In my experience, I have encountered two project managers in a project. The project managers responsibilities were split; one was responsible for overseeing development activities at suppliers and the other development activities at our company. This approach was successful and I believe the main reason is because their responsibilities were well defined. I agree with posts such as from ppp23 that having multiple project managers in one project can have drawbacks. Project managers have different personal characteristics, organizational and management skills which can be conflicting and incur delays in decisions. In addition, if their responsibilities are not well defined, none of them may take ownership of the project which can cause lack of support and compromise the project.
I have experience working in projects with multiple project leaders and I think there are benefits as well as drawbacks under this approach. From my experience coordination between teams sometimes felt like an issue - some project leaders would debate each other as to what team a particular deliverable/ task is meant to be completed and work that needed to done with the help of a team member from a different team was sometimes tough to coordinate. The benefits to this approach are that project managers are able to tick to their expertise and call upon help from a different team when that expertise is needed.
Having multiple Project managers can possibly hurt the project, two capable people having the same command on a project can hit a wall in progress. "One person is the Project Manager and underneath the project manager are a bunch of Project Leads from different departments." The structure you mentioned is ideal I think. Having sub-teams with leaders and one overall project manager is the best form of management. But this can only work if the leads are capable of making an important independent decision, and also able to relay appropriate information to the PM. This system has a sort of checks and balance system where the PM as the overriding rule, but the sub-team leaders as a whole can also have an impact on the project.
I have had only the experience with working with only one manager. With one manager, it is easier to be on the same page and easier to communicate with. If you are struggling with something, you can get help from them. But when you have two managers, both of them might suggest something different and can cause conflicts on how to handle the projects. But on the other hand, having two managers might come in handy when one has more experience in a certain field compared to the other one. If the project is a big one with a short deadline, it maybe useful to have two managers so that the work can be split up and have less stress for everyone working on the project. So having one or two managers depends entirely on the size of the project and the type of the project also.
In my experiences, I have never worked in a project with multiple project managers. Many times, there are project leads that support various activities within a project. By having multiple project managers, it makes the communication with the team difficult. The Project Manager has a high level of understanding from the project lead and the leadership. Due to multiple PM, it may be challenging to get the same point across to the team. In my recent project, there is one project manager and several projects leads from different team. For example, project lead from planning and purchasing, Sourcing, R&D, Manufacturing, and Quality. In my opinion, I don’t feel it is a good idea to have multiple project managers from the same team as it makes the communication complex which results in missing a milestone.
I feel that the Project Manager role must be given to only one person. More than one project manager will always lead to a kind of chaos. Team heads or assistant project managers roles may be given to a person who has the same capability of being a project manager. This would be better because, Project Manager is a place where a decision must be unanimously taken by a person. If more than one PM is a leadership role. Its always better to have a single leader. Too many cooks spoil the broth. There must be always one leader who must be good enough to consider all the team mates decision and make his own that will be a productive one.
I've worked with multiple Project managers. I agree with Puneet that there are both positives and negatives to having multiple project managers. It can get confusing with where to draw the line on different responsibilities and deliverables but as Sahitya mentions it can also be valuable to have multiple managers provide a certain expertise that the other may lack. I personally think Projects should be structured as Scott described in which there is only one official Project Manager, but there can be sub-categories for management based on the particular department/roles. I think like akshayakirithy, having one official project manager is ideal so that there is a man point person who oversees the project so that there is focused plan.
I have not worked in a situation with multiple project managers for a single project. However, I do see the value in such a dynamic. Having multiple project managers would ensure that there is no one person shouldering the burden of the entire project. With multiple aspects being managed by several individuals, the project could be more dynamic. It also brings into perspective multiple opinions from people of different backgrounds.
However, some project leaders prefer to be the only one mainly in control. This would lead to potential tension in the group when someone feels overshadowed by another. There must be a clearly defined set of roles so that no single leader is more stressed or in more power to have a harmonious relation.
From my experience working in clinical trials projects, assigning multiple project managers for a single project depends on the size of the project, the areas of expertise that each project manager has pertaining to different areas of the project and also the geographical locations where the trial is taking place. For instance a study that is required to enroll patients from more than one country, it would be efficient to have project managers managing the study from each country the trial is conducted in. In a few other projects that enroll patients from more than 5 countries, there can be 3 or more project managers managing every stage of the study due to the size and technicalities associated with it. With regards to project managers with varying areas of expertise, each of them would be responsible for different phase of the trial. One of the project managers would be responsible for Project Initiation like pre-clinical phase, patient enrollment and preparing project charter and the other project manager would be responsible for handling the medical image processing, quality control and regulatory requirements of the project. While working cross-culturally, a project manager from the same cultural background would facilitate better communication with patients and hospital personnel and would result in efficient management of the trial as a whole in that particular geographical location than a project manager who would face cultural and language barriers.
On the other hand, the decision to assign more than one project manager to a study should be made wisely. As each project manager comes with experience from his/her own background, two very different people managing a study would cause clash of opinions and viewpoints and would prove to be detrimental to the successful and timely progression of a study, the company and its deliverables.
I have worked on a projects where there were multiple managers and projects where there were sole project manager. Honestly, I liked working under one project manager because there are usually conflicts among project managers and people like me who are scientist get stuck in middle. So I would definitely like to avoid cat fight of project managers.
I have worked on a project that had interests from multiple departments. For the most part the goal is that the aspects controlled by each department will not overlap and cause confusion. Sadly, this is just not true for how the real world works. I have had problems where something as simple as the maintenance manager and engineering supervisor not being able to agree on how often air filters should be cleaned in an air conditioner. The concept is trivial but often it can become a power trip between the two departments. My suggestion is to always listen to your direct supervisor. The person directly above you will hopefully defend you on disagreements. You never want to seem like you are going above your supervisor or go against them unless you personally believe the opposite opinion. I believe projects should always have one direct manager but sometimes you are forced to respond to more than one.
From my previous internship experience I had multiple managers when working on my project. This lead to some conflicts as the managers were not always up to date as to what the other manager had told the team to do or they were unaware of the stage in the process they were working on. With too any managers, information can get lost and may not reach a manager. In addition, with my multiple manager experience, they tend to disagree which can cause arguments and conflicts as to why something is being done. Also, since both managers may specialize in something different, they can try and stop one manager from doing something by saying they have more knowledge on the subject than the other. I think there should be one manager who delegates roles and duties to the workers below him. Different managers at different phases can get confusing and can disrupt the motion of the project.
Having more than one project managers can have both advantages and disadvantages. I think the multiple Project Manager will cause chaos in the team as there could be possibilities in the opinions and functionalities. Due to presence of multiple Mangers there are chances of miscommunications and conflicts which may delay the project if one managers guide something and the other manager disagrees with the others opinion. Since different managers will different thinking, different personalities so execution of the project can become difficult. So, having more than one manager is not a benefit for the project to run in a smooth way.
The project manager is the individual responsible for delivering the project and leads the project team. Big projects are difficult , so sometimes organizations might be tempted to have more people involved. A single, dedicated project manager can run the project smoothly because even when there are a lot of people involved at a high level, there needs to be a single person who is empowered to make the final decision. If there are multiple project manager on a project, that would increases the chances of conflicts of interest , confusion and problems regarding responsibilities and accountability but if the roles and responsibilities of each project manager are well defined in the project plan then project can progress well , on the project where the roles and responsibilities of each project manager are not well defined in the project plan, those projects rarely progress well. Communication also play an important role in project having multiple project managers.
Having multiple project managers on a single project will cause some level of confusion. Everyone has their own preferences on the way tasks should be done even if they agree on the specific task. Because of individual thought processes, disagreements are inevitable. Another situation that can occur is the two managers having different levels of commitment. As one of my mentors' once told me, "No one will care more about your program idea than you." If one manager is more committed to the project than the other, there will be constant frustration that can lead to internal conflict. Overall, I feel that each project should only have one person with the final say on things.
