on Tue, 26 May 1998 08:11:56, Phil Rutherford wrote, Re: Matrix organizations
>
[...]
>>From Phil:
>[....]it is the people who articulate the objectives, not
>the organisation. This means that the competencies of each staff member
>should be such that they are capable of doing this - from both the point of
>view of the staff members responsible for developing and maintaining the
>objectives to those who are responsible for providing input into this
>maintenance and on to those who are responsible for doing whatever it is
>they do to make achievement of these objectives a reality.
[...] in my experience if all staff are involved in
>developing and achieving these goals and objectives then there is an
>evolving and growing ownership that takes up the impetus and momentum of
>achievements. However, as I said, this is really only best carried out by
>people who have the competencies to do so.
>
[...]
>>From Phil:
>I don't believe that a clear definition of the goals and objectives must be
>completed before "going matrix". [...]
>So, goals and objectives can appear out of thin air (as they usually do)
>but they don't necessarily have to be in their final, pristine form before
>the organisation can begin to move ahead. We don't always need to know what
>lays around the next corner before we set out on our trip. Simply reviewing
>and increasing goals and objectives is, in my experience, one method of
>moving ahead regardless of the point at which the goals start their life.
>
[...]
>>From Phil:
>I think all of these questions can be answered along the lines of the
>following: As I said above, it is not the matrix (or the organisation) that
>makes things happen - it is the people. Matrixes don't move to counter new
>or emerging threats - the people do. If the competencies of each function
>within the matrix are written correctly (and, sadly, in my experience very
>few are) then the people holding those functions will have responsibility
>for adapting to change, adapting to changes in the competencies of
>themselves (ie, the incumbents of the function), and becoming more
>innovative (if I read the last question correctly).
>
>One of the bad habits we have when discussing organisations is that we
>actually speak only of the organisation (or matrix) as if it itself was
>capable of change. It is the people that change and grow, not the
>organisation. The latter is, after all, only a bunch of bricks and mortar -
>anything that happens within it does so because of, and on behalf of, the
>people. [...]
>To me a matrix organisation is only really a way to describe how it is
>structured in terms of functions (but, sadly, some of these can very easily
>turn into little fiefdoms if the people let it happen). It doesn't require
>the overlaying of any other structure to make things happen. It takes a
>change in the way the competencies for each function within it are
>described and the application of the skills and knowledge of the
>individuals filling these functions.
>
[...] Matrix or any other kind of organisation must have commitment right
>throughout to make it work. If not then everything will degenerate back to
>what is most comfortable for the ethos and customs of the organisation -
>usually a hierarchical structure in which the person with the loudest voice
>is the boss and those who couldn't be bothered arguing (or are too scared
>to argue) follow along. Sadly, those with the loudest voice are not always
>at management level either - there are many organisations where the
>employee representation is much stronger than the management leadership so
>no matter what form of structure is in place, it will always be run in a
>manner most likely to appease those with the most to lose.
>
These are very good points and, like all good points, raise a couple of
other questions. If it is all people, then why are we even discussing the
pro-con of matrix organizations? If organizational form has no influence
on what gets said, decided and done then why have any organizational form?
Too bad we can't have a cup of coffee over this, Phil, because I think
organizational form is more than bricks and mortar. I think it is a main
determinant of the relationship styles that will exist between the people.
This is important because the nature of those styles are a much more
powerful determinant of the achievements of the group than are the
individual competencies of the members. Of course, size of group is the
most important and we haven't even factored that in.
If there is matrix then there are two influence axes and Ithink it is
important to decide which axis is responsible for what. Having a Project
Team decide objectives for its own project is problematical enough but what
do you do with ten Project Teams -- especially if they disagree?
My first-order recipe is to make the functional (discipline) axis
responsible for the provisioning of resources (including the competencies
of all members (identification, anticipation, development, certification,
etc.)) while the project axis is responsible for the delivery of output and
the efficient use of resources. The functional axis' only fixed budget is
the competency development budget (about 10% of payroll). All other
funding they have to secure from their "customer," the Projects. Failing
this, they eat the overhead until they get rid of "overcapacity or
obsolesence." They are measured on "Asset Turnover" which is similar to
Utilization Rate in a consulting business (but flavored with the concept of
a learning curve so that each project is done for less than the prior
equivalent one).
Jack Ring
Innovation Management
sendmail:
jring@amug.org -