I was in a Matrix Organization where I had 2 direct bosses. The organization was not as clear as in the lecture that each project has a functional manager and a project manager. We typically work in various projects managed by a functional manager or a senior and a project manager (study coordinator). In most cases, everything ran quite smoothly because they had pretty good communication and exchange of progress. At that time,the only little issue was that I didn't know who to report to because a lot of time, the task list overlapped and sometimes there was some confusion in task priorities especially right before and after a major deadline.

I worked on a collaborative project between a biometrics firm and a computer vision laboratory. Most of the R&D work was done by the lab. My project manager had a tough time working with the lab as they were very slow in their process and we had to change our timelines several times. The reason behind it was that the Ph.D. students were overwhelmed with many projects and could not give results for the software team. Also, the lab coordinator really didn't know who was the boss and communication was almost zero until several meetings. For matrix type organizational structure, it is very important to assign responsibilities and function manager(recruiter) to be reasonable in allotment of resources with appropriate schedule at the very beginning.

I think I have the technical expertise to run a project as a middle-level project manager. Also, I agree with other that, to negotiate with clients and plan/developing Strategies, one must gain enough experience to understand the company's vision and goals. Hence, climbing the ladder from bottom to top along with experience is my way of growing.

I too have been a part of a Matrix organization. I would agree with the posts above that it does get confusing sometimes. I had a functional manager and a reporting manager for the same project. However, the things were made very clear to me in the beginning of what the purpose is of both the managers. I would report to the functional manager on daily tasks and meetings. However, we would present as a team to reporting manager once a week. The reporting manager was more of 'go' to any new ideas or major modifications we needs to make.

I have been a part of matrix organization and I have to say it does get bit messy to work, especially when you have two different projects due at same time. If you are good at managing your time it's not really that hard. I only did this type of work a little bit and at lower level so I don't really know how crazy it could get. In order to make sure that I was doing all the things that I was assigned I tried to do my work as soon as possible and also tried to do it from home so I don't have to worry about it while at work. This might be different for some projects where you can't really work at your own pace and by yourself. For example, and R&D group project is something where you have to work in the company with other poeple and if you are part of two different R&D projects, it is extremly hard to work on both.

Folks, if there is any problem in a "Matrix Organizational Structure" it won't be because of the structure. I have almost grown up in a functional type organizational structure where there is always a supreme leader who almost always seem to knows it all. From what I have seen, the only thing that can create problems in a Matrix Organizational set up is lack of communication; almost always from the top.

If everything in a Matrix Organizational set up is like I saw Dr. Simon execute, it should be a pleasure working in one of them as long as there is smooth communication among the leaders of the various groups.

So the 1st thing that must be ensured in a Matrix Organizational setup is how communication should be carried on. After all, everyone who got picked up from one group must already have expertise relating to that area - knowledge to be contributed to the group they are selected to work in. So, the last thing I would expect to see in a Matrix Organizational setup is conflict; in stead, everyone should be prepared to learn from everyone else in a group, knowing everyone has been picked up from a group with knowledge of a different area of expertise.

Andrew Disame

I definitely agree with the above comments by amd29 about how communication is the main source of conflict within a matrix organization. I have been part of a project that addressed three CAPA's from three different bosses of mine, which is common in a matrix structure. The timeline of one boss was a lot sooner than the other two, so I needed to get all the information from the others before I could submit my change notice. Well another one of the three bosses was out on vacation and I needed some confirmation on the changes he requested. Long story short, there was a bunch of miscommunication between the three bosses, but I was able to address them individually to connect all the missing links. Once the changes were ready to go out, cross-functionality with other departments was a piece of cake.

It is a type of organizational structure in which people with similar skills are pooled for work assignments, resulting in more than one manager.It does has advantages but also some disadvantages that I would like to talk about. One of the disadvantage is it creates a conflict of loyalty between line managers and project managers over the allocation of resources.Secondly the projects can be difficult to monitor if teams have a lot of independence(flexibility can turn into disadvantage).Automatically costs increases if there are more project managers that are created through the use of project teams.Organizational efficiencies are very difficult to identify because benchmarking headcount against revenue is not possible due to the scattered nature of the supporting functions. So this creates a conflict in Matrix Organization between advantages and disadvantages.

As you mentioned, working for a company with matric organization can cause a lot of conflicts when you work under two bosses. even though they work on the same goal, but still everyone has his/her own style and personality that affect the workflow. I'm currently working in a similar structure, however, it is not well defined as it is in the lecture. SO it is worse on daily task when you have two directions from two different people that you try to fulfill. you will have to wear a couple different hats to get your job done. Everything is loose and not well defined. I found it challenging trying to sync the priority of my two managers especially when I have a conflict of schedule and each thing his task is more important.

Matrix organizational structures are more flexible in that you might have more flexibility with how you spend your time. With this structure, resources could be limited and there could be conflict if another project comes along and you have to decide if the current project or the new project gets priority, especially when the bosses are not on the same page. Also, the workload can sometimes become too much depending how much you have on your plate.

Matrix Organization is one in which there is dual or multiple manager accountability and responsibility. The matrix organizational form may vary from one in which the project manager holds a very string managerial position to one in which he plays only coordinating role. Matrix Organization is more dynamic than functional management that allows project team members to share information more readily across task boundaries, and it also allows increase in knowledge. The project manager has most of the power, resources and control over the work.  

Matrix organisations are where the employees have more than one boss and work on multiple teams. This leads to multiple streams of goals that complete for time and attention. The other conflicts are the resourses shared widely across the organisations and could create more competition of resourses. These matrix structures are flexible in spending with time.

I have not had this experience in industry, but I have been working on my senior design project with two direct advisors. The biggest conflict I have had are that different tasks are prioritized by each advisor. The deliverables required by each advisor are often on different timelines, and even when both advisors require the same document, they usually have different expectations of that work. The best way I've found to manage this is to completely understand the expectations of each advisor and managing the work load to meet deadlines from both. 

Wonderful question. I work in a matrix organization. Interestingly, it was originally more of a functional organization. But in an attempt to be more effective in addressing project needs a decision was made to transition more toward a project based organization. The transition did result in double accountability for  non management employees.   The conflict that did arise is that best practices were subjugated to project schedules. I think as department managers authority weakened and project leads authority strengthened schedule needs tended to take precedence over best practices with less resistance from true engineering discipline practioner's.   What tends to be central to a project manager person is schedules. I think this can be a weakness of project-based organization structures.  Project leaders may be too far removed from engineering craftsmanship resulting in pushing more unrealistic project schedule.