The Use Of The Matrix Structure In Business Organizations
Table of Contents
This is the beginning.
Matrix Project Organization
Challenges
Suggestion
In summary,
Opening remarks
The matrix structure integrates both traditional and functional structures. A matrix structure has a different reporting structure because employees must both report to their manager and to the product manager. Before implementing matrix structures, organizations need to consider both its benefits and challenges. Matrix structure offers many advantages over traditional structures. For example, it allows for greater flexibility in the allocation of resource and information. It is important to not ignore its challenges. This structure is also expensive and can lead to increased competition among employees for scarce resources.
Matrix Project Structure is used by organisationsVodafone Australia uses the Matrix Project Structure to assign their employees solely to projects. Vodafone had undertaken many projects recently, including small and major ones. This includes the allocation of assets, integration of human resources, and projects related to sales, procurement, and marketing. The matrix structure of the project allowed for the creation of additional groups based on products and goals by the employees. The employees can contribute their knowledge to a cross-functional team. Vodafone’s dual reporting makes it easier to communicate and is more flexible. Employees must report to both their manager and project manager, even if they are working together on different projects. Vodafone’s line managers are responsible for overseeing project aspects, while their project managers manage the workflow. As an example, any software project will involve IT personnel. These employees will report both to the IT Manager and to the Project manager who is responsible for the project implementation. Vodafone is able to manage project needs and functional requirements with ease thanks to the matrix project structures. By adopting a project matrix structure, it is difficult to change the organization. It would also force the organization to take into account the culture and its attitudes, such as by implementing and developing effective training for employees and leaders. This will increase the success of Matrix-structured projects. However, the organization should also think about the challenges involved in adopting the Matrix-structured project.
The hierarchical structure of organization has been insufficient for the past few years as projects have become increasingly complex.
The need to plan the organization around the task was realized in the interim. It has been a blessing that new, but unpredictable choices are available. The administration is of the opinion that there’s no “one perfect path” to take for every task. There could be a variety of options available to choose from for a certain task. These options include different grid types.
It was in the United States aerospace industry that a matrix-structured organization was developed. This grew out of the complex, large-scale activities of the 1960s. In the event that the project is large, the most common solution was to create a pure enterprise association. This meant that the vast majority of resources and abilities needed to meet the project’s goals were grouped into a single multiple-leveled company. This option is ideal if you have a large project, the client has been sorted, and they are willing to pay extra for the service. However, an aerospace company discovered they had a lot of projects that were not huge but very complex. They found it hard to have a team handle all these projects. It was also difficult for management to allocate a single person as the sole responsibility. Matrix Project Structure was the only solution. Matrix was then evident in digital workplaces. It seemed like an engineer with a math background who was trying to implement a grid-like structure.
The matrix project structures has other applications than project management. We have only looked at the matrix project structure from the perspective of its project management. Multi-team is a good way to describe a matrix project organization where team members are drawn from different departments within the organization.
Matrix-based organisations build their projects based on project objectives, rather than organizational functions. The project hierarchy is built on a foundation of project-based organization.
ChallengesAlthough the matrix project structure is a good option, it can be difficult to implement and maintain. This structure can cause many issues.
Internal complexity
Reporting relationships can become confusing when employees are held more accountable. Employees may not be given the same responsibilities by their managers or project managers. This could lead to an inability to achieve functional goals and plans. ‘
Costs of overhead are higher
Organizing more management costs may be necessary to accommodate the Matrix’s requirement for double the managers. Overhead costs can rise significantly. It is important that smaller companies take into account all of these aspects before implementing this structure.
O Scarcity of Resources
The need for more employees to participate in decision-making and resource allocation can result in increased competition. Employee expertise and skill can result in a lack resources.
One study found that top-level and middle-level directors have different views on the challenges of framework structures. Mid-level administrators cite siloed workgroups and unclear roles/responsibilities as their main concerns with lattice systems, whereas the top-level directors mention misaligned objectives and uncertain expertise, along with a lack in framework guardianship. These are neither points of interests nor
The purpose of this article is not to identify obstacles but to highlight situations that associations attempting to implement lattice systems should be aware. Adjusting your goals to fit different measurements, such as clients, capacity, product, geography, etc. The top-level director reports that misaligned business objectives are the main challenge faced by lattice systems. It may be because top-level management is usually more involved in the setting of objectives and the promotion of business goals than mid-level management.
When it comes to matrix dimensions, there are often conflicting goals.
O A lack of a system and process to align management objectives.
O Poor work planning due to lack of coordination
Communication and consultation gaps between matrix dimensions.
The strategies in place to address these issues can reflect the organization’s dimensions. As an example, the vertical and horizontal axes should be used to support the goals of the departments.
Lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities is also a challenge. The mid-level management may not be very clear about their roles. The reason for this could be a lack of clarity in the job description and roles. The result is confusion and inability to make decisions. This may cause problems for the employees because most organizations try to align roles between project and management. Employees should be given a clearer directive so that it is easier for them to adopt new initiatives or make changes.
Hierarchical organization is crucial in solving issues associated with ambiguous specialists
culture. In associations with political cultures, the tendency to prioritize maintaining power and standing can overwhelm the necessity to deal with issues. In contrast to associations that are dominated by a political culture they are more likely to be able explore these ambiguities because of their ability and willingness for casually arranging themselves around solving problems. As associations move to a network structure, they may not provide local pioneers or product pioneers with the skills and expertise required to meet their own goals. Senior leaders may hesitate to assign decision-making tasks to other pioneers. As lattice associations have a decentralized structure, if senior leaders fail to take the initiative and share their expertise with others it can undermine the whole system. A successful framework structure, on the other hand, engages those with most recent and exact information to decide. It is often the case that local pioneers, who have a better understanding of their neighborhood than senior initiative, are more prepared to make decisions. In the most effective grid structures, senior authority makes only 5% of decisions, while 90% of them are made locally.
Adapting objectives to different measures (e.g. clients, products, capacities) is a difficult task. The top-level executives report that misaligned business objectives are the biggest challenge framework structures pose. This could be because top management is usually required to do more than mid-level to set and advance business goals.
RecommendationBefore adopting a matrix-structure, companies should also consider their business models and whether they would need to make any changes. Or, it could be how to operate more efficiently. The matrix structure will also indicate the organizational culture and its ability to support significant changes. The workforce’s ability to adapt and change is also important. Costs and rationale for adopting matrix working.
ConclusionOnce a company tries to adapt itself to a matrix structure, it will need to change its culture. It is important to train employees and supervisors in order to make better decisions. As soon as the structure is in place, it’s important to focus on the values. The transition will also require a significant investment of both time and effort. The second reason is that by using a matrix-project structure, it’s difficult to make any changes within the organization. The organization would be forced to recognize the cultural norms and attitudes by implementing and developing effective training programs for both their employees and leaders. It is possible to increase the success of Matrix structure. However, the organization should also be aware of the challenges involved in adopting the Matrix Project Structure.
