4. 5. 6. 7. structure. Why would it make sense for smaller projects to be handled by functional managers? Why would the proposal for subproject managers in functional departments for the bigges projects make sense? Sometimes reasonable proposals get "politicized." What role do you think mutual suspicion plays in this? How could this have been prevented in this case? Comment on the idea tha project managers should display "integrative leadership." In this case, it took a year of discussions prior to implementing the matrix structure an- another 3 years before it started to work reasonably well. Comment on the time you think should take to implement a matrix structure. What factors must be considered?
4. 5. 6. 7. structure. Why would it make sense for smaller projects to be handled by functional managers? Why would the proposal for subproject managers in functional departments for the bigges projects make sense? Sometimes reasonable proposals get "politicized." What role do you think mutual suspicion plays in this? How could this have been prevented in this case? Comment on the idea tha project managers should display "integrative leadership." In this case, it took a year of discussions prior to implementing the matrix structure an- another 3 years before it started to work reasonably well. Comment on the time you think should take to implement a matrix structure. What factors must be considered?
Practical Management Science
6th Edition
ISBN:9781337406659
Author:WINSTON, Wayne L.
Publisher:WINSTON, Wayne L.
Chapter2: Introduction To Spreadsheet Modeling
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 20P: Julie James is opening a lemonade stand. She believes the fixed cost per week of running the stand...
Related questions
Question
Please answer question 4-7
![CASE 15.3 IMPLEMENTING A MATRIX STRUCTURE IN AN R&D
LABORATORY23
The R&D laboratory of a large Dutch multinational corporation served two roles, split roughly
50/50: product/process development (PPD) and support service to product/process development,
production, marketing, and other areas of the corporation. The lab's employees were grouped into
13 departments, 7 (with 85 employees) devoted to PPD, 6 (with 84 employees) providing support
services.
The decision was made to restructure the lab to operate as a matrix, and a policy commit-
tee was appointed to draft a proposal for the restructure. After a year of discussion, a "balanced
matrix" was introduced, and five project managers, recruited from the lab, were appointed to coor-
dinate PPD projects. The functional managers of the restructured R&D departments (who were
excluded from strategic decision-making) felt uneasy about the balanced matrix and suggested
instead a "weak matrix," but they were overruled. Functional managers responsible for PPD com-
plained about loss of operational authority. Those responsible for support services had a different
grievance: in the past, their work supporting stakeholders outside the R&D lab (e.g. production
and marketing) always took precedence over PPD activities, which they performed in whatever
time remained. The matrix now changed that, with priority going to PPD activities with enforced
due dates.
The functional managers, who "didn't feel called upon to cooperate much," rebelled and
ceased making constructive contributions to the projects their departments were involved in.
This forced the project managers to attempt to manage the projects single handedly, which
resulted in serious work overloads. Trying to speed up project work, they stealthily bypassed
functional managers whenever they visited the functional departments. Further contributing to
the rift was the fact that project managers received higher salaries and nicer company cars than
the functional managers.
Twice the functional managers requested that some projects in the project portfolio be del-
egated to their departments. The first time, they created a list of 22 big and 26 small projects
["small" defined as requiring less than 1,000 labor hours per half-year, many that involved only one
or two departments), and they proposed that the small ones be delegated to their departments.
The policy committee (under the leadership of one of the project managers) countered this by](/v2/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcontent.bartleby.com%2Fqna-images%2Fquestion%2F14410480-c945-443b-9efb-944c815a033a%2F1c78b8ef-0c3f-4c78-9fe5-d98939012ada%2Fi9enodt_processed.jpeg&w=3840&q=75)
Transcribed Image Text:CASE 15.3 IMPLEMENTING A MATRIX STRUCTURE IN AN R&D
LABORATORY23
The R&D laboratory of a large Dutch multinational corporation served two roles, split roughly
50/50: product/process development (PPD) and support service to product/process development,
production, marketing, and other areas of the corporation. The lab's employees were grouped into
13 departments, 7 (with 85 employees) devoted to PPD, 6 (with 84 employees) providing support
services.
The decision was made to restructure the lab to operate as a matrix, and a policy commit-
tee was appointed to draft a proposal for the restructure. After a year of discussion, a "balanced
matrix" was introduced, and five project managers, recruited from the lab, were appointed to coor-
dinate PPD projects. The functional managers of the restructured R&D departments (who were
excluded from strategic decision-making) felt uneasy about the balanced matrix and suggested
instead a "weak matrix," but they were overruled. Functional managers responsible for PPD com-
plained about loss of operational authority. Those responsible for support services had a different
grievance: in the past, their work supporting stakeholders outside the R&D lab (e.g. production
and marketing) always took precedence over PPD activities, which they performed in whatever
time remained. The matrix now changed that, with priority going to PPD activities with enforced
due dates.
The functional managers, who "didn't feel called upon to cooperate much," rebelled and
ceased making constructive contributions to the projects their departments were involved in.
This forced the project managers to attempt to manage the projects single handedly, which
resulted in serious work overloads. Trying to speed up project work, they stealthily bypassed
functional managers whenever they visited the functional departments. Further contributing to
the rift was the fact that project managers received higher salaries and nicer company cars than
the functional managers.
Twice the functional managers requested that some projects in the project portfolio be del-
egated to their departments. The first time, they created a list of 22 big and 26 small projects
["small" defined as requiring less than 1,000 labor hours per half-year, many that involved only one
or two departments), and they proposed that the small ones be delegated to their departments.
The policy committee (under the leadership of one of the project managers) countered this by
![cancelling some small projects and integrating others into the big projects. Six months later, the
functional managers noted that some of the biggest projects involved seven to eight departments,
and coordinating work among them was difficult. They proposed that big projects be divided into
subprojects with responsibility delegated to subproject managers within their functional depart-
ments. This proposal was opposed by the project managers and rejected.
The project managers, frustrated that personnel were often shifted between projects by the
functional managers who supplied the personnel, proposed that personnel on larger projects be
assigned to projects "semi-permanently." for a period of, say, 6 months, during which they would
not be reassigned. After a year of deliberation, the proposal was approved despite the opposition
of managers of the service support departments because it compromised their ability to give high-
est priority to service requests. The managers of production and marketing, who wanted quick
response to their requests for services, supported these objections.
Initially, service support tasks that required more than 300 hours were handled by project
managers, and those requiring less were handled by functional managers; later, the 300-hour
threshold was lowered to 100 hours. All service requests were sent directly to the departments for
subsequent assignment to project or functional managers, but the project managers suspected
that functional managers manipulated the rule by creating service projects such that they required
less than 100 hours. They proposed that service requests be sent directly to them, but this was
rejected.
Three years after initiating the matrix structure, the caustic behavior slowly decreased; disa-
greements still existed, but the atmosphere improved. Managers of the support-oriented depart-
ments admitted that the matrix structure improved objective-setting and project control, but they
still favored a weaker form of matrix over the balanced matrix. Managers of the PPD-oriented
departments came to accept the balanced matrix, although the general manager remained unsat-
isfied and suggested that all departments should split their staff into two groups, one for prod-
uct-process development and the other for support work.
QUESTIONS
What would the roles and responsibilities of functional managers have been prior to imple-
mentation of a matrix structure? How did the change in roles contribute to conflict after
implementation of the matrix?
Comment on the complaint of functional managers of support-orientated departments
about due dates being enforced for product development work. What possible solutions do
you suggest?
Many of the projects required the involvement of only one or two departments. Comment
on how this fact should have been taken into account in the design of the organizational
structure.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Why would it make sense for smaller projects to be handled by functional managers?
Why would the proposal for subproject managers in functional departments for the biggest
projects make sense?
Sometimes reasonable proposals get "politicized." What role do you think mutual suspicion
plays in this? How could this have been prevented in this case? Comment on the idea that
project managers should display "integrative leadership."
In this case, it took a year of discussions prior to implementing the matrix structure and
another 3 years before it started to work reasonably well. Comment on the time you think it
should take to implement a matrix structure. What factors must be considered?](/v2/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcontent.bartleby.com%2Fqna-images%2Fquestion%2F14410480-c945-443b-9efb-944c815a033a%2F1c78b8ef-0c3f-4c78-9fe5-d98939012ada%2F9mer9jk_processed.jpeg&w=3840&q=75)
Transcribed Image Text:cancelling some small projects and integrating others into the big projects. Six months later, the
functional managers noted that some of the biggest projects involved seven to eight departments,
and coordinating work among them was difficult. They proposed that big projects be divided into
subprojects with responsibility delegated to subproject managers within their functional depart-
ments. This proposal was opposed by the project managers and rejected.
The project managers, frustrated that personnel were often shifted between projects by the
functional managers who supplied the personnel, proposed that personnel on larger projects be
assigned to projects "semi-permanently." for a period of, say, 6 months, during which they would
not be reassigned. After a year of deliberation, the proposal was approved despite the opposition
of managers of the service support departments because it compromised their ability to give high-
est priority to service requests. The managers of production and marketing, who wanted quick
response to their requests for services, supported these objections.
Initially, service support tasks that required more than 300 hours were handled by project
managers, and those requiring less were handled by functional managers; later, the 300-hour
threshold was lowered to 100 hours. All service requests were sent directly to the departments for
subsequent assignment to project or functional managers, but the project managers suspected
that functional managers manipulated the rule by creating service projects such that they required
less than 100 hours. They proposed that service requests be sent directly to them, but this was
rejected.
Three years after initiating the matrix structure, the caustic behavior slowly decreased; disa-
greements still existed, but the atmosphere improved. Managers of the support-oriented depart-
ments admitted that the matrix structure improved objective-setting and project control, but they
still favored a weaker form of matrix over the balanced matrix. Managers of the PPD-oriented
departments came to accept the balanced matrix, although the general manager remained unsat-
isfied and suggested that all departments should split their staff into two groups, one for prod-
uct-process development and the other for support work.
QUESTIONS
What would the roles and responsibilities of functional managers have been prior to imple-
mentation of a matrix structure? How did the change in roles contribute to conflict after
implementation of the matrix?
Comment on the complaint of functional managers of support-orientated departments
about due dates being enforced for product development work. What possible solutions do
you suggest?
Many of the projects required the involvement of only one or two departments. Comment
on how this fact should have been taken into account in the design of the organizational
structure.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Why would it make sense for smaller projects to be handled by functional managers?
Why would the proposal for subproject managers in functional departments for the biggest
projects make sense?
Sometimes reasonable proposals get "politicized." What role do you think mutual suspicion
plays in this? How could this have been prevented in this case? Comment on the idea that
project managers should display "integrative leadership."
In this case, it took a year of discussions prior to implementing the matrix structure and
another 3 years before it started to work reasonably well. Comment on the time you think it
should take to implement a matrix structure. What factors must be considered?
Expert Solution
![](/static/compass_v2/shared-icons/check-mark.png)
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
![Blurred answer](/static/compass_v2/solution-images/blurred-answer.jpg)
Recommended textbooks for you
![Practical Management Science](https://www.bartleby.com/isbn_cover_images/9781337406659/9781337406659_smallCoverImage.gif)
Practical Management Science
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781337406659
Author:
WINSTON, Wayne L.
Publisher:
Cengage,
![Operations Management](https://www.bartleby.com/isbn_cover_images/9781259667473/9781259667473_smallCoverImage.gif)
Operations Management
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781259667473
Author:
William J Stevenson
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
![Operations and Supply Chain Management (Mcgraw-hi…](https://www.bartleby.com/isbn_cover_images/9781259666100/9781259666100_smallCoverImage.gif)
Operations and Supply Chain Management (Mcgraw-hi…
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781259666100
Author:
F. Robert Jacobs, Richard B Chase
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
![Practical Management Science](https://www.bartleby.com/isbn_cover_images/9781337406659/9781337406659_smallCoverImage.gif)
Practical Management Science
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781337406659
Author:
WINSTON, Wayne L.
Publisher:
Cengage,
![Operations Management](https://www.bartleby.com/isbn_cover_images/9781259667473/9781259667473_smallCoverImage.gif)
Operations Management
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781259667473
Author:
William J Stevenson
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
![Operations and Supply Chain Management (Mcgraw-hi…](https://www.bartleby.com/isbn_cover_images/9781259666100/9781259666100_smallCoverImage.gif)
Operations and Supply Chain Management (Mcgraw-hi…
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781259666100
Author:
F. Robert Jacobs, Richard B Chase
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
![Business in Action](https://www.bartleby.com/isbn_cover_images/9780135198100/9780135198100_smallCoverImage.gif)
![Purchasing and Supply Chain Management](https://www.bartleby.com/isbn_cover_images/9781285869681/9781285869681_smallCoverImage.gif)
Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781285869681
Author:
Robert M. Monczka, Robert B. Handfield, Larry C. Giunipero, James L. Patterson
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
![Production and Operations Analysis, Seventh Editi…](https://www.bartleby.com/isbn_cover_images/9781478623069/9781478623069_smallCoverImage.gif)
Production and Operations Analysis, Seventh Editi…
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781478623069
Author:
Steven Nahmias, Tava Lennon Olsen
Publisher:
Waveland Press, Inc.