Advantages Of Matrix Structure

Alternative structures such as grouping by output/product or grouping by market are not options as they would result in “duplication of activities and resources, the erosion of deep technical expertise, missed opportunities for synergies and learning” (Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen, & Westney, 2009, p. M2-19). The matrix structure provided a potential positive aspect in that it would provide a needed cross-functional linking mechanism by mixing the functional structure with grouping by output/product, but the complexity, cost, dual systems, and dual roles resulting from the matrix structure historically resulted in either the functional or the output/product system becoming more powerful than the other.

Lastly, the matrix structure is a combination of the functional and multidivisional structures (Rothaermel, 2013). It is most appropriate when an organization needs a structure which allows for both centralized and decentralized decision-making, and can be organized by geographic areas and product divisions (Rothaermel, 2013). While a global strategy does not automatically lend to a matrix structure, a transnational strategy which has the requirements above is better served through a matrix structure (Rothaermel, 2013).

One the impact of such functional structure is that the effective communication and synchronization among division might be limited due to organizational restriction for having several divisions that will work individually (www.business2000, 2016).

An organization must align its strategy and structure to allow itself to achieve performance improvements over time. The four different structures, simple, functional, multidivisional, and matrix, are all suited to allow companies with different strategies to succeed but the company must decide which of these is correct for itself. A small start-up company will overburden itself with excessive cost if it seeks to implement a functional structure because it clearly will not have the talent on hand to create whole departments of HR employees or accountants. On the other hand, a company that grows to become a large multi-national

Following an analysis of the case, the company is currently experiencing internal communication problems and a lack of understanding of how a business that has a matrix structure should operate. By applying a few changes within the organisation will result in the company becoming even more successful.

Matrix organizational structures combine the characteristics of a functional and divisional organizational structure. The matrix organizational structure works more like a team. Instead of department heads, each team has a leader. Matrix organizational structures bring together employees who focus on a project, but fill different roles from across your business. The matrix organizational structure has the most decentralization, which means it can confuse employees about who is in charge. The matrix organizational structure is appropriate if your business operates on an international level, or serves different geographic regions.

● Performance evaluation is more complex and more subject to error in a matrix form of organization.

According to Miles et al. (1978, p. 547), an organization is both its purpose and the mechanism constructed to achieve the purpose. It means that the concept of organization is embracing both goals and all the elements that represent unique combination. Miles et al. (1978, p. 553) draws the conclusion that structure and the processes taking place inside the organization are closely aligned; it is hard to speak about one without mentioning the other. It is important to understand the conclusion drawn by Miles et al. (1978). It illustrates how the

BEC has taken on the matrix organizational structure. This type of structure combines functional and divisional organization structure styles. There are advantages and disadvantages in utilizing this

The relationship between different organisational functions and how they link to organisational objectives and structure.

Effective organizational structures define how job tasks are subdivided, grouped, coordinated, and managed. Six key components of organizational structures include division of labor, departmentalization, chain of command, span of control, centralization, and formalization (Remme, Jones, Van der Heijden, & De Bono, 2008, p. 79). Each element influence how employees interact with each other to reach organizational goals. Different structures are common in similar organizations among high performing organizations (Reimann, 1974, p. 707). The most appropriate structure will depend on the unique needs and culture of the organization.

As seen from figure 2, the matrix organisational structure is complex and aligns functional and divisional organisational structures merged into a hierarchical structure. The student observes that with this comes the potential to on the one hand, improve interdepartmental collaboration through avoiding silo-functioning and yet, on the other hand, blur the unity of command structure in an organisation that can be counterproductive. A critical analysis of two major advantages and disadvantages of this organisational structure here

Manager’s of an organization has to use structure to help the company run efficiently. “The five types of organizational structures are functional, divisional, matrix, team-based, and virtual network” (Draft, 2013, p.316). Functional structure in an organization that is developed by grouping departments by the skills, level of knowledge, activities done daily, and the resource used. “This structure places specific departments from the bottom to the top” (Draft, 2013, p.318). For example, specific departments such as: human resources, accounting, engineering, and manufacturing are placed at the top, while there are mostly seen at the bottom in other organizations. While common functions such as; people, facilities, and other resources are combined together as a single department instead of being divided into multiple departments.

Although there are signs that the company has a matrix structure in place, they do not follow a programme management approach and numerous failures within the structure exist. Their approach to management is still that of a traditional organisational approach, which tends management to lack both strategic purpose and customer focus.

At least two different organizational structures are identified, described, and compared in terms of their design principles.