Some thinkers want to confine the use of the term ‘organization’ to the first of these meanings only in the interest of clarity and definiteness. Thus according to Urwick, organization ought to mean only ‘designing’ the structure. Giving the analogy of a motor car he distinguishes between designing the car, constructing it, and product, i.e., the car itself.
Just as it would be ridiculous to use the word ‘designing’ for the construction of the car, of the vehicle constructed, so it is improper, according to him, to use the word ‘organization’ to denote the construction of the organization or the resulting administrative structure.
Organization should, therefore, mean only ‘designing’ the (administrative) machine. He defines organisation as ‘determining’ what activities are necessary to any purpose and arranging them in groups which may be assigned to individuals.
Others, however, do not accept this ‘engineering approach’ to the concept of organization because administrative organization is not made up of mechanical parts like those of a motor engine, but of human beings.
Missing the human aspect of organization is, therefore, to miss its very heart, for as Milward puts it, “Organization by itself does nothing; it is the staff making up the organization who do the work.”
It is impossible to decide this controversy one way or the other. Since established usage employs the term organization in more than one meanings, the student of administration will do well to bear the entire shades of meaning in mind and understand things according to the context. In the study of his subject, however, he is concerned more with organization as the administrative structure than anything else.