I don't know if there is an easy or one-size-fits-all answer to this question. Organizations restructure themselves all the time, and what works for one may not work for another. What works and what doesn't probably has more to do with Corporate culture than anything else.
Some companies do well with traditional "stovepipe" structures based on functional divisions. I have also worked in matrix-managed IT organizations where people have both a functional reporting manager and either a business head or a project manager to whom they also have accountability.
It might help to do a process flow diagram of the various services and deliverables that your organization provides, and see if it makes more sense to organize around the process flows rather than the functional tasks.
If communications between various groups is a problem in your organization now, then don't expect a re-org to solve that problem - communications issues usually go deeper than the structure.
However,if you are looking to improve efficiency and/or quality, then giving groups responsibility for end-to-end delivery of specific products or servcies is considered optimum. This flies in the face of the concept of economies of scale, where people aregrouped together doing identical tasks. Unfortunately economies of scale usually conflicts with high job satisfaction and breaks up processes into individual tasks that no longer flow together effectively. As much as people want you to think that IT organizations can be run like factories, the truth is that most support work is ad-hoc - either project related or problem solving, and these things just don't lend themselves to traditional factory type organization structures.
