Project Management and Organizational Structure

Discussion Section

A matrix structure

Some projects are based on matrix structure. Matrix structure means having the resources, competences, and desire to solve problems where they occur. Work unit members thus gain a sense of control, as uncertainties about fluctuations and problems arising from the organizational context can be largely eliminated. Production problems can be addressed quickly and with greater flexibility.For example, members of a socio-technical system unit ought to be in a position to execute and make decisions about all aspects related to the accomplishment of the unit’s primary task (Badiru, 1993). In matrix structure, the supervisor, in general, does not make decisions internal to the socio-technical unit but focuses on boundary management in order to minimize disruptions to the unit’s functioning. This often involves coordination with other units whose work may influence or depend on this unit’s work. The supervisor’s responsibility, for example, is to make sure all necessary materials and documents are available, technical experts are at hand when needed, and so forth. If the technical and organizational design creates self-regulating, relatively independent organizational units, the supervisor takes on a support rather than a control function, aimed at fostering self-regulation and independence of the unit within the organizational environment. This involves managing the relationships and linkages between the unit and other parts of the organization, thus providing a buffer function. Direct supervisory interference and control of the activities of the unit’s group members becomes unnecessary. The determination of a meaningful primary task usually involves a number of interdependent work activities (Balogun and Hailey, 2004).

The project type selection is explained by the nature of work and project goals. The design of matrix structure thus leads to mostly team-oriented forms of work organization. These teams are called autonomous or self-managed work groups. Of course, no single group in any organization can be completely autonomous or independent from other organizational units; it can only be semi-autonomous. Autonomous groups are learning systems focused on a meaningful primary task usually involving a number of interrelated jobs or sets of work tasks (Burnes, 2004). As groups are able to control more and more of the variances encountered, their problem-solving capabilities increase, which can be used to enhance performance and to accommodate group members’ personal needs In order for people to work cooperatively, the primary task must be defined so the group members see it as a team project. This includes all activities involved, such as machine operating, setup, production planning, and clerical tasks. If tasks are assigned so that each team member has a specific area of responsibility for which only he or she is held accountable, the overarching common interest is missing. The notion of a team project implies that the work activities required for the completion of the overall task are perceived by the group as internally coherent (Burkun, 2005). The product or task outcome ought to be clearly identifiable both qualitatively and quantitatively. In order to succeed, a work group can hardly be held accountable for its product if task elements or errors from other groups in the organization might influence the outcome but cannot be traced to their original source in the final product. Among other things, the internal coherence of a work process is determined by the equipment layout and the design of the technical system (Brooks, 2009).

The projected structure

The projected structure is based on a sequence of steps. In many projects, the work team has to have access to all the means of information and communication necessary to accomplish the overall task. Comprehensibility is enhanced if the spatial organization of each workplace allows for spontaneous communication and if the group has its own clearly identifiable “territory.” If a work group sees its overall task as a collective activity with mutual responsibilities, the group, within the constraints of agreed upon quality and health and safety standards, takes on the responsibility for internal task allocation and with it the self-regulation of individual activities (Blanchard and Johnson, 2002). Internal coordination and control by a supervisor are replaced by outcome-oriented process supervision on the part of the group as a whole. The decision latitude for internal task distribution depends on the skill and competence level of the work group members. The range of competences has to be seen in the context of group size and the complexity of the overall task. In larger groups with more complex tasks, overlapping competences might be sufficient; in other words, not every person