Project Schedule

Estimate
networks resources & costs
5
6 8

Define Reducing
duration l
project iona
9 rnat
4 Inte ojects
pr
15

Managing Monitoring Project

Introduction Organization progress closure
1 3 risk
7 13 14
16 Agile
PM

Project
Strategy Teams Outsourcing
manager
2 11 12
10

Matrix management works, but it sure is difficult at times. All matrix man-
agers must keep up their health and take Stress-Tabs.
—A Project Manager

Once management approves a project, then the question becomes, how will the project
be implemented? This chapter examines three different project management structures
used by firms to implement projects: functional organization, dedicated project teams,
and matrix structure. Although not exhaustive, these structures and their variant forms
represent the major approaches for organizing projects. The advantages and disadvan-
tages of each of these structures are discussed as well as some of the critical factors
that might lead a firm to choose one form over others.
Whether a firm chooses to complete projects within the traditional functional organiza-
tion or through some form of matrix arrangement is only part of the story. Anyone who
has worked for more than one organization realizes that there are often considerable dif-
ferences in how projects are managed within certain firms even with similar structures.
Working in a matrix system at AT&T is different from working in a matrix environment
at Hewlett-Packard. Many researchers attribute these differences to the organizational
67
68 Chapter 3 Organization: Structure and Culture

FIGURE 3.1
Delta Manufacturing,
Delta
Inc.
Manufacturing, Inc.
Functional President President
Organizations
Project Project
coordination coordination
Human Human
resources resources

Marketing Marketing Engineering Engineering

Electronics Electronics
Software Mechanical
Software Mechanical
engineering engineering engineering
engineering Design
engineering Design

Customer Domestic
Customer International
Domestic International
service service
sales sales
sales sales

culture at AT&T and Hewlett-Packard. A simple explanation of organizational culture is

that it reflects the “personality” of an organization. Just as each individual has a unique
personality, so each organization has a unique culture. Toward the end of this chapter, we
examine in more detail what organizational culture is and the impact that the culture of the
parent organization has on organizing and managing projects.
Both the project management structure and the culture of the organization constitute
major elements of the enterprise environment in which projects are implemented. It is
important for project managers and participants to know the “lay of the land” so that
they can avoid obstacles and take advantage of pathways to complete their projects.

3.1 Project Management Structures

A project management system provides a framework for launching and implementing
LO 3-1 project activities within a parent organization. A good system appropriately balances
Identify different project the needs of both the parent organization and the project by defining the interface
management structures between the project and parent organization in terms of authority, allocation of
and understand their resources, and eventual integration of project outcomes into mainstream operations.
strengths and With this in mind, we will start the discussion of project management structures.
weaknesses.
Organizing Projects within the Functional Organization
One approach to organizing projects is to simply manage them within the existing func-
tional hierarchy of the organization. Once management decides to implement a project,
the different segments of the project are delegated to the respective functional units with
each unit responsible for completing its segment of the project (see Figure 3.1). Coordi-
nation is maintained through normal management channels. For example, a tool manu-
facturing firm decides to differentiate its product line by offering a series of tools
specially designed for left-handed individuals. Top management decides to implement
the project, and different segments of the project are distributed to appropriate areas.
The industrial design department is responsible for modifying specifications to conform
 Chapter 3 Organization: Structure and Culture 69

Finance and Finance and

administration administration

Manufacturing Manufacturing Procurement Procurement

Receiving and Receiving and

Purchasing Purchasing
inspection inspection

Production Production
Fabrication Assembly
Fabrication Testing
Assembly Testing
scheduling scheduling

to the needs of left-handed users. The production department is responsible for devising
the means for producing new tools according to these new design specifications. The
marketing department is responsible for gauging demand and price as well as identify-
ing distribution outlets. The overall project will be managed within the normal hierar-
chy, with the project being part of the working agenda of top management.
The functional organization is also commonly used when, given the nature of the
project, one functional area plays a dominant role in completing the project or has a
dominant interest in the success of the project. Under these circumstances, a high-
ranking manager in that area is given the responsibility of coordinating the project. For
example, the transfer of equipment and personnel to a new office would be managed
by a top-ranking manager in the firm’s facilities department. Likewise, a project
involving the upgrading of the management information system would be managed by
the information systems department. In both cases, most of the project work would be
done within the specified department and coordination with other departments would
occur through normal channels.
There are advantages and disadvantages for using the existing functional organiza-
tion to administer and complete projects (Larson, 2004). The major advantages are the
following:
1. No Change. Projects are completed within the basic functional structure of the par-
ent organization. There is no radical alteration in the design and operation of the
parent organization.
2. Flexibility. There is maximum flexibility in the use of staff. Appropriate specialists
in different functional units can temporarily be assigned to work on the project and
then return to their normal work. With a broad base of technical personnel available
within each functional department, people can be switched among different projects
with relative ease.
3. In-Depth Expertise. If the scope of the project is narrow and the proper functional
unit is assigned primary responsibility, then in-depth expertise can be brought to
bear on the most crucial aspects of the project.
70 Chapter 3 Organization: Structure and Culture

FIGURE 3.2
Dedicated Project Zeus Electronics,Zeus
Inc. Electronics, Inc.
President President
Team

Human Human
resources resources

Marketing Marketing Engineering Engineering

4. Easy Post-Project Transition. Normal career paths within a functional division

are maintained. While specialists can make significant contributions to projects,
their functional field is their professional home and the focus of their professional
growth and advancement.
Just as there are advantages for organizing projects within the existing functional orga-
nization, there are also disadvantages. These disadvantages are particularly pro-
nounced when the scope of the project is broad and one functional department does
not take the dominant technological and managerial lead on the project:
1. Lack of Focus. Each functional unit has its own core routine work to do; sometimes
project responsibilities get pushed aside to meet primary obligations. This difficulty
is compounded when the project has different priorities for different units. For
example, the marketing department may consider the project urgent while the oper-
ations people consider it only of secondary importance. Imagine the tension if the
marketing people have to wait for the operations people to complete their segment
of the project before they proceed.
2. Poor Integration. There may be poor integration across functional units. Func-
tional specialists tend to be concerned only with their segment of the project and
not with what is best for the total project.
3. Slow. It generally takes longer to complete projects through this functional arrange-
ment. This is in part attributable to slow response time—project information and
 Chapter 3 Organization: Structure and Culture 71

Finance and
Finance and
administration
administration

Manufacturing
Manufacturing Procurement
Procurement

Project manager
Project manager

Project team
Project team

decisions have to be circulated through normal management channels. Furthermore,

the lack of horizontal, direct communication among functional groups contributes to
rework as specialists realize the implications of others’ actions after the fact.
4. Lack of Ownership. The motivation of people assigned to the project can be
weak. The project may be seen as an additional burden that is not directly linked to
their professional development or advancement. Furthermore, because they are
working on only a segment of the project, professionals do not identify with the
project.

Organizing Projects as Dedicated Teams

At the other end of the structural spectrum is the creation of a dedicated project team.
These teams operate as separate units from the rest of the parent organization. Usually
a full-time project manager is designated to pull together a core group of specialists
who work full time on the project. The project manager recruits necessary personnel
from both within and outside the parent company. The subsequent team is physically
separated from the parent organization and given marching orders to complete the proj-
ect (see Figure 3.2).
The interface between the parent organization and the project teams will vary. In some
cases, the parent organization maintains a tight rein through financial controls. In other
cases, firms grant the project manager maximum freedom to get the project done as he
72 Chapter 3 Organization: Structure and Culture

S N A P S H O T F R O M P R A C T I C E 3 .1 Skunk Works at Lockheed Martin*

In project management folklore, skunk

works is code for a small, dedicated
team assigned to a breakthrough proj-
ect. The first skunk works was created
more than a half a century ago by
Clarence L. “Kelly” Johnson at Lockheed Aerospace
Corporation. Kelly’s project had two objectives: (1) to
create a jet fighter, the Shooting Star, and (2) to do it as
fast as possible. Kelly and a small band of engineering
mavericks operated as a dedicated team unencum-
bered by red tape and the bureaucratic delays of the
normal R&D process. The name was coined by team
member Irvin Culver after the moonshine brewery deep
© Monty Rakusen/Getty Images
in the forest in the popular cartoon strip Lil’Abner. The
homemade whisky was euphemistically called kickapoo
The Skunk Works is a concentration of a few good
joy juice.
people solving problems far in advance—and at a
The project was a spectacular success. In just
fraction of the cost—by applying the simplest, most
43 days, Johnson’s team of 23 engineers and teams of
straightforward methods possible to develop and
support personnel put together the first American
produce new products.
fighter to fly at more than 500 miles per hour. Lockheed
has continued to use skunk works to develop a string of
*J. Miller, Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works (New York: Special-
high speed jets, including the F117 Nighthawk Stealth ity Publications, 1996); “Lockheed Martin Skunk Works,”
Fighter as well as jet drone prototypes. Lockheed Mar- www.lockheedmartin.com/us/aeronautics/skunkworks.html,
tin has an official Skunk Works Division. Their charter is: accessed 1/22/2015.

sees fit. Lockheed Martin has used this approach to develop next-generation jet airplanes.
See Snapshot from Practice 3.1: Skunk Works.
In the case of firms where projects are the dominant form of business, such as a con-
struction firm or a consulting firm, the entire organization is designed to support project
teams. Instead of one or two special projects, the organization consists of sets of quasi-
independent teams working on specific projects. The main responsibility of traditional
functional departments is to assist and support these project teams. For example, the
marketing department is directed at generating new business that will lead to more proj-
ects, while the human resource department is responsible for managing a variety of
personnel issues as well as recruiting and training new employees. This type of organi-
zation is referred to in the literature as a projectized organization and is graphically
portrayed in Figure 3.3. It is important to note that not all projects are dedicated project
teams; personnel can work part-time on several projects.
As in the case of functional organization, the dedicated project team approach has
strengths and weaknesses (Larson, 2004). The following are recognized as strengths:
1. Simple. Other than taking away resources in the form of specialists assigned to the
project, the functional organization remains intact with the project team operating
independently.
2. Fast. Projects tend to get done more quickly when participants devote their full
attention to the project and are not distracted by other obligations and duties. Fur-
thermore, response time tends to be quicker under this arrangement because most
decisions are made within the team and are not deferred up the hierarchy.
 Chapter 3 Organization: Structure and Culture 73

FIGURE 3.3 Projectized Organization Structure

Central Engineering Systems, Inc.

President

Human
Marketing
resources

Finance and
Legal
Other administration Other
projects projects

Alpha Project Beta Project

Project Manager Project Manager

Engineering Manufacturing Procurement Engineering Subcontractors

Electrical Fabrication Systems Subcontractor X

Mechanical Assembly Hardware Subcontractor Y
Software Test Software Subcontractor Z

Manufacturing Procurement

Assembly
Test

3. Cohesive. A high level of motivation and cohesiveness often emerges within the
project team. Participants share a common goal and personal responsibility toward
the project and the team.
4. Cross-Functional Integration. Specialists from different areas work closely
together and, with proper guidance, become committed to optimizing the project,
not their respective areas of expertise.
In many cases, the project team approach is the optimum approach for completing a
project when you view it solely from the standpoint of what is best for completing the
project. Its weaknesses become more evident when the needs of the parent organiza-
tion are taken into account:
1. Expensive. Not only have you created a new management position (project man-
ager), but resources are also assigned on a full-time basis. This can result in dupli-
cation of efforts across projects and a loss of economies of scale.
2. Internal Strife. Sometimes dedicated project teams become an entity in their own
right and conflict emerges between the team and the remainder of the organization
(see Snapshot from Practice 3.2: The Birth of the Mac). This divisiveness can
undermine not only the integration of the eventual outcomes of the project into
mainstream operations but also the assimilation of project team members back into
their functional units once the project is completed.
3. Limited Technological Expertise. Creating self-contained teams inhibits maxi-
mum technological expertise being brought to bear on problems. Technical
74 Chapter 3 Organization: Structure and Culture

SNAPSHOT FROM PRACTICE 3.2 The Birth of the Mac*

One of the advantages of creating ded-

icated project teams is that project par-
ticipants from different functional areas
can develop into a highly cohesive
work team that is strongly committed
to completing the project. While such teams often pro-
duce Herculean efforts in pursuit of project completion,
there is a negative dimension to this commitment that is
often referred to in the literature as projectitis. A we–
they attitude can emerge between project team mem-
bers and the rest of the organization. The project team
succumbs to hubris and develops a holier-than-thou atti-
tude that antagonizes the parent organization. People
not assigned to the project become jealous of the atten-
tion and prestige being showered on the project team,
especially when they believe that it is their hard work
that is financing the endeavor. The tendency to assign
project teams exotic titles such as “Silver Bullets” and
“Tiger Teams,” as well as give them special perks, tends
to intensify the gap between the project team and the
parent organization.
Such appears to have been the case with Apple’s
highly successful Macintosh development team. Steve
Jobs, who at the time was both the chairman of Apple
and the project manager for the Mac team, pampered © McGraw-Hill Education/Jill Braaten
his team with perks including at-the-desk massages,
coolers stocked with freshly squeezed orange juice, a
Bosendorfer grand piano, and first-class plane tickets. there was a geek brawl. Pocket protectors and pens
No other employees at Apple got to travel first class. were flying. I was waiting for a notebook to drop, so
Jobs considered his team to be the elite of Apple and they would stop and pick up the papers.”
had a tendency to refer to everyone else as “Bozos” Although comical from a distance, the discord
who “didn’t get it.” Engineers from the Apple II division, between the Apple II and Mac groups severely hampered
which was the bread and butter of Apple’s sales, Apple’s performance during the 1980s. John Sculley, who
became incensed with the special treatment their col- replaced Steve Jobs as chairman of Apple, observed that
leagues were getting. Apple had evolved into two “warring companies” and
One evening at Ely McFly’s, a local watering hole, referred to the street between the Apple II and Macintosh
the tensions between Apple II engineers seated at one buildings as “the DMZ” (demilitarized zone).
table and those of a Mac team at another boiled over.
Aaron Goldberg, a long-time industry consultant, *J. Carlton, Apple: The Inside Story of Intrigue, Egomania, and
Business Blunders (New York: Random House, 1997), pp. 13–14;
watched from his barstool as the squabbling escalated. J. Sculley, Odyssey: Pepsi to Apple . . . A Journey of Adventure,
“The Mac guys were screaming, ‘We’re the future!’ The Ideas, and the Future (New York: Harper & Row, 1987),
Apple II guys were screaming, ‘We’re the money!’ Then pp. 270–79.

expertise is limited somewhat to the talents and experience of the specialists

assigned to the project. While nothing prevents specialists from consulting with
others in the functional division, the we–they syndrome and the fact that such help
is not formally sanctioned by the organization discourage this from happening.
 Chapter 3 Organization: Structure and Culture 75

4. Difficult Post-Project Transition. Assigning full-time personnel to a project cre-

ates the dilemma of what to do with personnel after the project is completed. If
other project work is not available, then the transition back to their original func-
tional departments may be difficult because of their prolonged absence and the
need to catch up with recent developments in their functional area.

Organizing Projects within a Matrix Arrangement

One of the biggest management innovations to emerge in the past 40 years has been
the matrix organization. Matrix management is a hybrid organizational form in which
a horizontal project management structure is “overlaid” on the normal functional hier-
archy. In a matrix system, there are usually two chains of command, one along func-
tional lines and the other along project lines. Instead of delegating segments of a
project to different units or creating an autonomous team, project participants report
simultaneously to both functional and project managers.
Companies apply this matrix arrangement in a variety of different ways. Some orga-
nizations set up temporary matrix systems to deal with specific projects, while
“matrix” may be a permanent fixture in other organizations. Let us first look at its
general application and then proceed to a more detailed discussion of finer points.
Consider Figure 3.4. There are three projects currently under way: A, B, and C. All
three project managers (PM A-C) report to a director of project management, who
supervises all projects. Each project has an administrative assistant, although the one
for project C is only part time.
Project A involves the design and expansion of an existing production line to
accommodate new metal alloys. To accomplish this objective, project A has assigned
to it 3.5 people from manufacturing and 6 people from engineering. These individuals
are assigned to the project on a part-time or full-time basis, depending on the project’s
needs during various phases of the project. Project B involves the development of a
new product that requires the heavy representation of engineering, manufacturing, and
marketing. Project C involves forecasting changing needs of an existing customer base.
While these three projects, as well as others, are being completed, the functional divi-
sions continue performing their basic, core activities.
The matrix structure is designed to optimally utilize resources by having individu-
als work on multiple projects as well as being capable of performing normal func-
tional duties. At the same time, the matrix approach attempts to achieve greater
integration by creating and legitimizing the authority of a project manager. In theory,
the matrix approach provides a dual focus between functional/technical expertise and
project requirements that is missing in either the project team or functional approach
to project management. This focus can most easily be seen in the relative input of
functional managers and project managers over key project decisions (see Table 3.1).

TABLE 3.1 Project Manager Negotiated Issues Functional Manager

Division of Project
Manager and What has to be done? Who will do the task? How will it be done?
Functional Manager When should the task Where will the task
Responsibilities in a be done? be done?
Matrix Structure How much money is available Why will the task be How will the project involvement
to do the task? done? impact normal functional activities?
How well has the total project Is the task satisfactorily How well has the functional input
been done? completed? been integrated?
76 Chapter 3 Organization: Structure and Culture

FIGURE 3.4
Matrix Organization Zeta Manufacturing, Inc.
President
Structure

Human
resources

Director of
Engineering
projects

Project Design Electronics Software Mechanical Technical

administration engineering engineering engineering engineering documentation

Project A
project 1 2 1 2 1
manager Project A team

Project B
project 1 3 1 1 1 1
manager
Project B team

Project C
project 1/2 1
manager Project C team

Different Matrix Forms

In practice there are really different kinds of matrix systems, depending on the relative
LO 3-2 authority of the project and functional managers (Larson & Gobeli, 1987; Bowen
Distinguish three differ- et al., 1994). Here is a thumbnail sketch of the three kinds of matrices:
ent types of matrix struc- ∙ Weak matrix—This form is very similar to a functional approach with the excep-
tures and understand tion that there is a formally designated project manager responsible for coordinating
their strengths and project activities. Functional managers are responsible for managing their segment
weaknesses. of the project. The project manager basically acts as a staff assistant who draws the
schedules and checklists, collects information on status of work, and facilitates
project completion. The project manager has indirect authority to expedite and
monitor the project. Functional managers call most of the shots and decide who
does what and when the work is completed.
∙ Balanced matrix—This is the classic matrix in which the project manager is
responsible for defining what needs to be accomplished while the functional man-
agers are concerned with how it will be accomplished. More specifically, the proj-
ect manager establishes the overall plan for completing the project, integrates the
contribution of the different disciplines, sets schedules, and monitors progress. The
functional managers are responsible for assigning personnel and executing their
segment of the project according to the standards and schedules set by the project
manager. The merger of “what and how” requires both parties to work closely
together and jointly approve technical and operational decisions.
 Chapter 3 Organization: Structure and Culture 77

Finance Finance

Manufacturing
Manufacturing MarketingMarketing

Customer Customer Domestic DomesticInternationalInternational

Assembly Assembly Testing Testing Quality Quality
service service sales sales sales sales

2 2 1/2 1/2 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1

1/2 1/2 2 2 2 2

∙ Strong matrix—This form attempts to create the “feel” of a project team within a
matrix environment. The project manager controls most aspects of the project, includ-
ing scope trade-offs and assignment of functional personnel. The project manager con-
trols when and what specialists do and has final say on major project decisions. The
functional manager has title over her people and is consulted on a need basis. In some
situations a functional manager’s department may serve as a “subcontractor” for
the project, in which case they have more control over specialized work. For example,
the development of a new series of laptop computers may require a team of experts
from different disciplines working on the basic design and performance requirements
within a project matrix arrangement. Once the specifications have been determined,
final design and production of certain components (i.e., power source) may be assigned
to respective functional groups to complete.
Matrix management both in general and in its specific forms has unique strengths and
weaknesses (Larson & Gobeli, 1987). The advantages and disadvantages of matrix
organizations in general are noted below, while only briefly highlighting specifics con-
cerning different forms:
1. Efficient. Resources can be shared across multiple projects as well as within func-
tional divisions. Individuals can divide their energy across multiple projects on an
as-needed basis. This reduces duplication required in a projectized structure.
2. Strong Project Focus. A stronger project focus is provided by having a formally
designated project manager who is responsible for coordinating and integrating
78 Chapter 3 Organization: Structure and Culture

contributions of different units. This helps sustain a holistic approach to problem

solving that is often missing in the functional organization.
3. Easier Post-Project Transition. Because the project organization is overlaid on the
functional divisions, specialists maintain ties with their functional group, so they
have a homeport to return to once the project is completed.
4. Flexible. Matrix arrangements provide for flexible utilization of resources and
expertise within the firm. In some cases functional units may provide individuals
who are managed by the project manager. In other cases the contributions are moni-
tored by the functional manager.
The strengths of the matrix structure are considerable. Unfortunately, so are the poten-
tial weaknesses. This is due in large part to the fact that a matrix structure is more
complicated and the creation of multiple bosses represents a radical departure from the
traditional hierarchical authority system.
Furthermore, one does not install a matrix structure overnight. Experts argue that it
takes 3–5 years for a matrix system to fully mature. So many of the problems described
below represent growing pains.
1. Dysfunctional Conflict. The matrix approach is predicated on tension between func-
tional managers and project managers who bring critical expertise and perspectives to
the project. Such tension is viewed as a necessary mechanism for achieving an appro-
priate balance between complex technical issues and unique project requirements.
While the intent is noble, the effect is sometimes analogous to opening Pandora’s box.
Legitimate conflict can spill over to a more personal level, resulting from conflicting
agendas and accountabilities. Worthy discussions can degenerate into heated argu-
ments that engender animosity among the managers involved.
2. Infighting. Any situation in which equipment, resources, and people are being
shared across projects and functional activities lends itself to conflict and competi-
tion for scarce resources. Infighting can occur among project managers, who are
primarily interested in what is best for their project.
3. Stressful. Matrix management violates the management principle of unity of com-
mand. Project participants have at least two bosses—their functional head and one
or more project managers. Working in a matrix environment can be extremely
stressful. Imagine what it would be like to work in an environment in which you are
being told to do three conflicting things by three different managers.
4. Slow. In theory, the presence of a project manager to coordinate the project should
accelerate the completion of the project. In practice, decision making can get
bogged down as agreements have to be forged across multiple functional groups.
This is especially true for the balanced matrix.

When the three variant forms of the matrix approach are considered, we can see that
advantages and disadvantages are not necessarily true for all three forms of matrix. The
Strong matrix is likely to enhance project integration, diminish internal power struggles,
and ultimately improve control of project activities and costs. On the downside, technical
quality may suffer because functional areas have less control over their contributions.
Finally, projectitis may emerge as the members develop a strong team identity.
The Weak matrix is likely to improve technical quality as well as provide a better
system for managing conflict across projects because the functional manager assigns
personnel to different projects. The problem is that functional control is often main-
tained at the expense of poor project integration. The Balanced matrix can achieve
 Chapter 3 Organization: Structure and Culture 79

better balance between technical and project requirements, but it is a very delicate
system to manage and is more likely to succumb to many of the problems associated
with the matrix approach.

3.2 What Is the Right Project Management Structure?

There is empirical evidence that project success is directly linked to the amount of
LO 3-3 autonomy and authority project managers have over their projects (Gray et al., 1990;
Understand organiza- Larson & Gobeli, 1988; Larson & Gobeli, 1987). However, most of this research is
tional and project con- based on what is best for managing specific projects. It is important to remember what
siderations that should was stated in the beginning of the chapter—that the best system balances the needs of
be considered in choos- the project with those of the parent organization. So what project structure should an
ing an appropriate proj- organization use? This is a complicated question with no precise answers. A number
ect management of issues need to be considered at both the organization and project level.
structure.
Organization Considerations
At the organization level, the first question that needs to be asked is how important is
project management to the success of the firm? What percentage of core work involves
projects? If over 75 percent of work involves projects, then an organization should
consider a fully projectized organization. If an organization has both standard products
and projects, then a matrix arrangement would appear to be appropriate. If an organi-
zation has very few projects, then a less formal arrangement is probably all that is
required. Dedicated teams could be created on an as-needed basis and the organization
could outsource project work.
A second key question is resource availability. Remember, matrix evolved out of the
necessity to share resources across multiple projects and functional domains while at
the same time creating legitimate project leadership. For organizations that cannot
afford to tie up critical personnel on individual projects, a matrix system would appear
to be appropriate. An alternative would be to create a dedicated team but outsource
project work when resources are not available internally.
Within the context of the first two questions, an organization needs to assess current
practices and what changes are needed to more effectively manage projects. A strong
project matrix is not installed overnight. The shift toward a greater emphasis on proj-
ects has a host of political implications that need to be worked through, requiring time
and strong leadership. For example, we have observed many companies that make the
transition from a functional organization to a matrix organization begin with a weak
functional matrix. This is due in part to resistance by functional and department man-
agers toward transferring authority to project managers. With time, these matrix struc-
tures eventually evolve into a project matrix. Many organizations have created Project
Management Offices to support project management efforts. See Snapshot from Prac-
tice 3.3: POs: Project Offices.

Project Considerations
At the project level, the question is how much autonomy the project needs in order to
be successfully completed. Hobbs and Ménard (1993) identify seven factors that
should influence the choice of project management structure:
∙ Size of project.
∙ Strategic importance.
80 Chapter 3 Organization: Structure and Culture

SNAPSHOT FROM PRACTICE 3.3 POs: Project Offices*

Project offices (POs) were originally ΄ How are we doing in terms of cost? Which proj-
developed as a response to the poor ects are over or under budget?
track record many companies had in ΄ What are the major problems confronting proj-
completing projects on time, within ects? Are contingency plans in place? What can
budget, and according to plan. They the organization do to help the project?
were often established to help matrix systems mature
΄ Control Tower. The primary function of the control
into more effective project delivery platforms.
tower PO is to improve project execution. It consid-
Today, POs come in many different shapes and
ers project management as a profession to be pro-
forms. One interesting way of classifying POs was set
tected and advanced. Staff at the PO identify best
forth by Casey and Peck, who describe certain POs in
practices and standards for project management ex-
terms of being (1) a weather station, (2) a control tower,
cellence. They work as consultants and trainers to
or (3) a resource pool. Each of these models performs a
support project managers and their teams.
very different function for its organization.
΄ Resource Pool. The goal of the resource pool PO is
΄ Weather Station. The primary function of the to provide the organization with a cadre of trained
weather station PO is to track and monitor project project managers and professionals. It operates like
performance. It is typically created to satisfy top an academy for continually upgrading the skills of a
management’s need to stay on top of the portfolio firm’s project professionals. In addition to training,
of projects under way in the firm. Staff provides an this kind of PO also serves to elevate the stature of
independent forecast of project performance. The project management within the organization.
questions answered for specific projects include:
΄ How are our projects progressing? Which ones * W. Casey and W. Peck, “Choosing the Right PMO Setup,” PM
are on track? Which ones are not? Network, vol. 15, no. 2 (2001), pp. 40–47.

∙ Novelty and need for innovation.

∙ Need for integration (number of departments involved).
∙ Environmental complexity (number of external interfaces).
∙ Budget and time constraints.
∙ Stability of resource requirements.
The higher the levels of these seven factors, the more autonomy and authority the project
manager and project team need to be successful.1 This translates into using either a dedi-
cated project team or a project matrix structure. For example, these structures should be
used for large projects that are strategically critical and are new to the company, thus
requiring much innovation. These structures would also be appropriate for complex,
multidisciplinary projects that require input from many departments, as well as for proj-
ects that require constant contact with customers to assess their expectations. Dedicated
project teams should also be used for urgent projects in which the nature of the work
requires people working steadily from beginning to end.
Many firms that are heavily involved in project management have created a flexible
management system that organizes projects according to project requirements. For
example, Chaparral Steel, a mini-mill that produces steel bars and beams from scrap

1For a more sophisticated discussion of contingency factors related to managing specific projects see: A. J. Shenhar and
D. Dvir, Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation (Boston: Harvard
Press, 2007).