Management Concept Style: Organizational

Showing posts with label Organizational. Show all posts

Organizational Structures In Project Management

One aspect of project management that used to receive quite a bit of attention in the 1950s and 1960s was the project organizational structures. A myriad of new organizational structures have appeared on the scene in the last couple of decades but they still lack many of the desirable qualities in the traditional methods. Ultimately, project management directors seek organizational methods that facilitate teamwork, can maximize the use of limited resources, efficiency and quality in the way a project is completed and how goals and objectives are achieved. This article will examine the three main traditional organizational structures for project management. These three structures are functional organization, project organization and matrix organization.

Functional Organization This structure is by far the oldest of the organizational methods but remains one of the most successful. This method performs best when used for routine work functions and the upholding of quality and work standards. Functional Organization structures assign projects in two different ways. One way involves the project being assigned to a specific functional manager who then coordinates with the other departments for them to each contribute. Alternatively, projects can be shuffled around to different departments where each department manager ensures that their parts of the work have been completed.

Management

This method does not work very effectively when used in facilitating complex projects. One of the major criticisms of this organizational structure is the lack of built-in employee recognition, measurement and reward for project performance. Similarly, there is very little individual accountability for any project management tasks that need to be performed.

Organizational Structures In Project Management

Project Organization Project Organization is a structure that is specifically designed for executing projects. It is specifically tailored to meet the demands of complex projects by isolating unique work and maintaining a strong focus on completing the project. Once the project is completed, this structure disbands. This structure is effective in maintaining dedicated resources throughout the life of the project.

The major criticism of this structure is that it is inefficient in transferring technology and the use of resources. Also, by the time the members actually begin acting as a cohesive team, the project is over and the organization dissolves. Since this project has dedicated resources throughout its life, major inefficiency ensues when there are underutilized employees during certain parts of the project.

Matrix Organization Matrix Organization is a project management structure that evolved from the recognition of inherent flaws in the Functional Organization and Project Organization structures. Created in the 1970s, this structure combined the best components of these two structures. This model functions very well when there are multiple projects being coordinated at once. The functional managers oversee the staffing, training, job assignment and evaluation of the project's personnel. The functional specialists are assigned one or more projects and oversee that these individualized projects' achieve their objectives are completed through maximum resource efficiency.

Despite its recognition and avoidance of the flaws involved in other structure, Matrix Organization still does have some problems of its own. Individual employees report to at least two managers which can often lead to ambiguity and conflict. These problems can be avoided through good communication and solid leadership between managers.

This article simply provided an overview of several project management organizational structures. Functional Organization, Project Organization and Matrix Organization are the three most traditional project management structures that are still used today because of their effectiveness. However, do keep in mind that there are plenty of other methods available that may better suit your firm's situation. Nevertheless, the type of organizational structure that should be chosen by your firm depends on the type of project as well as the objectives and goals that it ultimately aims to achieve.

Organizational Structures In Project Management

Michael Russell

Your Independent guide to Project Management

6 Management Strategies For Organizational Change Success

Human beings tend to resist anything they view as stressful, and let's face it, organizational changes are about as stressful as it can get!

For most of us, familiarity with our surroundings, our relationships and our working environment allows us to reside safely inside our comfort zone. And comfort equals security.

Management

But when our comfort zone is detonated by changes in management or organizational systems, we implode, seeking the shelter of our innate desire to resist, at all costs.

6 Management Strategies For Organizational Change Success

Changes that occur outside of our control force us to adapt to new rules, new systems and new policies which can, at the outset, make us feel uncomfortable and insecure.

However, a responsible and responsive management team can intercede before staff resistance spreads like the plague and threatens the smooth transition of organizational changes.

Effective team leaders acknowledge and understand that it is a basic human instinct to react to change with resistance, even though staff may fully comprehend the reasons why changes in the organization are vital to its existence and growth.

6 Management Strategies to Avert Resistance

1. A clear outline - Discomfort and insecurity arises when staff are not made aware of the policies, principles, guidelines and structure of intended changes. Every employee needs to know how his/her position will be affected and what his/her role requires.
2. Commitment -Implementation of organizational changes will not occur smoothly if everyone - from the CEO to the office clerk - is not committed to the project and its successful outcome.
3. Advocacy - Each member of an organization who may be affected by the impending changes must be given the opportunity to express his/her opinion.
4. Responsibility - It is the role of the team leader to ensure that each employee who is responsible for a component of the change strategy is held accountable for his/her actions in implementing the changes required.
5. Acknowledgement - Evaluation and acknowledgement of the success of the change strategy at regular intervals ensures its smooth implementation.
6. Flexibility - Management needs to adopt a flexible approach to each stage of development of a change strategy so that unforeseen contingencies can be implemented, if and where necessary.

It only takes one irresolute employee to destabilize an entire workforce, so periods of internal change within an organization require management to stay vigilant for any signs of rumblings or disapproval.

Long-standing employees can feel betrayed and rejected when changes are announced by management. They often experience a sense of loss, confusion, frustration and job insecurity. The plan for job advancement they have often calculated appears to be shot to pieces.

So they react with denial and resistance to the imminent changes.

Management's ability to recognize these patterns of behavior and work to overcome any resistance establishes how well they will accomplish organizational changes. Their willingness to invest in the support and training necessary is an integral factor in achieving a positive outcome.

Employees aren't the only ones who have to adapt to changes within the organization.

Top level managers generally bear the brunt of discontented staff from the ground up. Senior managers who have been instrumental in bringing about the changes within the organization often underestimate the impact those changes will have on their employees.

Unrealistic expectations of how their staff will react (or over-react!) often causes top level managers to retreat and isolate themselves from the problem when the impact of their proposed changes filter back to them.

However, they tend to lay the blame at the feet of middle management if employees resist or complain about the changes.

Middle management tend to carry the most stress during times of organizational change. They feel "trapped", unless they have exceptional leadership skills; besieged by resistant employees who look to them for guidance yet often denied direction and focus by top level management.

Those in middle management often find themselves acting as the arbiter during times of organizational upheaval.

However, organizational changes within a business often prove to be a suitable testing ground for leadership qualities; from the employees all the way through to top level management.

Those who possess the qualities that define a good leader often emerge during the stressful environment that usually accompanies change. This creates an ideal opportunity for potential leaders to display those qualities and be recognized accordingly.

6 Management Strategies For Organizational Change Success

Take advantage of a Free 27-page Special Report, Keys to Working Less, Making More Money, and Having a More Balanced Life, and 11 other Free resource tools at http://www.AccountabilityCoach.com Obtain your copy of the 'Excuses Don't Count; Results Rule' book, and get results in just 30-days with the powerful 30-day self-study course. A myriad of other proven resources are available to you so you can be even more successful - personally and professionally.

Review and utilize the success-oriented resources and tools and subscribe to http://www.AccountabilityCoachBlog.com so you can receive consistent feedback on how to stay focused and productive and achieve your goals so you can be even more successful and have a truly balanced life.

Organizational Management - Management Structure

In this installment of our guide to organizational management we look at management structure...

The process of planning, organizing, and controlling human and other resources in order to meet an organizations goals, is known as management.

Management

Typically, a company will be set up to include different types of managers, which can include managers with responsibility for a specific department or division of the entity, as well as regional managers who supervise activities in a particular geographic region. The types of management positions will vary in accordance with the size of the business.

Organizational Management - Management Structure

Management structure (also known as organizational structure) is the method by which staff, departments, divisions and regions work and interact with one another. There are two main types of such structures, known as flat and hierarchal.

Whats known as a flat management structure promotes a decentralized decision-making process, which increases staff involvement and is achieved by very few or no management layers between front-line workers and the company's leadership.

By elevating the level of responsibility of baseline employees, and by eliminating layers of middle management, comments and feedback reach all personnel involved in decisions more quickly. Since the interaction between workers is more frequent, this management structure generally depends upon a much more personal relationship between workers and managers.

The hierarchal management structure has a set chain-of-command - that is each unit in the organization (except that at the very top) is subordinate to another unit or division. That means that each individual communicates directly with an immediate supervisor or subordinate and does not jump over layers of management to get to the top leader.

The benefit of a hierarchal structure is also its primary limitation in that it will reduce the level of communication that goes directly to the top. The hierarchal configuration, however, is the most prevalent for large corporations, governments, and even organized religions.

Flat management structures will typically only work well in smaller companies, or within smaller defined units of a large organization. Once an entity reaches a certain size, this type of structure will not work as well and could end up having a negative impact on productivity. An organizations complexity can be related to its size and how widely distributed it is geographically, and it is this complexity that governs which management structure is most beneficial to the company.

Organizational Management - Management Structure

Want to know more? Click here to continue reading our guide to organizational management: Organizational Management

Organizational Management - Management Structure

In this installment of our guide to organizational management we look at management structure...

The process of planning, organizing, and controlling human and other resources in order to meet an organizations goals, is known as management.

Management

Organizational Management - Management Structure

Want to know more? Click here to continue reading our guide to organizational management: Organizational Management

Organizational Change Management

A colleague of mine says that people don't mind change and they don't necessarily fear it - but that they do fear what is required to make a change. So, in effect, when organizational change is proposed and employees begin to have "fear conversations" ("I wonder what job moves are going to come about as a result of this. . .?" "Where is all this heading. . .?" " What kind of shake-ups will there be at the top?") what they're actually expressing is a fear of how the change is to be instituted. Organizational psychologists are highly attuned to change constructs, to the organizational purposes that they serve, and the opportunities and advantages that they provide for organizations. For all the positive aspects that change provides, we nevertheless find dichotomized thinking about the change process, when we work with the employees of a corporation undergoing change. From one prospective, we find that the organization's members endorse the end result of change and the advantages that this can bring. They can see, for example, that changes can offer greater efficiencies and improved and easier ways of doing things; increased corporate profits and a chance at higher salaries; a heightened competitive edge and greater market status advantage for the company. While acknowledging these benefits, what they talk to us about, however, are the actions and details that will occur between the time change is initiated and when the change has been effected - that is, the path that is to be traveled to make the change is of the greatest concern.

Because change is so all-pervasive in modern organizations, two of the most critical elements of leadership are initiation and management of change. Most managers have had limited training in the specifics of leading organizational change and have little idea of the ways that their employees perceive and experience change. And, yet, much of the day-to-day work of the manager involves addressing marketplace opportunities - most of which require change to the organizational structure and its employee functioning. The greatest determinant of the future success of an organization is the CEO and leadership team's ability to address change by formulating and articulating a clear vision and carefully-crafted strategic reactions.

\"change Management\"

Change in complex organizations requires management of the interplay of emotions and cognitive processes. Managers, on the whole, lack the knowledge and background to deal with imminent and forced organizational changes. The modern, dynamic business environment requires large numbers of changes to be made during any given year, from an ever-widening range of change choices. Without training in this area, managers often resist change or avoid organizational transformation effort. When faced with the need to change, resistive actions on the part of the organization's leaders can precipitate a process that results in rapid deterioration of the organization. Sound knowledge of organizational change processes, on the other hand, allows leaders to view change as an opportunity that can be guided and managed for greater gains.

From these two different approaches to organizational change - change resistance or change management - two differing belief systems emerge. The belief of the "change resistant" manager is that change will bring instability, upheaval, unpredictability, threat and disorientation; the "change embracer," on the other hand, sees change as an opportunity -- a chance for rejuvenation and innovation as well as progress and growth. In effect, the difference in the two approaches is a that of viewing change from a perspective of fear and anxiety, or from one of excitement and confidence.

From our experiences in organizations, there is no doubt that confident managers deal with change management most effectively. To arrive at a point where they are poised and assured of handling organizational changes, managers will have devoted themselves to constant and continuous learning. Dedicated learners gain the ability to gather large amounts of current knowledge that allows flexibility to react with dexterity and skill to crisis situations. Learning managers also come to know the culture of their organizations, and, consequently, are adept at persuading and reassuring employees to follow their lead in instituting change propositions.

From our many experiences of working as consultants in organizations, the professionals in my company have gleaned the following precepts of managing change:

1-- STRUCTURE AND POSIT THE CHANGE PROPOSITION WELL

Managers need to be able to clearly and completely describe and justify the changes that they propose. In order to prepare their employees for change, they need to have researched the topic well in order to be able to clearly delineate: 1) the reason for the change; 2) the proposed actions to be taken; and 3) the expected results. Good data to support the need for change are critical. The data need to be provided, along with sources for employees to find background and technical information for the proposed changes on their own. Providing information sources for employees encourages an informed workforce and also promotes the growth of an organizational population of learners.

2 -- ANTICIPATE RESISTANCE AND REACTION

The manager should know the employees and the organizational culture well enough to be able to anticipate those who will be resistant to change. Preparations for emotional reactions to change can be accomplished by developing strategies for use in specific situations. Change scenarios can offer sound operational approaches for most circumstances. If there are departments or other "pockets" of personnel who are likely to resist the changes, the manager and his staff will want to work with these members either in groups, or one-on-one, as appropriate.

3 -- TALK OPENLY ABOUT THE CHANGE REACTIONS

The manager, or an expert hired to assist with the intricacies of individual behavior in change situations, will need to confront employee fears and reactions to the change. There is a need to talk openly about plans for change and the actions relating to the change as well as to work with individual employees to assist them in addressing their concerns. As a part of this process, employees will need to determine "what's in it for me" -- this might simply be that the company, and they along with it, will prosper under the new directions. Once there have been discussions to promote greater understanding, employees can begin to think seriously about their roles in the change process.

4 -- INSPIRE TRUST AND TEAMWORK

The focus of the work with employees during the planning and initiation stages of change will be on engendering employee trust and inspiring teamwork. When goals are explained well and management credibility and integrity exists, it will be possible to transform employee reactions of anxiety to an endorsement of changes. Trust and team building is a topic requiring lengthy discussion, as there are prescriptive processes that will need to be followed. To accomplish this phase of change, leaders will need to research the topic well; or, alternatively, employ experts who can guide the organization's members through formal teambuilding and organizational development processes.

5 -- ALLOW OWNERSHIP OF THE CHANGE PROCESS

The desired outcome for teambuilding is to have employees feel that they own the change process as well as the path that is to be traveled to secure the change. Great value is derived from the employee dedication and rejuvenation that comes from feeling ownership of the change process. When an employee is feeling in charge of the process and of his own fate, there is certainty that the desired change will be accomplished. This level of confidence also fosters inspiration, new ideas, and innovative ways of doing things that result in a high rate of overall achievement.

6 -- LEADERS MUST LEAD

Throughout the change process, from the planning. . . to the introduction of change . . . to the implementation, the leader must lead. That is, employees must be convinced, in both words and actions, that the leader is fully behind the change processes. Members of the organization must be able both to know and to sense that the direction of change is well understood and highly endorsed by the leader, and that the leader harbors no doubts about the proposed course of action leading to greater organizational benefit and commercial gain for the organization. Good information about the organization's position and the need for change, a clear plan for action, and absolute faith in the success of the actions to be undertaken will be interpreted positively by employees. A leader that proposes change must be certain of the commitment and skill in leading the change efforts. It is for these challenging change efforts that confident leaders are most needed.

In summary: A leader must be willing to embrace change processes with clarity and enthusiasm; must have identified the need for change through avid learning processes; must be able to transmit a commitment to the change as well as to one's employees throughout the process; must be willing to work with individuals, groups and teams to establish the right path to accomplish the change; must be willing to share the ownership of the change processes and to compromise and deviate, where needed, from the original plans in order to ensure that others assume important roles in the process. And, above all, the leader must exhibit the courage and conviction that engenders respect and confidence from others in the organization; that allays most doubts; and that inspires employees to greater levels of performance and accomplishment.

Organizational Change Management

Dr. Billie Blair heads the organizational development firm, Leading and Learning, Inc., a firm of 30 business, education and health care professionals who have expertise in management practices and change associations in organizations and corporations.

Dr. Blair has a doctorate in organizational psychology and has worked with executives and CEOs for the past 25 years to institute strategic planning processes, manage organizational change, assess employees for growth potential, and lead processes of change within their businesses and institutions, including serving as a professor of management/leadership and as a college dean in California's largest public university system.

In offering the services of Leading and Learning, Inc. to leaders who appreciate the need for continuous learning in their organizations, Dr. Blair states that her firm "works with executives in organizations to finalize strategic goals and to help these leaders efficiently and effectively deal with change."

(For more information on this topic, see: Blair, 2006, Organizational Development and Teambuilding @ [http://www.leadinglearninginc.com])

Related : How to time management

Socio-Technical Systems and Organizational Values

Modern organizations define themselves using statements of vision. They state their vision in terms of human resources and technology, a socio-technical view. Modern organizations also define themselves in terms of values. New employees entering the organization learn the value system from employees with longevity in it. How organizations incorporate socio-technical systems as a reinforcement tool of their value system is the focus of this paper.

Values

\"strategic Management\"

In business, small and large, values determine course the business sets for itself. Yukl (2006) defines values as key statements of an organization. The value statement is ideological, what the organization considers important. Many values find their way into organizations including customer service, innovation, satisfaction of internal and external constituents, and excellence. Yulk’s view of values suggests something deeper. Organizational values and value creation are the soul of competitive edge, competitive advantage.

Hill and Jones (1998) write of management values as statements of how managers will conduct themselves and how they will do business. Managers in high performing businesses conduct themselves with stakeholders in mind. Winston (2002) suggests that high performing leaders accept the values of the organization as being of higher consequence and importance.

Systems

Values of an organization (customer service, innovation, satisfaction) imply an organization is a system. Senge (1990) tells us that organizations are organic systems of interconnected and interrelated sub-groups. This suggests more than brick and mortar structures, it suggests organizations of people, technology, and social interaction. Technology, according to Davis (1996), is a “conceptual bridge” between science and economics. This link gives form to how organizations manage. Conversely, Wren (2005) presents the view of technological change being disturbing to the social system of an organization. Socio-technical systems offer leverage to dispel the disturbing nature of change.

Socio-Technical Systems

Lee (2000) explains social of the socio-technical systems as the habitual attitudes of people. He includes the relationships between people with their values and behavioral styles. He also describes it as the formal power structure identified using traditional organizational charts. However, he continues with the aspect of an informal power structure based on influence and knowledge. The technical system makes up second part of the dyad. This system, according to Lee (2000), is “machinery, processes, procedures and a physical arrangement.”

A socio-technical system, abbreviated STS for the remainder of this paper, is people and technology blended. Yet, this is a much too simple definition. Some elements of STS are closely interrelated; therefore, it is not easy to distinguished items within a STS as purely technical or purely social. Aldridge (2004) explains STS as approaching organizational work groups as social systems and macro social systems. A third level of work observed is primary work systems. The primary work system according to Aldridge is one or more work units involved in face-to-face work. Work units collaborate jointly and have support of management, relevant technology, resources, and workplace specialists. Aldridge includes the writings of Trist (1981) when defining macro social systems, “…macro social systems include systems in communities and entire business sectors as well as societal institutions” (Trist, 1981, pg. 11). The STS design in work groups is increasing productivity of the group and increasing job satisfaction through optimization of social factors and integration with technical factors.

Elements of STS

According to an anonymous article on STS, the author explains some of the components integrated into a functional socio-technical system. Explained separately, each component has its own character; however, it is clear how closely linked each is and overlaps the others.

• Hardware is computers and computing peripherals, the classic technology of modern business. Organizations today do not exist without some kind of computing network, connecting wires, routers, and individual workstations.

• Software includes operating systems (Windows, UNIX, Apple, etc). As technology advances, it is increasingly difficult to separate hardware and software. Software varies based on organizational needs; yet software allows companies to create data for storage on hardware devices. The software often runs from the same hardware devices used for storage. Software facilitates social interaction by allowing distantly remote people an opportunity to message each other in almost real-time.

• Physical surroundings (physical setting) help establish the social and technical rules of engagement. Building with an open floor plan and open desk arrangement allows open social interaction among workers. Buildings with offices separating workers reduce interaction. Managers with an inner sanctum guarded by a secretary’s office establish a hierarchy of power.

• People, by name and by title, make up an integral part of any organization culture, social environment. Within an organization people have roles they play, positions they work in, and ancillary roles they exercise. Within their roles, they use their surrounds with hardware and software to support their roles.

• Procedures define operational procedures in an organization. Procedures are statements of rules and norms formally written. Outside the formal written procedural statements are unofficial ties to data flow and reporting relationships. Procedures attempt to define culture in a STS but the informal norms and behaviors are equally important to understand when developing a STS model.

• Laws and regulations are similar to procedures but impose stronger public sanctions when violated.

• Data and data structures in STS involve collection and storage of an organization’s information. Additionally, this element explains data use, retrieval, or presentation for use.

An organization’s socio-technical system supports the business as a great place to work. More than that, STS is a key factor to supporting leadership initiatives, vision, and values. Observed in 1949 in Great Britain, researchers developed socio-technical systems in South Yorkshire coalmines. They saw the technical improvements in mining coal combined with highly motivated work groups who self-regulated and collaborated closely became more productive than traditional work groups with the same technological improvements. Another observation was the self-regulated and collaborative teams were more cooperative among themselves, performing multiple tasks rather than one man one job, and committed to Ortgeist (spirit of the place) (Aldridge, 2004).

STS Applied Organizationally

A recent Internet search found the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Logistic Center’s statement of beliefs and commitments. Not all cited here; however, these selected ones reinforce concepts of socio-technical systems.

• Results Oriented – The Logistics Center constantly drives for results and success. We drive issues to closure, persist despite obstacles and opposition, and maintain a high energy level. Our employees readily put in the needed time and effort to achieve results.

• Innovation – The future of the Logistics Center is assured only as long as it welcomes and rewards innovation, creativity, and resourcefulness. We recognize “trial and error” as being elements of innovation and continuous improvement. Innovation has been the cause of success for the Logistics Center.

• Quality – We provide the best quality in all of our products and services. Our goal is to exceed industry benchmarks.

• People – People are our most important resource. We respect the individual’s dignity and value their contributions. We invest in training and education to give our employees the tools to make the Logistics Center a world-class organization.

• Teamwork and Collaboration – The Logistics Center provides a positive and challenging environment that supports the achievement of mission goals and fosters team spirit. We are partners with our customers, stakeholders, suppliers, and are committed to union/management partnerships.

• Integrity and Openness – The Logistics Center values trust, sincerity, honesty, and candor in relationships both personally and organizationally. We encourage our employees to express ideas, opinions, and thoughts in an honest and genuine manner.

• Corporate Citizenship – The Logistics Center values a positive corporate image and is sensitive to our corporate responsibilities to the community. We actively participate and support community involvement.
In post-industrial organizations, STS helps leaders create constructs that are enabling, empowering, in turn, enabling and empowering accelerates communication, and learning and knowledge. Within the context of knowledge building and knowledge, sharing, STS, through collaboration, allows work groups’ flexibility to develop original work patterns and competitive advantage.

Leaders Role in STS

Davis (1996) urges successful leaders to lead as if the future is now. Accomplishing this means seeing the final product rather than the processes of the product. STS employs the right people and the right technology at the right time within a structure that supports organizational values.
In an environment of rapid change, having a competitive advantage allows organizational foresight. However, foresight requires maintaining core values. Socio-technical systems support organizational values by maintaining organizational memory and shared experiences. Memory and shared experiences provide views of where the organization was while keeping everyone tracking toward future vision. An organization with strong STS standards uses their technology to preserve history, create performance benchmarks, and develop knowledge and learning environments. Strong quality systems demonstrate teams’ abilities to eliminate obsolete practices while staying within the framework of original values.

Conclusion

Stated earlier, organizations are systems of interrelated parts with differing skills and skill levels. STS, working within an organizations value system promotes wisely those with skills, knowledge, and ability. Additionally, STS, working with the value system, provides workers with the tools needed to grow in the skills, knowledge, and abilities so they, too, can be promoted. Members of self-directed teams seek new or improved skills from within the STS and through their interconnection with team members.
Self-directed teams improved productivity and commitment to the team and organization in English coalmines in 1949 and self-directed teams continue being productive and committed. Therefore, an organization employing socio-technical systems can grow into the future, yet hold fast to its historical past and the values making the group viable.

References

Aldridge, J. W. (2004). aboutChange Solutions. Encyclopedia of Distributed Learning (ISBN 0-7619-2451-5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Anonymous, (no date). Why a Social-Technical System? Retrieved online January 12, 2006 from [http://www.computingcases.org/general_tools/sia/socio_tech_systems.html].

Anonymous, (1996 – May-June). Maintaining Organizational Memories. TQM/CCI News. Retrieved January 22, 2006 from [http://www.grafix9000.com/documents/ccinews_organizational-memory.pdf].

Davis, S. (1996). Future Perfect. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hill, C. W. L. & Jones, G. R. (1998). Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Lee, Q., (2000). Quality in the Balance: Six-Sigma – A Socio-Technical System. Retrieved online January 12, 2006 from [http://www.sixsigma.com/library/content/c020902a.asp].

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Currency and Doubleday.

Trist, E. L. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems: A conceptual framework and an action research program. Ontario Quality of Working Life Center, Occasional Paper no. 2.

U. S. Federal Aviation Administration – Logistics Center. Organizational Values. Retrieved online January 22, 2006 from [http://www.logistics.faa.gov/StratPlan/values.htm].

Winston, B. (2002). Be a Leader for God’s Sake. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University, School of Leadership Studies.

Wren, D. A. (2005). The History of Management Thought (5th Ed.) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Wren, J. T. (1995). The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Socio-Technical Systems and Organizational Values

Paul Hoffman is a student at Regent University studying toward a Doctor of Strategic Leadership, holds a MA, Leadership and BS, Organizational Communication. He is an adjunct at Bellevue University and Metropolitan Community College teaching Leadership, Business Communication, and Speech. Paul is a military veteran of almost 22 years, has ten years retail management experience, and six years academic and teaching experience.

Organizational Structures In Project Management

One aspect of project management that used to receive quite a bit of attention in the 1950s and 1960s was the project organizational structures. A myriad of new organizational structures have appeared on the scene in the last couple of decades but they still lack many of the desirable qualities in the traditional methods. Ultimately, project management directors seek organizational methods that facilitate teamwork, can maximize the use of limited resources, efficiency and quality in the way a project is completed and how goals and objectives are achieved. This article will examine the three main traditional organizational structures for project management. These three structures are functional organization, project organization and matrix organization.

\"project Management\"

This method does not work very effectively when used in facilitating complex projects. One of the major criticisms of this organizational structure is the lack of built-in employee recognition, measurement and reward for project performance. Similarly, there is very little individual accountability for any project management tasks that need to be performed.

Matrix Organization Matrix Organization is a project management structure that evolved from the recognition of inherent flaws in the Functional Organization and Project Organization structures. Created in the 1970s, this structure combined the best components of these two structures. This model functions very well when there are multiple projects being coordinated at once. The functional managers oversee the staffing, training, job assignment and evaluation of the project's personnel. The functional specialists are assigned one or more projects and oversee that these individualized projects' achieve their objectives are completed through maximum resource efficiency.

This article simply provided an overview of several project management organizational structures. Functional Organization, Project Organization and Matrix Organization are the three most traditional project management structures that are still used today because of their effectiveness. However, do keep in mind that there are plenty of other methods available that may better suit your firm's situation. Nevertheless, the type of organizational structure that should be chosen by your firm depends on the type of project as well as the objectives and goals that it ultimately aims to achieve.

Organizational Structures In Project Management

Michael Russell

Your Independent guide to Project Management

Related : Motivational Techniques