Until the 1970’s, normal, big organizations had tendency to operate in “silos”, rational divisions where basically separated groups of workers would report to a line manager or functional manager. Matrix systems emerged as an effort to restructure these inefficient organizational structures to support more efficient project-based management.
Functional Organizational Structure
Big organizations used to operate in “silos”, rational divisions where basically isolated groups of workers reported to a line or functional manager. Imagine columns on a page with a line manager above each column and a group of workers inside each column under the manager of the division. As these groups operated independently, it was not unique to discover functions replicated in each silo.
In an Information Technology organization, for instance, you might discover software programmers in the sales office, some more in the accounting department, and still more in corporate headquarters, because each of these functioning units have a programming demand.
Matrix Organizational Structure
And so it was, in the 1970s, that efforts to better conventional, or functional, organizational structures, led to the introduction of the “Matrix” organizational system.
In the matrix organization structure, considering our IT instance above, all programmers are now in a distinct programming department. They report to a functional manager in charge of programming. The manager of that department is completely in charge their jobs. In a matrix, we normally relate to the line manager as a functional manager because all of their workers execute related functions.
Workers in a matrix organization structure are compartmentalized by the skills required of them into silos, like columns in a matrix, each with its committed manager. The workers report to and are accountable to their functional manager, who in return normally has lone obligation for the progress of their workers and also the management of their region, including budgeting.
So far, the matrix organization structure sounds quite a bit like the functional organization structure, with the exception that all workers within a silo (a column in the matrix) are divided by a specific skill-set. The next difference between functional organizations and matrix organizations is that matrices have rows (lines running across the columns).
Traditional organizations operated rather easily, but were ineffective, with duplication of skills and distinct, but redundant, processes around the organization. But their chief failing was when they tried to handle projects.
The trouble was that with functional organizations, cross functional projects did not exist, because the project manager’s “team” team made up of individuals from various functional areas, managed and controlled by various functional managers — not by the project manager.
So we have our columns of functionally related workers in each row of our matrix, with a functional manager as the chief of each column.
Now imagine these rows each having a project manager as its “chief” of each group of workers. The rows intersect the columns and then intersect the columns of workers. So each row is a silo of workers with different functions with a project manager in charge.
In such a matrix system there is an apparent stress between the project managers at the top of each row (each plan) and the managers at the head of each column (each functioning region) as they are sharing the same workers, and as each manager (project and functional) has a work to do, we get a dispute of stake.
There are distinct types of matrix system, designed to balance the ability struggle-struggle between the managers conflicting needs. The principal types are these matrix organizations is listed below.
Weak Matrix
This type of matrix organization structure is nightmarish for Project Managers. In the weak matrix organizational structure, project managers are effectively reduced to being project facilitators. They draw plans and supervise the execution, but they have no genuine control over personnel, and are nearly completely reliant upon the functional managers to offer resources.
The workers have less allegiance to the project managers (or the plan), because it is the functional managers who determine the progress of the workers. And the workers’ progress is normally measured solely on the work that is done for their functional manager — not on their project work — thus it is a fact that working on a project may be seen by the worker as not desirable as they will have less time in doing their functional work, so the project manager may see them as unmotivated.
And as the PM has no genuine control over the project members, so they frequently have to report the problem of workers not doing their duties, to the functional managers in anticipation that they will motivate to the workers to perform more on the project.
But recall that the functional managers are primarily accountable for the operation of their own areas, so their workers performing plan tasks can really cut the productivity of their region (frequently projects are ignored in the benchmarks. So this leads to a clear-cut dispute of stake between the PM, the functional managers and the respective workers.
In this position the PM normally loses — and that’s the simple to recall it — the PM is feeble in a feeble matrix.
Strong Matrix
All these problems led to the introduction of the “strong matrix” organization structure
In the strong matrix organizational structure, the tables are reversed from the weak matrix organization structure. The intent is that project managers that are responsible for the workers, rather than the line managers. But the project managers are not accountable for the human resource management.
This gives project managers the power to handle the workers directly, and therefore adequately handling the entire project, but without involving the project managers upward in HR administration.
I have worked in organizations of this manner, where I managed my groups and was accountable for everything with the exception of the HR functions, and I establish it a really rewarding surrounding from a project level of opinion. So my groups would have me as project manager and I had the lone authority and obligation to direct their work, but they also had staff managers who took care of anything that was not project-related, i.e. performance reviews (but I made provision the important input to these) training, holiday management, contracts for employments etc. Therefore it was possible for me to focus on project management.
So, when a manager for a project starts a new one, they discuss their staffing demand with the functional managers and the functional managers seek to have the resources accessible (and offer education for them, where needed). Normally, the functional managers will sketch out plans and charts (e. g. Gantt charts) of how “their folk” will be included inside projects, and they might move personnel between projects and project managers as required (after making inquiries with the project managers.
Effectively the PM and the project managers work jointly, but the whole command of everything project-related is the role of the plan manager– then in a powerful matrix, the plan manager is the stronger company.
Balanced Matrix
There is an old saying, “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In each variation of the matrix organization structure there is a battle for control, hence power. There needs to be some manner to bring each into equilibrium, otherwise one group will rule the other, to the disadvantage of the project, and finally to the detriment of the organization all together (although private projects or functional areas may bloom for sometime). A really dominant project manager, for instance, might bully functional managers into always giving them the best team members for their projects.
One way to reduce these difficulties is to have rules within the organization that varies who can handle a worker, depending upon sure circumstances. For instance, there could be a regulation that says if a worker is to work on a project for less than one week the functional manager (or project manager) has lone command over the worker, but if the demand is for longer than one week, command changes hand. Or there may be rules that the same worker cannot work for same project manager, on two back-to-back projects.
There are many potential rules that could be made, but the goal is to equalize the power between the project managers and the functional managers so as not to have a win/lose position. This is why this matrix organization structure is referred to as a “balanced matrix”.
So whether the organizational structure is feeble, powerful, or stable, the “power” is always from the standpoint of the project manager.
February 10th, 2008 by admin in Project Management | No Comments
A project manager, quite simply defined, is an individual who is responsible for the entire project. He or she is not responsible for completing every task. Indeed, it is unlikely that the manager would even have every skill needed to complete all the work. He or she is simply the final decision maker. This person will usually be considered responsible for the success or failure of a project, unless other reasons for the outcome are blatantly obvious.
