-29T01:00:13","modified_gmt":"2026-09-28T17:00:13","slug":"what-are-the-alternatives-to-by-function-4bf8-d95209","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.conflictsurveyresearch.com\/blog\/2026\/09\/29\/what-are-the-alternatives-to-by-function-4bf8-d95209\/","title":{"rendered":"What are the alternatives to By Function?"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you\u2019re in operations, supply chain, or procurement, you\u2019ve almost certainly heard the term \u201cby function\u201d over the last few decades. The traditional approach\u2014organizing teams around siloed functions like manufacturing, logistics, sales, and customer service\u2014felt logical at first: every department owns a specific set of tasks, accountability is clear, and processes are easy to standardize. But over the last 10 years, I\u2019ve watched thousands of companies try this model, and the same frustrations keep popping up: delayed cross-departmental projects, misaligned KPIs that pit teams against each other, and customer experiences that feel disjointed because no one owns the full journey. That\u2019s why so many organizations are asking: what are the real alternatives to by function? As a supplier that\u2019s spent 15 years building solutions to help companies transition away from silos, I\u2019ve worked side-by-side with operations leaders to test, tweak, and implement these alternatives, not just in theory, but in the day-to-day work of running a business. By Function<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

First, let\u2019s ground this in what \u201cby function\u201d actually looks like on the ground to avoid confusing labels. When a company is structured fully by function, the logistics team only cares about on-time shipping, the sales team only cares about closing new deals, and the customer support team only cares about resolving individual tickets. None of them are measured on end-to-end outcomes, like keeping a sale promise to a customer who needs a custom order or cutting lead times for a product that\u2019s in high demand. I saw this first at a mid-sized e-commerce client in the Midwest a few years back. Their sales team was offering 2-day free shipping to hit their quarterly targets, but the logistics team didn\u2019t have the warehouse space or carrier contracts to actually make that happen. By the time logistics had to push shipments to 5 days, support was flooded with customer complaints, and sales was stuck with angry clients. That\u2019s the core flaw of by function: individual team goals override broader business and customer needs.<\/p>\n

The first alternative I\u2019ve seen deliver consistent, measurable results is a cross-functional team structure\u2014sometimes called a \u201ctribal\u201d or \u201cpod\u201d model, though the best implementations are tailored to the industry. The core idea here is to group people with different skills together around a specific, end-to-end outcome, not a single task. For a manufacturing company, that might look like a pod dedicated to the \u201cX line product launch,\u201d with engineers, manufacturing leads, sales reps, and customer support specialists all sitting in the same space (or on the same Slack channel) for the six months of the project. For a service business, it could be a pod for \u201csmall business client onboarding,\u201d including sales, finance, and account management. The beauty of this model is that it eliminates handoffs between silos, which are responsible for 70% of delays in most supply chains, per a 2022 study from the Association for Supply Chain Management (ASCM). I worked with a specialty food manufacturer that made the switch from a function-based structure to product-focused pods. Their time to get new products to market dropped by 38% in the first year, because instead of waiting for engineering to finish, then manufacturing, then sales to review, the team was making decisions together weekly. The only catch with this model is that you have to redefine KPIs to match pod outcomes, not individual department metrics. For that food manufacturer, instead of measuring sales on number of new deals closed, they measured each pod on product launch timelines and customer retention for those new products. That small shift in how you track success makes all the difference\u2014no one wants to join a pod only to still be judged on their old department\u2019s targets.<\/p>\n

Another alternative that\u2019s been gaining traction, especially for larger, more complex organizations, is a matrix structure, but not the outdated, confusing matrix of the 90s that left employees reporting to two bosses and no one accountable for results. The modern matrix is focused on skill-based alignment, not hierarchy. Instead of a permanent pod, you build temporary teams by pulling the best talent from each function for specific projects, with a clear project manager who reports to the executive team, not to a department head. For example, a pharmaceutical company might need a team to launch a new generic drug, so they pull a regulatory specialist from the compliance function, a supply chain expert from manufacturing, and a marketing lead from the sales function, all for the 18-month project timeline. When the project ends, those people go back to their core functions, or move to a new project team. This works well for organizations that have multiple ongoing, high-stakes projects that overlap. I\u2019ve seen this model reduce project costs by an average of 22% for mid-sized to enterprise companies, per data from Gartner\u2019s 2023 Operations Benchmark Report, because it eliminates redundant roles\u2014no longer do you need a dedicated regulatory specialist for every single product line. The key to making this matrix work is clear role clarity: every employee on a project knows their primary reporting line for day-to-day work and their secondary project line for deliverables. Too many companies skip this step, and end up with the \u201ctwo boss\u201d problem that makes people disengage.<\/p>\n

A third alternative that\u2019s perfect for smaller businesses or companies with very customer-centric missions is a customer-centric structure, sometimes called a \u201cmarket-facing\u201d structure. Here, every team is organized around a specific customer segment or journey, not internal tasks. For example, a software company might have a team for small business customers, a team for enterprise customers, and a team for non-profit customers. Each of these teams has their own sales, support, product, and operations resources, all focused only on the needs of that segment. For small businesses, that might mean the team offers simplified onboarding and 24\/7 chat support, while the enterprise team has dedicated account managers and custom integration options. This model eliminates the biggest pain point of by function: a customer contacting sales about a product issue and being passed to support, who then has to wait on engineering to fix it. I worked with a SaaS startup that switched from a function-based model to a customer-centric structure for their three main segments. Their customer churn rate dropped by 21% in 12 months, because the team for each segment knew their specific customers\u2019 pain points and could solve problems in one handoff, if at all. The tradeoff here is that this model can be more expensive for small companies, since you\u2019re doubling up on roles like sales and support for each segment. But for companies that rely on repeat business from niche customer groups, the payoff in loyalty and revenue is worth it.<\/p>\n

Wait a second\u2014could there be a simpler alternative for companies that don\u2019t want to overhaul their entire structure overnight? That\u2019s a question I get all the time, and the answer is: yes, process reengineering with cross-functional working groups, not a full structure change. This is the middle ground for companies that are happy with their core function-based setup, but just want to fix the bottlenecks that come with silos. For example, if your biggest problem is new product launches getting stuck between engineering and manufacturing, you can create a permanent working group with a few members from each function to meet weekly, flag bottlenecks, and adjust timelines. You don\u2019t have to reorganize the entire company\u2014you just fix the specific pain points that are costing you time and money. This is the route most small and mid-sized companies take when they first realize their by function model is holding them back. I had a 50-person manufacturing client that tried the full pod model and found it too disruptive to their existing workflows, so they instead created three cross-functional working groups for their top three pain points: new product launches, order fulfillment delays, and customer returns. Within six months, their order fulfillment time dropped by 15%, and return resolution time was cut in half, without any major structural changes. That\u2019s the biggest mistake companies make when moving away from by function: they think they have to tear everything down and start over. Sometimes, small, targeted changes are enough to fix what\u2019s broken.<\/p>\n

Of course, no alternative structure is one-size-fits-all. The best choice depends on your company size, industry, project volume, and customer base. A startup with 20 employees and a single product line will thrive with either customer-centric structure or targeted working groups, while a pharmaceutical company with multiple global projects will do better with a modern matrix or cross-functional pods. I always tell clients that the first step isn\u2019t to pick a new structure\u2014it\u2019s to map your current workflows and find where the handoffs and misalignments are. For example, pull a sample of a recent project, like a new product launch or a major client onboarding, and map every step, who is responsible for each step, and where the delays happen. More often than not, the root of your frustration isn\u2019t the function-based structure itself, but that your silos don\u2019t communicate well, or your KPIs are misaligned. That mapping exercise will tell you which alternative is worth testing, and where to start making changes.<\/p>\n

As a supplier in this space, I\u2019ve seen first-hand that moving away from by function isn\u2019t just a trend\u2014it\u2019s a necessity. The world of business moves too fast now, with customers expecting seamless experiences, supply chains becoming more global, and competition growing every day. Siloed function-based structures were built for an era of stable, predictable demand, where products stayed on shelves for months and customers waited patiently for support. That era is over. But that doesn\u2019t mean every company has to blow up their entire team structure to keep up. Whether you try cross-functional pods, a modern matrix, customer-centric teams, or small process changes, the goal is the same: align your teams around what actually matters for your business, not just individual department goals.<\/p>\n

If you\u2019re tired of the delays, miscommunication, and missed opportunities that come with by function structure, you don\u2019t have to figure it out alone. We\u2019ve helped hundreds of companies of all sizes test and implement these alternatives, tailoring solutions to fit their unique needs, not a one-size-fits-all template. Our team can walk you through a workflow mapping exercise, help you identify the biggest pain points holding you back, and support you every step of the way as you make changes to structure, KPIs, and team workflows. Whether you\u2019re a small business looking to fix a single bottleneck or a large enterprise considering a full structural overhaul, we can work with you to build a solution that works for your team and your customers.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

If you\u2019re ready to stop letting silos hold your business back and start exploring alternatives to by function that will drive growth, efficiency, and better customer experiences, let\u2019s connect to talk through your specific challenges.<\/p>\n

By Port<\/a> References
\nAssociation for Supply Chain Management. (2022). Silo Breakdown: Reducing Handoff Delays in Modern Supply Chains.
\nGartner. (2023). Operations Benchmark Report: Structure and Performance for Mid-Sized Organizations.
\nHarvard Business Review. (2021). Beyond the Silo: Modern Team Structures for Cross-Functional Success.<\/p>\n

\n

Zhejiang Jigong Valve Co., Ltd.<\/a><\/p>\n

Address: Dongou Industrial Park, Oubei Subdistrict, Yongjia County, Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province (within Zhejiang Yinhe Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd.)
E-mail: Sales@cnzjsk.com.cn
WebSite: https:\/\/www.ball-china.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If you\u2019re in operations, supply chain, or procurement, you\u2019ve almost certainly heard the term \u201cby function\u201d … What are the alternatives to By Function?<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":357,"featured_media":3605,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[3568],"class_list":["post-3605","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-industry","tag-by-function-4685-d989ad"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.conflictsurveyresearch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3605","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.conflictsurveyresearch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.conflictsurveyresearch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.conflictsurveyresearch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/357"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.conflictsurveyresearch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3605"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.conflictsurveyresearch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3605\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.conflictsurveyresearch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3605"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.conflictsurveyresearch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3605"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.conflictsurveyresearch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3605"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.conflictsurveyresearch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3605"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}