In project management, an important role is played by the development of the organizational structure of the project.

Organizational structure of the project - a temporary organizational structure corresponding to the project, including all its participants and created for the successful management and achievement of project goals.

The need to develop an organizational structure is explained by the fact that a project team is created to complete the project - new temporary working team consisting of specialists various structural divisions companies on the part of the Contractor and on the part of the Customer. As with any new team, it is necessary to define project roles (temporary positions), functions, duties, responsibilities, authorities and rules of interaction for project team members, as well as an organizational chart reflecting subordination relationships. In this case, it does not matter for what period of time the project team will be created - for several months or for several years. The structure of the project is determined by the complexity, scale of development and implementation of the IS, the number and specialization of project team members. The project team may include specialists, both full-time and part-time.

If the implementation of an information system is carried out with the involvement of a third-party organization - the Contractor, then for successful implementation it is necessary to form a project team not only from the Contractor, but also from the Customer, and then determine acceptable interactions between members of the Contractor and Customer teams (who, with whom, on what issues interacts), i.e. establish rules of interaction.

When forming the organizational structure of the project and making decisions about subordination, it should be remembered that it becomes difficult to directly manage more than ten members of the project team. Ideal option: five to seven people.

We especially note that when creating the organizational structure of the project, the company’s staffing table should not change. It should not be forgotten that the project is temporary an event at the end of which the project team is disbanded and specialists begin their functional responsibilities in accordance with the regular organizational structure of the company or move to the next project, where their functions and powers may be different.

A correctly formed organizational structure of the project will ensure it effective management, planning, execution on schedule, at a certain quality level.

The first task in forming a project organizational structure is to decide what type of structure is best suited for the project. Different types of structures have certain advantages.

Main types of organizational structures

Functional organization(Functional Organization) (Fig. 1.9). A hierarchically structured organization in which each employee has one direct superior, employees are divided into groups (departments) according to areas of specialization. Each group (department) is managed by one person with competence in this area - a functional manager (head of department).

Rice. 1.9.

Matrix organization(Matrix Organization) (Fig. 1.10) - any organizational structure in which the Project Manager shares with functional managers (heads of departments) the responsibility for setting priorities and managing the work of those assigned to the project.

Project organization Projectized Organization - Any organizational structure in which the Project Manager has sufficient authority to set priorities, use resources and direct the work of those assigned to the project, as well as financial authority within the project budget.

In order to understand the essence of various types of organizations, let us consider, using a conditional example, how work on the development and implementation of IS can be structured when organization structure, presented in Fig. 1.11.

Main functions of the Programming department: programming calculation algorithms, data analysis, integration solutions; development of report forms, development of screen forms, work with IS databases.

Main functions of the Business Analytics department: development of calculation algorithms, data analysis, integration solutions that comply with business rules, financial accounting and legislative requirements.

Main functions of the Consulting and IP settings department: setting up IS modules using ready-made algorithms, screen forms and reports, providing consultations to IS users.

Main functions of the Marketing and Sales department: sales of IP and services for its implementation.

The project management structure is focused on solving non-standard problems. The article discusses the types of design structures and talks about their advantages and disadvantages.

From the article you will learn:

What is a project management structure

A project structure is a temporary division of an organization, which is closed after completion of work.

Examples of work performed by project management structures:

• development of new products;
• development of innovative technologies;
• carrying out experimental work;
• solving non-standard problems

An organization that consists entirely of such units is called a project organization.

An example of such an organization is an architectural agency.

Project management structures are aimed at solving specific problems.

The main unit of the project organizational structure is the project team (working group). The team works on a temporary basis, i.e. during the period necessary to achieve the goals. The company's functional personnel work within the project organizational structure: engineers, marketers, accountants, economists, lawyers and other specialists.

Scheme 1. Project management structure

When the project is completed, the project management structure ceases to exist. Employees either start working on a new project or return to their main responsibilities. If employees worked under, then in accordance with the terms of the agreement, they are dismissed.

What types of project structures exist?

Vadim Bogdanov in the book “Project Management. Corporate system - step by step" identifies three types of project structures - "Gray hair", "Brains", "Procedure" (see Diagram 2 below).

The most difficult type is “Brains”.

The goal of the design structure is to create a unique product in a unique way. Simply put, the project team is faced with the task of creating a new product. At the same time, it is necessary to develop a process for its production.

The simplest type is “Procedure”.

The purpose of the design structure is to create a standard product using a standard methodology.

Two intermediate types - "Gray hair".

The goal of the first type of design structure is to create a standard product using a new technology.

The goal of the second type of project structure is to create a new product in a standard way.

Diagram 2. Types of project structure

Personnel Efficiency / Motivation

It is difficult to control the overall progress of the project

Answered by Anna BORISENKO,

HR Director at EnergoAuditControl

“Sell” the project to employees - create a participant’s mission, show his role and its benefits

Describe the mission of participation in the project so that everything is clear, and each employee has a clear picture in his head of what each participant will receive. It's not about money. First of all, show how important the project is for the company. Let everyone understand that they can be involved in something special.

The project management structure is aimed at solving specific problems: creating unique products, developing new technology, solving non-standard management problems. A project team is created to complete the task. After completing the task, the project team disbands. The advantage of the project management structure is its mobility, the disadvantage is the complexity of control.

Introduction

Chapter 1. Theoretical aspects of the application of project organizational structures

1.2. Characteristics of the project organizational structure

1.3. Principles of constructing design structures and approaches to their design

Chapter 2. Practice of application of design structures using the example of the repair production enterprise JSC Elektroremont-VKK,

2.1. Main problems of the general state of the electric power industry

2.2. Prerequisites for building a design repair management system

2.3. Application of design structures using the example of the repair production enterprise JSC Elektroremont-VKK

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

The relevance of the choice of this topic is due to the fact that today in the activities of Russian enterprises the role of project management is increasingly increasing as an integral component of their activities. These companies include research and design institutes, construction and development organizations, consulting and many other companies. As a rule, the projects being implemented are of an investment and innovation nature, without affecting the main activities of the enterprise. However, for some types of business, a project management system can become the main principle of organizing the enterprise's activities. This is due to the fact that traditional management structures, used in enterprises for several decades without significant changes, are currently unable to ensure effective operation and only aggravate the situation, pushing the enterprise towards a crisis, and therefore, increasingly, any changes in the internal environment of the enterprise, arising during the optimization of business processes, restructuring, automation, etc. are implemented in the form of projects and for their successful implementation require the use of systematic approaches and project management methods.

By their nature, many businesses are project-oriented and for them project technologies form the basis for the success of their current activities.

The practice of implementing strategic management systems has shown that most of the strategic goals that an enterprise sets for itself cannot be realized within the framework of current activities (business processes, organizational structure and management system). The task of implementing the strategy is effectively solved through the implementation of a development management system based on project technologies.

The problem chosen as a topic has not been sufficiently developed in modern science, despite the fact that there are a number of general concepts for constructing and improving design structures. Research on this topic, as a rule, reflects only certain aspects of design, does not have sufficiently simple methodological support for the entire process of creating or improving design structures, or is tied to specific economic objects, which does not allow their use on a wide scale.

The purpose of this work is to study, on the basis of available material, the basic principles and theoretical foundations of constructing project-based organizational structures and the scope of their application.

Based on this goal, we are faced with a certain number of tasks, namely:

Consider the concept and typology of the organizational structure of an enterprise;

Study the characteristics of the project organizational structure and approaches to its design;

Consider the practice of using design structures using the example of a repair production enterprise;

Identify problems in implementing project management.

The object of research in the work is enterprises as the main economic objects of management.

The subject of the study is the project organizational structure.

The theoretical and methodological basis of the study were the works of Russian and foreign classics of management theory, as well as modern researchers on the problems of designing an enterprise management system: S. Heiman, B.Z. Milner, L.A. Bazilevich, B.A. A.V. Tikhomirova, E.M. Korotkova, A.Ya. Kibanova, M.V. Melnik et al.

Chapter 1. Theoretical aspects of the application of project organizational structures

1.1. The concept and typology of the organizational structure of an enterprise

Before considering the basic concepts of the organizational structure of management, we will give basic definitions and characteristics of the management system of an organization or a company in general.

Since it is precisely to management science that we owe the emergence of such a concept as the organizational structure of managing an organization or a company.

Management science plays a decisive role in ensuring the viability of an organization and achieving its goals.

The theoretical foundations for building organizations as part of the general science of management were developed at the intersection of different branches of knowledge - management, sociology, anthropology, psychology, jurisprudence, etc. Changes in the objective conditions for the functioning of organizations, characteristic of the 20th century, introduced a lot of new things into the development of views, scientific concepts and management practice. The growth of large organizations, the separation of management from property, the development of exact sciences and human sciences served as the basis for the development of a scientific approach to organizations, principles and methods of managing them. This gave rise to many scientific ideas and schools that study the patterns of building organizations, their main features and incentives for functioning - formal and informal organizations, human relations, social systems, division of functions and responsibilities, management decision-making, and the mathematical apparatus of management processes.

Organizational structure is a form of separation and cooperation of management activities, within which the management process takes place aimed at achieving the goals of the organization. Hence, the management structure includes all goals distributed among various units, the connections between which ensure coordination for their implementation.

The organizational structure shows who is responsible for which areas of work. It shows the interaction (communication) of individual sections with each other, which allows and requires the use of common sense and the ability to assess the situation at all levels of management.

The organizational structure is a kind of skeleton of the organization, and if it is built incorrectly, this leads to various pathologies, such as ineffective implementation of the company’s business processes, which leads to the fact that the organization does not achieve the expected results, or achieves them, but with great difficulty, than I could. Building a rational organizational structure is tantamount to selecting a well-coordinated project team and a reasonable distribution of roles between its participants. If everything is done correctly, the team will work harmoniously and achieve the planned results.

Organizational structures come in a wide variety of forms. Today, the most common are linear-functional, target and matrix organizational management structures. At the same time, when building an organizational management structure, it is necessary to take into account the specifics, goals and objectives of the organization. There is no need for a small organization that is not distinguished by a large volume and variety of products and tasks to build complex organizational structures, since this may not increase work efficiency, but, on the contrary, complicate the process of managing the organization.

Today, the task of managers is to choose the structure that best meets the goals and objectives of the organization, as well as the internal and external factors affecting it. The “best” structure is the one that best allows an organization to effectively interact with its external environment, allocate and direct the efforts of its employees productively and efficiently, and thus satisfy customer needs and achieve its goals with high efficiency.

For the company to operate productively and respond in a timely manner to constantly changing external and internal factors, it needs the most suitable management structure for it, capable of being modified and modernized over time.

1.2 Characteristics of the project organizational structure

Project structures are structures for managing complex activities that, due to their decisive importance for the company, require the provision of continuous coordinating and integrating influence under strict restrictions on costs, timing and quality of work.

Traditionally, a department manager in any large company within a hierarchical organizational structure has many different responsibilities and is responsible for various aspects of several different programs, issues, projects, products and services. It is inevitable that under these conditions, even a good leader will pay more attention to some types of activities and less to others. As a result, the inability to take into account all the features and all the details of projects can lead to the most serious consequences. Therefore, in order to manage projects and, above all, large-scale ones, special project management structures are used.

Project structures in a company are usually used when there is a need to develop and implement an organizational project of a complex nature, covering, on the one hand, the solution of a wide range of specialized technical, economic, social and other issues, and, on the other hand, the activities of various functional and linear units. Organizational projects include any processes of targeted changes in the system, for example, reconstruction of production, development and development of new types of products and technological processes, construction of facilities, etc.

DEFINITION

Project organizational management structure represents a structure for managing important activities of an enterprise under existing strict restrictions on costs, timing and quality of work.

Typically, the head of any department of any large enterprise within the organizational structure in the form of a hierarchy has a large number of different responsibilities, and he is responsible for all aspects of the activity. Under these conditions, it is inevitable that even good managers may pay more attention to certain types of activities and less attention to others. At the same time, it is impossible to take into account all the features and details of the project, which can lead to dire consequences.

For effective management, primarily of large-scale projects, a special project-based organizational management structure is used. An example of a project-based organizational management structure is the development and development of a new type of product or technological process.

Types of project organizational structures

The project organizational management structure is a temporary structure that is created to solve a specific complex task (project development and its implementation). The project organizational management structure sets the goal of gathering into a single team the most qualified workers of different professions to carry out a complex project within the appropriate time frame with a given level of quality and within the framework of the material, financial and labor resources allocated for these purposes.

Several types of design structures can be distinguished. The project organizational management structure can exist in the form of a so-called pure or consolidated project management structure. This structure implies the formation of a special unit, which is represented by a project team working on a temporary basis.

Temporary groups may include specialists from various fields: engineers, accountants, production managers, researchers, as well as management specialists.

The project manager is vested with project authority, which is determined by his overall authority and control rights within the relevant project. In this case, it is the manager who is responsible for all types of activities from the beginning to the complete completion of the project or a certain part of it. All team members are completely subordinate to the manager, including the resources allocated for this purpose.

After all work is completed, the project organizational management structure disintegrates, and employees can move to a new project structure or return to their permanent positions (with contract work, employees are dismissed).

Advantages of a project-based organizational management structure

There are several important advantages, which the project organizational management structure has:

1. Combining various types of enterprise activities to obtain high-quality results for specific projects;
2. An integrated approach to project implementation and solving assigned tasks;
3. Concentration of all efforts on solving a single priority task or on completing a single specific project;
4. Greater flexibility of the project structure;
5. Intensifying the activities of project managers, including performers, in the process of creating project teams;
6. Increased personal responsibility of specific managers, which they bear for the project as a whole, as well as for its individual elements.

Project organizational management structure: disadvantages

The management structure under consideration, along with many advantages, also has a number of disadvantages. For example, if there are several organizational projects (programs), then project structures can lead to fragmentation of resources.

This organizational management structure requires the manager not only to manage all stages of the project life cycle, but also to take into account the project’s place in the totality of projects of a given enterprise. At the same time, the formation of project groups that are not sustainable entities can deprive employees of an awareness of their place in the enterprise.

The use of a project management structure can also lead to difficulties in the long-term use of specialists from a given enterprise. There may also be partial duplication of functions.

Essay

Topic: Organizational structure of project management

1. The impact of the project on the type of organizational structure of the organization

Project management in an organization with a functional structure

Project-type organizations

Projects in a matrix organization structure

Choosing a form of project organization

Corporate culture

Bibliography

1. The impact of the project on the type of organizational structure of the organization

As long as the organizational structure is sufficient to perform the tasks assigned to it, it continues to exist. When the structure begins to slow down the work of the company, there is a need to reorganize it in some other way. The basic principle will still be specialization, but the specific nature of specialization will change.

In addition to the ever-popular division by function, firms can be organized by product lines, geographic areas, production processes, types of customers, organization of subsidiaries, time zones, and elements of vertical or horizontal integration.

Large firms are often organized using different methods at different levels. For example, a firm may be organized into large subsidiaries at the top level; Subsidiaries can be organized by product groups, and product groups by types of customers. These latter divisions, in turn, can be divided into product departments, which are further subdivided into sectors using specific production processes, and these sectors into operating units operating in three shifts.

In the last decade, a new type of organizational structure has emerged - the project organization, or project management enterprise, also called a "project management organization", a "project-oriented firm" and other names. Such organizations have been described as employing "project management practices and techniques within the organization."

The origin of such organizations is probably the software development industry, which has long been concerned with creating large packages of application programs by breaking them down into a sequence of relatively small blocks of programs, each of which is implemented as a project. After a project was completed, it was integrated into the overall system. So many firms, not just in the software industry, now use a system whereby their traditional business is run in a traditional manner, but everything about change is done as a project.

For example, a hospital may have a regular set of departments in which treatment is provided in traditional ways. At the same time, a hospital may support dozens of projects aimed at developing new patient care products or changing standard medical or administrative procedures.

The rapid growth of project-oriented organizations is due to the following reasons:

Firstly, a condition for successful competition is the need for quick reaction and responsiveness to market demands. From a competitive perspective, it is no longer acceptable to develop a new product or service using traditional methods whereby a potential new product is passed from one functional unit to another until it is deemed suitable for production and distribution. Being first to market is a powerful competitive advantage.

Second, the development of new products, processes or services regularly requires the input of information from different areas of specialized knowledge. Unfortunately, the body of specialized knowledge that is appropriate for the development of one product or service is rarely suitable for the development of another product or service, so teams of specialists that are created to achieve a specific goal and then disbanded are a characteristic feature of the entire development process (see an example of this approach in section 5.6).

Third, the rapid expansion of technological capabilities in almost every field of activity contributes to the destabilization of the existing structure of organizations. Mergers, downsizing, reorganizations, new marketing channels and other phenomena require a systemic response from the entire organization. Again, there are no traditional mechanisms to satisfactorily implement change on this scale - but project organizations are up to the task.

Fourth and finally, most top managers are rarely fully confident in their ability to understand and control the many project activities that occur within their organizations.

Converting non-routine activities into projects allows the head of the organization to guarantee the control of ongoing processes: projects are carefully planned, integrated with related activities, and information about their implementation is regularly provided to the manager.

Moving from a non-project environment to one in which projects are used to accomplish specific tasks, and then to creating a completely project-oriented organization, is an extremely difficult task for firm leaders.

Firstly, this process is time consuming. Even when the necessary resources are available and senior management is fully committed to the transition, the process is still very difficult. Even when everything goes well, such a transition rarely takes less than three years.

Regardless of whether an organization carries out isolated occasional projects or is completely project-oriented and implements them in large numbers, three organizational problems immediately arise at any point in time when a project is initiated.

First, a decision must be made on how to link the project to the parent organization.

Secondly, you need to decide how the project itself will be organized.

Third, it is necessary to decide how to organize the activities that are common to different projects.

The project management system ensures the launch and implementation of project operations within the founding organization. The optimal system combines the desired needs of both the parent organization and the project, defining the interaction between the project and the parent organization regarding authority and resource allocation. The result is the integration of project results into the main work.

Many organizations have had great difficulty creating a system for organizing projects while managing day-to-day activities. One of the main reasons for these difficulties lies in the contradictions between projects and the fundamental structural principles on which traditional companies are based. Projects are unique, single events with a well-defined beginning and end. Most organizations are designed to effectively manage ongoing operations. Efficiency is primarily achieved by breaking down complex tasks into simpler, repeatable assembly line-style operations. Projects are unique in nature.

The project manager (PM) rarely has much influence on the interface between the organization and the project, and the choice of such interface is usually made by top management. However, the PM's work is greatly influenced by the project's position in the organizational chart, and the PM must understand its significance.

2. Project management in an organization with a functional structure

One of the approaches to organizing project management is project management within the existing functional hierarchy of the organization. However, as an alternative to giving the project a home in a functionally organized company, we can make the project part of a functional division of the firm, usually the one that has the most interest in the success of the project or can be most useful in its implementation.

Once the decision is made to implement a project, work on the various project segments is assigned to the appropriate functional units, with each unit being responsible for the execution of work on its own segment of the project.

For example, the management of an organization decides to diversify its business and build a dairy complex.

The corresponding project segments are sent for development to the supervised functional units of the organization.

The Economics and Finance Department is responsible for justifying project costs, calculating and assessing the effectiveness of the project, justifying sources of financing, and raising borrowed funds.

The marketing department is responsible for assessing demand and prices for products, and also searches for markets for products.

The HR department provides calculation of needs and selection of personnel, development of a motivation system.

The logistics department deals with interaction with suppliers of material resources, equipment, etc. Coordination is carried out through normal control channels.

The project is one of the components of the work of senior management (Fig. 1).

A functional structure is typically used when, due to the nature of the project itself, one functional area plays a dominant role in completing the project or has a special interest in the success of the project. Under these conditions, a senior manager becomes responsible for coordinating the project as a whole. For example, the transfer of equipment and personnel to a new office will be led by a senior manager from the administrative department. The project related to modernization of the management information system will be managed by the Information Systems Department. In both cases, most of the design work will be carried out by a specific department, and coordination with other departments will take place through normal channels.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to using enterprise functional structures for project management.

The main advantages are as follows.

Immutability. Projects are carried out within the main functional structure of the organization. There is no radical change in either the project or the actions of the project's founding organization.

Flexibility. Personnel are used with maximum flexibility. Relevant specialists in various functional departments are assigned to work on the project during its development, and after the end of the project they return to their main activities. Since there are quite a lot of technical specialists in each functional department, it is easy to involve them in working on various projects.

Thorough examination. If the scope of the project is highly specialized and primary responsibility is assigned to the appropriate functional department, then the most important aspects of the project can be subjected to particularly detailed and thorough study by specialists.

Easy post-project transition. Within the functional structure of the organization, career growth is not directly related to projects, therefore specialists will not experience post-project “syndrome” (transitional,

sometimes difficult period of return to routine duties). Professionals make significant contributions to projects, but their day job is their professional home and the source of their professional growth and advancement.

Along with the advantages of organizing projects within the existing functional structure, there are also disadvantages. These shortcomings are especially pronounced if the scope of the project is large and none of the functional departments takes the courage to lead its management.

Lack of concentration. Each functional department is engaged in its normal work, so sometimes the project is neglected in favor of performing core functional responsibilities. This problem is exacerbated when project priorities vary across departments. For example, the marketing department may consider a project important and urgent, while the equipment operations department considers it to be of minor importance. It's easy to imagine the tension that could arise if marketing employees are forced to wait.

Poor integration. Links, communications and knowledge sharing between functional departments may be weak. The relevant functional specialists are only interested in their specific segment of design work, but not in the project as a whole.

Slowness. Working on a project within a functional organization usually takes longer. This is partly due to longer response times - information about design decisions must pass through normal structural management channels. In addition, the lack of horizontal, direct exchange of information between functional groups leads to the need to constantly redo work when specialists discover an error in another department too late.

Weak motivation. The motivation of people involved in the project can be very weak. The project may be seen as an additional burden that is not directly related to their professional development or advancement, and since they are only working on one segment of the project, they do not identify with the entire project. Lack of motivation hinders the willingness to commit to completing everything that needs to be done on a project.

Weak responsibility for project results. Sometimes in functionally organized projects no one has full responsibility for the project. Lack of concentration of responsibility usually means that the PM is responsible for one part of the project, and other people are made responsible for other parts of it. It is not difficult to foresee the poor coordination and eventual chaos that results from such an approach.

The same reasons that lead to poor coordination also lead to a reluctant response to customer needs. Between the project and the customer there are often several intermediate levels of management.

3. Project-type organizations

The fundamentally opposite project management structure is an organization structured by projects. In a project-based organization, independent project teams operate as separate units independent of the rest of the organization.

Each project has a full set of functions necessary for its implementation, although some functions can serve two or more projects at once. Thus, each individual project is a self-sufficient unit and has its own technical team, its own administrative staff, etc.

Typically the PM must organize the project team. The RP recruits the necessary personnel for activities both within and outside the organization. The team formed in this way is physically separated from the founding organization and receives the go-ahead to complete the project (Fig. 2).

corporate structure management project

The interaction between the parent organization and the project teams may vary. In some cases, the host organization establishes administrative and financial control procedures for the project. In other cases, companies give projects maximum freedom within the limits of their accountability.

In companies where projects dominate the business form, such as construction or consulting, the entire organization supports project teams. Instead of conducting one or two special projects, the organization recruits semi-independent teams working on specific projects. The main task of conventional functional organizations is to assist and support these project teams. For example, the marketing department's efforts are aimed at developing new business that will generate a large number of new projects, while the human resources department is responsible for solving various problems related to personnel, hiring and training new employees.

It is important to note that not all projects are independent project teams; staff can work on different projects at the same time.

As with the functional structure, the independent project team approach has its strengths and weaknesses.

Among the advantages are:

Simplicity. Apart from the use of specialists assigned to the project, the functional organization maintains its integrity, and the project team works independently of it.

Rapidity. There is a tendency to complete projects in a shorter time if their participants direct all their efforts to the project and are not bound by other obligations. Moreover, in such a system the reaction to a decision comes much faster, since information no longer travels along the verticals of the functional hierarchy.

Cohesion. Project team members develop a high level of motivation and mutual understanding. Participants are united by a common goal and personal responsibility for the project and the team.

Multifunctional integration. In project teams, cross-training occurs (everyone learns from each other), and thus the level of team preparedness increases significantly). Experts from different fields work together and, with proper guidance, try to optimize the entire project, not just the areas in which they are experts.

Centralization of power. The RP has complete control over his project. Although the RP must report to the top management of the parent organization, he has a fully staffed team of employees dedicated to the project. The RP is the real boss of the project. All employees involved in the project are directly subordinate to the RP. There are no heads of functional departments whose permissions must be obtained and whose advice must be taken into account before making technical decisions.

Communications become faster and more accurate. When a project is removed from a functional unit, lines of communication are shortened. The entire functional structure is “bypassed”, and the RP communicates directly with the company’s management. The ability to make quick decisions is significantly improved. The entire project organization can respond more quickly to the requirements of the customer and top management.

In many cases, an independent team is the optimal solution for organizing project management. However, the weaknesses of this approach become apparent as soon as the needs of the core organization are taken into account. Among them:

High costs of maintaining project staff. Not only is a new position (RP) created, resources are also allocated for a separate workforce. When a parent organization undertakes multiple projects, it is common for each project to be fully staffed. This can lead to significant duplication of effort in every area, from the simplest (such as records management) to the most complex (such as engineering). For example, if a project does not require a full-time HR manager, you still need to have such a specialist on staff, since it is impossible to hire “part” of an HR manager, and combining positions in several projects at once is quite rare.

RP tries to concentrate equipment and technical specialists in order to ensure that they are on hand when the need arises. Thus, people with key technical skills may be added to the project team simply when they are available, rather than when there is a real need for them. Likewise, the RP tries to keep them around longer than is actually necessary, just to be on the safe side. Taken together, this can make this way of organizing projects very expensive.

Internal struggle. Sometimes independent project teams begin to consider themselves completely independent and independent from the main organization. A sharp “us-them” dichotomy arises between the project team and the rest of the company (sometimes called the disease “projectism”), which gives rise to abnormal relationships between members of project teams implemented by the parent organization. Friendly rivalry can turn violent, and political battles between projects become commonplace. Confrontation can make it difficult not only to connect possible project outcomes into a coherent whole, but also to reassign project team members back to their functional departments after the project is completed.

Limited technological expertise. The creation of separate teams interferes with professional problem resolution, since it is limited only by the professional level of the specialists working on the project. At the same time, nothing prevents specialists from consulting with other functional units, but the “us-them” problem and the fact that such consultations are not formally sanctioned by the organization prevent such contacts.

Taking a project out of the technical control of a functional unit creates serious difficulties if the project is characterized as high-tech. Although individuals acquire in-depth knowledge of the technologies used in projects as they work on projects, they usually begin to fall behind in other areas of knowledge. The functional unit is the repository of professional knowledge, but this knowledge is not always easily accessible to members of the autonomous project team.

Difficult post-project transition. Assigning personnel to a project creates a problem: what to do with them after the project is completed? If there are no other projects, then difficulties arise with the transfer back of specialists to functional departments due to a long absence and the need to delve into everything that happened, all the new products and innovations in their functional area.

4. Projects in the matrix structure of the organization

The matrix structure of the organization has become one of the most significant innovative approaches in management over the past 30 years.

Matrix management is a hybrid organizational form in which a horizontal project management structure is “superimposed” on the normal functional hierarchy.

In a matrix system, there are usually two management channels: management through functional managers (heads of departments) and through project managers. That is, there is no delegation of individual project segments to various departments and no independent project teams are created, and project participants are accountable to both functional managers and project managers.

Companies apply this matrix arrangement in a variety of ways. Some organizations establish temporary matrix systems to develop specific projects, while in other organizations the matrix may be something permanent.

Project Manager 1 (PM1) reports to the Program Manager, who also oversees two other projects related to the same program. Project 1 is allocated three people from the production department, "one and a half people" from the marketing department, "half a person" each from the finance and human resources departments, four people from the K&V department, and possibly other employees not shown in the figure. All these people from different functional departments are assigned to the project on a full-time or part-time basis depending on the needs of the project.

It should be emphasized that the PM controls when and what these people will do, while functional managers control who will be assigned to the project and how the work will be performed, including using what technology.

Given the significant representation of manufacturing and research workers in Project 1, this project may involve the development and implementation of a new manufacturing process for the new Alpha product. Project 2 could be aimed at marketing a new product. Project 3 may focus on implementing a new financial control system for a new product. At the same time, all functional units continue to engage in their core activities.

The matrix structure is designed for optimal use of resources, since the organization is able to carry out its normal functional responsibilities simultaneously with the development of numerous projects. At the same time, the matrix approach tries to achieve greater integration of project work by empowering the project manager with sufficient authority. Theoretically, the matrix approach “kills” two birds with one stone: it gives maximum technical knowledge and experience by connecting entire departments to the work and at the same time allows you to see the project from the inside (i.e. e. link individual segments into one whole and adjust this whole to the requirements of the project). This compensates for some of the weaknesses of independent teams and the functional approach.

In practice, several types of matrix systems are distinguished depending on the method and depth of delimitation of powers of project and functional managers. The three types of matrices are outlined below:

Weak matrix - This form is similar to the functional approach, except that there is a formally appointed project manager responsible for coordinating project activities. Functional managers are responsible for managing their segment. The project manager primarily acts as an assistant who creates schedules and checklists, gathers information on the status of work, and facilitates completion of the project. The project manager has the indirect authority to expedite and control the project. Functional managers make decisions about who will do what work and determine when it will be completed.

A balanced matrix is ​​a classic matrix in which the project manager is responsible for defining what needs to be done, and the functional managers are responsible for determining how it will be done. In other words, the project manager develops a complete project plan, integrates input from various departments, creates a schedule, and directs the work. Functional managers are responsible for assigning specialists and executing their segment of the project according to the standards and schedule specified by the project manager. Merging the what and how requires close collaboration between both parties and joint approval of technical and operational decisions.

Strong Matrix - This form aims to create a "palpable presence" for the project team within the matrix environment. The project manager controls virtually all aspects of the project, including project scope trade-offs and functional personnel assignments; when and what specialists do. He has the right to have the final say in decision making. The functional manager manages the specialists from his department and provides advice when necessary. In some cases, the functional manager's department may act as a "subcontractor" for the project, in which case his employees have more control over the specialized work for their segment of the project. For example, the development of a new series of laptops may require the involvement of a team of experts from various fields to work on the design and technical parameters. Once the specifications are determined, responsibility for the final design and production of certain components (such as a power supply) can be assigned to the appropriate functional groups.

Matrix management in general and in its specific forms has unique strengths and weaknesses.

First of all, the following advantages of matrix structures should be noted.

Efficiency. Resources can be collectively used both on mega-projects and in functional departments. Workers can distribute their energy across multiple projects to the extent necessary in each case. Thanks to this, it is possible to avoid “split”, when one specialist is involved in different projects, but the amount of work exceeds his capabilities. This is typical for the project structure.

Strong project focus. Project focus is ensured through the formal appointment of a project manager, responsible for coordinating and integrating the work performed by various departments. This helps maintain a holistic approach to problem solving, which is often missing in functional organizations.

One person, the RP, is responsible for managing the project, ensuring that the project is completed on time, within budget and to the given specifications. The matrix organization inherits this advantage from the project structured organization.

Easier post-project transition. Because the project organization overlaps with the functional organization, project team members maintain relationships with their functional teams so they have a place to return to after projects are completed.

Flexibility. The matrix structure makes it possible to flexibly use resources and specialists within the company. Because a project-structured organization co-locates with functional units, temporarily removing the workers it needs from them, the project has access to all technologies in all functional units. When there are multiple projects, specialists from functional departments are available for all projects, which largely eliminates the duplication that arises when structuring an organization by projects.

Quick response to customer requirements. As in the case of autonomous projects, the matrix organization turns out to be just as flexible. Similarly, the matrix organization responds just as quickly and flexibly to the demands of the management of the parent organization. A project implemented in a subsidiary must adapt to the requirements of the parent company, otherwise it will have no chance of survival.

The strengths of the matrix structure are significant. Unfortunately, the potential weaknesses are also serious. This is largely due to the fact that the matrix structure is more complex and the emergence of multiple managers is a radical departure from the traditional structure of the vertical hierarchy. In addition, the matrix structure cannot be established suddenly. Experts state that it takes 3-5 years for a mature matrix system to emerge and establish itself. Therefore, the problems below can mainly be attributed to this period of “formation” of the matrix system:

Dysfunctional conflict. The matrix approach is based on direct relationships between functional managers and project managers, who bring competence and vision to the project. This is seen as a necessary mechanism to achieve an appropriate balance between complex technical issues and unique project requirements. No matter how noble the intentions, the effect is sometimes similar to opening Pandora's box. Natural conflict that results from conflicting interests, work schedules, and reporting systems can move to a more personal level. Discussions can turn into shouting matches that only add to the hostility of the managers involved.

Conflicts. Any situation in which equipment, resources and people are required both along design and functional lines is fraught with conflict and bitter competition for the possession of limited resources. Fighting can also occur among project managers, who are primarily interested in what is best for their projects.

Stress. Matrix management violates the managerial principle of unity of command. Project workers have at least two managers - the immediate functional manager and the project manager (or several managers if there are several projects). Working in a matrix environment can be extremely stressful. Imagine what it's like to work when three different managers give you three mutually exclusive tasks.

Slowdown. In theory, having a project manager coordinating the work should speed up project completion. In fact, decision making can become bogged down in forced coordination between multiple functional groups. This happens especially often in a balanced matrix.

When considering three options for a matrix organization, we see that the advantages and disadvantages cannot always be attributed to all three varieties.

A strong matrix is ​​likely to enhance project integration, reduce internal power struggles, and ultimately improve control over project activities and costs. However, technical quality may suffer as functional specialists have less control over their input. And finally, dominance of an autonomous team may arise, since members of the project team often have a feeling of being chosen due to belonging to such a team.

A loose matrix is ​​likely to improve technical quality and also provide a better system for resolving conflicts between projects as the functional manager allocates staff to work on different projects. The problem is that functional control is often achieved at the expense of insufficient project integration. A balanced matrix can improve the balance between technical and design requirements, but it is a very delicate system, difficult to create, difficult to manage, and obviously may not withstand many of the problems associated with a matrix approach.

To paraphrase Plato's comment on democracy, matrix management is “a wonderful form of government, full of variety and disorder.”

5. Choosing the form of project organization

The choice of the form of project organization is not within the competence of the RP. This issue is resolved by top management. It is extremely rare for the RP to have a say in how the project interacts with the parent organization.

Even experienced practitioners find it difficult to explain how to proceed when making such a choice. Usually the choice is determined by the situation, but at the same time it is still partly made intuitively.

There are few generally accepted principles for selection, and there is no step-by-step procedure that provides detailed instructions for determining what type of structure is needed and how it can be created. All we can do is consider the nature of the potential project, the characteristics of the various organizational alternatives, the advantages and disadvantages of each, the cultural preferences of the parent organization - and select the best possible compromise solution.

In general, the functional form tends to be most preferred for projects where the focus must be on deep application of technology rather than, for example, on minimizing costs, meeting specific deadlines, or ensuring rapid response to changes. Additionally, the functional form is more suitable for projects that require a large investment in equipment or buildings of the type typically used by a function.

If a company is involved in many similar projects (for example, construction), then structuring by projects is preferable. The same form is usually used for one-time, unique tasks that require precise control and are not suitable only for one functional area - for example, developing a line of new products.

When a project requires the integration of inputs from several functional areas and involves the use of fairly complex technology, but does not require all technical specialists to work on the project full time, a matrix organization is the only suitable solution. This is especially true when several such projects must share technical experts. Another special case arises when projects are created to change the structure of the parent organization or the way it carries out internal communications. Such projects usually require representation from all major divisions of the parent organization to be successful. Matrix organizations are complex and pose great challenges to RPs, but are sometimes necessary.

From an organizational point of view

At the organizational level, the first question to answer is how important is project management to the success of the firm? What percentage of core work is used in projects? If projects use more than 75% of the work, then the organization is considered completely “project-based”. If an organization had both standard products and projects, it would be consistent with a matrix structure.

If an organization undertakes a very small number of projects, then a less formal structure is likely best. You can create independent project teams, in which members will be involved as their services are needed, and outsource project work to external contractors.

The second key question is about the availability and distribution of resources. Remember that the matrix arose from the need to share resources across multiple projects and functional areas while ensuring proper project management. For organizations that cannot afford to tie the necessary personnel to individual projects, a matrix structure is suitable. As an alternative, an independent team should be created using external project resources (outsourcing) when internal resources are not available.

By answering the first two questions, the organization must evaluate its current practices and determine what changes need to be made to manage projects more effectively. A strong design matrix does not suddenly appear. It takes time, strong leadership, and hard work to achieve success in projects. For example, we have seen many companies make the transition from a functional to a matrix organization, starting with a weak functional matrix. This partly causes resistance on the part of functional managers to delegate authority to project managers. Over time, these matrix structures develop into a design matrix. Many organizations have established project management offices to support project management efforts.

From a project point of view

At the project review level, the question arises of how autonomous a project must be in order to be completed successfully. Hobbs and Menard list seven factors that they believe should influence the choice of project management structure:

project size;

strategic importance;

novelty and need for innovation;

need for integration;

complexity of the environment outside the project (number of intermediaries/interaction zones/“interfaces”);

budget and time restrictions;

stability of resource needs.

The higher the level of the above seven factors, the more autonomy and authority the project manager and project team must have to successfully complete the project. That is, you need to use either 1) an independent project team, or 2) a matrix project structure. For example, such structures should be used for large projects that are new and critical for the company, thus requiring major innovation. These structures are also necessary for complex projects that require interaction with many departments, as well as for projects that require constant contact with clients to assess the latter's expectations. Independent project teams should also be used for time-sensitive projects that require the character to work from start to finish.

If the option to select a project structure exists, then the first task is to determine the type of work to be performed. This requires an initial, outline plan for the project.

Let's illustrate the process with an example that uses the procedure below.

First, define the essence of the project with a mission statement that identifies the main desired results of the project.

Identify the primary tasks associated with each goal and those units of the parent organization that will serve as the functional “homes” for these types of tasks.

Sequence these tasks and divide them into work packages.

Determine which organizational units are required to complete work packages and which units will work particularly closely with each other.

Make a list of special characteristics or assumptions associated with the project - for example, the level of complexity of the technology required, the likely duration and scope of the project, potential relationship problems with individuals who may be assigned to perform the work, possible political differences between the functional units involved - and whatever may seem helpful including the parent firm's past experience with different forms of project organization.

With all of the above in mind and with a full understanding of the pros and cons of each structural form, choose the appropriate structure.

6. Corporate culture

There is a strong correlation between project management structure, company culture, and project success.

An organization's culture, or corporate culture, refers to a system of shared norms, beliefs, values, and assumptions that bind people together, thereby creating shared concepts. This is a system of traditions and foundations in which the values ​​and beliefs of the company are manifested. For example, egalitarianism may be reflected in the informal clothing worn by employees of a high-tech company. On the contrary, strictly regulated “uniform” clothing in a supermarket indicates the hierarchy of this system.

Culture is the face of an organization, and just like the face of a person, it can help shape the habits and behavior of organizational members. Culture is also one of the defining aspects of an organization that sets it apart from other companies, even within the same industry.

The study suggests that there are 10 core characteristics that collectively describe the essence of an organization's culture:

Belonging to the organization - the extent to which the employee identifies himself with the organization and feels that he belongs specifically to it, and not to the field of professional activity as a whole.

Team emphasis - the extent to which work is organized around groups rather than individual workers.

What is management focused on - to what extent management decisions take into account the impact of work results on personnel.

Structural integration - the extent to which departments of an organization aim to work in a coordinated manner.

Control - the extent to which it is customary to use established rules, policies and direct management to control employees.

Risk tolerance - to what extent the employee’s activity, fear of new things and desire for risk are encouraged.

Reward criteria - the extent to which material and moral incentives, such as promotions and salary increases, are tied to the performance of performers, and not to factors such as seniority or favoritism, to other factors that have nothing to do with the actual work.

Conflict Tolerance - The extent to which employees are encouraged to openly express criticism and engage in conflict.

Means or ends orientation - the extent to which management is focused on the results of work rather than on the methods and processes used to achieve results.

Readiness to respond to the external environment - the extent to which the organization monitors changes in the external environment and responds to them.

As shown in Figure 3.5, all these characteristics represent a continuum. By assessing an organization against these 10 characteristics, you can get a holistic picture of the organization's culture. This picture is the collective perception of company members about how things are done in the company and how they should do things.

Organizational culture serves several important functions. It creates in employees a sense of belonging to the organization. The more clearly ideas and values ​​are expressed, the more strongly people identify with their organization and feel like an integral part of it. The loyalty of employees to their company depends on this, i.e. how much effort the employees give to it and whether they will be loyal to it.

The second important function is that culture helps regulate the management system in an organization. Culture allows us to establish authority and explain why a person has certain authority and why this authority should be recognized.

More importantly, organizational culture clarifies and reinforces norms of behavior. Culture helps determine what behavior is acceptable and what is not. These norms cover a wide range of behavior: from dress code and working hours, on the one hand, to the right to challenge superiors' decisions and the ability to cooperate with other departments, on the other.

Ultimately, culture helps maintain social order in an organization. If the organization's employees did not share a common opinion, common values, approaches, there would be chaos. Customs, norms, and ideals, reinforced by an organization's culture, provide the stability and predictability of behavior necessary for an effective organization.

A strong (solid) culture is one in which the basic values ​​and traditions of the organization are “professed” and accepted by all members of the organization. Conversely, a culture is considered weak (fragile) if not all members of the organization agree with its values.

Even within a strong organizational culture, subcultures are likely to exist. As noted earlier in the story about project management structures, quite often norms, values ​​and traditions arise in specific professional areas, such as marketing, finance or sales. In the same way, subcultures may arise within organizations that reflect a different system of values, opinions, traditions, often contradicting the culture supported by senior management. The penetration of subcultures influences the strength of the organizational culture as a whole and the behavior and reactions of organizational members.

Bibliography

1. Abramov R. N. Russian managers. Sociological analysis of the formation of the profession; KomKniga - Moscow, 2013. - 280 p.

Beer Stafford Management Science; LKI - Moscow, 2012. - 114 p.

Battell John Search. How Google and its competitors rewrote the laws of business and changed our culture; Good book - Moscow, 2013. - 368 p.

Griffiths Mark Guinness is Guinness. The colorful history of the black and white brand; Olympus Business - Moscow, 2013. - 240 p.

Jeffrey J. Fox How to Make Big Money in a Small Business; Alpina Publisher - Moscow, 2012. - 37 p.

6. Donald N. Sall, Wang Yun Made in China. What Western Managers Can Learn from Leading Chinese Entrepreneurs; Grevtsov Publisher - Moscow, 2013. - 224 p.

Emelyanov O. V. Manage in Russian, or Managerial maxims in national folklore; Economics - Moscow, 2013. - 48 p.

Kotler Philip Marketing from A to Z. 80 concepts that every manager should know; Alpina Publisher - Moscow, 2013. - 211 p.