I would have to agree that I also prefer the matrix organization. In my department we all complete similar roles but contribute to different projects. Due to our expertise we can contribute to those projects while also have a strong group of individuals to refer to when we run into issues as they may be in the same area of expertise just at a higher level. Having access to a wide variety of individuals ensures we can complete our assignments on time to meet project deadlines. It can be a bit difficult having multiple managers as discussed in class negotiating for time commitments does occur, but if you have a good manager and strong work boundaries it is manageable. 

I prefer the structure of functional organization because it appears to be the one that has the greatest level of focus on a specific task. One leader that has the final decision is great because there is no need to discuss different points of view with another manager. Two or more bosses increases the time it takes for them to come to a conclusion. Furthermore, the members within the department have alike schedules, so sudden meetings are more likely to happen, which improves efficiency. I have not had experience but comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the three types, allowed me to imagine what each environment is like.

The current company I work in seems to operate as a matrix organization. I have my manager that I report to but I often report to her manager as well. My job before this seemed to operate as a functional organization. Between the two, I definitely prefer the matrix organization because while I am primarily working on a manufacturing floor, I often communicate and work with quality, engineering, and management departments to resolve issues that come up during the process. This exposure to multiple areas and insights that happen during the building to shipping life cycle of the products we work on allows much more growth and advancement options for myself than I would get in either of the other two organizational structures. 

With very little work experience it is hard to tell now which organization will best suit me, but I personally would prefer a project-based organization. I believe the ability to work in the a consistent team with one centralized task builds strong relationships and chemistry. Strong relationships with in a project team creates an effective work environment as everyone becomes more comfortable with one another. In addition, like Dr. Simon stated in his lecture, knowledge is easily transferred between project teams and from project to project. Lessons can be learned about past mistakes and/or project member's strengths and weaknesses, overall building more effective projects as time progresses. Some cons to be considered are the lack of communication with other project team's which could be detrimental to the overall company morale. However, a positive company environment and culture will negate these possible disadvantages. 

Although I have no industry experience I can relate this question to the research lab that I work in where there are several research projects being conducted in the lab simultaneously, however, each project is being headed by one specific individual. In my personal situation the chief executive could be compared to the principal investigator of the lab and the functional managers are the various PhD students and Post Doctoral fellows. Under the functional managers lie the research students whether they are Master's students or undergraduate students and I would personally fall in this category. I have worked in this lab for almost two years and can say that in an academic research setting this type of structure seems to work quite efficiently. However, I could see a situation where the functional organization would not work as smoothly in an industry setting due to the lack of communication between the staff that are under each functional manager. In industry there can be projects that overlap with one another and it is important that there is an open line of communication amongst the various departments and employees that have a contribution to the overlapping projects. As @hodafattel a matrix organization would help mitigate the lack of communication from departments because the structure of this organization allows for staff to communicate with one another regardless of who their functional manager is since they have to report to the project manager at the end of the day. I think this type of organization fosters a higher level of productivity and learning in an industry setting, but for an academic research setting a functional organization would be more beneficial.

Hello,

As @hodafattel mentioned, the three types of organizations are: functional, project-based, and matrix. In a functional organization, the staff are grouped by specialty, such as engineering, or marketing. Each department has its own projects and goals independently of the other departments, though interdepartmental collaboration definitely occurs. In a project-based organization, the departments are instead projects, which may be on a contractual basis. Staff are assigned to projects, and when that project is completed, they are reassigned. The matrix organization is a combination of the two mentioned already, in which staff do both departmental and project work. For example, there are further classifications of matrix organization into strong, balanced, and weak, in which there are varying levels of authority between the project manager and the functional manager. In the strong, project managers have the most authority, and in the weak, the functional manager has the most authority. 

I would prefer to work in a functional organization. I would like to be assigned to a department that is suitable for my skills, such as research and development or engineering. As such, I would ideally have the ability to work on multiple varied projects. Furthermore, the goals of our projects in this work environment would be well defined due to the project manager, ensuring that objectives are clear. The staff assigned to the department would be consistent with no difficulties in meeting times or schedules. Furthermore, the staff assignments should remain consistent due to their skills, and as such, it allows for long term team bonding and improvement.

Although I haven't been able to identify what organizational structure I have experience with, I also would prefer the matrix organization over the other two. I have been a student athlete for majority of my life and I would assume you could consider the coach, team dynamic a functional organization? Although there is no confusion on who makes the final calls (head coach), I feel like there were many times that my team could've been more successful if individuals were given more opportunities to lead and share their insight. A matrix organization structure yields the most interaction amongst groups. Although too many opinions can be overwhelming at times I think its important to have different ideas and perspectives.