The Matrix Organization Linn C' Stuckenbruck 1981

1
The Matrix OrganizationLinn C.
Stuckenbrucklt1981gt
EEL6887 Software Engineering Rochelle
Elva January 25th 2006
2
OVERVIEW

• Definition
• History
• Rationale
• Pros
• Cons
• Potential Problems
• Requirements for success
• Proposed solutions
• Summary
• Conclusion

3
REFERENCES

• Chunhua Tian Yueting Chai Shouju Ren Yi Liu
  Matrix organization. IEEE International
  Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2002
  Volume 3, 6-9 Oct. 2002 Page(s)6 pp. vol.3
• Ljiljanaondric Dech, D. Galic, D. (2005). The
  importance of project office in matrix
  organization. Proceedings of the 8th
  International Conference on Telecommunications
  Volume 2,  June 15-17, 2005 Page(s)671 - 675 .
• Project Management Issues and Considerations.
  Retrieved from the WWW http//www.maxwideman.com/
  issacons3/iac1358 Jan 25 2006.
• Stuckenbruck L. C. (1981) The Matrix
  Organization. Software Engineering Project
  Management ed. by Richard H. Thayer, IEEE
  Computer Society Press, 1997. Page(s)320 332
• Wentz, M.L. Blanc, A.J. (1992). Managing
  technology transfer a matrix approach. Advanced
  Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference and
  Workshop, 1992. ASMC 92 Proceedings. IEEE/SEMI
  1992, 30 Sept.-1 Oct. 1992 Page(s)186 188

4
PURE PROJECT MANAGEMENT
5
PROS AND CONS OF HIERARCHICAL ORGANIZATION

• Makes strategic sense when - customer
  requirements are standardized
• Is a liability when - customers require
  customized products - technologies are
  changing at an accelerated rate

6
IMPACT OF CHANGES ON REQUIRED ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURES

• Short time lapse between design phase and
  delivery
• Assimilation of new technologies
• Decrease in fragmentation along functional lines
• Use of cross functional teams

7
MATRIX ORGANIZATION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
8
DEFINITION

• Not a structure but a frame of mind requiring a
  paradigm shift from traditional vertical chain of
  command
• System of dual or multiple managerial
  accountability and responsibility
• Multidisciplinary team produced from persons at
  different levels of the functional hierarchy
• Temporary structure (super-imposed on traditional
  management organization) designed with a
  lifetime equal to that of a particular project
• Multi-dimensional structure aimed at minimizing
  the weaknesses of project and functional
  structures
• Most complex form of organizational structure
  combining the advantages of functional management
  and pure project organization

9
RATIONALE

• Traditional hierarchical management proved
  inadequate for nuances of modern projects with
  large volumes of info flow
• Micro-company alternative had failed
• Solutions to modern projects are most often
  multi-disciplinary

10
HISTORY

• Formalized in the 1950-60s in the aerospace
  defense history
• As many proponents as adversaries
• Companies that have found it successful Dow
  Corning Citicorp Crane Plastics Gulf SEMATECH
  Shell Oil
• Companies that have had less success
  Semi-conductor and computer companies Intel
  Texas Instruments Digital Equipment Corporation

11
USE MATRIX
WHEN

• project has to produce complex product
• project demands employing diverse skill across
  different disciplines
• Project needs innovation because of rapid changes
  in the market place

12
ADVANTAGES

• Stronger problem solving base
• Natural project integration
• Efficient use of resources and man power
• Efficient info flow
• Retention of disciplinary teams
• Foster high work morale
• Formation and identification of future managers
• Smooth transition at end of project

13
DISADVANTAGES

• No clear definition of leadership
• Too complex
• Seed ground for conflict and power struggle
• Conflicting priorities
• Susceptible to collapse during economic crunch
• Excessive overhead

14

• An excellent organizational strategy for modern
  projects

• Modish variant of organizational structure
  causing more problems than it solves

15
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS

• Power struggle Who is the real boss?
• Anarchy
• Groupitis
• Excessive overhead
• Decision strangulation
• Loss in productivity
• Sabotage
• Difficulty in communication and control
• Management goals are different

16
REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS

• All stakeholders must be sold on the idea
• Expectations of the relationship between
  functional managers and Project managers needs to
  be stated clearly and understood by all involved
• Careful delineation of specific authority and
  responsibility of each type of manager
• Traditional leaders need to accept the sharing of
  authority
• Project managers need to learn the art of
  negotiation
• Project personnel must adapt to having multiple
  bosses
• Efficient interface of relationships between all
  levels of management
• Ability to utilize conflict to get a better job
  to be done (conflict management skills)
• Visible support of project management by higher
  management

17
OVERCOMING INADEQUACIES

• The primary line of attack is to ensure that all
  roles and responsibilities are clear
• As far as possible establish measures to minimize
  ambiguity of authority
• Document all agreements and communicate these to
  all involved

18
FAULTY SOLUTION(Classification of
responsibilities)

• Functional Manager
• How task will be done
• Where it will be done
• Who will do it
• How much money is available
• How well the functional input has been integrated
  into project

• Project Manager
• What is to be done
• When it will be done
• Why task will be done
• How much money is available
• How well the total project has been done

19
PROBLEM WITH SOLUTION ?

• It only works in THEORY!

20
ONE BETTER SOLUTION(Decision Making/Responsibilit
y chart)
ACTORS
DECISIONS
21
SUMMARY

• Matrix organization can be a valuable tool in
  improving the quality of project management and
  product development
• Like all tools though - users need to be
  trained - it needs to be used appropriately
• Organizations should also not attempt to adopt
  this organizational suggestion as a package deal
  but they should take it for what it is a
  suggestion to be customized to suit the context
  of its application
• Organizations also need to be mindful there are
  companies and persons for whom this structure
  will never work not because the structure is
  faulty, but because the combination of
  philosophy, organization and personnel is
  incompatible