Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Business
Operations Management
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
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...
See similar textbooks
icon
Related questions
Question

Please answer question 4-7

**Case 15.3: Implementing a Matrix Structure in an R&D Laboratory** The R&D laboratory of a large Dutch multinational corporation originally operated with a 50/50 division between product/process development (PPD) and support services. These two roles focused on various corporate areas including production, marketing, and others. The lab consisted of 13 departments, with 7 (85 employees) dedicated to PPD and 6 departments (84 employees) for support services. A decision was made to restructure the lab into a matrix organization. After a year-long discussion, a "balanced matrix" was chosen. Five project managers, recruited internally, were tasked with coordinating PPD projects. Functional managers of the R&D departments—excluded from strategic decision-making—were uneasy about the matrix, preferring a "weak matrix." However, their objections were dismissed. Functional managers dedicated to PPD expressed concern over the loss of authority, while support services managers felt aggrieved, as they previously prioritized stakeholder work outside the R&D lab over PPD activities. The matrix shifted this, giving priority to PPD projects with strict deadlines. Discontented functional managers ceased supporting projects, forcing project managers to navigate projects alone, leading to work overload. In attempts to improve efficiency, project managers circumvented them in dealings with their departments. Tensions were heightened by disparities in compensation and company benefits between project and functional managers. Functional managers twice requested that certain projects be transferred back to their departments. They initially proposed transferring smaller projects (under 1,000 labor hours per half-year). The policy committee, influenced by a project manager, rebuffed this approach. --- This content is designed to provide educational insights into the challenges and dynamics of implementing a matrix structure within an R&D environment.
Transcribed Image Text:**Case 15.3: Implementing a Matrix Structure in an R&D Laboratory** The R&D laboratory of a large Dutch multinational corporation originally operated with a 50/50 division between product/process development (PPD) and support services. These two roles focused on various corporate areas including production, marketing, and others. The lab consisted of 13 departments, with 7 (85 employees) dedicated to PPD and 6 departments (84 employees) for support services. A decision was made to restructure the lab into a matrix organization. After a year-long discussion, a "balanced matrix" was chosen. Five project managers, recruited internally, were tasked with coordinating PPD projects. Functional managers of the R&D departments—excluded from strategic decision-making—were uneasy about the matrix, preferring a "weak matrix." However, their objections were dismissed. Functional managers dedicated to PPD expressed concern over the loss of authority, while support services managers felt aggrieved, as they previously prioritized stakeholder work outside the R&D lab over PPD activities. The matrix shifted this, giving priority to PPD projects with strict deadlines. Discontented functional managers ceased supporting projects, forcing project managers to navigate projects alone, leading to work overload. In attempts to improve efficiency, project managers circumvented them in dealings with their departments. Tensions were heightened by disparities in compensation and company benefits between project and functional managers. Functional managers twice requested that certain projects be transferred back to their departments. They initially proposed transferring smaller projects (under 1,000 labor hours per half-year). The policy committee, influenced by a project manager, rebuffed this approach. --- This content is designed to provide educational insights into the challenges and dynamics of implementing a matrix structure within an R&D environment.
**Text Content for Educational Website:** The article discusses the challenges and proposals involved in implementing a matrix structure in a company. Originally, big projects required coordination across seven to eight departments, which led to coordination difficulties. Functional managers suggested dividing big projects into subprojects managed within their departments, but project managers opposed this. Frustrated with the frequent shifting of personnel, project managers proposed assigning personnel to large projects semi-permanently for about six months. Despite functional managers' concerns about compromising service request priorities, this was approved after a year. An initial service support rule stated tasks requiring over 300 hours were to be managed by project managers, but a revision lowered this to 100 hours, with all service requests going directly to departments. Project managers suspected manipulation by functional managers. Three years later, the atmosphere improved despite ongoing disagreements. Managers admitted the matrix structure enhanced objective-setting. However, there were differing opinions on matrix strength, with suggestions to split staff based on project and support work. **Questions:** 1. What roles and responsibilities did functional managers have prior to matrix structure implementation? How did role changes contribute to post-implementation conflict? 2. Address the complaint from functional managers about enforced due dates in support departments. What suggestions can be made? 3. Many projects involved only a few departments. How should this influence organizational structure design? 4. Why is it logical for functional managers to handle smaller projects? 5. Does assigning subproject managers in functional departments to manage significant projects make sense? 6. How does mutual suspicion affect proposal politicization? What is "integrative leadership"? 7. Why did it take over a year for matrix implementation discussions and another three for it to function reasonably? Comment on considerations for matrix structure implementation.
Transcribed Image Text:**Text Content for Educational Website:** The article discusses the challenges and proposals involved in implementing a matrix structure in a company. Originally, big projects required coordination across seven to eight departments, which led to coordination difficulties. Functional managers suggested dividing big projects into subprojects managed within their departments, but project managers opposed this. Frustrated with the frequent shifting of personnel, project managers proposed assigning personnel to large projects semi-permanently for about six months. Despite functional managers' concerns about compromising service request priorities, this was approved after a year. An initial service support rule stated tasks requiring over 300 hours were to be managed by project managers, but a revision lowered this to 100 hours, with all service requests going directly to departments. Project managers suspected manipulation by functional managers. Three years later, the atmosphere improved despite ongoing disagreements. Managers admitted the matrix structure enhanced objective-setting. However, there were differing opinions on matrix strength, with suggestions to split staff based on project and support work. **Questions:** 1. What roles and responsibilities did functional managers have prior to matrix structure implementation? How did role changes contribute to post-implementation conflict? 2. Address the complaint from functional managers about enforced due dates in support departments. What suggestions can be made? 3. Many projects involved only a few departments. How should this influence organizational structure design? 4. Why is it logical for functional managers to handle smaller projects? 5. Does assigning subproject managers in functional departments to manage significant projects make sense? 6. How does mutual suspicion affect proposal politicization? What is "integrative leadership"? 7. Why did it take over a year for matrix implementation discussions and another three for it to function reasonably? Comment on considerations for matrix structure implementation.
Expert Solution
steps

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer
Similar questions
  • SEE MORE QUESTIONS
Recommended textbooks for you
Practical Management Science
Practical Management Science
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781337406659
Author:
WINSTON, Wayne L.
Publisher:
Cengage,
Operations Management
Operations Management
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781259667473
Author:
William J Stevenson
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Operations and Supply Chain Management (Mcgraw-hi…
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
Business in Action
Operations Management
ISBN:
9780135198100
Author:
BOVEE
Publisher:
PEARSON CO
Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
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…
Production and Operations Analysis, Seventh Editi…
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781478623069
Author:
Steven Nahmias, Tava Lennon Olsen
Publisher:
Waveland Press, Inc.
SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS