project manangement
DESCRIPTION
matrix organizationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Challenges and Strategies of Matrix Organization
By
Thomos Sy. College of Business Administration California State University
Laura Sue D’Annumzio, A.T. kearney Inc
![Page 2: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
INTRO
Interest in Matrix Org reaches its peak during 1970’s to 1980’s Adopt as viable alternative to deal with complex business in
aerospace, automobile, banking, chemical, communication, computer, defense, electronics, financial energy.
Need for information on challenges and best practices. Focus on human side(managing and operations) instead its
structure, as its results may b actionable
![Page 3: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
OVERVIEW OF MATRIX
Organizational structure that allows to address multiple business dimensions using multiple command structure.
emerged in aerospace in 1960
Forms of MatrixFunctional matrix
Balanced matrix
Project Matrix
![Page 4: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Authority not equal to responsibility
Every one has one boss Ambiguity and conflict Increase cost for new
management
Leverage vast resources while staying small and task oriented
Focus on multi business goals Innovative and fast action for
those who know how to use it Enhance personal skills Increase Flow of info through
lateral communication channels
Strengths Weaknesses
![Page 5: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Current research Based upon author’s Work But primary based upon surveys, interviews, workshops
with 294 mid level and top level managers of 7 Major US based Corporations in Six industries
Duration in matrix Structure 3 to more than 20 years n either in initial stages
Revenue is 70 billion$, 170,000 employees, 42 participants from each company with tenure 13.4 years.
![Page 6: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
APPROACHES IN DATA COLLECTION
1st phase send a survey to participants to identify major challenges and best practices
2nd phase an in depth case study with North American automobile manufacturer for deeper study
![Page 7: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
MANAGING IN MATRIX
Five major challenges in matrix Misaligned goals Unclear roles and responsibility Ambiguous authority Lack of matrix guardian Silo focused employeesCompare views of top level and middle level managers
![Page 8: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
MISALIGNED GOALS
Work in different dimension 47% mid level managers and 6% top management Used 5-point likert scale to check frequency Top level managers(M=3.97, SD .91) Middle level managers(M=2.55, SD 1.00)
![Page 9: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
MISALIGNED GOALS
Issues
Competing or conflicting objectives Inadequate process to align and deduct Lack of coordination, Poor timing of work plans and objectives Conflict in functional objective and regional requirement
(training req, permission from HR)(inc incentive by PM less profit for Brand M)
![Page 10: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
MISALIGNED GOALS
Strategies
Cascading Goals Horizontally and vertically
Communicate constantly objectives to employees minimize discord
![Page 11: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
UNCLEAR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
83% mid level 23% top level managers
Mid level(M 3.24, SD 1.21)
Top level (M 2.16, SD 1.08)
![Page 12: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
UNCLEAR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIESIssues
Unclear job description and guideline for role and responsibility
Create tension Confusion about boss Whom to contact for information Constant shifting create uncertainty Poor planning (transition to matrix organization unclear
responsibilities of middle level)
![Page 13: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
UNCLEAR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Strategies
Clear guideline on role and responsibilities
Assignment of accountability
Single point for information and approval
Plan for communication and information sharing(monthly meeting)
RASIC(responsible, Approve, Support, Informed, Consulted)
![Page 14: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
AMBIGUOUS AUTHORITY
Leaders have responsibility without authority as dual reporting structure
62% middle level, 71% top level
Top level managers(M 3.97, SD 1.05)
Middle level managers(M 3.79, SD 1.12)
![Page 15: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
AMBIGUOUS AUTHORITY Issues
Confusion over final authority Lack of clarity of area of accountability Delay in decision making process Leaders don’t share decision rights
![Page 16: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
AMBIGUOUS AUTHORITY Strategies
Culture plays crucial role(in collaborative focus on solution, in political focus on maintenance of status)
Negotiation and persuasion skills required Decentralized decision making
![Page 17: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
MATRIX GUARDIAN
Lack of performance measures of matrix
Middle level manager 35%, top level managers 91%
Top level manager(M 3.17, SD 1.02)
Middle level manager(M 2.26, SD .99)
![Page 18: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
MATRIX GUARDIANIssues
Lack of consequences and rewards for performance matrix fail to motivate employees
Lack of monitoring systems
![Page 19: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
MATRIX GUARDIANStrategies
Establish monitoring process to deduct and identify matrix performance
Ensure matrix guardian have approach and authority Preserving undue political pressure
![Page 20: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
SILO-FOCUSED EMPLOYEES
Employee view their loyalty belongs to certain subunit. Mid level 72% top level 69% Top level (M 3.83, SD 1.15) Middle level(M 4.08, SD 1.13)
![Page 21: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
SILO-FOCUSED EMPLOYEESIssues
Personal conflict b/w leaders delay collaboration Withholding resources from others insufficient communication b/w business units
Two reasons of this behavior Employee reside in same function throughout careers Matrix require more collaboration then traditional and
employees are not trained for that
![Page 22: Project Manangement](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062303/556689fdd8b42a0f168b52bb/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
SILO-FOCUSED EMPLOYEESStrategies
Define expectations Provide training Work across functions Build relationship