Strategic Management

Organizational Structure And Controls

Prepared By:
Mohsen Pourmohammad Shahvar
August 2013

Strategic Management
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3
2. Organizational Structure ............................................................................................. 4
3. Organizational Controls ............................................................................................... 5
3.1 Strategic Controls .............................................................................................................................. 5
3.2 Financial Controls.............................................................................................................................. 5

4. Relationships between Strategy and Structure .......................................................... 6

5. Evolutionary Patterns of Strategy and Organizational Structure ........................... 6
5.1 Simple Structure ................................................................................................................................ 8
5.2 Functional Structure .......................................................................................................................... 8
5.3 Multidivisional Structure .................................................................................................................. 8

6. Matching Strategy and Functional Structure ............................................................ 8

6.1 Functional Structure under a Cost Leadership Strategy ............................................................... 9
6.2 Functional Structure under a Differentiation Strategy ................................................................ 10
6.3 Implementing an Integrated Cost Leadership/Differentiation Strategy ..................................... 10

7. Matches between Corporate-Level Strategies and the Multidivisional Structure 11

7.1 Cooperative form of Multidivisional Structure: Related-Constrained Strategy ...................... 11
7.2 Strategic Business Unit Form of Multidivisional Structure: Related Linked Strategy ............. 12
7.3 Competitive Form of Multidivisional Structure: Unrelated Strategy ......................................... 14

8. International Strategies and Worldwide Structures ............................................... 15

8.1 Cooperative form of Multidivisional Structure: Related-Constrained Strategy ...................... 15
8.2 Worldwide Product Divisional Structure: Global Strategy ......................................................... 16

9. Strategic Network ....................................................................................................... 17

9.1 Implementing business level cooperative strategies ...................................................................... 18
9.2 Implementing corporate level cooperative strategies: International franchising....................... 18
9.3 Implementing international cooperative strategies ....................................................................... 19

10. References .................................................................................................................. 20

Strategic Management
1. Introduction
After the strategic intents and strategic missions are clearly understood, the next big step is to implement
the strategies that are formulated. Organizational and structural controls provide the framework which is
responsible to run both profit and nonprofit agencies. When a firm grows bigger, it is not easy to control
as well as coordinate the activities that would allow the company to earn above average returns; hence it
is very necessary that the firm must adjust its structure to meet its complexity.
A simple organizational structure is one where there is an owner and a few employees where the
arrangement of tasks, responsibilities, and communication is highly informal and accomplished through
direct supervision. This Type of Structure can be very demanding on the owner-manager. Most Businesses
in many countries around the world are of this type. This Structure reduces conflict between employees
regarding who is to carry out certain jobs in the organization.
Research shows that organizational structure and the controls that are a part of the structure affect firm
performance. To make sure that firm can perform on a much better scale, the firms strategy is matched
with its structure.

Figure.1

Strategic Management
2. Organizational Structure
Organizational structure refers to the hierarchical arrangement of lines of authority, communications,
rights and duties of an organization. Organizational structure determines the roles powers and duties of
individuals or a group of people in a company, how it should be controlled, and coordinated, and how
information flows among the diverse levels of management.
Organizational structure specifies the firms formal reporting relationships, procedures, controls, and
authority and decision-making processes3.
Developing an organizational structure that effectively supports the firms strategy is difficult, especially
because of the uncertainty (or unpredictable variation4) about cause-effect relationships in the global
economys rapidly changing and dynamic competitive environments5. When a structures elements (e.g.,
reporting relationships, procedures, etc.) are properly aligned with one another, the structure facilitates
effective use of the firms strategies6. Thus, organizational structure is a critical component of effective
strategy implementation processes7.
A structure of firm determines to do work and how to do it, given the strategy or strategies of firm8.
For instance, many product-oriented firms have been promoting to develop service businesses related
with those products. This strategy used by lots of GEs businesses, such as medical equipment9.
Effective structures present stability and flexibility. Structural stability provides the power the firm needs
to consistently and inevitable manage its daily work routines10 while structural flexibility provides chance
to discover competitive potential and then allocate resources to activities that will form the competitive
advantages the firm will need to be successful in the future11.

3. Organizational Controls
The process of starting and keeping authority over and throughout a project. The organizational control
process within a larger business normally requires the systems usage that helps out a manager in
analyzing substantial amounts of data about how the business and its employees are following in order
to make appropriate executive decisions.
Purposes of Organizational Controls are:
lead the use of strategy
demonstrate how to compare between actual and expected results
Suggest corrective actions to take when the difference between actual and expected results is
unacceptable
Organizational Controls has two types:
Strategic Controls
Financial Controls

Strategic Management
3.1. Strategic Controls:
Strategic controls are largely subjective criteria predestinated to verify that the firm is using appropriate
strategies for the conditions in the external environment and the companys competitive advantages
(Figure 2). Hence, strategic controls are concerned with examining the fit between what the firm might
do (as suggested by opportunities in its external environment) and what it can do (as indicated by its
competitive advantages). Effective strategic controls help the firm to understand what it takes to be
successful12.

Strategic
Controls

Organizational
Controls
Figure.2

Ciscos executives appropriate a great deal to issues associated to strategic control. Constantly challenged
to meet the demands of an ever-changing market, John Chambers, Ciscos CEO, was able to implement a
modified strategic controls system where he was able to surrender his role as a command-and-control
CEO and institute a collaborative decision-making model that allows the company to respond speedily to
emerging transitions. Cisco can move to open source software development by using this system on
strategic control before opponents such as Microsoft13.
3.2. Financial Controls
Financial controls are largely objective criteria used to determine the firms performance against
previously established standards (Figure 3). Accounting-based measures such as ROI and ROA as well as
market-based measures such as EVA are examples of financial controls. Somewhat because strategic
controls are difficult to use with wide-ranging diversification14, financial controls are emphasized to
appraise the firms performance using the unrelated diversification strategy.

Strategic
Controls

Organizational
Controls

Financial
Controls

Figure.3
Companies such as Oracle and SAP sell software tools that automate processes firms use to meet the
financial reporting requirements specified by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act9.

Strategic Management

4. Relationships between Strategy and Structure

Strategy and structure have a mutual relationship15. This relationship highlights the interconnectedness
between strategy formulation and strategy implementation (Figure 1). In general, this mutual relationship
finds structure flowing from or following selection of the firms strategy. For future strategies the current
structure may not be sufficient as it is for the present strategies. For example, the possible influence of
the Ciscos structure and control system in influencing its strategy as illustrated in the Opening Case9.
Therefore, when changing strategies, the firm should by the way consider the structure that will be
required to support use of the new strategy; properly matching strategy and structure can create a
competitive advantage16.

5. Evolutionary Patterns of Strategy and Organizational Structure

Firms grow in predictable outlines:

First by volume

Then by geography

Then integration (vertical, horizontal)

And finally through product/business diversification

And a firms growth outlines measure its structural form

All organizations need some form of organizational structure to implement and manage their strategies,
and firms frequently alter their structure as they grow in size and complexity
Three basic structure types:

Simple structure
Functional structure
Multidivisional structure (M-form)

Strategic Management

Efficient implementation of
formulated strategy

Efficient implementation of
formulated strategy

Figure.4
As was shown in figure 49, if firms grow bigger and become more complex, structural challenges come
forward.
Generally Simple Structure is using when there is a small firm then if its growing large, Functional
Structure should be used and when firm is getting grower like global, Multidivisional Structure will be
used.

Strategic Management
5.1. Simple Structure
The Simple Structure has low number of levels and minimum departmentalization in organizational
hierarchy. Authority of decision-making is usually centralized on one member.
The simple structure is harmonized with spotlight strategies and business-level strategies, as firms
applying these strategies regularly compete by offering a single product line in a single geographic market.
Local restaurants, repair businesses, and other specialized investments are examples of firms using the
simple structure9.
5.2. Functional Structure
The functional structure includes a chief decision-making officer and a limited corporate staff, with
functional line managers in dominant organizational areas such as production, accounting, marketing,
R&D, engineering, and HR12.
The functional structure supports implementing business-level strategies and some corporate-level
strategies (e.g., single or dominant business) with low levels of diversification13.
5.3. Multidivisional Structure
The multidivisional (M-form) structure includes a corporate office and operating divisions, each operating
division showing a separate business in which the top corporate officer deputizes tasks for day-to-day
operations and business-unit strategy to division managers. Each division shows a different, functional
hierarchy of self-contained business14.
The M-form was having three major benefits:
(1) It made it easier for the corporate officer to accurately monitor the status and performance of each
business thus making it more simplified
(2) It made it easier to compare between divisions
(3) It also motivated the managers of underperforming divisions to boost their performance15.
The M- form structure was widely adopted because it made sure that the decisions made by managers
of each division will solely be in the interest of the stakeholders. As monitoring the activities and
performance was easily done using the M-form structure it was very well favored. The M-form is a widely
adopted organizational structure as it helped in diversification of the firm which is one of the most
important corporate startegies16.

6. Matching Strategy and Functional Structure

Firms use diverse forms of the functional organizational structure to sustain implementing the cost
leadership, differentiation, and integrated cost leadership/differentiation strategies. The dissimilarities
in these forms are accounted for mainly by different uses of three significant structural characteristics:

Strategic Management

specialization (concerned with the type and number of jobs required to complete work17),
centralization (the degree to which decision-making authority is retained at higher managerial
levels18),
Formalization (the degree to which formal rules and procedures govern work19).

6.1. Functional Structure under a Cost Leadership Strategy

Figure.5
As shown in the figure above, Firms using cost leadership strategy to sell the large amounts of
standardized commodities or products to an industrys typical customer. The main property of cost
leadership strategy is that it involves very less emphasis on product R&D20. Here the main focus on
improving the manufacturing functions rather than developing new products. As all the divisions are
connected to the centralized staff, it makes reporting and decision making easier. This structure also helps
to cut down a lot of expenses as there is direct contact and involves few layers in the decision making
processes. The main intention of cost leadership strategy is always to find ways to reduce and cut down
cost to in the most effective manner to compete against the competitors21.
Cost leadership strategies are mainly implemented in hypermarkets where there is tight competition
among the competitors as who can provide the customer the best price.

Strategic Management

6.2. Functional Structure under a Differentiation Strategy

In differential strategy unlike cost leadership strategy is target on selected customers who have unique
needs, hence much emphasis is given in the R&D and marketing. With this strategy implemented
employees are always trying to find ways to further differentiate the current products and try to innovate
and develop new highly differentiated products which will meet the customers unique needs. As seen in
the figure below the less emphasis on manufacturing and process distinguish the differentiation form of
the functional structure (Figure 6). Marketing plays a major role as these products are unique, the
marketing team must always keep their heads up to reach up to these unique customers to sell their highly
differentiated products unlike cost leadership strategy where marketing has limited role in selling
standardized products22.

Figure.6

6.3. Implementing an Integrated Cost Leadership/Differentiation Strategy

Here the firms use this strategy to sell a product that has some value due to partial cost integration and
partial differentiation strategy. This is done by reducing the cost by implementing cost leaderships
strategy and efforts in R&D and marketing (i.e. adopting differentiation strategy)
Although it is very hard to implement this strategy, it is widely used in the global economy. Here decision
making patterns are partially centralized and partially decentralized marketing and new product R&D are
emphasized while production and process engineering are not. The rules and procedures in this strategy
allow for both formal and informal job behaviors.
10

Strategic Management
7. Matches between Corporate-Level Strategies and the
Multidivisional Structure
A firms long-lasting success leads to:
Product diversification, or
Market diversification, or
Both product and market diversification
Ever-increasing diversification creates control problems that the functional structure cant handle
Information processing, coordination
Control
The demands created by different levels of diversification highlight the need for a exclusive
organizational structure to effectively employ each strategy (Figure 7).

Figure.7

7.1. Cooperative form of Multidivisional Structure: Related-Constrained Strategy

As shown in the figure below here horizontal integration is applied to bring about cooperation among
divisions. the main advantage here is that structural integration devices here creates tight links among all
divisions of the firm and help the firm as a whole to progress and develop. Sharing the divisional
competencies make it possible to develop economies of scope. Here R&D is likely to be centralized.
Corporate form is M form is practiced by various companies by creating a relationship among its products
and coordinating providing value added services. A good example for this is Hewlett-Packard (HP) who
was previously into business and consumer PCs and workstation devices. And after acquiring a large share
11

Strategic Management
in the imaging and printing market which included printers and other printing utensils. They created
cooperation among the divisions by implementing corporate M form structure by providing value added
services.

Figure.8
The corporate offices emphasize centralized strategic planning, human resources corporate finance and
marketing to foster cooperation between divisions. In additional to divisional performance rewards are
subjective and tend to emphasize overall corporate performance. Due to the presence of direct contact
between the division managers, there is exchange of knowledge and resources in a considerable scale.
Liaison roles are very commonly implemented.
7.2. Strategic Business Unit Form of Multidivisional Structure: Related Linked Strategy
The strategic business unit (SBU) form is an M-form structure consisting of three levels:

Corporate headquarters,
Strategic business units (SBUs),
SBU divisions.

Related linked diversification strategy is implemented where less constrained links exist among the
divisions in the firm. The SBU structure is used by huge firms and can be multifaceted, given associated
organization size and product and market diversity.
12

Strategic Management
As seen in the figure there is structural integration among the divisions but independent among SBUs. As
shown in the figure strategic planning is the prime function in the headquarters so that the SBUs can
implement the strategy.

Figure.9
In this structure, every SBU is a profit hub that is restricted and evaluated by the headquarters office.
Although both monetary and strategic controls are important, on a comparative basis financial controls
are vital to headquarters evaluation of each SBU.
An example for this is the Sears Holdings who changed to the SBU form in 2008 by separating into five
strategic business units (with multiple divisions as parts of each SBU): brands, real estate, support,
online, and store operations22.

13

Strategic Management
7.3. Competitive Form of Multidivisional Structure: Unrelated Strategy
In competitive structure each division is completely independent and the firms divisions compete for
corporate resources. Each division is not interconnected and they do not share any resources. They do
not share common corporate strengths. This structural is clearly shown in figure 10.
When divisions compete against each other within a firm, three benefits are expected23. They are

Creates flexibility i.e. the headquarters can identify the potentials of projects in each divisions
and decisions can be taken on resource allocation for the project with greatest potential
internal competition challenges the status quo and inertia, because division managers know
that future resource allocations are a result of outstanding current performance as well as
superior positioning in terms of future performance
Thirdly competition among the divisions within the firm is as great as competing against
external rivals which indirectly helps in the firms performance24

Figure.10
An example for this is a company named Textron which operates 4 different and diverse independent
businesses from helicopters to industrial to financial. Then the firm uses the returns on these
investments to
evaluate the contribution
of each diversified
set of business.

14

Strategic Management

8. International Strategies and Worldwide Structures

International strategies are becoming increasingly vital for long-term competitive success25 in what
continues to become an increasingly border-less global economy26. To outperform competitors, firms use
international strategies by searching new markets, resources and technologies27. Different structures are
discussed below.
8.1. Worldwide Geographic Area Structure: Multidomestic Strategy

Figure.11
A firms success depends to a large scale on its ability to develop economies of scale and economies of
scale on a global level. in multi domestic strategy each firm isolates from the global competitive force
and try to establish market positions in different geographical locations by providing them tailored or
customized products, as shown in figure 11 each perimeter of the circle indicates decentralization of

15

Strategic Management
operation in that particular area. The duty of corporate headquarters is to coordinate resource among
the independent subsidiaries.
Even though automobile giants Ford is not doing very well in the global markets, ford in Europe is doing
a lot better than the other auto manufacturers in Europe in the middle market segment. They are able
to sustain this position as they had implemented world-wide geographic area structure decades back
which gave the advantage for their managers in Europe autonomy to supervisors their operations

8.2. Worldwide Product Divisional Structure: Global Strategy

Figure.12
16

Strategic Management
The decision making authority in worldwide product divisional structure is centralized in global
headquarters which coordinate information flow among worldwide products. This structure is mainly
used in firms who want to regulate their product diversity. Sometimes its very important for firms to
provide standardized products across global market. An example of this is Avon products who are a
global brand leader in beauty products for women such as lipsticks, fragrances, and anti-aging skin care.
Previously Avon managers at different regions ran their own plants, developing their own products,
advertisements which put a halt to growth in2006 after stumbles in sales revenue in emerging markets.
After restructuring and changing into global strategy Avon was once again on track and was able to
control its costs and gain additional scale economies as path to performance improvements.
Integrating mechanisms are important in the effective use of the worldwide product divisional structure.
Direct contacts between managers, liaison roles between departments, and temporary task forces as
well as permanent teams are examples of these mechanisms.

9. Strategic Network
A strategic network is a group of firms that has been molded to create significance by participating in
multiple cooperative arrangements.
An effective strategic network enables in discovering opportunities beyond those identified by distinct
network participants.
A strategic network can be a source of competitive advantage for its members when its operations
create value that is difficult for competitors to duplicate and that network members cant create by
themselves. As shown in the figure the strategic center firm is the foundation of strategic networks
structure
A strategic network engages in 4 primary tasks:
strategic outsourcing
Competencies
Technology
Race to learn

17

Strategic Management

Figure.13
9.1. Implementing business level cooperative strategies

Vertical complementary alliances

Firms have complementary competencies in diverse value chain stages that let them cooperatively
integrate their diverse skills. This strategy is followed by automotive giants Toyota Corp of japan and its
suppliers.

Horizontal complementary alliances

Here Firms agree to combine competencies in order to create value in the same stage of value chain.
This is commonly practiced by airline carriers to maximize their profits.
9.2. Implementing corporate level cooperative strategies: International franchising

It is a form of cooperative strategy used to enable product and market diversification

Allows the firm to use its competencies to cover or diversify its product or market reach
without implementing a merger or acquisition

A good example for this McDonalds franchise system which is a strategic network ,is operated
by a headquarters to implement strategic and financial controls to verify that the franchisees
operations creates greater value for the whole network.

9.3. Implementing international cooperative strategies

18

Strategic Management
They are used to implement international cooperative strategies for competing in numerous
countries. Alterations in countries regulatory environments escalates the challenge of managing
international networks

Distributed strategic networks are the organizational structure used to manage cooperative
strategies

Distributed strategic center firms

19

Strategic Management

References:
1-P. Jarzabkowski, 2008, Shaping strategy as a structuration process, Academy of Management Journal,
51(4): 621650; B. Ambos & B. B. Schlegelmilch, 2007, Innovation and control in the multinational firm:
A comparison of political and contingency approaches, Strategic Management Journal, 28: 473486;
S. Kumar, S. Kant, & T. L. Amburgey, 2007, Public agencies and collaborative management approaches,
Administration & Society, 39: 569610.
2- T. Burns & G. M. Stalker, 1961, The Management of Innovation, London: Tavistok; P. R. Lawrence & J.
W. Lorsch, 1967, Organization and Environment, Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin; J. Woodward, 1965,
Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, London: Oxford University Press.
3-A. Tempel& P. Walgenbach, 2007, Global standardization of organizational forms and management
practices: What new institutionalism and the business-systems approach can learn from each other,
Journal of Management Studies, 44: 124; Keats & ONeill, Organizational structure, 533.
4-Tieying Yu, M. S. Insead, & R. H. Lester, 2008, Misery loves company: The spread of negative impacts
resulting from an organizational crisis, Academy of Management Review, 33(2): 452472;R. L. Priem, L.
G. Love, & M. A. Shaffer, 2002, Executives perceptions of uncertainty sources: A numerical taxonomy
and underlying dimensions, Journal of Management, 28: 725746.
5. A. N. Shub& P. W. Stonebraker, 2009, The human impact on supply chains: Evaluating the mportance
of soft areas on integration and performance, Supply Chain Management, 14(1): 3140; S. K. Ethiraj&
D. Levinthal, 2004, Bounded rationality and the search for organizational architecture: An evolutionary
perspective on the design of organizations and their evolvability, Administrative Science Quarterly, 49:
404437.
6. R. Khadem, 2008, Alignment and follow-up: Steps to strategy execution, Journal of Business Strategy,
29(6): 2935; J. G. Covin, D. P. Slevin, & M. B. Heeley, 2001, Strategic decision making in an intuitive vs.
technocratic mode: Structural and environmental consideration, Journal of Business Research, 52: 51
67.
7. J. R. Maxwell, 2008, Work system design to improve the economic performance of the firm, usiness
Process Management Journal, 14(3): 432446; E. M. Olson, S. F. Slater, & G. T. M. Hult, 2005, The
importance of structure and process to strategy implementation, Business Horizons, 48(1): 4754.
8. L. Donaldson, 2001, The contingency theory of organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Jenster&
Hussey, Company Analysis, 169.
9. Michael A. Hitt,Texas A&M University,R. Duane Ireland,Texas A&M University,Robert E. Hoskisson,
Rice University,Strategic Management, Competitiveness & Globalization,9th Edition,2011-Chapter 11

20

Strategic Management
10.J. Rivkin& N. Siggelkow, 2003, Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of
organizational design, Management Science, 49: 290321; G. A. Bigley& K. H. Roberts, 2001, The
incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments,
Academy of Management Journal, 44: 12811299.
11. Monteiro, Arvidsson, &Birkinshaw, Knowledge flows within multinational corporations; S.
Nadkarni& V. K. Narayanan, 2007, Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The
moderating role of industry clockspeed, Strategic Management Journal, 28: 243270; K. D. Miller & A. T.
Arikan, 2004, Technology search investments: Evolutionary, option reasoning, and option pricing
approaches, Strategic Management Journal, 25: 473485
12.Spencer, Joiner, & Salmon, Differentiation strategy, performance measurement systems and
organizational performance; 2007, Organizational structure, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org;
Gallbraith, Designing Organizations, 25.
13.C. M. Christensen, S. P. Kaufman, &W. C. Shih, 2008, Innovation killers, Harvard Business Review:
Special HBS Centennial Issue, 86(1): 98105; J. Welch & S. Welch, 2006, Growing up but staying young,
BusinessWeek, December 11, 112
14- R. Inderst, H. M. Muller, & K. Warneryd, 2007, Distributional conflict in organizations, European
Economic Review, 51: 385402; J. Greco, 1999, Alfred P. Sloan Jr. (18751966): The original
organizational man, Journal of Business Strategy, 20(5): 3031.
15-Hoskisson, Hill, & Kim, The multidivisional structure, 269298.
16-Mialon, Efficient horizontal mergers: The effects of internal capital reallocation and organizational
form; H. Zhou, 2005, Market structure and organizational form, Southern Economic Journal, 71: 705
719; W. G. Rowe & P. M. Wright, 1997, Related and unrelated diversification and their effect on human
resource management controls, Strategic Management Journal, 18: 329338.
17- R. H. Hall, 1996, Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes, 6th ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 13; S. Baiman, D. F. Larcker, & M. V. Rajan, 1995, Organizational design for business units,
Journal of Accounting Research, 33: 205229.
18-L. G. Love, R. L. Priem, & G. T. Lumpkin, 2002, Explicitly articulated strategy and firm performance
under alternative levels of centralization, Journal of Management, 28: 611627.
19-Hall, Organizations, 6475.
20-Barney, Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, 257
21-H. Karandikar& S. Nidamarthi, 2007, Implementing a platform strategy for a systems business via
standardization, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 18: 267280.
22-P. Eavis, 2008, The pain at Sears grows, The Wall Street Journal Online, www.wsj.com, May 30.

21

Strategic Management
23- Hill, Hitt, &Hoskisson, Cooperative versuscompetitive structures, 512.
24- Lee, Park, & Shin, Disappearing internal capital markets: Evidence from diversified business groups in
Korea; J. Birkinshaw, 2001, Strategies for managing internal competition, California Management
Review, 44(1): 2138.
25- T. Yu & A. A. Cannella, Jr., 2007, Rivalry between multinational enterprises: An event history
approach, Academy of Management Journal, 50: 665686;S. E. Christophe & H. Lee, 2005, What
matters about internationalization: A market-based assessment, Journal of Business Research, 58: 636
643; Y. Luo, 2002, Product diversification in international joint ventures: Performance implications in an
emerging market, Strategic Management Journal, 23: 120.
26- M. Mandel, 2007, Globalization vs. immigration reform, BusinessWeek, June 4, 40.
27- T. M. Begley & D. P. Boyd, 2003, The need for a corporate global mind-set, MIT Sloan Management
Review, 44(2): 2532; Tallman, Global strategic management, 467.

22