In a matrix-based organization, resources might not follow the Project Manager but their Functional Manager. But, is this a real problem? Shall we say that project managers should have more authority than functional managers to always be in the best possible situation to fulfill the project scope and create unique, innovative outputs to support the company strategy? Probably no. The situation is perhaps more complicated, and it would be over simplistic to say that processes supported by functions are always more or less important than projects. This will instead largely depend on the relevance, innovativeness, and risk of the single project. For example, we might have such an important, risky, and new project that a task force might be considered suitable to manage it. Still, to maintain a higher efficiency level, we decide to handle it with a Matrix, but we want this matrix to be strong and the PM to manage functional resources according to her needs. Another case could be a routinary project, with low risk and a low level of innovativeness. A functional-based organization might be the right choice, but we decide to manage it through a matrix to increase the level of effectiveness. Still, this matrix will be a different one, and functional needs might be considered more critical and prioritized in this case. In other words, matrixes are not all alike. They can range from weak to strong as we move from matrixes near to functional-based organizations (suitable for routinary projects) to matrixes near task forces (ideal for very relevant and risky projects). The matrix's right strength depends on the strategic level, risk, and innovativeness of the project. But how do we measure the matrix strength? What does it depend upon? The answer is simple; the matrix strength depends on the level of control that the Project Manager has over the functional resources. In weak matrixes, the Project manager has no direct control of the resources. She interacts with the functional manager asking the function to serve the project and perform part of it. The functional manager is responsible for the quality of the contribution as well as for the resource allocation. The Functional manager can decide how many resources and who specifically assign to the project tasks. For example, she can choose between having a single resource for ten days or two resources of a week, or four resources for three days. The project manager, in this case, is a facilitator. She agrees with the functional managers about the delivery time and acts as a timekeeper. In many cases, they are not even full-time project managers. They instead work in a function involved in the project and act as coordinator of the entire project. It is easy to imagine that their control over resources in other functions is limited and more near to moral suasion with no actual power behind it. Instead, in a strong matrix, the project manager is a real negotiator who can act directly over resources. In these cases, the Project manager is a permanent role, often employed into a Project Management Office. This strong Project Manager is responsible for the project cost and quality and not only for the time. She also has a budget to pay the usage of internal resources. This solution is considered optimal by many project managers. Still, they often underestimate the workload that comes from micro-managing high numbers of resources, usually done by their functional managers. There is also a middle of the road and balanced matrix typology. In this case, the Project manager does not directly interact with all the team members, but with just one single resource per each function. This resource is called Project Leader and acts as a project manager for a part of the project. For example, as a Project Manager, I might have a functional project leader in marketing (taking care of all the marketing activities) and a Functional project Manager in IT (taking care of my project's IT side). This double level of the report makes it possible for the Project Manager to coordinate a small number of resources (the functional project Leaders) and let them micro-manage the resources within their functions. In some very advanced cases, all the project leaders, together with the project manager, form a non-hierarchical system of governance. In these cases, we have an integrated project team. The Project Manager and all the Project Leaders are jointly responsible for the project: if the project goes well, the merit and the bonuses are given to all; if the project is a failure, they are all held responsible in equal measure, regardless of the root cause of the poor performance. One thing is sure, though. Regardless of the kind of matrix, project managers will always complain that it is challenging to manage the resources working on their projects. When we asked thousands of project managers how they would solve this problem, the answer was almost always the same: to have more power to rebalance the situation with the functional manager. We can easily prove that this answer is wrong. The result would be an unmanageable stressful situation for the resources. They would be in between two powerful authorities. This would lead to tensions that could tear the organization apart. The answer is different, it is called leadership without authority, and it is one of the main competences required to a Project Manager. This topic is crucial, and we will devote proper space to it in other modules of this course.
