Matrix Management & Successful Projects

Matrix Management & Successful Projects

This article argues that an organisation’s inability to successfully dovetail matrix management alongside its vertical reporting structure is a major threats to project success…

In an increasingly complex world business change programmes and projects are also increasingly complex. More often than not, the work of a project crosses functional boundaries within an organisation.

This often leads to confusion within organisations and project teams – or, more accurately, line-managers and their direct reports. This contributes significantly to poor collaboration within projects and the added likelihood of project failure.

Traditionally, organisations are arranged vertically within functions, where line-managers have direct reports to whom they allocate targets and tasks and then manage their people accordingly.

If done well, the targets set will be derivatives of the line-manager‘s targets, which in turn are derived from the organisation’s strategic goals. The problem with this model, though, is that the accountability to which line-managers are held can quickly turn to blame if their functions fail to perform well, especially during tough economic times.

There are two important behavioural consequences arising from this, both of which decrease the likelihood of success in cross-functional projects.

The first is that line-managers take a stronger directive stance with their direct reports who, in a prevailing blame culture, will do exactly what is asked of them by their line-managers. This at best stifles initiative and flair and at worst makes the workplace a thoroughly miserable place to be.

The second threat to successful project delivery is caused because line-managers and direct reports place the non-failure of their function above the success of the cross-functional project. Whenever there is a conflict of interest between the function and the project people will rally behind the permanent structure – the function – and subjugate the temporary structure – the project.

People might argue that they do not behave in this way; line-managers in particular are wont to claim they behave corporately, but the weight of project-failure statistics is a compelling counter-argument.

Organisations implicitly accept that it is far more acceptable for a project to fail than it is for a function to fail, and in any case, managers can always dilute the success criteria for a project to lessen the apparent failure. However, it need not be this way.

If an organisation wants to undertake successful cross-functional projects the solution is to implement effective matrix management. Put simply, matrix management means emphasising the cross-functional structure over the vertical structure. The functions, in addition to their business as usual work, become enablers for business change programmes and projects.

In this model, the team is formed by drawing from all the functions with a contribution to make to the project. The project manager becomes accountable for the success of the project, but because he[1] does not have line-management responsibility for the team members his leadership is derived from the team’s consent, not from his authority over team members.

This alters team behaviour. Team members jointly “own” the project and have a vested interest in its success. They instinctively understand that success will come from collaboration, and so they work in an adult way, seeking agreement and consensus within the team.

In turn, this fosters commitment, enthusiasm and creativity, as each team member feels part of a team, not merely a puppet of the function. For the duration of the project the focus for team members is the project. The success of the project becomes the team members’ success. Work becomes more rewarding and project success becomes more likely.

So where do line-managers fit into this horizontal model? They continue to play a key part in business as usual, and will more than likely be part of the project’s stakeholder liaison plan, to be kept informed and consulted, but in terms of the delivery of business change work they are one step removed. Their role in relation to the project team members from their function is limited to what could loosely be labelled “Pastoral care”:

·       Ensure that their direct reports are adequately trained and equipped to do the work expected of them

·       Be an escalation point for non-technical problems encountered on the project by the direct report(s)

·       Be an escalation point for the project manager if there are issues with the direct report

·       Support the direct-report’s development, and career-aspirations

·       Oversee staff appraisals, holidays, disciplinary matters etc.

Additionally, in respect of projects, line-managers should represent their function at the project Steering Group.[2] This empowers them to resolve issues the project manager is experiencing when they cannot be resolved at project level, and gives them an insight into how the project fits into the overall company strategy.

Attendance at Steering Group also increases co-operation between line-managers across the functions for the good of the project. Cross-functional tensions don’t arise when a Steering Group is committed to a project because undertaking the project has been a corporate decision. Tensions arise when there is resource contention across projects competing for priority, and this is a matter for a Portfolio Executive or similar forum, it should not be the signal for a bun-fight between function heads.

If matrix management is working properly, this benefits all concerned; the project team is left to concentrate entirely on successful delivery, free from the day-to-day concerns, or interference, of the function from which they have been seconded. Line-managers, then, can concentrate on what should be their core work – ensuring that the function has the right level of staffing, with the relevant competencies to support the organisation’s strategic aims, undertake business as usual within the function and be seconded to the right projects as necessary according to the organisation’s priorities.

Steve Syder is a programme Manager specialising in eCommerce and programme recovery. He is in his 21st year as an interim. To contact him visit www.stevesyder.com

---

[1] Project managers can be male or female. I use the male pronoun because I am male.

[2] In a large and complex project it is likely that the line-managers’ managers will be the ones attending Steering Group. In any event, Steering Group should include senior managers with a full understanding of how the project satisfies corporate strategy.

Certainty or innovation - what will your stakeholders opt for?

Despite having all the right badges and certificates for methodologies, and despite producing (at least) my fair share of PIDs, PDDs, Communication Strategies etc. etc. I remain unconvinced that they will ever lead to innovation and excellence.

This "project bureaucracy" leads stakeholders to expect - and demand - certainty, which roughly translates as "safe". Nothing great was ever achieved by taking the safe route, and it almost invariably leads to disappointment because certainty cannot be guaranteed on day 1.

We've all heard the cliches - "A project plan is only 100% accurate the day after the project completes" and "Projects never go over budget, they are under-estimated in the first place".

I have seen too many times organisations where the primary outputs of a project are the governance artefacts; woe betide anyone who is late updating the RAID Log - it's far more important than making sure the REAL project products are the best they can be.

Similarly, some organisations, most notably public sector ones, who tend to be the most risk averse, hide behind governance as an excuse when projects fail; how often have you seen a civil servant bemoaning (yet another) large failed project by saying "We followed all the processes and procedures..."?

Yes, I'm sure their governance documentation is a joy to behold but it won't cut much mustard with taxpayers who just wanted a good [insert whatever you like here... health records system, passport system, border control mechanism - you get the idea]

I think this is why I am more and more drawn to agile development. Project bureaucracy leads almost inevitably into a waterfall development, where each "gate" provides certainty before the project moves on to the next phase.

Real life isn't like that. The average person, faced with, say, a project to landscape a garden with the help of some friends doesn't create a set-in-stone project plan including quality reviews and reports to their spouse. They choose a bit to tackle, complete it and move on to the next bit until the garden is complete.

You can almost picture them standing at the edge of the garden on the first weekend saying "Let's tackle x first" (Hmm - sounds a bit like a sprint plan to me) then on day two discussing where they got to and what's next (scrum, anyone?).

When I picture this, I also picture a group of people self-organising and working as a team. No bureaucracy, no over-burdening control but plenty of ambition, fun and progress.

OK, people making the financial investment need some kind of reassurance that they will receive value for money, but this does not mean they need a library's-worth of governance documentation generating.

Far better to keep them informed along the way. Prototype, demonstrate, inform, but above all, be inspired.

Socialising the Workplace

As an interim for many years now, I often find myself at a client’s site frustrated because the software they provide does not measure up to the software I use at home. The reason I am so enthusiastic about the power of IT is because it has the potential to dramatically improve the efficiency of an organisation or an individual.

I invest in software that makes me – I believe - very efficient, often automating tasks that would otherwise be time-consuming. It also improves the way I store and display data, e.g. programme plans, brainstorming and contact management, so I don’t “lose stuff” and I know what conversations I’ve had with whom a year or more ago and I can track agents’ performances over time.

The quantum shift in easily accessible software with the advent of mobile apps and the emergence of social networking sites is likely to cause similar frustration amongst people far younger than I am as they enter the workplace. Sites like Facebook, LinkedIn and others change the face of communication. Text messaging and video calling on smart phones similarly alter the way people communicate.

All this creates a huge shock to the system for new people entering the office only to find they have to communicate via email or book a room to hold meetings. In their social lives they have probably been announcing parties/plans/events etc. to their friends via Facebook for years, and suddenly, when they are supposedly in a professional environment, life slows to snail’s pace.

I’m not suggesting of course that business is conducted via Facebook, but I do believe that businesses must embrace socialising technology. That is to say central repositories for programme documentation, bulletin boards, instant messaging and wikis for faster, more efficient communication.

When I entered the workplace – just after the company archived the abacus – a quality review involved booking a meeting room, finding a convenient time for everyone, meeting to discuss the document, making the changes after the meeting and then literally walking the document around the office to confirm to people that the agreed changes had been made. How much better now to use software to store the document where everyone involved can access it and make comments. Furthermore, it will be subject to version control so the history of changes is easily tracked. We used to call that “Configuration management” and employ someone just for that!

With efficient systems, no-one is in any doubt which document is the current version and discussions are open for all to see.

This has implications for programme management of course. Security of the documentation must be paramount, and user access should be allocated judiciously. Perhaps more important than these mechanics is the implication for programme morale. I believe this programme socialising generates far more of a team ethos. Stakeholders aren’t limited to weekly – or even monthly – updates and any problems aired have the potential to be answered quicker because the whole team is aware there is an issue.

This more collaborative way of working should lead to greater motivation, more transparency and a greater degree of trust. It just needs managers to update their thinking and embrace what’s new – arguably the very reason they came into IT in the first place.

I’d like to hear your views and experiences; is your workplace socialised? Are a wiki and instant messaging cutting edge for you, or business as usual? Perhaps they are yesterday’s news and you are far more sophisticated?

Steve Syder RPP, FAPM is a freelance programme manager and RPP Assessor based in London. His web site is www.stevesyder.com

Things looking up?

A new year and a  new search for a fresh assignment.

Early signs are that the market for interim programme managers is improving. The job boards seem fairly busy and agents are calling.

My fingers are crossed for something interesting to come along soon.

Quiet Time

After a really hectic year on two different assignments with virtually no time off I'm now enjoying a break.

Playing a lot of golf (and improving!), doing those jobs that always seem to be ignored when you're working and catching up with old friends.

I've let it be known that I'm looking for a new assignment for the New Year, but I don't expect much to happen in the market now until January.

Programme Management for the 21st Century

RPP Assessors' Training Day

Spent a good day yesterday at the APM's RPP Assessors' training day.

It's great to see how committed to the standard everybody is.

RPP (Registered Project Professional) is also being well supported by more and more organisations, and in time it's likely to become the first thing employers look for when recruiting Programme/Project Managers. One or two corporates have already declared that it will be compulsory when they recruit in future.

The verification process that has been added to the assessment process should ensure that all candidates receive a consistent evaluation, and in time all assessors will achieve a common view of what constitutes a successful application.

Once APM achieves Chartered status for this denomination the slow burn of applications we are seeing at present will become a raging fire!

I'm really pleased to have been part of it right from the start.

All change again!

My current assignment comes to an end in September.

I'm looking forward to a break, because the last two assignments have been a log slog and I've only had a week off all year.

This current assignment has been one of my most enjoyable, probably because the programme was in such a state when I arrived.

The end client had been promised a lot and had received little. The transformation part of the programme was roughly a year behind schedule, with no signs of delivering much in the near future.

Some people on the programme had to be replaced; they were either getting stale and jaded or they simply weren't up to the challenge.

In some cases, the developers had been asked to achieve the impossible, but it took a change of management for anyone to realise it was impossible and so change the way they were working.

Structurally, the organisation's business model did not lend itself to efficient delivery, because people were not necessarily incentivised to focus on one particular account.

The parlous state of the programme was hidden - not necessarily deliberately - because reporting was very subjective.

My first task was to make the reporting objective, based on the programme schedule. This turned most RAG reports red almost instantly, and people began to understand the scale of the problem. Then, we reorganised the way the account was set up, to incentivise people to focus on the one account.

I also replaced people in key positions, created a whole new programme management team below me and restructured the sub-programmes into outcomes-based projects in order to reduce complexity and risk.

Next, I mandated a better governance structure, based on MSP and PRINCE 2, and increased the size of the PMO. Programme and sub-programme boards were dramatically reduced in terms of the number of attendees so they became proper management forums instead of talking shops, and finally RAID management became effective.

All of this, of course, was done against a backdrop of commercial/contractual "discussions" with a somewhat unhappy and tense end-client.

Things are back on an even keel now, but it has become clear that the programme will take far longer to complete than was ever envisaged. Consequently, I've started replacing contract staff with FTEs to reduce burn rate.

With the programme in a far healthier state and on track to deliver, I can hand over to a permanent Programme Director and look for my next assignment - once I've played a bit of golf of course!