The first case problem that needs to be settled is whether the bank should adopt project management structure or not. As shown in the case facts and conversation of Mr. Hood and Mr. Dallas, changing the organizational structure of the bank is necessary for it to be able to handle future large and complex projects. As a growing firm, the bank should anticipate the future existence of more complex and larger projects in the future. Large and more complex projects require the integration of efforts of several departments.
Thus, it is proposed that the bank adopts the project management structure at the same time adopt functional structure, thus, a matrix structure (See Figure for the organization structure). The bank will be having several project teams composed of people coming from different functional departments. Adopting this type of structure entails that the bank should address the issues posed by adopting.
#1. With regard to the management of simple/small projects that need only the work of one department or one person, this can be handled by the department concerned i. e. if the problem involves only the finance department, then it will be handled by the finance department (the functional structure). But if the problem/project requires the effort of two or more departments (complex problems) the project management structure will handle the problem/project. Adopting the project management structure and functional structure at the same time gives the bank more flexibility. It can handle a variety of projects at the same time: from small and simple problems to large and more complex ones.
In terms of giving titles, the project team heads will bear the title project managers and the functional department heads will be the department managers or vice presidents. All of the managers be it a project manager or a department manager will report directly to the president, Mr. Hood and it is the president who will monitor the progress of the work of each manager. The department managers/resources managers will not be assigned as project managers as this may create bias and will put the organization in jeopardy, except in the cases of handling small/simple problems that need only the effort of one department.
One problem that this matrix structure poses is the dual chain of command for each employee, thus, proper delineation of the authority and responsibility of each manager should be explicitly stated. Project teams are temporary in nature, thus, an employee may be assigned to more than one teams per year, according to his/her capability and expertise but will only belong to one resource department. Proper coordination and good relationship among project managers and department managers are essential for this structure to work. A coordinating mechanism should be proposed.
To foster good relationship among departments and project teams, the bank can organize team building activities. In terms of evaluating managers, project managers and department managers alike, their performance will be evaluated in different ways. In evaluating the performance of the department managers, a budget should be constructed for each department and it will be the basis for the performance of each department. While in evaluating the performance of the project managers, will be based on the projects that they have accomplished.
With regard to the issue of progress of each team tied with the number of people on the project, before a project will be assigned to a project manager, the department manager and the project manager concerned should meet and brainstorm about the optimum number of people that should work on the project. The number of people to be assigned to a certain project should be based on the complexity of the problem and the urgency (deadline) of the project. In terms of giving compensation to managers, compensations and rewards should be tied up with performance, especially for project managers.
Their rewards and compensation should be based on the quantity and quality of the projects each manager has accomplished. The president must discuss this course of action with the departments involved like finance and personnel departments. 2. Mr. Hood is a conservative manager, afraid to take the risk of being a leader in pursuing a certain course of action but it’s time that he should be more aggressive. It is now necessary that Mr. Hood implements a new organizational structure because this is what the firm’s environment requires.
For the bank to cope with changes and for it to be able to grow, the structure must be supportive/conducive for growth. The traditional organization structure cannot cope with the complex problems that the bank is currently facing; therefore, it’s time for Mr. hood to take the necessary actions. 3. Another major problem that the bank is currently facing is the need for it to find effective project managers who could bring project success and are good in handling integration of work across functional lines.
One effective way of doing this is to promote from within. This will encourage current employees to strive hard to learn and develop their selves and perform well. Everyone will be motivated to work and strive hard since everyone is given equal opportunity to be promoted in the ranks. The bank should also offer opportunities for its employees to develop their skills and enhance their knowledge through giving trainings, seminars and other activities that will help develop the employees. Summary
The implementation of project management in the organizational structure of First Security Bank of Cleveland would be very much beneficial to the company and can surmount cost as well as its corresponding issues/problems upon its execution. With the utilization of project management, a new organizational structure will be formed in order to organize the simple projects and complex projects at the same time achieving greater efficiency and flexibility of the company which ultimately mean greater productivity of the firm.
Since it’s a major change in the company, issues and problems particularly organizational politics is expected for example assignment of head title/position, dual chain of command, method of evaluation of managers, and Mr. Hood himself being the conservative in facing risks involved in new development. All these complications however can be easily prevented and resolved in many strategic ways.
First, the problem in assigning title/position of between project managers and department manager will be clearly stated as well as their function in order to avoid ambiguity within the organization. Eventually this can also help solve the second problem in terms of duality in the chain of commands among employees. Also a coordination team will be proposed to ensure harmonious relationship within the organization since this aspect is highly needed as reassignments of employees to different managers can be anticipated because of the nature of projects.
Having good camaraderie not only among employees but also among managers will be of great help upon assessment period since it will eliminate too much politicking. Moreover, the evaluation of managers will be completely based on the nature of their functions in presenting performances; project managers—accomplished projects while department managers—budget. As a final point, the presentment of this study to Mr., Hood, being conservative in terms of risk, will be enlightening since he can get assurance that risks involved may be eliminated together while achieving the advantages of project management not only to the managers and employees but to the company as a whole.
Gray, C. F. and Larson, E. W. Project Management The Managerial Process. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from, <http://feeds. eng. fiu. edu/summer07_handouts/ESI6455/1/Chap001. ppt#257,1,Chapter 1. > Clark, D. (1998-2007). Organizational Behavior. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from, <http://www. nwlink. com/~donclark/leader/leadob. html>.