The Functional to Matrix Transition

The Functional to matrix Transition K ben R. J. White, PMP RECENTLY PARTICIPATED IN A CONSULTING ASSIGNMENT WHICH INVOLVED MOVING A LARGE ITS arranging from an old-style operational-department brass section aline towards one more friendly to proj- Common Pitfalls ects. The take c are faced the sorts of challenges that are common when trying to realign organisational body structure with the new realities of managing by hurtles. In addition, there were added cultural barriers because the corporation was in the financial services sector-a very traditional industry, kn admit for conservatism in trouble go upes. attend solicitude consultants were called in because, for the first time, the administration was labour a multi-year enterprise-wide development computer course that cut across multiple in operation(p) departments, instead of following their old pattern of doing projects at bottom departments. Within the program, several(prenominal) major colligate projects wer e being carried out. Clearly, line of business as usual would not suffice. BASELINE A FUNCTIONAL/WEAK MATRIX STRUCTURE A Functional/ (Weak) ground substance organizational structure, such as our guest guild had in place, realises sound when the focus is on quality and expert expertise.Under this structure, operating(a) theater directors are responsible for products created inwardly their areas of expertise. The downside In the comp whatsoever on which this case study was based, it just wasnt working. And their experience was not uncommon. The operational-based organization structure tends to undermine the imprimatur and decision-making capability of project managers, making project success more difficult. The functional or weak matrix systema skeletale of organization does have some advantages. In this case, first of all, it was the currently exist state in the client organization.Change is always traumatic in organizations and, to the extent that we could preserve exis ting processes and systems, the upheaval-and opposition to it-would be minimized. Functional opera hat organizations take a beating in discussions of optimal organizational structure, merely the fact is that they are familiar to people, and thus comfortable for them. In addition, within this structure, IT and IS departments are fully empowered to complete isolated projects within their own stovepipes. The client organization already possessed well-established communication theory processes and authorities within the functional areas. From a purely logistical point of view, the faculty work locations were already centralized around functional department assignments, making teaching sharing among team members more straightforward. There are as well as grave drawbacks to this organizational structure, however. For instance, communications and decision-making processes existed outside the program structure, contributing to schedule and figure issues.For the same reason, true acc ountability rested outside the programs, somewhere in the traditional hierarchy of the corporation. For example, executive director functional prudence, who were in fact passably removed from the actual conditions of the programs, piddle all the important decisions. Budget and espial authority was reserved for the CIO level. Under this very traditional structure, only lump authority-something the project managers did not have-was recognized as a source of power.The client organization had made some strides in moving past a purely functional hierarchy, towards a matrix organization. A Project instruction Office (PMO) had been lend oneselfed the year before my involvement began-a year subsequently the program was launched. Unfortunately, this meant that proper economic aid had not been paid to project guidance issues during the initial planning stages of the program. border 610. 853. 3679 n www. pmsolutions. com n Fax 610. 853. 0527 proficient SERIES The Functional to hya loplasm Transition Page 2 of 4Instead of creating a PMO to manage the program, the existing program was inserted into a PMO. However, since the PMO lacked authority for decisions and communications, accountability was problematic. As an example, program budgets and staffing decisions were made within functional organizations, not within the programs themselves and alternatives were not accountable to programs for deliverables. Programs were initiated by functional departments, making any kind of strategic coalition or project prioritization (portfolio management) problematic. And because project teams ithin programs were organize by functional department, not by deliverable, the physical and organizational barriers among project teams impeded communications. THE OTHER EXTREME The Project (Strong) Matrix organization, at the other end of the organization-structure spectrum, works well for crash efforts, where the focus is on cost and, especially, schedule. These types of project- based organizations are sometimes nicknamed Skunkworks after the Lockheed-Martin aerospace project that made this approach famous. The Strong Matrix is an organizational score beloved of project managers and organizational design theorists.To be sure, this posture offers many advantages from the project management pedestal It concentrates complete authority for decisions affecting a project or program within the project or program itself, which simplifies decision-making. Program budgets and staffing decisions are made within the programs. Staff members have a unmarried manager to enthral and answer to. Resources are accountable to program for deliverables and murder. Clear communications paths exist. However, in the real world of our client organization, the Project/Strong Matrix model carried several disadvantages.Limited resources in certain key technical and business areas meant that there simply were not enough people to create use program or project teams, and it wa s deemed too time-consuming to recruit and/or train additional staff. The existing staff was in dispersed geographic locations with staff not able to relocate. All in all, moving to this form was just too drastic a reassign for the organization. THE MIDDLE argument Thus, our choice in establishing a more project-friendly environment was the Balanced Matrix structure . This structure strives to hit all the bases.Cost, schedule and quality are considered of equal importance. The balance between these considerations is achieved through continuous negotiations and tradeoffs. Given the resource limitations existing within the client organization, we deemed it the better(p) model as well as the most practicable, despite certain inherent disadvantages, such as the extremity for increased communications and resource negotiations between project managers and functional managers, the added complexity in status reporting and staff management activities, and the need for modified roles and responsibilities in IT and business functional departments.The most significant encounter of the new model was the extent to which we revised Roles and Responsibilities. IT functional management presently shared joint staff management with program management and had to engineer with program management in the areas of standards and process implementation. Business functional management also shared joint staff management with program management. headphone 610. 853. 3679 n www. pmsolutions. com n Fax 610. 853. 0527 EXPERT SERIES The Functional to Matrix Transition Page 3 of 4Program management staff had far more hands-on involvement in program activities, as well as increased accountability for staff performance and coordination of related issues with functional man agement. Program Team Members now had multiple managers with whom to coordinate absences. TRANSITION STEPS 1. Assign Project Managers. We introduced project managers from the PMO to replace functional man agers with pro ject management responsibilities, except in those cases where we retained functional leads as part of matrix.We did this when the department managers or supervisors were the ideal choice for charge project activities because they were the strongest technical person in that area. Once the project leadership were assigned we identified deliverables and associated accountabilities for each project team. 2. Re-define Roles and Responsibilities. We established a policy statement and matrix document that clearly identified the project manager and functional manager roles and responsibilities. 3. Revise Resource Staffing Processes.By involving functional management in project initiation activities-recognizing that functional managers often have the best insight into the skills and limitations of staff members-we made the process of assigning resources to roles more collaborative. We also instituted a formal requisition process for internal resources. 4. Revise murder Management Process es. We implemented revised performance management processes. Project managers were added to the performance development process training classes and required to provide periodic performance-related study to functional managers.At the same time, functional managers now shared private goals and objectives with project managers, seeking to align project assignments with objectives. Functional managers continued to propagate performance development processes. 5. Establish a Communications Plan. We developed a comprehensive program communications plan identifying who reports what to whom, and when. We acknowledged the information necessitate of the functional management team by including them in the communications plan. Project websites were established to facilitate communications. 6. Obtain Senior Executive Support.Senior executive countenance for changes was secured. We instituted an active steering committee. In addition, we established clear support at the CIO level for the Pro gram and Project Manager roles and their authorities. These steps ensured alignment of functional and program goals functional managers support the programs, which in turn implement the business goals. LESSONS LEARNED The matrix organization testament meet resistance plan for it. Lesson 1 Program Organization. Make deliberate decisions about program and project organization when chartering the program.Determine the important constraints for the program, know the different organizational structures available and deliberately select the one that best fits your situation. Consider geographical locations when forming teams try to maintain team integrity within a single location. Lesson 2 Roles & Responsibilities. Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of all vested parties, including functional managers providing resources to projects. Obtain engagement and sign-off on individual roles and responsibilities as part of each project chartering activity. Phone 610. 853. 679 n ww w. pmsolutions. com n Fax 610. 853. 0527 EXPERT SERIES The Functional to Matrix Transition Page 4 of 4 Lesson 3 Communications Plan. give out a comprehensive plan that considers communication needs both inwardly and outside the program. Consider horizontal communication flows in addition to good communication flows. Do not ignore the information needs of the organization as a whole. Lesson 4 Continuous assessment. Reinforce the transition by continually monitoring the processes and climate of the organization. This is an ongoing challenge, not a one-time event.When a crisis arises, the organization will tend to lapse back into functional management accountability, as opposed to staying within program structure. Pay close attention to the communications and collaboration aspects of the program reinforce use of the agreed upon communications plan. Remain sensitive to the communication needs of multiple geographic sites, if any. You will need to provide continuous learning and rei nforcement, since functional managers are alleviate learning to include project managers in staffing decisions, while project managers are still learning to include functional managers in problem solvent activities.Dont be afraid to change Question how you are organized put on sure the status quo fits with the work that needs to be done. Maybe you wont change everything, but little regular tweak at organizational structure will keep it vital. Every six months or so, ask Does it make sense today? Prepared for presentation at ProjectWorld, October 2001 Phone 610. 853. 3679 n www. pmsolutions. com n Fax 610. 853. 0527