Given that the groups had already been assigned their specialty, such as marketing, pre-clinical research, clinical research, etc., the groups have taken on the structure of a functional organization where there is a clear hierarchy among team members and the team members report to one functional manager, or the project manager. Given the scope of the project, where documentation is the main focus, I do believe that this organizational structure would be most beneficial to the device development process. 

I would say given the structure from the charts from the power point slides, I would agree that our teams are structured more around a Functional Organization. Each member of the team is responsible for their own separate subsection, which is very dissimilar to the other organizational types. In this case, we (the head of each section) will be their own "project manager" in a sense, and the "chief executive" will be our respective Project Managers. I'd say one of our large paradoxes to this setup is that although our Project Manager will be having the final say on what is best for the project we, as leads of each respective category, have a lot of power in determining what should go into our divisions. In this case, coordination is actually amplified as we are able to directly communicate with the other "project managers" (those reliable for their specific category) and get an overall view of what needs to be done for one section before another can complete their portion of the project.

For our class project, a matrix organization structure seems most beneficial. This structure allows us to combine expertise from different departments while working on specific projects. It enables us to utilize diverse skill sets effectively and ensures a collaborative approach where team members from various specialties can contribute their expertise to the device development. This way, we can streamline communication, maximize resource utilization, and foster innovation throughout the project.

It seems that our project has naturally evolved into a matrix organizational structure, which brings a lot of flexibility and collaboration to our workflow. While each of us is part of a dedicated project team with specific goals and tasks, we're also expected to regularly consult with others within our department. This dual focus helps us ensure we are meeting project deadlines while staying aligned with our departmental objectives and standards.

In a matrix structure, we benefit from the strengths of both project-based and functional organizations. Working closely with our project team means we can make swift, cohesive progress on our project-specific tasks. Simultaneously, having access to our department's expertise allows us to troubleshoot issues, clarify best practices, and gather specialized input as needed. This setup not only encourages collaboration across the team but also leverages department-wide knowledge sharing, making it easier for everyone to solve problems more efficiently.

By combining the focused approach of project teams with the resource-sharing nature of departments, we’re in a structure that supports both individual accountability and group innovation. This matrix arrangement is beneficial for managing complex project requirements and ensuring each phase of development is well-informed and aligned with our collective goals.

As the project manager for our device development team, I am trying to lead my group within a project-based organizational structure while strategically incorporating key elements of a matrix organization. This hybrid approach enables us to harness the strengths of both systems; while our team remains primarily focused on achieving the specific objectives of the project, we also actively leverage the specialized expertise of various functional departments within the organization. By fostering collaboration among team members from diverse backgrounds—such as engineering, design, and marketing—I can ensure that we effectively utilize our collective skills and perspectives, which is essential for driving innovation and solving complex problems inherent in device development.

Moreover, implementing aspects of a matrix structure facilitates effective communication and resource sharing, allowing us to swiftly address challenges and adapt to any changing project requirements. This approach encourages team members to maintain open lines of communication and engage in regular updates, promoting transparency and accountability. As we navigate the complexities of our project, this combination not only enhances our overall efficiency but also cultivates a strong sense of teamwork and shared purpose. By embracing this collaborative model, we are well-positioned to deliver a high-quality product that meets our requirements while fostering a culture of continuous improvement and innovation throughout the development process.

Given the structure that was presented to us during class, I would say that my group originally started off as a functional organization. As organized by Dr. Simon, each student was grouped into an area of expertise of their choosing, then the project managers selected which student they wanted out of each area of expertise. This led me to believe that the authority and decision-making would be centralized within each department because each group member had their own deliverables that were tailored to the department they choose. For example, the project manager had to begin the project by creating the design and development plan (DDP) on his/her own, then once that was completed, the marketing department was able to begin the design input document (DID) based on the design that the project manager proposed. From here on out, each department generally has their own deliverable to complete by the deadline of the final project. However, now that a couple weeks have gone by since making teams, I feel as though my team has transitioned into a matrix organization. 

A matrix organization is a hybrid organizational structure that combines elements of both functional and project-based organizations. In this type of structure, employees report to multiple managers, one for their functional area (marketing, clinical trials, quality assurance) and another for the specific project or product they are working on. In our case, we are all only working on one specific project and we only have one representative in each department. Therefore, once each department believes that they have completed their assigned deliverable, they will send it over to the project manager for further approval. This dual authority system maximizes key factors within the project, such as resource sharing and collaboration across the organization, which is why I believe that it is also the most beneficial method for my devices development. By balancing the strengths of both functional and project-based structures, our matrix organization will enable us, as a group, to optimize collaboration, resource allocation, and project outcomes, even in highly regulated and complex environments.

I agree with others. People may have different option's. however i believe that a matrix organization structure would benefit our group and device development by combining the strengths of both functional and project-based approaches. It allows us to leverage specialized expertise from functional departments while focusing on the project’s specific goals and timelines. This structure promotes collaboration and resource sharing across departments, enhancing innovation and efficiency in device development.