Projects in a matrixed organization

• It is a standalone project organization overlaid on the functional divisions of the

parent firm.
• Combination of standalone projectized and functional organization structures
• A matrix organization can take on a wide variety of specific forms depending on
which of the two extremes (functional or standalone) it most resembles
• The projectized or strong matrix most resembles the projectized organization
• The functional or weak matrix most resembles the functional form of
organization
• The balanced matrix lies in between the other two
• There is an almost infinite variety of organizational forms between the extremes
and the primary difference between these forms has to do with the relative
power /decision authority of the project manager and the functional manager .
Advantages :
1) The project is the point of emphasis
2) Because the project organization is overlaid on the
functional divisions temporarily drawing labor and
talent from them
3) There is less anxiety about what happens when the
project is completed than is typical of the standalone
project organization
4) Response to client needs is as rapid as in the
standalone project case and the matrix organization
is just as flexible
5) With matrix management the project will have or
have access to representatives from the
administrative units of the parent firm
6) Where there are several projects simultaneously
under way matrix organization allows a better
companywide balance of resources to achieve the
several different time/cost/scope targets of the
individual projects.
7) While standalone projects and functionally organized
projects represent extremes of the organizational
spectrum,matrix organizations cover a wide range in
between.
Disadvantages :
1) In the case of functionally organized projects
there is no doubt that the functional division is
the focus of decision making power.
2) While the ability to balance time/cost/scope
between several projects is an advantage of
matrix organization that ability has its dark side
3) For strong matrices problems associated with
shutting down a project are almost as severe as
those is standalone project organization
4) In matrix organized projects the PM controls
administrative decisions and the functional
heads control technological decisions
5) Matrix management violates the
management principle of unity of command
 Virtual projects
• Are those in which work on the project team
crosses time,space ,organizational,or cultural
boundaries
• Virtual positions: task processes the
performance of which requires composite
membership in both project and functional
organization
Gratton (2007)also offers some rules for success when
organizations find they must use geographically
dispersed virtual teams for some of their projects:
• Only use virtual teams for projects that are challenging and
interesting. but also be sure the project is meaningful to the
company as well as the team.
• Solicit volunteers as much as possible they’ll be more
enthusiastic and dedicated to the success of the project.
• Include a few members in the team who already know each
other and make sure one in every six or seven are “boundary
spanners” with lots of outside contacts.
• Create an online resource for team members to learn
about each other (especially how they prefer to
work) ,collaborate,brainstorm and draw inspiration.
• Encourage frequent communication but not social
gatherings (which will occur at more natural times
anyway).
• Divide the project work into geographically
independent modules as much as possible so
progress in one location isn’t hampered by delays in
other locations .
Projects in composite organizational
structures :
• Composite structures: practice is some
combination of two or three or more different
forms .in a functional organization there may
be project divisions along with marketing and
finance or in matrix division there may be a
staff project reporting to the CEO (or treasurer
or…).
• The composite form leads to flexibility .it enables the firm to
meet special problems by appropriate adaptation of its
organizational structure.
• Distinct dangers involved in using the composite structure.
Dissimilar groupings within the same account ability center
tend to encourage overlap,duplication and friction because of
incompatibility interests we have the conditions that tend to
result in conflict between functional and project managers .
• another common solution to the problem of how to organize
a project. The firm sets up what appears to be a standard
form of functional organization, but it adds a staff office to
administer all the projects. This frees the functional groups of
administrative problems while it uses their technical talents
Selecting a Project Form
• The choice of how to organize a project is not addressed to PMs or
aspiring PMs. It is addressed to senior management.
• The choice is determined by the situation, but even so is partly intuitive.
• All we can do is consider the nature of the potential project, the
characteristics of the various organizational options, the advantages and
disadvantages of each, the cultural preferences of the parent organization,
and make the best compromise we can.
• One problem projectized organizations typically face is how to resolve the
tensions between flexibility and control. Research on projectized firms
(Gann et al., 2012) indicates that these firms tend to develop
suborganizational “baronies” of three types: dominions, tight federations,
or loose federations. Each of these offers significant competencies for the
firm but also present special management and leadership challenges.
• Matrix organizations are complex and present a difficult challenge for the
PM, but are sometimes necessary.
• If choice of project structure exists, the first problem
is to determine the kind of work that must be
accomplished. To do this requires an initial, tentative
project plan
• indicates that the forms of project organizing do
impact project success and that the more authority
and responsibility the PM has, the more likely the
project will be a success; hence, using functional
managers as PMs will increase the chances of success
We illustrate the process with an example in the
Trinatronic, Inc. box using the following procedure.
• 1.Define the project with a statement of the objective(s) that identifies the major outcomes desired.

• 2. Determine the key tasks associated with each objective and locate the units in the parent organization
that serve as functional “homes” for these types of tasks.

• 3. Arrange the key tasks by sequence and decompose them into work packages.
•
• 4. Determine which organizational units are required to carry out the work packages and which units will
work particularly closely with which others.

• 5. List any special characteristics or assumptions associated with the project—for example, level of
technology needed, probable length and size of the project, any potential problems with the individuals
who may be assigned to the work, possible political problems between different functions involved, and
anything else that seems relevant, including the parent firm’s previous experiences with different ways of
organizing projects.

• 6. In light of the above, and with full cognizance of the pros and cons associated with each structural form,
choose a structure.