- Email: [email protected]
Matrix management: More than a fad
236
J PROD
INNOV MANAG 1987:4:225-238
only in industries with chemical-based technologies. In most industries they are not considered effective, and only in industries where the barrier is real are there cost penalties put on imitators. Respondents were asked why they sought patents, if patents were of such little value in protecting inventive rights. Their answers included use of patents to measure performance of R&D employees, gaining strategic advantage in interfirm negotiations or litigation, and obtaining access to foreign markets where licensing to a host country is a condition of entry. The author used these findings to argue against (1) lengthening patent life in nonchemical industries, (2) careless generalizations about the role of patents in the economic analysis of different industries, and (3) forcing our foreign trading partners to adopt, and enforce, stronger patent laws in industries other than those that are chemicalbased. How Managers Express Their Creativity, Herbert A. Simon, Across the Board (March 1986), pp. 11-19. This article, excerpted from a forthcoming book edited by Robert Kuhn, addressed the question “What is creativity, and especially, what is creativity in management?” First, one should know that creativity is not a spark of genius, or something shrouded in mystery. It is a problem-solving process, and it can be identified, taught, and practiced. Creativity is first identified by its products, and for this the author uses the patent law criteria of novelty, value, and unobviousness. People who produce things that are truly new, are of social or economic value, and are not obvious, are creative. Second, creative people have a large bundle of expertness, over 10 years of experience in the case of world-class artists and chess-masters. The brain holds some 50,000 chunks of knowledge of one category, but which can be applied to other fields. An experienced biologist, for example, has depth of knowledge that can be applied to genetics. Third, the creative person works hard, is persistent, and is willing to gamble. There is a contrarian streak, the willingness to act on a belief, and a conviction that a superior position must be
ABSTRACTS
found and taken advantage of. The objectives of any activity set or situation are known and kept in mind. This is a demanding work credo. Fourth, because of the importance of serendipity, the creative person must be sensitive to accidents and ready to respond to them. This means that decisions are often made on instinct (not unfounded, however) with reliance on intuition. There is desire to have less than ideal exploitation of opportunity rather than missed opportunity. One can see that creative people of the type presented here probably accomplish a great deal, and some of their accomplishments will be novel, worthwhile, and unobvious. However, the author then addresses the question of creativity in management. Since managers, by definition, work through other persons, can they be creative, and are the criteria the same? The author’s response is a solid yes. They too produce worthwhile new things, they work in a hard, persistent, purposeful and risk-accepting mode. They have valuable experience in management, usually within one industry. They are quite willing to make decisions quickly and partly on a well-honed instinct. Yet, the author says there is one key difference. Unless the creative act produces a new mode of management, the manager, through propensity or through learning, must receive satisfaction indirectly from the creations of others. This is not only true of entities in business; it is equally true today in major research centers and artistic centers. Musical directors of great orchestras may not often actively conduct them, and leaders of large-scale, multidisciplinary research teams may be far from a bench. This all concludes that creativity is problemsolving, not magic, and is the direct by-product of training and experience. The most interesting aspect perhaps is that a manager, though not personally doing the work of the unit being managed, nevertheless is creatively a part of the process. Matrix Management: More Than a Fad, David H. Gobeli and Erik W. Larson, Engineering Management International (1986, n. 4), pp. 71-76. Matrix management, so widely ballyhooed 10 to 15 years ago, has recently been criticized by manPeters and Waterman (Zn agerial observers.
ABSTRACTS
J PROD INNOV MANAG 1987;4:225-238
Search of Excellence) said that the tendency toward hopelessly complicated and ultimately unworkable structures “reaches its ultimate expression in the formal matrix organization structure” which “regularly degenerates into anarchy” and noncreative bureaucracy. Yet, the matrix management form continues in use, and may even be growing. The research reported here purports to show why. Some I 15 managers, from 62 different companies, were asked to evaluate their recent structures for new product development; of the total, 74 had been involved in a project and could describe it. They were then given a set of five alternatives into which each manager fit the subject structure: 1. Functional, in which functional heads and top management do the coordinating; no project group, no special leader. 2. Functional Matrix, in which a project group is formed but where the project manager has limited authority vs. the functional department heads. 3. Balanced Matrix, in which the project head and the functional heads share responsibility about equally. 4. Project Matrix, where the project manager has primary responsibility and authority for completing the project. 5. Project Team, in which team members are pulled out of their departments and put fulltime on the project. The project leader is totally in charge. The study In spite the figures call matrix ular-71%
showed the data in Table 1. of the widespread criticism of matrix, in Table 1 show that what the authors is not only popular, but the most popof the projects used one of the three
Table 1
Type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Functional Functional matrix Balanced matrix Project matrix Project team Total (n = 74)
Percent of projects using this form 14 35 22 14 9 100
Percent of projects judged effective 60 85 75 77 100
237
forms of matrix. Oftentimes the term matrix is confined to the balanced situations (SO/SO) but even this form took 22% of all projects, and 75% of them were judged successful. The authors also asked respondents what structure they would use for their projects if they were to do them again. Generally speaking they would use the same structures as before, with satisfaction going steadily up from 60% for those using functional to 100% for those using the project team. And if they wanted to change, in most cases they opted for more authority to the project leader, that is, further toward the independent project team. In summary, the feeling that matrix is dead or dying is simply not supported by this research. But we should not construe this usage to mean that matrix is easy. One respondent said: Matrix management works but it sure seems difficult at times. All matrix managers must keep up their health and take stress tabs.
A Maze for Management: Choosing the Right Technology, W. David Gibson, Chemical Week (May 7, 1986), pp. 74-78. For the past few years the world’s leading chemical companies have been reassessing their commitments to technology-which ones to stress, how to stress them, how to evaluate them, etc. There are now so many technologies available, and so many more possible applications within each one, that firms suffer from technological richness. But they now find that simply being in a technology is no longer assurance of success; market shares and costs are more critical as margins narrow, and whatever one does must be done fast. This focus on technological issues has led to a new and dramatic role for what is called technology assessment. Firms now look at each potential technology and rate it on potential for exploitation, in their firm, at this time. Some of the factors being used to make this judgment are: Growth. But simply to be growing is not nearly enough
any more.
Life Cycle. Are there emerging specialty businesses where this technology will be a necessity right from the start? Can we hope to
J PROD
INNOV MANAG 1987:4:225-238
only in industries with chemical-based technologies. In most industries they are not considered effective, and only in industries where the barrier is real are there cost penalties put on imitators. Respondents were asked why they sought patents, if patents were of such little value in protecting inventive rights. Their answers included use of patents to measure performance of R&D employees, gaining strategic advantage in interfirm negotiations or litigation, and obtaining access to foreign markets where licensing to a host country is a condition of entry. The author used these findings to argue against (1) lengthening patent life in nonchemical industries, (2) careless generalizations about the role of patents in the economic analysis of different industries, and (3) forcing our foreign trading partners to adopt, and enforce, stronger patent laws in industries other than those that are chemicalbased. How Managers Express Their Creativity, Herbert A. Simon, Across the Board (March 1986), pp. 11-19. This article, excerpted from a forthcoming book edited by Robert Kuhn, addressed the question “What is creativity, and especially, what is creativity in management?” First, one should know that creativity is not a spark of genius, or something shrouded in mystery. It is a problem-solving process, and it can be identified, taught, and practiced. Creativity is first identified by its products, and for this the author uses the patent law criteria of novelty, value, and unobviousness. People who produce things that are truly new, are of social or economic value, and are not obvious, are creative. Second, creative people have a large bundle of expertness, over 10 years of experience in the case of world-class artists and chess-masters. The brain holds some 50,000 chunks of knowledge of one category, but which can be applied to other fields. An experienced biologist, for example, has depth of knowledge that can be applied to genetics. Third, the creative person works hard, is persistent, and is willing to gamble. There is a contrarian streak, the willingness to act on a belief, and a conviction that a superior position must be
ABSTRACTS
found and taken advantage of. The objectives of any activity set or situation are known and kept in mind. This is a demanding work credo. Fourth, because of the importance of serendipity, the creative person must be sensitive to accidents and ready to respond to them. This means that decisions are often made on instinct (not unfounded, however) with reliance on intuition. There is desire to have less than ideal exploitation of opportunity rather than missed opportunity. One can see that creative people of the type presented here probably accomplish a great deal, and some of their accomplishments will be novel, worthwhile, and unobvious. However, the author then addresses the question of creativity in management. Since managers, by definition, work through other persons, can they be creative, and are the criteria the same? The author’s response is a solid yes. They too produce worthwhile new things, they work in a hard, persistent, purposeful and risk-accepting mode. They have valuable experience in management, usually within one industry. They are quite willing to make decisions quickly and partly on a well-honed instinct. Yet, the author says there is one key difference. Unless the creative act produces a new mode of management, the manager, through propensity or through learning, must receive satisfaction indirectly from the creations of others. This is not only true of entities in business; it is equally true today in major research centers and artistic centers. Musical directors of great orchestras may not often actively conduct them, and leaders of large-scale, multidisciplinary research teams may be far from a bench. This all concludes that creativity is problemsolving, not magic, and is the direct by-product of training and experience. The most interesting aspect perhaps is that a manager, though not personally doing the work of the unit being managed, nevertheless is creatively a part of the process. Matrix Management: More Than a Fad, David H. Gobeli and Erik W. Larson, Engineering Management International (1986, n. 4), pp. 71-76. Matrix management, so widely ballyhooed 10 to 15 years ago, has recently been criticized by manPeters and Waterman (Zn agerial observers.
ABSTRACTS
J PROD INNOV MANAG 1987;4:225-238
Search of Excellence) said that the tendency toward hopelessly complicated and ultimately unworkable structures “reaches its ultimate expression in the formal matrix organization structure” which “regularly degenerates into anarchy” and noncreative bureaucracy. Yet, the matrix management form continues in use, and may even be growing. The research reported here purports to show why. Some I 15 managers, from 62 different companies, were asked to evaluate their recent structures for new product development; of the total, 74 had been involved in a project and could describe it. They were then given a set of five alternatives into which each manager fit the subject structure: 1. Functional, in which functional heads and top management do the coordinating; no project group, no special leader. 2. Functional Matrix, in which a project group is formed but where the project manager has limited authority vs. the functional department heads. 3. Balanced Matrix, in which the project head and the functional heads share responsibility about equally. 4. Project Matrix, where the project manager has primary responsibility and authority for completing the project. 5. Project Team, in which team members are pulled out of their departments and put fulltime on the project. The project leader is totally in charge. The study In spite the figures call matrix ular-71%
showed the data in Table 1. of the widespread criticism of matrix, in Table 1 show that what the authors is not only popular, but the most popof the projects used one of the three
Table 1
Type 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Functional Functional matrix Balanced matrix Project matrix Project team Total (n = 74)
Percent of projects using this form 14 35 22 14 9 100
Percent of projects judged effective 60 85 75 77 100
237
forms of matrix. Oftentimes the term matrix is confined to the balanced situations (SO/SO) but even this form took 22% of all projects, and 75% of them were judged successful. The authors also asked respondents what structure they would use for their projects if they were to do them again. Generally speaking they would use the same structures as before, with satisfaction going steadily up from 60% for those using functional to 100% for those using the project team. And if they wanted to change, in most cases they opted for more authority to the project leader, that is, further toward the independent project team. In summary, the feeling that matrix is dead or dying is simply not supported by this research. But we should not construe this usage to mean that matrix is easy. One respondent said: Matrix management works but it sure seems difficult at times. All matrix managers must keep up their health and take stress tabs.
A Maze for Management: Choosing the Right Technology, W. David Gibson, Chemical Week (May 7, 1986), pp. 74-78. For the past few years the world’s leading chemical companies have been reassessing their commitments to technology-which ones to stress, how to stress them, how to evaluate them, etc. There are now so many technologies available, and so many more possible applications within each one, that firms suffer from technological richness. But they now find that simply being in a technology is no longer assurance of success; market shares and costs are more critical as margins narrow, and whatever one does must be done fast. This focus on technological issues has led to a new and dramatic role for what is called technology assessment. Firms now look at each potential technology and rate it on potential for exploitation, in their firm, at this time. Some of the factors being used to make this judgment are: Growth. But simply to be growing is not nearly enough
any more.
Life Cycle. Are there emerging specialty businesses where this technology will be a necessity right from the start? Can we hope to