ARTICLE  

Portfolio Management , Strategy  September 1979

Project Management Quarterly
Stuckenbruck, Linn C.
How to cite this article:
Stuckenbruck, L. C. (1979). The Matrix Organization. Project Management Quarterly, 10(3), 21–33.
Reprints and Permissions

LINN C. STUCKENBRUCK

University of Southern California

Ed. note: The Southern California Chapter of the Project Management Institute has been
working on a book project for approximately one year. The title of the book will be “The
Implementation of Project Management,” and it has been designed as an aid to the newly
appointed project manager, who says, “Now what do 1 do?” The project plan is to have the
book ready for sale at the 1979 International Seminar/Symposium at Atlanta. The following
paper is a representative chapter from the book.

What Is A Matrix Organization?

A matrix organization is defined as one in which there is dual or multiple managerial

accountability and responsibility. However, the term matrix means quite different things to
different people and in different industries (1)(5). In a matrix there are usually two chains of
command, one along functional lines and the other along project, product, or client lines.
Other chains of command such as geographic location are also possible.
The matrix organizational form may vary from one in which the project manager holds a very
strong managerial position to one in which he plays only a coordinating role. To illustrate the
organizational principles, a matrix will be considered first in which there is a balance of
power between the project and functional managers. It must be recognized that such a
balanced situation, considered by some authorities to be ideal, probably seldom occurs in
practice.

The Two-Boss Matrix

In a balanced matrix organization various people in the organization have two bosses (figure
1). This represents an abandonment of the age-old management concept, “Thou shalt have
but one boss above thee.” None of the reporting relationships shown in figure 1 are dotted-
line relationships. Solid- and dotted-line relationships have various interpretations depending
upon local management custom. However, solid lines normally connect managers with their
direct subordinates, the man above being the boss. Dotted lines are usually used to indicate
staff relationships or reporting relationships of lesser importance. The project manager in the
matrix organization is not a staff man nor does he normally have less authority than the
functional managers reporting on the same level. Neither can the relationships shown in
figure 1 be simply described by such terms as “he reports to the functional manager only for
technical direction,” or “he reports to the project office for budgetary and schedule control.”
Such descriptions are inadequate to describe how the matrix organization really works
because in reality, not just on paper, the project personnel do have two bosses.
Implicit in the definition of the matrix organization is the recognition that the project is
temporary whereas the functional departments are more permanent. Although all
organizations are temporary in that they are constantly changing, the matrix is designed to
be temporary and a particular organizational structure lasts only for the finite life of the
project.

Figure 1. The basic unit of the matrix organization

Why the Matrix?

The matrix developed as a natural evolution of organizational structures in answer to a very

definite real-world need. The need was for an organizational form capable of managing the
recent very large and very complex programs, projects, and problems, and for managing
limited resources. The conventional hierarchical management organization could not cope
with the added complexity and the enormous amount of information that had to be
processed, and conventional management theory was of little help in solving these new and
unique problems.
Most management theorists predicted that the lack of any clear-cut single line of
responsibility and authority would result in managerial ineffectiveness. There is no evidence
to indicate that multiple authority and role conflict lead to ineffectiveness (16).
The primary reason for adopting the matrix in a large organization can be pinpointed in the
fact that functions and skills are fragmented throughout the organizational structure.
Individual functional departments have great difficulty in solving very large problems
because of a failure to view the total system and a tendency to sub-optimize or solve the
problem within their particular discipline. According to an old aerospace cliche, “An engineer
attacks every problem as if it had an engineering solution.” How few of today’s big civil and
social problems have purely technical solutions?
Since it was found to be impractical to fragment the problem and have the various functional
organizations work only on their portion of the problem, “microcompanies” were formed (21).
This represented the development of the pure project organization. It was very rapidly
realized that this alternative was not only very unwieldly but had many disadvantages with
respect to efficient functional operations. The matrix was the next logical development.

Growth of the Matrix

As problems and projects have become more complex, the inadequacy of the hierarchical
organizational structure became apparent. At the same time, the necessity for designing the
organization around the task to be performed was realized. Fortunately, varied but more
complex organizational alternatives have become available. The present management
philosophy is that there is no “one best way” for all projects to organize. Rather there are
many alternatives from which to select a specific project. Among these alternatives are
various forms of the matrix.
A formalized matrix form of organization was first developed and documented in the United
States aerospace industry where it evolved during the growth of the large, complex projects
of the 1950s and 1960s. If a project was very large, it usually became a pure project
organization in which all of the functions and resources necessary to accomplish the
objectives of the project were put in a single hierarchical organization. This alternative
worked very well if the project or program was very large, and if the government customer
was similarly organized, and if the customer not only insisted on such an organization but
was willing to pay for its added expense.
However, the aerospace industry found that it had many more projects which were not
particularly large, but were exceedingly complex, and therefore not conveniently handled
within a single discipline. Today, it is rare to find a real-world problem that is unidisciplinary.
In addition, top management still felt a strong need to have a single source of information
and a single point of responsibility for each project or program. Some form of project
management was obviously needed, and not being willing to bear the expense of making
each project a little empire of its own, the matrix was a natural evolution in management
thinking. The term “matrix” began to be applied to organizations at this time, and as indicated
by Davis and Lawrence, “It probably seemed like a fitting term for mathematically trained
engineers in that industry to apply to the gridlike structure that was evolving … ” (10).

The Matrix Organization

It has been recognized that the matrix organizational structure has applications far beyond
that of project (program or product) management (12). However, in this discussion the matrix
will only be considered from the viewpoint of its most highly developed application — that of
project management.
The term “matrix project organization” refers to a multidisciplinary team whose members are
drawn from various line or functional units of the heirarchical organization. The organization
so developed is temporary in nature, since it is built around the project or specific task to be
done rather than on organizational functions. The matrix is thus built up as a team of
personnel drawn from both the project and the functional or disciplinary organizations. In
other words a project organization is superimposed on the conventional functional
hierarchical organization.
Figure 2. Simple matrix organization
The matrix in its simplest form is shown diagramatically in figure 2, indicating how the matrix
received its name.
The matrix shown in figure 2 represents a general organizational structure. To be more
specific, engineering, research, product and construction matrix organizations are shown in
figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively.
The matrix is thus a multi-dimensional structure that tries to maximize the strengths and
minimize the weaknesses of both the project and the functional structures (25).

Does the Matrix Work?

No specific organizational form can be guaranteed to work at all times, or to improve

productive output. However, it can be said that some organizational forms have a better
chance of working than others, particularly if they are designed to meet the needs of project
work. As previously indicated, the matrix meets a number of well-defined needs. The
principal need is for an organizational structure that can handle the great complexity of a
multidisciplinary effort.
Figure 3. An engineering matrix organization

Figure 4. A research matrix organization

If the multidisciplinary need is really there, and if project management is necessary, then the
matrix is a viable organizational solution. However, the matrix is a complex organizational
form and will not automatically work. The number of things that can go wrong is endless, but
the most usual reason for failure of the matrix results from either foot-dragging or downright
sabotage on the part of functional management and even by lower level supervision. As
indicated in the previous discussion of project management, it is necessary to assure that
the matrix will work by thoroughly selling the concept to top management and to all involved
functional management. If everyone involved in the matrix is “a believer,” and every effort is
expended to make it work, the matrix will work and will result in outstanding project
accomplishment. As indicated previously, if only takes one uncooperative disciplinary
manager dragging his feet to make the whole project fail. However, active, enthusiastic, and
aggressive support by top management will counteract even the most recalcitrant functional
manager.

Advantages of the Matrix

The matrix organization has many advantages which far outweigh its principal disadvantage
of complexity. Among the more universally accepted advantages of the matrix which go
beyond the advantages of project management in general are the following (2)(22):

Figure 5. A product industry matrix organization

Figure 6. A construction industry matrix organization

 Project Objectives Clear — Project objectives will not only be highly visible through the
project office, but will also be balanced with the objectives of the functional organization.
 Project Integration — There is a clear and workable mechanism for achieving project
integration of subsystems and work packages across functional departmental lines.
Coordination across functional lines can easily be achieved.
 Efficient Use of Resources — The maximum efficient utilization can be made of scarce
company resources. It is the most efficient use of manpower since personnel can be
used only part-time if desired, and can be shared between projects. It is the most
efficient use of facilities, machinery, equipment, and other resources since these
resources can be shared between or among projects. Allocation of scarce resources can
be negotiated between project and functional management, or corporate priorities may
be established. The matrix is therefore less expensive than an equivalent pure project
organization.
 Information Flow — Information dissemination should be very effective since there is
provision for both horizontal and vertical flow. Horizontal flow provides for project
systems information to flow from functional unit to functional unit. Vertical flow provides
for detailed disciplinary information to flow from project to project, and to various levels of
management. Information of use to other projects is not locked up within a single project.
 Retention of Disciplinary Teams — Teams of functional experts and specialists are kept
together even though projects come and go. Therefore technology and know-how is not
lost when a project is completed. Specialists like to work with other specialists in the
same discipline, and they will be better able to continually exchange ideas and
information. As a result, when teams of functional specialists work together, a synergistic
effect occurs, resulting in increased innovation and productive output, even though
individually they may be working on different projects.
 High Morale — Morale problems occur less frequently since the worker in the matrix
responds first to the morale-building experience of working on a successful project
resulting in visible achievements. This will be true whether the achievement is a ballistic
missile, an aircraft, a power plant, or the introduction of a new soap into the marketplace.
Secondly, worker morale is normally higher when they can work with their fellow
specialists. Thirdly, by retaining his functional “home,” the specialist may have a clearer
career progression up the functional ladder. On the other hand, if he finds that his talents
and interests are multidisciplinary, he can set his career objectives toward the project
office.
 Development of Project Managers — The matrix is an excellent training ground for
prospective project managers since promising candidates can easily be spotted in the
multidisciplinary project environment. A common occurrence would be the transfer of a
person who had demonstrated the ability to work across functional departmental lines to
the project office as an assistant project manager. His career progression would then be
to project manager, which is an excellent path leading to top management.
 Project Shutdown — In a matrix organization project termination is not the traumatic and
painful event that it can be in a pure project organization. It is not uncommon for a large
aerospace or construction project to have several thousand people working in a pure
project organization. What do you do with several thousand people when the project is
completed? Large layoffs are almost unavoidable since only a relatively few people can
be relocated unless major buildups in another project are occurring. Matrix projects are
normally smaller with fewer people overall involved. In addition, the people are spread
across a whole functional organization and each department has only a few people to
relocate.
Problems of the Matrix

The matrix organization does have some disadvantages and problems, but they need not be
considered insurmountable. Knowing what problems may occur is “half the battle” in
overcoming them. The following disadvantages are inherent in the matrix organization:

 Two Bosses — The major disadvantage is that the personnel on the project are working
for two bosses. In any type of conflict situation a person could easily become “the man in
the middle.” Further problems of conflict can be caused by project personnel playing one
boss against the other.
 Complexity — The matrix organization is inherently more complex than either a
functional or a pure project organization, since it is the superimposition of one on the
other. This complexity shows itself in the following problems:

 Difficulties in Monitoring and Controlling — Complexity results from the number of

managers and personnel involved and from the number of people that must be kept
informed. Fortunately, modern computer techniques have helped to keep this problem
under control, but basically it’s still a “people” problem.
 Complex Information Flow — This is a problem only because there are so many people
and organizational units involved. Both the project and functional managers must be
certain that they have touched bases with each other for any major decisions in their
areas of responsibility.
 Fast Reaction Difficult — The project manager is sometimes faced with a problem of
achieving fast reaction times, primarily since there are so many people to be consulted.
The project manager in the matrix ususally does not have strong vested authority,
therefore considerable negotiation is necessary. Project management was primarily
conceived to prevent this problem, but it can be a problem if the management system
keeps the project manager from making any decisions without consultation with
functional and top management. If the matrix is working, the problem won’t occur.
 Conflicting Guidance — The more complex organization with two lines of authority
always increases the possibility of conflicting instructions and guidance.

 Priorities — A matrix organization with a number of projects faces real problems with
project priorities and resource allocation. Each project manager will obviously consider
his project to have the highest priority. Similarly, each functional manager will consider
that the allocation of resources and priorities within his department is his own business.
As a result, the decisions involving project priorities and often the allocation of resources
must be made at a high level. This often puts an undue and unwelcome load on the top
executive officer in the matrix. This problem has led to the use of a manager of projects,
or a super project manager in some organizations. His principal functions would be to
consult with higher levels of management to assure equitable allocation of resources and
to periodically reassess project priorities. This effort can be extremely valuable in
reducing conflict and anxiety within the matrix.
 Management Goals — There is a constant, although often unperceived, struggle in
balancing the goals and objectives of project and functional management. A strong
project manager may place undue emphasis on time and cost constraints, while a
functional manager may concentrate on technical excellence at the expense of
schedules. Top management must assure that a careful balance of the goals of both
project and functional management is maintained.
 Potential for Conflict — As discussed in a later section of this chapter, whenever there
are two project managers competing for resources, there is potential for conflict. This
 conflict may evidence itself primarily as a struggle for power. However, it also may
evidence itself by backbiting, foot-dragging and project sabotage. Conflict and
competition may also be constructive as an aid to achieving high performance; however,
it cannot be allowed to degenerate to personal antagonism and discord. In project work
conflict is inevitable; keeping it constructive is the problem in matrix management.
 Effects of Conflict on Management — Since conflict and stress are inherent in the matrix
organization, considerable attention must be given to the individuals who will function as
both project and functional managers. Individuals vary greatly in their ability to function
effectively under stress. Conflict, particularly the role conflict typical of the two-boss
situation, can produce stress, anxiety, and reduced job satisfaction. Considerable
attention must be directed toward assuring that prospective managers have a high
tolerance for conflict situations.
Davis and Lawrence have discussed the problems of the matrix which they term matrix
pathologies (11). They list and discuss the following problems: power struggles, anarchy,
groupitis, collapse during economic crunch, excessive overhead, decision strangulation,
sinking, layering, and navel gazing. They indicate that many of these difficulties occur in
more conventional organizations, but that the matrix seems somewhat more vulnerable to
these particular ailments.
They indicate that power struggles are inevitable in a matrix because it is different from the
traditionally structured hierarchy. In the matrix, power struggles are a logical derivative of the
ambiguity and shared power that has been built purposefully into the design. Corporations
will find it exceedingly difficult to prevent power struggles from developing, but they must
prevent them from reaching destructive lengths.
Anarchy is defined as a company quite literally coming apart at the seams during a period of
stress. As the authors admit, this is an unlikely occurrence, and the more explicit the
organizational agreements are the less likely it is to occur.
Groupitis refers to confusing matrix behavior with group decision making. The matrix does
not require that all business decisions be hammered out in group meetings. Group decision
making should be done as often as necessary, and as little as possible.
Collapse during economic crunch refers* to the frequently noted fact that matrix
organizations seem to blossom during periods of rapid growth and prosperity, and to be
buffeted and/or cast away during periods of economic decline. It seems natural that during
periods of crisis, top management thinks that the organization needs a firmer hand and
reinstitutes the authoritarian structure. “There is no more time for organizational toys and
tinkering. The matrix is done in.” Thus the matrix is the readily available scapegoat for other
organizational problems such as poor planning and inadequate control.
One of the concerns of organizations first encountering the matrix is that it is too costly since
it appears, on the surface, to double up on management by adding another chain of
command. It is true that initially overhead costs do rise, but as the matrix matures, these
overhead costs decrease and productivity gains appear.
It is suggested that moving into a matrix can lead to the strangulation of the decision
process. “Will all bold initiatives be watered down by too many cooks?” Three possible
situations can arise: (1) the necessity for constant clearing of all issues with the functional
managers, (2) escalation of conflict caused by constant referral of problems up the dual
chain of command, and (3) some managers feel that every decision must be a crisp,
unilateral decision, therefore they will be very uncomfortable and ineffective in a matrix
organization.
Sinking refers to the observation that there seems to be some difficulty in keeping the matrix
viable at the corporate or institutional level, and a corresponding tendency for it to sink down
to lower levels in the organization where it survives and thrives. This phenomena may be
indicative of top management not understanding the matrix or the matrix may just be finding
its proper place.
Layering is defined as a phenomena in which matrices within matrices are found. By itself,
layering may not be a problem, but it sometimes creates more problems than it solves
because the unnecessary complexity may be more of a burden than it is worth.
Navel gazing refers to the tendency to become absorbed in the organization’s internal
relations at the expense of the world outside the organization, particularly to clients. This
concentration on the internal workings of the organization is most likely to occur in the early
phases of a matrix when new behaviors have to be learned.

Making the Matrix Work

After examining the disadvantages and problems of working in a matrix organization, one
may view the problems as insurmountable. How then does a company get this complex
organizational form to function? Its successful operation, like that of any management
organization, depends almost entirely on actions and activities of the various people
involved. First, top management must give real and immediate support to the matrix,
including a clear project charter. This charter should state the purpose of the project and
spell out the responsibilities and authority of the project manager. In addition it should
indicate to the fullest extent possible his relationships with the functional managers involved
in the project.
Functional management must modify much of their managerial thinking and their usual
operational procedures and activities in order to make the matrix work. This may mean a
considerable change in the way they determine their priorities. It may be a considerable
shock to functional management to find that their priorities must change, and that the project
comes first. Project management must realize that they get their job accomplished primarily
through the process of negotiation, and that they should become negotiation experts. If all
major decisions are made with the concurrence of the involved functional managers, the
project manager finds himself in a very strong position in insisting that the decision be
carried out and that the desired goals be accomplished. In addition, the project personnel
must be able to adapt to the two-boss situation which can be a traumatic experience when
first encountered.

Who Is the Real Boss?

Whenever the two-boss situation is encountered, the logical question that can be asked is:
who is the real boss? Theoretically it should be possible to divide the authority and
responsibility more or less equally between the project and functional managers. However,
there is no agreement among the experts as to whether a balance of power is necessary or
even desirable.
Even if there is a balance of power, the question of who is the real boss may depend on
other factors. For instance, the line or discipline manager is usually perceived as the real
boss by the employees in a matrix organization. This is a natural situation since the
discipline manager represents “home base” — the disciplinary home to which the employee
returns after the project is completed. In addition, the disciplinary manager normally carries
the most weight when it comes to performance evaluations and promotions. However, there
are usually some employees who relate so strongly to the overall project, that they perceive
the project manager to be the real boss. So perhaps there is no one real boss, rather there is
a continually shifting balance of power (29).

Balance of Power
At the heart of the operation of the matrix is the balance of power. Theoretically, it should be
possible to divide the authority and responsibility more or less equally between the project
and functional managers, however to do so is difficult and seldom occurs. It has been
attempted to clearly delineate the authority and responsibilities of both project and functional
management so as to assure a balance of power. Such a delineation has been presented by
one management author (7) who has divided the responsibilities as shown in table 1.
Table 1. Delineation of Responsibilities
Project Manager’s Responsibilities

1. What is to be done?
2. When will the task be done?
3. Why will the task be done?
4. How much money is available to do the task?
5. How well has the total project been done?
Functional Manager’’s Responsibilities

1. How will the task be done?

2. Where will the task be done?
3. Who will do the task?
4. How well has the functional input been integrated into the project?
Another way of stating the roles is: the project manager is responsible for the overall
integration of the total project system and the functional manager is responsible for technical
direction in his discipline.
The so-called responsibility chart has been proposed as a useful device in defining
jurisdictional areas of management (17)(20). A simplified example of a responsibility chart is
show in table 2. Such a chart is probably more meaningful than organization charts or job
descriptions, particularly is it is filled in during a meeting of all concerned managers resulting
in agreement on the job responsibilities. This process results in potential conflicts being
confronted early, before specific problems arise.
Table 2. Example of a Responsibility Chart Source: Ref. 17, p. 171.
Certainly such a delineation indicates where the major responsibilities lie, but it cannot
guarantee a balance of power. In fact, there are many reasons why it is almost impossible to
have a truly “equal” balance of power between functional and project management. Not the
least of these reasons is the fact that we are dealing with people, and all people, including
managers, are different. Managers have differing personalities and differing management
styles. Some management styles depend on the persuasive abilities of the manager while
others depend on or tend to fall back on strong support from top management. In addition,
power is a fluctuating and constantly changing condition that cannot be static even if one so
desired (23).
The breakdown of responsibilities shown in table 1 and table 2, although useful in planning
and decision making, is highly simplistic. What conscientious, knowledgeable project
manager would not get personally involved in “how will the task be done?” His project
schedule and “when will the task be done?” responsibilities do not allow him the luxury of
sitting back and waiting for functional management to make every technical decision. He
must ensure that technical decisions are made on schedule. He then must review the key
technical decisions and challenge them if necessary. As project integrator, he has the
overriding responsibility for evaluating every key project decision to determine how it
interfaces with the other project tasks, and with his schedule and budget. The project
manager therefore must get involved and influence every project action and as a last resort
he always has appeal rights or veto power — for the good of the project. The project
manager even gets involved in “who will do the task?” After all, the highest achievers and
most innovative personnel in the discipline organizations will be highly sought after, and the
project managers will seek to obtain only the very best people for their projects.
On the other hand, what good functional manager will not get deeply involved in the details
of “what, when and for how much money?” He has a strong personal interest in these details
since his organization has to perform the tasks spelled out in the project schedules and
budgets. He must assure that the task is realistically priced and technically feasible. The
responsibilities listed in table 1 can therefore only be used as indicators as to where the
major responsibilities lie.
Since the project, program or product is usually a very important part of a company’s
activities, the project manager is a very important person. He is the one who puts the
company in a position where it can make more profit, or lose money.
Therefore, in terms of the balance of power, it would seem that the project manager would
always have the scale of power tipped in his direction, particularly with the firm support of top
management. Not necessarily so! In fact, not usually so, at least in a matrix organization. In
a pure project organization, there is no question as to who holds the power. But in a matrix
organization the functional manager has powerful forces on his side. As previously pointed
out, the functional manager is normally perceived by project personnel to be the real boss.
This is often inevitable since functional management is part of the unchanging ladder in the
management hierarchy and is therefore perceived to be “permanent” by the employees.
After all, the functional organization represents “home-base” to which project personnel
expect to return after the completion of the project.
Very strong top-management support for the project manager is necessary to get the matrix
to work, and even very strong support will not guarantee project success. However, the
matrix will not work without it. The project manager must get the job done by every means at
his disposal even though he may not be perceived as the real boss. He can always appeal to
higher authority, however such actions must be kept to a minimum or top management may
view the project manager as ineffective.

The Project/Functional Interface

The secret of the successfully functioning matrix can thus be seen to be not just a pure
balance of power, but more a function of the type of interface relationships between the
project and individual functional managers. Every project decision and action must be
negotiated across this interface. This interface is a natural conflict situation since many of
the goals and objectives of project and functional management are different. Depending on
the personality and dedication of the respective managers, this interface relationship can be
one of smooth-working cooperation or bitter conflict. A domineering personality or power
play is not the answer. The overpowering manager may win the local skirmish, but usually
manages sooner or later to alienate everyone working on the project. Cooperation and
negotiation are the keys to successful decision making across the project/functional
interface. Arbitrary and one-sided decisions by either the project or functional manager can
only lead to or intensify the potential for conflict. Unfortunately for the project manager, he
can accomplish little by himself, and must depend on the cooperation and support of the
functional managers. That old definition of successful management — “one who gets things
done by working through others” — is essential for successful project management in the
matrix organization.
The project manager in a matrix organization has two very important interfaces — with top
management and with functional management. A good working relationship with and ready
access to top management is essential for resolving big problems and removing obstacles. A
good working relationship with functional management will ensure that most problems are
resolved at their level and will not have to go to top management. The conventional matrix
model (figure 1) does not adequately emphasize these most important relationships.
Obviously, neither the project manager nor the functional managers can sit in their offices
and give orders. The various managers must be communicating with each other on at least a
daily basis, and usually more often. Therefore a more adequate organizational model is
shown in figure 7, which shows the managerial relationships as double-ended arrows,
indicating that the relationships are two-way streets. Consultation, cooperation, and constant
support are particularly necessary on the part of the project and functional managers. These
are very important relationships, keys to the success of any matrix organization, and must be
carefully nurtured and actively promoted by top management and by both project and
functional management.
The difficulties that occur at the project/functional interface are emphasized if the salient
differences between the role of the project manager and the traditional functional manager
are analyzed. Such an analysis has been made by Cleland (7) and indicated that “while
these differences are possibly more theoretical than actual, differences do exist, and they
affect the manager’s modus operandi and philosophy.” Both project and functional
management must work to achieve activity harmony in spite of these conflicting objectives
and roles. The matrix organization actually is a method of deliberately utilizing conflict to get
a better job done. The project team must be more concerned with solving the problem rather
than with who solves it. Teamwork and problem solving must be emphasized rather than role
definition.
Figure 7. The multiple management interfaces

Achieving a Balance of Power

Achieving a balance of power between project and functional management may in many
cases be a desirable goal. Certainly it should be a way of minimizing potential power
struggles and unnecessary conflicts. There is no certain way to assure that there is a
balance of power, and it is probably seldom really achieved. However, it can be approached
by assuming that the project manager has the full support of top management and that he
reports at a high enough level in the management hierarchy.
Figure 8. Project management reporting levels

How High Should Project Management Report?

It is not just a question of balance of power, but does the project manager have sufficient
clout to be effective? For the most part, the project manager’s clout is a direct function of the
level at which he reports in the hierarchical organization. If he is to be effective, the project
manager must be on at least an equal level with the highest level of functional management
that he must deal with. As indicated in figure 8, there can be a considerable difference in
reporting level depending whether the project is confined to a single department or spreads
across the entire company’s activities. This optimum reporting level will change during the
life of a project as the effort progresses from basic research to the manufacture of a product.

Strong vs. Weak Matrix

In many situations it may not be desirable to have a balance of power. For instance, a
project may be so important to the company, or the budget and schedule so tight that top
management feels that the project manager must be in a very strong position. Or perhaps
the project manager feels that he must tilt the organizational balance of power in his favor to
obtain better project performance. For instance, construction management has found from
experience that a strong project office is often necessary to achieve good project
performance (3). On the other hand, top management may feel that functional management
needs more backing. In either case, the balance of power can be tilted in either direction by
changing any one or any combination of the following three factors:

 The administrative relationship. — The levels at which the project and involved functional
managers report, and the backing which they receive from top management.
 The physical relationship. — The physical distances between the various people
involved in the project
 The time spent on the project. — The amount of time spent on the project by the
respective managers
These three factors can be used to describe whether the matrix is strong or weak. The
strong matrix is one in which the balance of power is definitely on the side of project
management. This can be shown by the model in figure 9. A weak matrix has been
described by project managers as one in which the balance of power tilts decisively in the
direction of line or functional management. Many organizations have thus, for various
reasons including the inability to make the two-boss system work, modified the matrix by
shifting the balance of power. Galbraith has described the managerial alternatives as a
continuum ranging from pure project to functional (figure 10) (13)(17). The matrix falls in the
middle of the continuum, and can range from very weak to very strong depending on the
relative balance of power.

Figure 9. The balance of power in a strong matrix

It is easy to see how the administrative relationships can be used to create a strong matrix.
The higher the project manager reports in the hierarchical organization, and the more visible
support he gets from top management, the more likely it is that the matrix will be strong. The
physical relationship would involve actually splitting the project personnel away from their
physical reporting relationship with their functional managers. One approach would be to put
the entire project team together in the same room, away from their functional bosses. This
would seem to be very desirable on the part of most project managers, but would have some
disadvantages in regard to utilization of functional facilities and interaction with other
functional personnel. The approach of putting all the project personnel together has been
described as a tight matrix, whereas the situation of widely-separated project personnel has
been described as a loose matrix.

Figure 10. The balance of power in weak and strong matrices

The organizational alternatives have also been described in terms of the percentage of the
organizational personnel who are full-time members of the project team (25). In this manner,
the various organizational structures can be described as a continuum where the three
organizational forms (functional, project, and matrix) are a continuum ranging from functional
on one end and pure project on the other (figure 3, chapter 4). In a functional organization,
there is no one on the project team, and in a pure project organization, essentially everybody
is on the project team. The matrix falls in between, and includes a variety of organizational
alternatives ranging from a weak to a strong matrix. A weak matrix is described as having
only a part-time coordinator whereas a strong matrix has a project office containing such
project functions as systems engineering, cost analysis, scheduling, and planning.

Summary

The matrix organizational structure has had a great influence on project management. The
matrix evolved to fill a need for an organization capable of dealing with great project size and
complexity. The result was increased organizational complexity. However, it has greatly
added to the versatility and effectiveness of project management. The matrix has permitted
project management to be effective not only for very large projects but small projects as well,
and has been extremely valuable for solving multidisciplinary problems.
The matrix organizational form is only desirable if there is a real need for its added
complexity. Not only is it not for everyone, but it cannot be guaranteed to work. It will only
work if the entire organization, from top management to the project personnel, are
thoroughly “sold” on the matrix concept. There are many reasons why the matrix will not
work, but failure to lay the groundwork and fully prepare the organization is the principle
reason for failure. The matrix will function and result in very improved project productivity if
top management gives its unwavering support and if functional management and the project
personnel accept the matrix as a “way of life” which can only be of great advantage to the
company in improving output and profit.

REFERENCES
1. Archibald, Russell D., Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1976, pp. 14-15.
2. Blake, Stewart P., Managing for Responsive Research and Development. San Francisco:
W. H. Freeman and Co., 1978, p. 176.
3. Caspe, Marc S., “An Overview of Project Management and Project Management
Services,” Project Management Quarterly VII: 4, December 1976, pp. 30-39.
4. Cleland, David I. and William R. King, Systems, Organizations, Analysis, Management: A
Book of Readings. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969, pp. 281-290.
5. Cleland. David I. and William R. King, Management: A Systems Approach. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972, pp. 337- 362.
6. Cleland, David I. and William R. King, Systems Analysis and Project Management,
Second Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975, pp. 183-202.
7. Cleland. David I. and William R. King, Systems Analysis, p. 237.
8. Cleland, David I., “Understanding Project Authority,” Business Horizons Spring 1966, p.
231.
9. Davis, Stanley M. “Two Models of Organization: Unity of Command versus Balance of
Power,” Sloan Management Review Fall 1974, pp. 29-40.
10. Davis, Stanley M. and Paul R. Lawrence, Matrix. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, 1977, p. 3.
11. Davis, Stanley M. and Paul R. Lawrence, Matrix, pp. 129-144.
12. Davis, Stanley M. and Paul R. Lawrence, Matrix, pp. 155-192.
13. Galbraith, Jay R., “Matrix Organization Designs,” Business Horizons February 1971, pp.
29-40.
14. Galbraith, Jay R., ed., Matrix Organizations: Organization Design for High
Technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1971.
15. Galbraith, Jay R., Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, 1974.
16. Galbraith, Jay R., Organizational Design. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, 1977, p. 167.
17. Galbraith, Jay R., Organizational Design, p. 171.
18. Grinnell, Sherman K. and Howard P. Apple, “When Two Bosses Are Better Than
One,” Machine Design January 9, 1975, pp. 84-87.
19. Mee, John F., “Ideational Items: Matrix Organization,” Business Horizons Summer 1964,
pp. 70-72. (Reprinted in Cleland and King, Systems, Organizations, Analysis, Management:
A Book of Readings, pp. 23-25.)
20. Melcher, R., “Roles and Relationships: Clarifying the Manager’s Job,” Personnel May-
June 1967. (Reprinted in Caspe, “An Overview of Project Management and Project
Management Services,” pp. 365-371.)
21. Miller, J. Wade, Jr. and Robert J. Wolf, “The 'Micro-Company,’ " Personnel July—August
1968, pp. 35-42.
22. Middleton, C. J., “How to Set Up a Project Organization,” Harvard Business Review
March-April 1967, pp. 73-82.
23. Sayles, Leonard R., “Matrix Management: The Structure with a Future,” Organizational
Dynamics Autumn 1976, pp. 2-17.
24. Tytler, Kathryn, “Making Matrix Management Work — And When And Why It’s Worth
The Effort.” Training October 1975, pp. 78-82.
25. Youker, Robert B., “Organizational Alternatives for Project Management,” Project
Management Quarterly VII1: 1, March 1977, pp. 18-24. (Reprinted in Management Review,
November 1967, pp. 46-52.)
This material has been reproduced with the permission of the copyright owner. Unauthorized
reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited. For permission to reproduce this material, please
contact PMI.