Question

One of the challenges in project management is to identify the appropriate organisational structure in which to manage the project.

1. Briefly outline the different types of organisational structures that exist in which projects can be managed. ex : matrix structure,functional organizational and dedicated project team  
2. Identify the key criteria that will influence the choice of organisational structure for a project.         

Answer 1

Different types of organisational structures that exist in which projects can be managed are:

A common way to differentiate between business organizational structures is between ongoing operational work versus capital projects. Operational work maintains an existing sales channel, whereas projects are one-time, unique expenditures with a defined budget, beginning and end dates, and they accomplish a specific goal.

There are four types of organizational structures, each of which has their own unique set of influences on the management of the organization’s projects:

1. Functional
2. Project
3. Matrix
4. Composite

Functional

Most organizations are divided along functional lines, that is, each “division” is organized by work type, such as engineering, production, or sales.In the functional organizational structure, projects are initiated and executed by the divisional managers, who assume the project manager duties in addition to their regular, functional, roles. They are often given secondary titles such as “Coordinator of Project X.”

In this structure, project managers usually don’t have alot of authority to obtain resources or to manage schedules and budgets. They must obtain approvals to utilize resources from other departments, which can be a complex undertaking. This is because the functional organization is designed to focus on the provision of the divisional services rather than project deliverables.

Project-Oriented

On the other end of the scale is the project-oriented organization. These companies do most of their work on a project basis and are therefore structured around projects. This includes construction contractors, architectural firms, and consultants.

Project managers are usually full time in the role, and for small projects they might manage several projects at once.

In this structure project managers usually have a great deal of independence and authority. They are able to draw on resources with little required approval.

In fact, most of these types of organizations have some form of functional divisions which are placeholders for resources that can be utilized by all projects. They are usually called “departments.”

For example, at an engineering firm the geotechnical department is available as an expert resource to all projects within the firm.

Matrix

Although the project-oriented and functional structures are at opposite ends of the spectrum, it is possible to be located somewhere in between (a hybrid). In fact, most organizations are along some level of the spectrum, utilizing a structure that gives project managers a bit more authority without losing focus on the provision of functional services.

In the typical matrix structure, a project manager is assigned from within one of the functional departments in either a part time or full time capacity. They are assigned project team members from various departments, who are released from their departmental duties (at least partially). Thus, a high priority can be placed on the project while maintaining the functional division services.

However, the project manager and team members are still paid by their respective functional departments, thus the final accountability for the project still lies at the functional level. For example, if one of the department managers thinks that they have contributed more than their fair share, the project will stall quickly.

From a theoretical point of view, there are two more adjustments that can be made. A weak matrix retains the management of the project in the hands of the functional managers instead of the project team.

On the other side, a strong matrix is still a functional organizational structure, but has a completely separate project management arm. All of the project roles are still fulfilled within the functional departments, but the project manager is on the same level as the functional managers.

In spite of its name, the terms strong and weak matrix are not meant to imply a level of desirability to the organization. The names have been coined by the project management industry which has studied the role of projects within organizations, and hence they correspond to strength or weakness in achieving project success. But if that comes at the expense of poorer delivery of functional services, the organizational’s goals are not necessarily being achieved. Hence, the correct project organizational structure is one which achieves the organization’s goals, and this can fall anywhere along the project/functional spectrum according to the specific needs of the organization and/or project.

Composite

Functional organizations and project-oriented organizations are at opposite ends of the spectrum and matrix organizations fall somewhere in between. But it is possible to utilize both structures at the same time. Therefore, there is a fourth option that requires mention, the composite structure.

This occurs when a project structure and a functional structure both report to a central executive.

For example, a state government department of transportation has a maintenance division which seeks to maintain the level of service of the state’s roads and bridges, and a capital projects division which builds new roads and bridges. The maintenance division and the capital projects division are located side by side, reporting to the executive. This is a composite organizational structure (A matrix structure would require new construction to occur within one of the maintenance departments – the project manager would report to a functional manager rather than the executive).

Most organizations lean one way or the other rather than using both structures, because of the drastically different management styles necessary to perform each of the roles well.

Examples

• A car dealership wants to initiate a new sales process. It assigns the design and implementation to the sales manager, who utilizes some of the sales as well as maintenance personnel to develop the necessary documents and implement the plan. This is a functional organizational structure.
• A web design firm has a user interface design department, which is available for project work when necessary. The UI department supports the firm’s projects and doesn’t otherwise carry out much work on its own. This is a project-oriented organizational structure.
• A vehicle manufacturing firm sets up a project to modernize its assembly line, whereby the project manager is dedicated full time to the project and reports to the executive. The project manager chooses their project team from the design, production, and maintenance departments, who must balance their time between their regular duties and achieving their project work. This is a strong matrix organization.

Key criteria that will influence the choice of organisational structure for a project are mentioned below:

Although many things can affect the choice of an appropriate structure for an organization, the following five factors are the most common: size, life cycle, strategy, environment, and technology.

Organizational size

The larger an organization becomes, the more complicated its structure. When an organization is small — such as a single retail store, a two‐person consulting firm, or a restaurant — its structure can be simple.

In reality, if the organization is very small, it may not even have a formal structure. Instead of following an organizational chart or specified job functions, individuals simply perform tasks based on their likes, dislikes, ability, and/or need. Rules and guidelines are not prevalent and may exist only to provide the parameters within which organizational members can make decisions. Small organizations are very often organic systems.

As an organization grows, however, it becomes increasingly difficult to manage without more formal work assignments and some delegation of authority. Therefore, large organizations develop formal structures. Tasks are highly specialized, and detailed rules and guidelines dictate work procedures. Interorganizational communication flows primarily from superior to subordinate, and hierarchical relationships serve as the foundation for authority, responsibility, and control. The type of structure that develops will be one that provides the organization with the ability to operate effectively. That's one reason larger organizations are often mechanistic—mechanistic systems are usually designed to maximize specialization and improve efficiency.

Organization life cycle

Organizations, like humans, tend to progress through stages known as a life cycle. Like humans, most organizations go through the following four stages: birth, youth, midlife, and maturity. Each stage has characteristics that have implications for the structure of the firm.

• Birth: In the birth state, a firm is just beginning. An organization in the birth stage does not yet have a formal structure. In a young organization, there is not much delegation of authority. The founder usually “calls the shots.”

• Youth: In this phase, the organization is trying to grow. The emphasis in this stage is on becoming larger. The company shifts its attention from the wishes of the founder to the wishes of the customer. The organization becomes more organic in structure during this phase. It is during this phase that the formal structure is designed, and some delegation of authority occurs.

• Midlife: This phase occurs when the organization has achieved a high level of success. An organization in midlife is larger, with a more complex and increasingly formal structure. More levels appear in the chain of command, and the founder may have difficulty remaining in control. As the organization becomes older, it may also become more mechanistic in structure.

• Maturity: Once a firm has reached the maturity phase, it tends to become less innovative, less interested in expanding, and more interested in maintaining itself in a stable, secure environment. The emphasis is on improving efficiency and profitability. However, in an attempt to improve efficiency and profitability, the firm often tends to become less innovative. Stale products result in sales declines and reduced profitability. Organizations in this stage are slowly dying. However, maturity is not an inevitable stage. Firms experiencing the decline of maturity may institute the changes necessary to revitalize.

Although an organization may proceed sequentially through all four stages, it does not have to. An organization may skip a phase, or it may cycle back to an earlier phase. An organization may even try to change its position in the life cycle by changing its structure.

As the life‐cycle concept implies, a relationship exists between an organization's size and age. As organizations age, they tend to get larger; thus, the structural changes a firm experiences as it gets larger and the changes it experiences as it progresses through the life cycle are parallel. Therefore, the older the organization and the larger the organization, the greater its need for more structure, more specialization of tasks, and more rules. As a result, the older and larger the organization becomes, the greater the likelihood that it will move from an organic structure to a mechanistic structure.

Strategy

How an organization is going to position itself in the market in terms of its product is considered its strategy. A company may decide to be always the first on the market with the newest and best product (differentiation strategy), or it may decide that it will produce a product already on the market more efficiently and more cost effectively (cost‐leadership strategy). Each of these strategies requires a structure that helps the organization reach its objectives. In other words, the structure must fit the strategy.

Companies that want to be the first on the market with the newest and best product probably are organic, because organic structures permit organizations to respond quickly to changes. Companies that elect to produce the same products more efficiently and effectively will probably be mechanistic.

Environment

The environment is the world in which the organization operates, and includes conditions that influence the organization such as economic, social‐cultural, legal‐political, technological, and natural environment conditions. Environments are often described as either stable or dynamic.

• In a stable environment, the customers' desires are well understood and probably will remain consistent for a relatively long time. Examples of organizations that face relatively stable environments include manufacturers of staple items such as detergent, cleaning supplies, and paper products.

• In a dynamic environment, the customers' desires are continuously changing—the opposite of a stable environment. This condition is often thought of as turbulent. In addition, the technology that a company uses while in this environment may need to be continuously improved and updated. An example of an industry functioning in a dynamic environment is electronics. Technology changes create competitive pressures for all electronics industries, because as technology changes, so do the desires of consumers.

In general, organizations that operate in stable external environments find mechanistic structures to be advantageous. This system provides a level of efficiency that enhances the long‐term performances of organizations that enjoy relatively stable operating environments. In contrast, organizations that operate in volatile and frequently changing environments are more likely to find that an organic structure provides the greatest benefits. This structure allows the organization to respond to environment change more proactively.

Advances in technology are the most frequent cause of change in organizations since they generally result in greater efficiency and lower costs for the firm. Technology is the way tasks are accomplished using tools, equipment, techniques, and human know‐how.

In the early 1960s, Joan Woodward found that the right combination of structure and technology were critical to organizational success. She conducted a study of technology and structure in more than 100 English manufacturing firms, which she classified into three categories of core‐manufacturing technology:

• Small‐batch production is used to manufacture a variety of custom, made‐to‐order goods. Each item is made somewhat differently to meet a customer's specifications. A print shop is an example of a business that uses small‐batch production.
• Mass production is used to create a large number of uniform goods in an assembly‐line system. Workers are highly dependent on one another, as the product passes from stage to stage until completion. Equipment may be sophisticated, and workers often follow detailed instructions while performing simplified jobs. A company that bottles soda pop is an example of an organization that utilizes mass production.
• Organizations using continuous‐process production create goods by continuously feeding raw materials, such as liquid, solids, and gases, through a highly automated system. Such systems are equipment intensive, but can often be operated by a relatively small labor force. Classic examples are automated chemical plants and oil refineries.

Woodward discovered that small‐batch and continuous processes had more flexible structures, and the best mass‐production operations were more rigid structures.

Once again, organizational design depends on the type of business. The small‐batch and continuous processes work well in organic structures and mass production operations work best in mechanistic structures.