- Email: [email protected]
Introducing formal project management into a traditional, functionally structured organization
Introducing formal project management into a traditional, functionally structured organization J H Payne
The traditional, functionally structured organization is well suited to a single process operation such as a manufacturing production line. However, this structure does not easily permit the crossfunctional coordination that is essential to successful project performance. The paper reviews two of the most common problems that are encountered when an attempt is made to introduce formal project management into a traditional, functionally structured organization. Possible actions for alleviating the problems are then described. These problems are (a) mistrust and conflict between functional groups and the project ofice, and (b) the selection and establishment of an appropriate project -team structure. These are primarily problems of resistance to change, and they] are hence ‘people’ problems, rather than problems with the systems or practices themselves. Keywords:
intergroup
conJlict, project-team
structures
Problems are commonly experienced with the introduction of project management into a functionally structured organization, as the need for it may not be perceived by all those who will be affected by its introduction’,2. In the circumstances of a difference of opinion over the need for this management change, relationships between those parties holding opposing views will deteriorate. Groups of supporters will polarize, and the original problem will be exacerbated. This then changes the scale of the problem and its nature. 64 Hollybush
Road,
Kingston-upon-Thames,
Vol 11 No 4 November
1993
Surrey
KT2 SE,
UK
Should a new organization structure be imposed by higher management, against the background of this disagreement, it may be regarded as ‘repressive or exploitative control and hence something to be resisted and even sabotaged’2. However, a change of organization structure will be needed to facilitate the effective and efficient performance of projects.
MISTRUST AND CONFLICT When the introduction of project management is considered, it must be remembered that the majority of senior managers have grown into their positions via a traditional hierarchy. They are on familiar ground, and they will tend to be conservative with respect to change. They will feel a loyalty to their immediate juniors, and the functional managers, and may not wish to change their working relationships with them. These functional managers may perceive a loss of status or influence that is associated with the introduction of what they see as an additional layer of management between themselves and ‘their’ staff. If this is so, they will mistrust and resist the change. This mistrust may, indirectly, threaten the crossfunctional coordination that the project requires. There appears, typically, under these circumstances to be a danger of lack of communication with the people doing the work. The functional managers want to know what is going on, as they perceive a diminution of their status and influence, when a project manager is given control over ‘their’ staff. They therefore want to attend all the meetings, to make sure that they are not losing out in some way. The functional project-team member needs to be at the meetings, so that he/she can be effectively coordinated,
0263-7863/93/040239-05
0 1993 Butterworth-Heinemann
Ltd
239
Introducing formal project management
into a traditional,
and understand how his/her element fits into the project whole. The project manager then has to call too large a meeting, which is normally unproductive, or leave out the junior staff member. He/she therefore does not call a meeting at all, and speaks, individually, to each team member, and nobody, except him/her, fully understands the project needs as a whole. Functional managers are not the only ones who may perceive a loss to themselves. The technical specialists may feel that their career progression is threatened by this ‘additional layer of management’. The functional specialists’ first loyalties are often to the discipline from whence they came. This makes it difficult for them to become ‘too involved” with the project, especially if there is a conflict between the project and functional requirements. When conflicts arise between the project and the functional organization, ‘the projects always suffered’3. They may also have fears that ‘the quality of their work will be sacrificed to pressures for speed and cost-cutting coming from . . . programme managers’2. This can be seen, for example, in resistance to providing rapid responses to requests for technical input to proposals. It is possible that an individual (or the members of a department) with a mistrust of the motives for the new management style, may feel that there is an imbalance between the effort he/she must now exert, to fulfil new requirements, and the perceived reward for meeting them. Under these circumstances, there is little inclination to comply, and delays and obstacles may be generated4. This, in turn, generates a mistrust of that individual by others. They come to expect that he/she will not cooperate. Monitoring of performance and checking on productivity then follows’. This overt display of mistrust then becomes a vicious circle of deteriorating relationships. Functional departments, forced into a project structure against their will, may lack commitment to a project. They may not accept that they have ‘ownership of part of the work, and continuously expect the project office to bail them outy5. An example of this is when a functional department is continuously late with its project deliverables, and expects the project manager to change the programme (the infamous ‘update’), rather than produce on time. With all these problems boiling below(?) the surface, it can be seen that strong management support is necessary to encourage the acceptance of change. This may not be forthcoming. The reason for this is not always known, but, in some cases, senior executives do not like being advised how to achieve better management. They can see this advice as criticism of their present management style or performance2.
PROJECT-TEAM
STRUCTURE
Incorrect project structures lead to frustration, low morale and poor motivation. It is essential to get the choice of structure as near correct as possible. There is a tendency, once the need for formal project management is recognized, to rush into dedicated task teams. While this does provide several advantages, 240
functionally
structured
organization
related to singleness of purpose, the reduction of conflicting calls on resources, and the security within the team of any confidential/secret information, it does have disadvantages. If a team is too small, specialist areas will have very little representation on the team. One resource alone is risky, as, if that person is sick, or on leave, who will carry out his/her role? If approaches are made to the functional head for help, the new resource (if provided) will have a long learning curve, which may even exceed the period of the requirement for the replacement. Should the specialist leave the company, nobody will understand what he/she was doing, and the position is worse. In dedicated task teams, there is a tendency for the specialists to lose touch with their counterparts on other projects. Some writers refer to the task team as a ‘project island’6. This causes the loss of the crossfertilization of ideas which normally occurs within a functional department. Specialists may fall behind with regard to the latest ideas that are not used on ‘their’ project. This compounds the specialists’ fears with respect to their career progression. They could also needlessly duplicate work on different projects3. If a project team is established as a dedicated taskforce, there are additional problems that are related to the temporary nature of projects. Teams are characterized by short-term (shallow?) relationships which are not the most conducive to quality performance. Gilbreath writes of the need to create ‘networks’ of people who work together regularly, but not necessarily all on the same projects at the same time. However, he points out the following. ‘The formation of ongoing networks that help to transcend artificial organizational barriers requires time and patience. Neither are bountiful in a project setting.‘7 Another problem with the establishment of project dedicated task teams is the insecurity that exists within the project team as the project draws to a close. There is an inclination to continue the project, and to find extra ‘loose ends’ to complete, to maintain employment, as the future is uncertain. Thus the project overruns in both time and cost. The disbandment of a dedicated team also brings with it the question of who is available to answer queries, in relation to problems with a project, that arise after its supposed completion? This is especially a problem when ‘the projects are small and of short duration’*. In theory, the matrix structural form preserves the benefits, such as information sharing and continuity, of the functional-department structure, while enabling crossfunctional coordination on a project basis7. However, the matrix is inherently unstable. The project-team member has two masters, his/her functional manager, and the project manager. There is a tendency for a power struggle to develop between the functional manager and the project manager for control of the staff member. Entrenched differences can be established between the two arms of a matrix, which can only be resolved by senior-management intervention6. This places an extra workload on senior management, making the adoption of a matrix structure a ‘hassle’. International
Journal
of Project
Management
J H PAYNE
The successful adoption of a matrix structure requires a mature approach from all participants. It does not matter how much monitoring is done by senior management; if the participants are unwilling, the change will fail. The need for change has to be recognized and encouraged by visible, credible, early success which can be held up as an example of the validity of thought behind the planned change’. Nothing succeeds like success. The successful introduction of a matrix typically takes longer than many managements naively estimate’. A period of 36 months has been suggested for the introduction of project management to be ‘institutionalized”. It is not clear whether Kessel included the structural change to a matrix form within his estimate. The author’s experience suggests that a longer period may easily be necessary. It will depend on the degree of entrenchment of the existing structure and practices, together with the flexibility of the staff concerned. POSSIBLE
RESOLUTION
OF PROBLEMS
In~uential support The perception of the need for project management will be first acquired by someone who is close enough to the business to recognize that the reason for poor performance is the lack of clear objectives, cohesion etc. This may be a well informed member of senior management, an outside consultant, an internally appointed investigator, or a middle manager struggling with the status quo. This person’s task is then to convince senior management, or the rest of the senior management, that change is needed. This can hopefully be achieved by the comparison of such things as project-cost estimates and planned programmes against actual costs and programmes, and by studies of working methods. Having convinced the people with the power to command change that change is necessary, it is vital to gain their support. This may be covert during the planning stage, but it very soon has to be overt and sustained. Those affected by the change must know that the senior management are committed to the change’. It has been shown that there is no best way of introducing change, but that a major factor in the success of innovation is top-management support ‘JO. However, other key power holders and opinion leaders, such as staff representatives and respected colleagues, also influence the attitudes and opinions of others, and, therefore, their open support is worth seeking’. Planning introduction Support for the introduction of project management having been obtained, it is important to plan the introduction as a project. Project management is all about the management of change, and here one is considering a major change, in management style and also cultural attitude. If the change is not pIanned as a project, the need for project management in what is probably its most critical venture is denied. Zaltman and Duncan’ have carried out a considerable amount of work on the use of different strategies to Vol Ii No 4 November
1993
invoke change. They write of a spectrum ranging from minimal external pressure with educative strategies, through persuasive or facilitative strategies, to maximum external pressure using power strategies. Different strategies could be used at different times during the change, or with different groups of people. The ideal technique is seen to be to start by creating awareness with educative strategies, and to move to facilitative strategies to effect the change. If resistance is encountered, the power strategy must be used. If speed is essential, power strategies are used, followed by reeducation strategies, which explain the need for the change which has taken place. While consultation and educative strategies are attractive, if there is opposition to change, ‘consultation and participation are likely to be used simply as opportunities for obstructing implementation’2. Most writers have made a point of stating that, whichever strategic approach is being taken at the time, once the project for making the change is announced, the most important factor after visible and vigorous senior-management support is communication. The communication about what is happening reduces uncertainty~~, keeps the project in everybody’s mind, and increases the level of acceptance of inevitability in the minds of doubters who are not actively resisting. Organizational
structure
The research of Gobeli and Larsoni’ found that, inbetween the functional organization and the dedicated project team, project organizations could be grouped ’ into three versions of a matrix. Two versions of the matrix have variations of bias in the relative power and authority of the functional management and project-management elements. Gobeli and Larson called these two variations, biased on either side of a truly balanced matrix, a function matrix and a project, or secondment, matrixi2. These ‘biased’ matrix forms tend to be more stable. Thus, the insecurity felt by the staff member with two masters is atleviated, at least in part. However, monitoring of the matrix performance is still necessary to ensure that infighting and power struggles, which tilt the bias first one way and then the other, do not destroy the advantages of the structure change. The interesting part came when Gobeli and Larson looked at project performance Ver.sU.sproject organizations’*. They found that technical-performance success varied from 50% for functional and functional-matrix forms, through 70% for a balanced matrix, to just under 80% for project-matrix and dedicated project-team organizations. They found that this pattern of success rate, being proportional to the authority of the project manager, was even more pronounced for schedule and cost results. Here, success rates for the project matrix and the dedicated project team were about double that of the functional and functional-matrix organizations. Unsu~risingly, it seems that, when the objective is the completion of the project, a project biased matrix is most effective. Additionally, the longer-term benefits of the existing functional structure are preserved. 241
Introducing .foinml prqject munugement into a tmditional, jkctionall~
of The introduction of any form of matrix is perceived by functional line managers as a loss of power and influence. This must be counteracted by the view that the project management does not replace line management; it supplements it, improving crossfunctional communication and problem resolution. The change situation should be presented as an opportunity for growth and self development’O,“. Functional personnel should be encouraged to think of the removal of project control as an opportunity to spend more time and energy in perfecting their skills in their chosen functional career. This requires support. Carnall’ lists four main categories of need which individuals have during a period of change. These are the needs for l l
l l
intelligible information, new skills, even if these are only the skills of dealing with new people as colleagues or supervisors, support, to help them deal with problems, empathy (understanding) (the foremost need).
Functional managers and personnel need reassurance about the necessity to maintain strong ‘technical’ departments to provide a solid base of technical quality. These are also needed to retain staff and to provide an identity focus for those who have spent considerable time and effort in becoming a meaningful part of that function. Functional staff should be encouraged to grow with their more precisely defined responsibilities. This can be achieved by technical training, attendance at specialist symposia and exhibitions etc. This will keep them abreast of the latest developments in their chosen discipline, and instil a sense of pride in their performance. This, in turn, should increase the level of professional commitment referred to above. Project managers should also be continuously encouraged to increase their skills in their chosen profession, for the same reasons. It is especially important that they be seen to be skilled and qualified, to remove some of the resistance to the change brought about by their introduction’3. Having defined, in writing, the authority of the project manager, higher management ‘must back him up’*, and leave him/her to perform the task. Otherwise, constant interference will undermine his/her authority. The project manager’s job must be seen by all ‘to be important and to be considered so by top management”3. Staff working on projects in a matrix organizational form will, in theory, have many of their insecurities related to the transient nature of projects removed. However, the uncertainty related to the adequate measurement and recognition of their efforts remains. A method of ensuring that personnel are correctly assessed is to include project managers in the regular staff-appraisal process, in parallel with the functional managers. If project managers contribute to appraisals, the staff member is assured that his/her efforts will not go unnoticed when he/she is in a sidestream activity in relation to his/her operational role. Additionally, the knowledge that the project manager will influence the future ranking and rewards of the functional specialist adds to the credibility of the authority of the project 242
structured organization
manager. This will assist in those cases in which persons are resistant to the new structure and the project manager’s role within it. This method is reported as being popular with conscientious staff. It is also seen to cause fewer problems when ‘difficult’ assessment interviews are conducted, as a consensus opinion is usually more palatable to the staff member. The ultimate success of the change brought about by the introduction of formal project management into a traditional, functionally structured organization will lie in the ‘system reward structures, employment policies and management practices’j in the new organization.
SUMMARY Support of people involved The introduction of project management will be viewed with suspicion, and some trepidation, by functional line managers. They will perceive a loss of power and influence: especially over their own staff. This must be countered with encouragement to excel in their chosen discipline, on which the removal of the ‘burden’ of project management enables them to concentrate. Project managers must be given authority to control the project that is equal to the responsibility delegated. The involvement of project managers in the staff-appraisal process will reinforce their perceived position. Strong senior-management support is necessary for effective introduction, as is good communication of the plans for change. All the staff concerned will need support during the change period to counteract the uncertainties brought about by the change. Positive steps to encourage a sense of high self esteem and commitment to a professional performance must be taken by management. Measures must be enacted which improve the sense of security felt by staff working in an environment which is self-consuming by design.
Organization
and backing
An organizational structure that is appropriate to the business should be established. All possible structures should be considered, but the project biased matrix appears to be the most effective. The successful introduction of a matrix organization, to the point where the organization is comfortable with it, may take many years. Close management monitoring will be required, to enable action to be taken to avoid constant swings of bias.
Future developments It is hoped that further study of the methods and degrees of success of the introduction of project management into functionally structured organizations will produce improved guidelines. In particular, a comparative study of project success versus project performance, conducted in Europe, would identify whether there were significant differences from the North American study of Gobeli and Larson. International
Journal
of Project
Management
J H PAYNE
REFERENCES
8 9
10
11 12
13
Zaltman, G and Duncan, R Strategies for Planned Change John Wiley, USA (1977) Child, J Organization: A Guide to Problems and Practice (2nd Ed.) Harper & Row, UK (1984) Kerzner, I-I Project Management for Executives Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1982) Mikkesen, H and Riis, J 0 ‘Involving interested parties: application of analysis and planning tools’ Znt. J. Project Manage. Vol 1 No 1 (1983) Carnall, C A Managing Change in Organisations Prentice-Hall, UK (1990) Gilbreath, R D Winning at Project Management What Works, Fails and Why John Wiley, USA (1986) Gilbreath, R D ‘Working with pulses, not streams: using projects to capture opportunity’ in Cleland, D I and King, W R (Eds.) Project Management Handbook (2nd Ed.) Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1988) Lock, D Project Management (4th Ed.) Gower, UK (1988) Kessel, J N ‘How to avoid that project management leads to frustration and rejection’ Nederlandse Philips Bedrioven BV, Netherlands Graham, R J Project Management: Combining Technical and Behavioural Approaches for Eflective Implementation Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1985) Plant, R Managing Change and Making It Stick Fontana, UK (1987) Gobeli, D H and Larson, E W ‘Project structures versus project performance’ Proc. 1 lth INTERNET Int. Expert Sem. (1987) Handy, C B Understanding Organizations (3rd Ed.) Penguin Books, UK (1985)
BIBLIOGRAPHY Andersen, E S, Grude, K V, Haug, T and Turner, J R Goal Directed Project Management Kogan Page, UK (1987) Baker, B N, Murphy, D C and Fisher, D ‘Factors affecting project success’ in Cleland, D I and King, W R (Eds.) Project Management Handbook (2nd Ed.) Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1988) Bent, J A ‘Project control: an introduction’ in Cleland, D I and King, W R (FAs.) Project Management Handbook (2nd Ed.) Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1988) Buchanan, D A and Huczynski, A A Organizational Behaviour Prentice-Hall, UK (1985) Chell, E The Psychology of Behaviour in Organisations Macmillan, UK (1989) Dalton, M Men Who Manage John Wiley, USA (1959) Duncan, R ‘What is the right organisational structure?
Vol 11 No 4 November
1993
Decision tree analysis provides the answer’ in Hackman, J R, Lawler, E E and Porter, L W (Eds.) Perspectives on Behaviour in Organisations (2nd Ed.) McGraw-Hill, USA (1983) Elbing, A 0 Behaviour Decisions in Organisations Scott, Foresman & Co., USA (1970) Gabriel, E ‘Management by projects - the new management’ Proc. 13th INTERNET Int. Expert Sem. (1989) Grinell, S K and Apple, H P ‘When two bosses are better than one’ Mach. Des. (Jan 1975) pp 84-87 Hunt, J W Managing People at Work - A Manager’s (2nd Ed.) Guide to Behaviour in Organizations McGraw-Hill, UK (1986) Hunter, M B and Stickney, F A ‘Overview of project management applications’ in Cleland, D I and King, W R (Eds.) Project Management Handbook Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1983) Janis, I L and Mann, L Decision Making Free Press, USA (1977) Kakabadse, A, Ludlow, R and Vinnicombe, S Working in Organisations Penguin, UK (1988) Lee, R and Lawrence, P Organizational Behaviour Hutchinson, UK (1985) London, M ‘What every personnel director should know about management promotion decisions’ in Hackman, J R, Lawler, E E and Porter, L W (Eds.) Perspectives on Behaviour in Organizations (2nd Ed.) McGraw-Hill, USA (1983) Lorsch, J W ‘Organization design: a situational perspective’ in Hackman, J R, Lawler, E E and Porter, L W (Eds.) Perspectives on Behaviour in Organizations (2nd Ed.) McGraw-Hill, USA (1983) Morris, P W G ‘Managing project interfaces key points for project success’ in Cleland, D I and King, W R (Eds.) Project Management Handbook (2nd Ed.) Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1988) Szilagi, A D and Wallace, M J Organizational Behaviour and Performance (3rd Ed.) Scott, Foresman & Co.. USA (1983) ” John H Payne gained an MSc in management awarded by project Brunei University, UK, in conjunction with Henley Management College, UK. He is currently undertaking PhD research into multiproject management. He has been involved in projects in the UK and internationally for 25 years. During this time, his &rk has taken him to Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Far East, and North and South America. At the time of the writing of this paper, he was the Head of Systems Projects with International Aeradio plc.
243
The traditional, functionally structured organization is well suited to a single process operation such as a manufacturing production line. However, this structure does not easily permit the crossfunctional coordination that is essential to successful project performance. The paper reviews two of the most common problems that are encountered when an attempt is made to introduce formal project management into a traditional, functionally structured organization. Possible actions for alleviating the problems are then described. These problems are (a) mistrust and conflict between functional groups and the project ofice, and (b) the selection and establishment of an appropriate project -team structure. These are primarily problems of resistance to change, and they] are hence ‘people’ problems, rather than problems with the systems or practices themselves. Keywords:
intergroup
conJlict, project-team
structures
Problems are commonly experienced with the introduction of project management into a functionally structured organization, as the need for it may not be perceived by all those who will be affected by its introduction’,2. In the circumstances of a difference of opinion over the need for this management change, relationships between those parties holding opposing views will deteriorate. Groups of supporters will polarize, and the original problem will be exacerbated. This then changes the scale of the problem and its nature. 64 Hollybush
Road,
Kingston-upon-Thames,
Vol 11 No 4 November
1993
Surrey
KT2 SE,
UK
Should a new organization structure be imposed by higher management, against the background of this disagreement, it may be regarded as ‘repressive or exploitative control and hence something to be resisted and even sabotaged’2. However, a change of organization structure will be needed to facilitate the effective and efficient performance of projects.
MISTRUST AND CONFLICT When the introduction of project management is considered, it must be remembered that the majority of senior managers have grown into their positions via a traditional hierarchy. They are on familiar ground, and they will tend to be conservative with respect to change. They will feel a loyalty to their immediate juniors, and the functional managers, and may not wish to change their working relationships with them. These functional managers may perceive a loss of status or influence that is associated with the introduction of what they see as an additional layer of management between themselves and ‘their’ staff. If this is so, they will mistrust and resist the change. This mistrust may, indirectly, threaten the crossfunctional coordination that the project requires. There appears, typically, under these circumstances to be a danger of lack of communication with the people doing the work. The functional managers want to know what is going on, as they perceive a diminution of their status and influence, when a project manager is given control over ‘their’ staff. They therefore want to attend all the meetings, to make sure that they are not losing out in some way. The functional project-team member needs to be at the meetings, so that he/she can be effectively coordinated,
0263-7863/93/040239-05
0 1993 Butterworth-Heinemann
Ltd
239
Introducing formal project management
into a traditional,
and understand how his/her element fits into the project whole. The project manager then has to call too large a meeting, which is normally unproductive, or leave out the junior staff member. He/she therefore does not call a meeting at all, and speaks, individually, to each team member, and nobody, except him/her, fully understands the project needs as a whole. Functional managers are not the only ones who may perceive a loss to themselves. The technical specialists may feel that their career progression is threatened by this ‘additional layer of management’. The functional specialists’ first loyalties are often to the discipline from whence they came. This makes it difficult for them to become ‘too involved” with the project, especially if there is a conflict between the project and functional requirements. When conflicts arise between the project and the functional organization, ‘the projects always suffered’3. They may also have fears that ‘the quality of their work will be sacrificed to pressures for speed and cost-cutting coming from . . . programme managers’2. This can be seen, for example, in resistance to providing rapid responses to requests for technical input to proposals. It is possible that an individual (or the members of a department) with a mistrust of the motives for the new management style, may feel that there is an imbalance between the effort he/she must now exert, to fulfil new requirements, and the perceived reward for meeting them. Under these circumstances, there is little inclination to comply, and delays and obstacles may be generated4. This, in turn, generates a mistrust of that individual by others. They come to expect that he/she will not cooperate. Monitoring of performance and checking on productivity then follows’. This overt display of mistrust then becomes a vicious circle of deteriorating relationships. Functional departments, forced into a project structure against their will, may lack commitment to a project. They may not accept that they have ‘ownership of part of the work, and continuously expect the project office to bail them outy5. An example of this is when a functional department is continuously late with its project deliverables, and expects the project manager to change the programme (the infamous ‘update’), rather than produce on time. With all these problems boiling below(?) the surface, it can be seen that strong management support is necessary to encourage the acceptance of change. This may not be forthcoming. The reason for this is not always known, but, in some cases, senior executives do not like being advised how to achieve better management. They can see this advice as criticism of their present management style or performance2.
PROJECT-TEAM
STRUCTURE
Incorrect project structures lead to frustration, low morale and poor motivation. It is essential to get the choice of structure as near correct as possible. There is a tendency, once the need for formal project management is recognized, to rush into dedicated task teams. While this does provide several advantages, 240
functionally
structured
organization
related to singleness of purpose, the reduction of conflicting calls on resources, and the security within the team of any confidential/secret information, it does have disadvantages. If a team is too small, specialist areas will have very little representation on the team. One resource alone is risky, as, if that person is sick, or on leave, who will carry out his/her role? If approaches are made to the functional head for help, the new resource (if provided) will have a long learning curve, which may even exceed the period of the requirement for the replacement. Should the specialist leave the company, nobody will understand what he/she was doing, and the position is worse. In dedicated task teams, there is a tendency for the specialists to lose touch with their counterparts on other projects. Some writers refer to the task team as a ‘project island’6. This causes the loss of the crossfertilization of ideas which normally occurs within a functional department. Specialists may fall behind with regard to the latest ideas that are not used on ‘their’ project. This compounds the specialists’ fears with respect to their career progression. They could also needlessly duplicate work on different projects3. If a project team is established as a dedicated taskforce, there are additional problems that are related to the temporary nature of projects. Teams are characterized by short-term (shallow?) relationships which are not the most conducive to quality performance. Gilbreath writes of the need to create ‘networks’ of people who work together regularly, but not necessarily all on the same projects at the same time. However, he points out the following. ‘The formation of ongoing networks that help to transcend artificial organizational barriers requires time and patience. Neither are bountiful in a project setting.‘7 Another problem with the establishment of project dedicated task teams is the insecurity that exists within the project team as the project draws to a close. There is an inclination to continue the project, and to find extra ‘loose ends’ to complete, to maintain employment, as the future is uncertain. Thus the project overruns in both time and cost. The disbandment of a dedicated team also brings with it the question of who is available to answer queries, in relation to problems with a project, that arise after its supposed completion? This is especially a problem when ‘the projects are small and of short duration’*. In theory, the matrix structural form preserves the benefits, such as information sharing and continuity, of the functional-department structure, while enabling crossfunctional coordination on a project basis7. However, the matrix is inherently unstable. The project-team member has two masters, his/her functional manager, and the project manager. There is a tendency for a power struggle to develop between the functional manager and the project manager for control of the staff member. Entrenched differences can be established between the two arms of a matrix, which can only be resolved by senior-management intervention6. This places an extra workload on senior management, making the adoption of a matrix structure a ‘hassle’. International
Journal
of Project
Management
J H PAYNE
The successful adoption of a matrix structure requires a mature approach from all participants. It does not matter how much monitoring is done by senior management; if the participants are unwilling, the change will fail. The need for change has to be recognized and encouraged by visible, credible, early success which can be held up as an example of the validity of thought behind the planned change’. Nothing succeeds like success. The successful introduction of a matrix typically takes longer than many managements naively estimate’. A period of 36 months has been suggested for the introduction of project management to be ‘institutionalized”. It is not clear whether Kessel included the structural change to a matrix form within his estimate. The author’s experience suggests that a longer period may easily be necessary. It will depend on the degree of entrenchment of the existing structure and practices, together with the flexibility of the staff concerned. POSSIBLE
RESOLUTION
OF PROBLEMS
In~uential support The perception of the need for project management will be first acquired by someone who is close enough to the business to recognize that the reason for poor performance is the lack of clear objectives, cohesion etc. This may be a well informed member of senior management, an outside consultant, an internally appointed investigator, or a middle manager struggling with the status quo. This person’s task is then to convince senior management, or the rest of the senior management, that change is needed. This can hopefully be achieved by the comparison of such things as project-cost estimates and planned programmes against actual costs and programmes, and by studies of working methods. Having convinced the people with the power to command change that change is necessary, it is vital to gain their support. This may be covert during the planning stage, but it very soon has to be overt and sustained. Those affected by the change must know that the senior management are committed to the change’. It has been shown that there is no best way of introducing change, but that a major factor in the success of innovation is top-management support ‘JO. However, other key power holders and opinion leaders, such as staff representatives and respected colleagues, also influence the attitudes and opinions of others, and, therefore, their open support is worth seeking’. Planning introduction Support for the introduction of project management having been obtained, it is important to plan the introduction as a project. Project management is all about the management of change, and here one is considering a major change, in management style and also cultural attitude. If the change is not pIanned as a project, the need for project management in what is probably its most critical venture is denied. Zaltman and Duncan’ have carried out a considerable amount of work on the use of different strategies to Vol Ii No 4 November
1993
invoke change. They write of a spectrum ranging from minimal external pressure with educative strategies, through persuasive or facilitative strategies, to maximum external pressure using power strategies. Different strategies could be used at different times during the change, or with different groups of people. The ideal technique is seen to be to start by creating awareness with educative strategies, and to move to facilitative strategies to effect the change. If resistance is encountered, the power strategy must be used. If speed is essential, power strategies are used, followed by reeducation strategies, which explain the need for the change which has taken place. While consultation and educative strategies are attractive, if there is opposition to change, ‘consultation and participation are likely to be used simply as opportunities for obstructing implementation’2. Most writers have made a point of stating that, whichever strategic approach is being taken at the time, once the project for making the change is announced, the most important factor after visible and vigorous senior-management support is communication. The communication about what is happening reduces uncertainty~~, keeps the project in everybody’s mind, and increases the level of acceptance of inevitability in the minds of doubters who are not actively resisting. Organizational
structure
The research of Gobeli and Larsoni’ found that, inbetween the functional organization and the dedicated project team, project organizations could be grouped ’ into three versions of a matrix. Two versions of the matrix have variations of bias in the relative power and authority of the functional management and project-management elements. Gobeli and Larson called these two variations, biased on either side of a truly balanced matrix, a function matrix and a project, or secondment, matrixi2. These ‘biased’ matrix forms tend to be more stable. Thus, the insecurity felt by the staff member with two masters is atleviated, at least in part. However, monitoring of the matrix performance is still necessary to ensure that infighting and power struggles, which tilt the bias first one way and then the other, do not destroy the advantages of the structure change. The interesting part came when Gobeli and Larson looked at project performance Ver.sU.sproject organizations’*. They found that technical-performance success varied from 50% for functional and functional-matrix forms, through 70% for a balanced matrix, to just under 80% for project-matrix and dedicated project-team organizations. They found that this pattern of success rate, being proportional to the authority of the project manager, was even more pronounced for schedule and cost results. Here, success rates for the project matrix and the dedicated project team were about double that of the functional and functional-matrix organizations. Unsu~risingly, it seems that, when the objective is the completion of the project, a project biased matrix is most effective. Additionally, the longer-term benefits of the existing functional structure are preserved. 241
Introducing .foinml prqject munugement into a tmditional, jkctionall~
of The introduction of any form of matrix is perceived by functional line managers as a loss of power and influence. This must be counteracted by the view that the project management does not replace line management; it supplements it, improving crossfunctional communication and problem resolution. The change situation should be presented as an opportunity for growth and self development’O,“. Functional personnel should be encouraged to think of the removal of project control as an opportunity to spend more time and energy in perfecting their skills in their chosen functional career. This requires support. Carnall’ lists four main categories of need which individuals have during a period of change. These are the needs for l l
l l
intelligible information, new skills, even if these are only the skills of dealing with new people as colleagues or supervisors, support, to help them deal with problems, empathy (understanding) (the foremost need).
Functional managers and personnel need reassurance about the necessity to maintain strong ‘technical’ departments to provide a solid base of technical quality. These are also needed to retain staff and to provide an identity focus for those who have spent considerable time and effort in becoming a meaningful part of that function. Functional staff should be encouraged to grow with their more precisely defined responsibilities. This can be achieved by technical training, attendance at specialist symposia and exhibitions etc. This will keep them abreast of the latest developments in their chosen discipline, and instil a sense of pride in their performance. This, in turn, should increase the level of professional commitment referred to above. Project managers should also be continuously encouraged to increase their skills in their chosen profession, for the same reasons. It is especially important that they be seen to be skilled and qualified, to remove some of the resistance to the change brought about by their introduction’3. Having defined, in writing, the authority of the project manager, higher management ‘must back him up’*, and leave him/her to perform the task. Otherwise, constant interference will undermine his/her authority. The project manager’s job must be seen by all ‘to be important and to be considered so by top management”3. Staff working on projects in a matrix organizational form will, in theory, have many of their insecurities related to the transient nature of projects removed. However, the uncertainty related to the adequate measurement and recognition of their efforts remains. A method of ensuring that personnel are correctly assessed is to include project managers in the regular staff-appraisal process, in parallel with the functional managers. If project managers contribute to appraisals, the staff member is assured that his/her efforts will not go unnoticed when he/she is in a sidestream activity in relation to his/her operational role. Additionally, the knowledge that the project manager will influence the future ranking and rewards of the functional specialist adds to the credibility of the authority of the project 242
structured organization
manager. This will assist in those cases in which persons are resistant to the new structure and the project manager’s role within it. This method is reported as being popular with conscientious staff. It is also seen to cause fewer problems when ‘difficult’ assessment interviews are conducted, as a consensus opinion is usually more palatable to the staff member. The ultimate success of the change brought about by the introduction of formal project management into a traditional, functionally structured organization will lie in the ‘system reward structures, employment policies and management practices’j in the new organization.
SUMMARY Support of people involved The introduction of project management will be viewed with suspicion, and some trepidation, by functional line managers. They will perceive a loss of power and influence: especially over their own staff. This must be countered with encouragement to excel in their chosen discipline, on which the removal of the ‘burden’ of project management enables them to concentrate. Project managers must be given authority to control the project that is equal to the responsibility delegated. The involvement of project managers in the staff-appraisal process will reinforce their perceived position. Strong senior-management support is necessary for effective introduction, as is good communication of the plans for change. All the staff concerned will need support during the change period to counteract the uncertainties brought about by the change. Positive steps to encourage a sense of high self esteem and commitment to a professional performance must be taken by management. Measures must be enacted which improve the sense of security felt by staff working in an environment which is self-consuming by design.
Organization
and backing
An organizational structure that is appropriate to the business should be established. All possible structures should be considered, but the project biased matrix appears to be the most effective. The successful introduction of a matrix organization, to the point where the organization is comfortable with it, may take many years. Close management monitoring will be required, to enable action to be taken to avoid constant swings of bias.
Future developments It is hoped that further study of the methods and degrees of success of the introduction of project management into functionally structured organizations will produce improved guidelines. In particular, a comparative study of project success versus project performance, conducted in Europe, would identify whether there were significant differences from the North American study of Gobeli and Larson. International
Journal
of Project
Management
J H PAYNE
REFERENCES
8 9
10
11 12
13
Zaltman, G and Duncan, R Strategies for Planned Change John Wiley, USA (1977) Child, J Organization: A Guide to Problems and Practice (2nd Ed.) Harper & Row, UK (1984) Kerzner, I-I Project Management for Executives Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1982) Mikkesen, H and Riis, J 0 ‘Involving interested parties: application of analysis and planning tools’ Znt. J. Project Manage. Vol 1 No 1 (1983) Carnall, C A Managing Change in Organisations Prentice-Hall, UK (1990) Gilbreath, R D Winning at Project Management What Works, Fails and Why John Wiley, USA (1986) Gilbreath, R D ‘Working with pulses, not streams: using projects to capture opportunity’ in Cleland, D I and King, W R (Eds.) Project Management Handbook (2nd Ed.) Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1988) Lock, D Project Management (4th Ed.) Gower, UK (1988) Kessel, J N ‘How to avoid that project management leads to frustration and rejection’ Nederlandse Philips Bedrioven BV, Netherlands Graham, R J Project Management: Combining Technical and Behavioural Approaches for Eflective Implementation Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1985) Plant, R Managing Change and Making It Stick Fontana, UK (1987) Gobeli, D H and Larson, E W ‘Project structures versus project performance’ Proc. 1 lth INTERNET Int. Expert Sem. (1987) Handy, C B Understanding Organizations (3rd Ed.) Penguin Books, UK (1985)
BIBLIOGRAPHY Andersen, E S, Grude, K V, Haug, T and Turner, J R Goal Directed Project Management Kogan Page, UK (1987) Baker, B N, Murphy, D C and Fisher, D ‘Factors affecting project success’ in Cleland, D I and King, W R (Eds.) Project Management Handbook (2nd Ed.) Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1988) Bent, J A ‘Project control: an introduction’ in Cleland, D I and King, W R (FAs.) Project Management Handbook (2nd Ed.) Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1988) Buchanan, D A and Huczynski, A A Organizational Behaviour Prentice-Hall, UK (1985) Chell, E The Psychology of Behaviour in Organisations Macmillan, UK (1989) Dalton, M Men Who Manage John Wiley, USA (1959) Duncan, R ‘What is the right organisational structure?
Vol 11 No 4 November
1993
Decision tree analysis provides the answer’ in Hackman, J R, Lawler, E E and Porter, L W (Eds.) Perspectives on Behaviour in Organisations (2nd Ed.) McGraw-Hill, USA (1983) Elbing, A 0 Behaviour Decisions in Organisations Scott, Foresman & Co., USA (1970) Gabriel, E ‘Management by projects - the new management’ Proc. 13th INTERNET Int. Expert Sem. (1989) Grinell, S K and Apple, H P ‘When two bosses are better than one’ Mach. Des. (Jan 1975) pp 84-87 Hunt, J W Managing People at Work - A Manager’s (2nd Ed.) Guide to Behaviour in Organizations McGraw-Hill, UK (1986) Hunter, M B and Stickney, F A ‘Overview of project management applications’ in Cleland, D I and King, W R (Eds.) Project Management Handbook Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1983) Janis, I L and Mann, L Decision Making Free Press, USA (1977) Kakabadse, A, Ludlow, R and Vinnicombe, S Working in Organisations Penguin, UK (1988) Lee, R and Lawrence, P Organizational Behaviour Hutchinson, UK (1985) London, M ‘What every personnel director should know about management promotion decisions’ in Hackman, J R, Lawler, E E and Porter, L W (Eds.) Perspectives on Behaviour in Organizations (2nd Ed.) McGraw-Hill, USA (1983) Lorsch, J W ‘Organization design: a situational perspective’ in Hackman, J R, Lawler, E E and Porter, L W (Eds.) Perspectives on Behaviour in Organizations (2nd Ed.) McGraw-Hill, USA (1983) Morris, P W G ‘Managing project interfaces key points for project success’ in Cleland, D I and King, W R (Eds.) Project Management Handbook (2nd Ed.) Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1988) Szilagi, A D and Wallace, M J Organizational Behaviour and Performance (3rd Ed.) Scott, Foresman & Co.. USA (1983) ” John H Payne gained an MSc in management awarded by project Brunei University, UK, in conjunction with Henley Management College, UK. He is currently undertaking PhD research into multiproject management. He has been involved in projects in the UK and internationally for 25 years. During this time, his &rk has taken him to Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Far East, and North and South America. At the time of the writing of this paper, he was the Head of Systems Projects with International Aeradio plc.
243