Functional and Project Manager’s Duel
I receive many questions from the pmStudent community, and one of the highlights of my day is reading and responding to these.
This morning I received a fantastic question, and I would like to share it with everyone.
[Note: As a general rule, I will exclude first names and countries from now on. Your privacy is very important to me. If you want me to refer to you by name and country in a blog post, please let me know. Otherwise I am going to keep things anonymous so everyone is comfortable!]
Hello Josh,
I would like to thank you for your hard work. All the information you send to us is extremely helpful and educational. That being said, I have a question that confuse me. My question is regarding the relationship between project manager and line manager. Especially when it comes to project driven organization, what is the purpose of line manager. I read a book regarding this, the more I read about it the more I see the conflict and confusion between project manger and line manger. Do you have a chance to explain how line and project managers work together effectively.
Thanks.
Functional and Project Manager's Duel - by uwdigitalcollections via Flickr
In a matrix organization, you are going to have at least two types of managers. Line or Functional Managers, and Project Managers. (I will use functional manager and line manager interchangeably). There are different types of organizational structures along a spectrum which companies can be highly projectized or highly functional. Along this continuum the project manager role and line manager roles change. Their roles are also highly dependent on the organizational culture.
It is important for both line and project managers to understand their roles and how they relate to each other, regardless of the organizational structure. In a perfect world, they work together to manage projects, people, customers, etc. to the benefit of all. They are collaborators.
If any given organization does not adequately define roles and ensure harmony, it WILL result in territorial struggles and other foolishness. For instance, both managers may feel it’s their role to give a performance evaluation and fight with each other. Approval for various things like replacement equipment, forms, etc. may become contentious.
People will fight over stupid things, even (perhaps especially?) managers.
If the interface between project managers and functional managers are not clearly defined, they WILL spend time nit-picking each other and stepping on each other’s toes.
Functional or Weak Matrix
- Project Manager: Very little role or authority
- Line Manager: Full management role and authority
In this organization type, project management is usually not seen as a formal discipline. Functional managers run their own “projects” which are usually not much more than telling their own direct reports to go do something.
Very similiarly, in a weak matrix you have functional managers who “authorize” projects, but the management of the projects may be done by staff leads and you may also have pseudo project teams that span across multiple functional teams or departments.
Balanced Matrix
- Project Manager: Part-time and little formal authority, provides some input to performance reviews
- Line Manager: Full management role, does performance reviews with input from project managers, resources usually spend most of their time on operational work and a little time or temporary full-time on projects as they occur.
This organizational structure introduces the role of project manager. MANY companies are close to this point on the spectrum. A project manager is responsible for project(s) but does not have any formal authority over the staff that work on these projects. In order to gain resources, the project manager will need to negotiate with functional managers for resources, and hopefully she has a good sponsor (who is usually a director or middle manager) who can negotiate for resources and participation before the project begins.
Strong Matrix
- Project Manager: Full-time and at least as much formal authority as line manager if not more. Staff report to project managers for years at a time for technical direction and project managers usually provide the bulk of the input and many times deliver performance reporting.
- Line Manager: Role is mostly to support project staff. You may see line managers being split out by job skills…engineering team, software development team, support team, etc. Focused more on developing their specific skill sets and caliber of employees. May arrange for group training sessions related to their discipline’s focus. May still do administrative management functions like time cards, vacation time, sick time, etc. Staffing coordination and planning, taking input from projects and ensuring staff are covered (have full allocations across one or multiple projects) adequately in the future. Partner with project managers on recruiting and new hires, etc.
With a strong matrix you see the formation of something like a PMO. Many project managers report to one functional manager. That person is the functional manager for all the project managers. Here you can start seeing some effective sharing and implementation of best practices. Although that is possible in the other matrix models too, it becomes much easier when you have an organizational structure that supports project management as a discipline.
Projectized
- Project Manager: Employees report directly, full authority.
- Line Manager: Role may be transferred to the project manager. If they still exist, they are focused mostly on staffing coordination and planning, taking input from projects and ensuring staff are covered adequately in the future. They may also coordinate recruiting and new hires, but project managers have the most influence on hiring decisions.
In this environment, project managers are responsible for their projects AND their own staff. Staff who work on their projects also report to them in a functional/line sense. These are truly project management organizations. They make their money by doing projects.
This structure is advantageous if there are long project life cycles or other form of consistency where resources can be working for the same project manager over an extended period of time. The project manager knows what the staff are doing and can coach and mentor them effectively.
This obviously puts more pressure on the project manager to be effective in managing projects AND all the aspects of people management. I’d argue that every project manager should strive to be effective in both regardless of the organizational structure, but in a projectized environment it becomes even more critical.
Do an organizational structure analysis where you work. Do you have a project based organization? What are the roles of the project managers and how do they interface with line managers?
Aug 28th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Twitter Comment
RT @pmstudent In this corner: the Project Manager. In this corner: the line manager. Ding..ding..FIGHT! [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Aug 28th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Twitter Comment
RT @pmstudent: In this corner: the Project Manager. In this corner: the Line Manager. ding..ding..FIGHT! [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Aug 28th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Twitter Comment
RT @edhaskin RT @pmstudent: In this corner: the Project Manager. In this corner: the Line Manager. ding..ding..FIGHT! [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Aug 28th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Twitter Comment
PM Boxing! > @pmstudent: In this corner: the Project Manager. In this corner: the line manager. Ding..ding..FIGHT! [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Aug 29th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Three comments from Vic Rosenberg on the NewGrange listserve that would seem relevant here. First, on the origin of matrix management:
<>
And the second about the alleged deficiencies of a weak matrix:
<>
And finally, some thoughts on authority:
<>
Reply
Bill Duncan Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Let’s try again. Looks like my brackets to identify Vic’s comments got treated as html code or something … I’ll use parentheses this time instead.
Origin of matrix management:
(NASA’s first administrator, James Webb, also cites fragile commitment as the major issue for complex projects that extend over many years and eventually end. Over these years the external environment changes considerably and places project funding in constant jeopardy. The projects give managers a chance to excel, yet the eventual end places their careers in jeopardy. Thus, Webb considers project tools in light of how they help him develop a both stable external and internal commitment. Matrix
management helped defend fragile commitment by involving the maximum number of public interest groups and the maximum number of congressional districts while also providing managers with broad visibility for career path.
Among the useful pearls of wisdom that punctuate Webb’s story is his observation that managers expect workers to rally around a decision once it is made but professionals often do not even begin to argue until after a decision is made.)
Alleged deficiencies of weak matrix:
(The issue is NOT a weak matrix, it is that religious belief in the evil of weak matrixes diverts attention from focus on improvement — and becomes simply an excuse.
–The reality is that weak matrixes are so pervasive that strong ones are the exception.
–The reality is that weak matrixes fill an important place in management attention.
–The reality is that most industries and organizations accept this as simply part of the environment — not a problem per se, and certainly not an excuse.
– Thus, it cannot follow that weak matrixes can be blamed for one’s frustrations.
Some see this as a tools issue, yet there exist extensive theory and sophisticated tools for managing w/o authority. The problem is that one cannot teach these until one finds how to get the target to accept the challenge as managing the weak matrix. So long as fixing the problem IN CONTEXT is considered immoral, the targets cannot advance.
And finally, authority:
(Your statement presumes that there IS such a thing as formal authority. That is, effective authority bestowed on a person by the organization. Without that odd Myth you can not even construct your premise.
If the organization can bestow effective authority on the individual, then you can presuppose a perfect organization where the PM was anointed and the team follows hisorher lead.
If, on the other hand, we are talking about the real world, then the organization has no such power and the PM must establish their lead based on their own prerogatives and personality. In such a world, the PM who complains they lack power is in fact complaining about their own performance.)
Reply
Josh Nankivel Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Absolutely awesome comment Bill, thank you so much!
I love this in particular: “…managers expect workers to rally around a decision once it is made but professionals often do not even begin to argue until after a decision is made.”
That is so true in wayyy too many situations!
Reply
Aug 30th, 2009 at 3:05 am
Hi Folks,
I would like to weigh in AGAINST Matrix management……
Although far from being an expert in religion, (while as a project manager, I do talk to God frequently, at my advancing age, I am happy to merely pass water, not walk on it!!) both the Bible and the Quran are very clear that “man can only serve one master and serve him well”. (And I would hazard a guess that the concept applies equally to women?)
The person I consider to be the “father” of project management, Henry Fayol, was equally clear in his “14 Principles of Management” that required both “unity of command” (reporting to one person and one person only) and “unity of direction” (one plan of action from the top to the bottom) http://www.12manage.com/methods_fayol_14_principles_of_management.html
And if this doesn’t convince you, then let’s see what another “successful” project/program manager has to say. None other than Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, of Skunkworks fame, tells us in #1 of his 14 Rules that “the program manager must be granted nearly full and total control over his program” http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/u-2a/u-2_kellys_rules.htm
Bottom line on this one- I think it is clear that matrix management is not and does not work, leading me to conclude that it is one of the LEADING CAUSES for the rather abysmal “success” rate of projects in most organizations. (Along with the sponsor/client not having a clue what it they really need or want- but that is another story)
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Reply
galleman Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Paul,
The term “matrix management” needs a context and domain to determine if it is useful.
The matrix at Lockheed and most other A&D firms (including NASA and some DoD services) is an business organizational process not a program execution process.
When we are assigned to a program, we leave our “home” organizations and report to the Program Manager. The Home Org is responsible for training, HR, and other care ad feeding. When the program ends – in principle – the Home Org finds us a new assignment.
When this is not done properly – as is the case in some of our engagements – the 2 masters problems comes up. So saying matrix “is not and does not work,” requires a context and domain to provide any useful information.
next time you’re in Denver, I’ll introduce you to Orion team and some other multi-billion dollar defense and space programs that use Matrix Management daily to deliver on time, on budget, and on spec.
Glen Alleman
VP, Program Controls
Reply
Dr. Paul D. Giammalvo Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
I agree Glen…..
This illustrates the perpetual problems with lack of consistent definitions in project management…
What you describe is what I know and understand to be a “projectized” organization structure…… When the assets/resources of an organization are assigned full time to the project manager……… Even though they come from the sponsoring organization….
BR,
Dr. PDG, Boston….
Reply
Josh Nankivel Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Interesting…since the home org still does many of the management functions caring for the employee, it seems this would still be matrix, albeit a strong matrix..
Reply
Dr. Paul D. Giammalvo Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Entirely possible, Josh…… Depending on whose graphics you look at, you could make a cogent argument that it is a strong matrix, bordering on projectized.
We have worked with a large automotive client that offered the project managers the option of insourcing, or “acquiring” talent from inside the organization or outsourcing those same services (specifically, engineering and procurement) and they considered it to be beyond strong matrix and called it projectized, based on the fact the project manager had the OPTION of insourcing or outsourcing.
The question becomes is where is the “bright line”? And I agree as with so many other instances we find, there are none. All demarcations are fuzzy, porous and subject to interpretation on an organization by organization basis.
BR,
Dr. PDG, Boston
Reply
Aug 30th, 2009 at 11:01 am
I thought about Dr. Paul’s comment a bit concerning not serving more than one master at a time… I think he has brought up a really good point. I think the key is to balance and insure that each are complentary. In religious terms, you can still report to a manager at work without defeating the influence of your religious beliefs. Matter of fact, it can be argued that having strong religious convictions can improve your relationship with those you “report” to in the worldly realm (boss, spouse, values, etc). Likewise, I think it is possible to report to both a functional and PM if their influence is beneficial to the overall organizational goals. Not always easy – but just like religion – having a good channel of communication and taking the time to sometimes just listen seems to often help,
Reply
Aug 30th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Thanks Dr. Paul and Ron for your comments.
I’d say the problem is not having clearly defined roles. If you do that, then people will be less likely to step on toes. If the roles are well defined then staff should never have to choose between multiple directions given to them.
The fully projectized model solves the clearly defined role problem by giving it all to the project manager. It eliminates the other manager.
I argue there are other ways of making it work however, and a lot of benefits through specialization. It does require more coordination, but Adam Smith would agree with me I think.
So to disagree with Dr. Paul, if projects fail because of this it’s due to lack of senior leadership to define roles properly; not because of the matrix structure itself.
Reply
galleman Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Josh,
Think RAM (Responsibility Assignment Matrix). Actually think Accountabilities, not responsibilities, which are too soft.
Development contracts under the FAR require some sort of RAM. NASA, NAVAIR, and AF mandate a RAM. Without the RAM, the matrix org will fail. With the RAM it has a higher probability of succeeding.
Your last statement is EXACTLY correct – all project “programmatic” failures start with leadership. “technical” project failures are why they’re called projects and not production.
Reply
Sep 25th, 2009 at 12:58 am
I think that embedding the idea of a matirx vs. line management works well enough but clouds the real issue. The PM really cares about what work gets done, how quickly it gets done and how big of a check has to be written to do the whole thing. The line or function “owns” the processes and people to do that work. (This assumes that the organization is big enough to be able to enjoy that kind of division of labor.) Each entity has its own “power” but neither can ultimately perform with out the other – assuming that the span of control is large enough to have clear divisions. Thing tend to fall apart when the resources provided by the Line don’t cover all of the needs required by the PM. As long as each type of manager is strongly rewarded for excellence in their respective areas (and disincentivized for sticking their noses where they have no business) I think there is strength in having lines of authority going in two directions.
Reply
Josh Nankivel Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Great points Dennis. I worked in a strong matrix organization once where roles between functional vs project managers were not well defined, and the interfaces between them. Although it was very collaborative when reasonable people were involved, it also allowed for crazy things to happen.
It resulted in things like many functional managers feeling like they didn’t need to understand the work at all, and assume they could place whomever they wanted on projects when there was a need with no input from the project manager.
It also resulted in some project managers pushing off responsibility for dealing with tough people issues completely to functional management.
These things just don’t work. When lines are fuzzy, some individual managers WILL start staking their territory and get into petty arguments that are all counterproductive.
Reply
Glen B. Alleman Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Josh,
Actually this is one of the benefits of the matrix approach. Have a tough personal issue? Remove that person from the project team. Send him back to the functional manager with a note requesting someone else.
This is exactly how it works in practice. The functional manager can then determine the core issue. Wrong person in the right spot. Right person in the wrong spot. Wrong person in the wrong spot.
In all situations, the project is not impacted in ways found in the project only or function only.
Reply
Josh Nankivel Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I know what you’re saying Glen. That is a benefit, but in my opinion should only be used if the issue is a matter of “fit”.
I saw project managers use the cop-out of pointing a finger at the functional manager due to what I saw as normal conflict that should have been worked through.
Normal conflict navigation techniques should be used by the project manager; conflict is very good if directed to be constructive. It can be a creative force for good.
Reply
Oct 14th, 2009 at 4:11 am
Hi Josh,
sorry this is not a reply to your discussion. but weldone for the great job you are doing. I am a master student and i want to seek your views on how managing by project approach can help improve management efficiency and affectiveness
thanks very much
solo.
Reply
Oct 14th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Let’s see if we can get this “theory” about matrix management to come in contact with the “practice” of matrix management in a specific context and domain.
In the manned space flight business and nearly every other DoD, NASA, and DOE domain, matrix management is the basis of Integrated Product (Project) Teams (IPTs). See O 413.3-18 as an example for the DOE context. NAVAIR and NASA have similar practice guidance.
http://www.directives.doe.gov/pdfs/doe/doetext/neword/413/g4133-18.pdf
So here’s how it works.
Let’s pretend I’m the Propulsion Engineering Lead (yes it is rocket science).
I’m accountable for the design and development of the propulsion systems for our flying machine. This is critical concept – accountability – that is missed in most program that go into the ditch.
I report to the Program Manager – single line of integrative responsibility flows down as Brigham and Westin say in their Managerial Finance book in my MBA days. But it flows down through the Systems Engineering Lead. I take direction from two people. The PM and the SE. They work with me in a matrixed manner since we’re on an IPT organization. Now if they tell me conflicting things – say how much thrust is needed to hold orbit at Mars, then I need to convene a meeting to get this sorted out. Why because I’m ACCOUNTABLE to make the propulsion system work. It doesn’t work, the mission fails, they come looking for me and the PM.
Now the PM has bigger role than the SE’s. So during the meeting, the SE’s will make their points and the PM will take all this information in and we’ll have CONCURRENCE on the outcome. Remember the IPT. No consensus, concurrence.
Now in walks the Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) Lead. And she disagrees with our little decision. So who trumps whom? Well in the manned space flight business S&MA has a powerful role. More powerful than the PM at time, because certifying launch readiness is a S&MA role, not a PM role. We’re back to accountability.
All these accountabilities are defined and agreed to in the Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM). The responsibility, accountability, communication, information (RACI) model drives how the IPTs work inside the matrix. In fact the responsibility part of the RACI is never addressed until the Accountability assignments are made, and then it’s up to the accountable person to flow down the responsibilities.
So to attempt to get the theory to come in contact with the reality of how matrix management “can” work. Because that’s what real PM is about, the realities of projects.
No doubt there are numerous examples of how to make it NOT work. But that’s called a “false premise” argument. Just because you’ve never seen it work, or have some quotes from a couple of dead guys who say it can’t work, doesn’t mean it’s not working every day on 1,000’s of programs.
It’s critical here to look around for places matrix management does work and see if what they do is in anyway useful and applicable to your project environment. Maybe it’s not. But that doesn’t mean it generally the case that it doesn’t work. This is a common mistake of inverting the search for improvement. “Doesn’t work for me, can’t work for you.” Same goes for weight lose programs and pro football teams.
Glen Alleman
VP, Program Controls
Reply
Oct 16th, 2009 at 1:49 am
Twitter Comment
Duel between the Line Manager and Project Managerl (by @pmstudent) [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Oct 16th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Functional matrix and projectized approach are pretty much similar. Either way you have one person who’s responsible for both: people management and project management. It doesn’t really matter whether you call the person project manager or line manager or whatever.
I see this continuum of matrix management types as a circle where on one side you have two similarly strong roles of project manager and functional manager on on the other side you have one person sharing both roles. You can reach from one point to another either bystrengthening your PMs or strengthening your functional managers.
A completely different discussion is where is a sweet spot for every organization since there’s no single one which works every time.
Reply
Oct 16th, 2009 at 3:44 am
Twitter Comment
#FollowFriday: @pmstudent – The #projectmanagement teacher. And a great one at that! [link to post] #pmot #FF
– Posted using Chat Catcher