Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Business
Management
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? 1. 2. 3. 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.

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? 1. 2. 3. 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.

Understanding Business
Understanding Business
12th Edition
ISBN:9781259929434
Author:William Nickels
Publisher:William Nickels
Chapter1: Taking Risks And Making Profits Within The Dynamic Business Environment
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1CE
See similar textbooks
icon
Related questions
Question

Please, answer quetion 1-3

**Case 15.3 Implementing a Matrix Structure in an R&D Laboratory** 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 committee 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 coordinate 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 complained 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 delegated 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...
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 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 committee 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 coordinate 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 complained 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 delegated 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...
**Transcription for Educational Website:** --- 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 departments. 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 highest 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; disagreements still existed, but the atmosphere improved. Managers of the support-oriented departments 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 unsatisfied and suggested that all departments should split their staff into two groups, one for product-process development and the other for support work. **Questions** 1. What would the roles and responsibilities of functional managers have been prior to implementation of a matrix structure? How did the change in roles contribute to conflict after implementation of the matrix? 2. Comment on the complaint of functional managers of support-orientated departments about due dates being enforced for product development work. What possible solutions would you suggest? 3. 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
Transcribed Image Text:**Transcription for Educational Website:** --- 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 departments. 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 highest 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; disagreements still existed, but the atmosphere improved. Managers of the support-oriented departments 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 unsatisfied and suggested that all departments should split their staff into two groups, one for product-process development and the other for support work. **Questions** 1. What would the roles and responsibilities of functional managers have been prior to implementation of a matrix structure? How did the change in roles contribute to conflict after implementation of the matrix? 2. Comment on the complaint of functional managers of support-orientated departments about due dates being enforced for product development work. What possible solutions would you suggest? 3. 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
Expert Solution
steps

Step by step

Solved in 5 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer
Similar questions
Recommended textbooks for you
Understanding Business
Understanding Business
Management
ISBN:
9781259929434
Author:
William Nickels
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)
Management (14th Edition)
Management
ISBN:
9780134527604
Author:
Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter
Publisher:
PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract…
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract…
Management
ISBN:
9781305947412
Author:
Cliff Ragsdale
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi…
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi…
Management
ISBN:
9780135191798
Author:
Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. Laudon
Publisher:
PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in…
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in…
Management
ISBN:
9780134728391
Author:
Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. Griffin
Publisher:
PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)
Management
ISBN:
9780134237473
Author:
Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De Cenzo
Publisher:
PEARSON
SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS