Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-1
Chapter 3: Project Organization
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-2
Learning Outcomes
• Students be able to explain organizatin
structure in project management
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-3
Discussion Topics
• Alternative organizational structures (2)
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-4
References
•
•
Information Systems Project Management,
David Olson, Olson, David L., 2003,
Introduction to Information Systems
Project Management, 2nd Ed.,
McGrawHill, ISBN: 0-07-282402-6.
Schwalbe, Kathy, 2003, Information
Technology Project Management, 3rd Ed.,
Course Technology, Inc., ISBN: 0619159847.
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-5
Organization Designs
• there are a number of options
• Project Managers need to understand
relative advantages and disadvantages
of each
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-6
Organization Structure
• range of activities organization does
• management hierarchy
– reporting relationships
• major subdivisions
• responsibilities & type of work for each
subdivision
• official lines of authority & communication
Informal organization also important
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-7
Alternative Structures
• there are a number of options
• best depends on goals, type of work, environment
• DIFFERENTIATION - organizational specialization
–
–
–
–
–
functional
geographic
product
customer
process
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-8
Functional Organization
integration by rules, procedures, coordinated plans,
budgets
Hieronymus Botch
CEO
Bean Kounter
Accounting
Silas Marner
Finance
Snidely Whiplash
Marketing
Atlanta
John Doe
Production
Phoenix
works well in repetitive, stable environments
the most prevalent form
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Siegfried Hill
MIS
Butte
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-9
Geographic Differentiation
Standardized accounting and reporting procedures
John McGraw
CEO
Dan McGann
St Louis
TV sales
Production
Joe Kelley
Baltimore
Telemarket
Production
Can tailor to unique requirements of locale
Often used with functional within regions
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Cy Seymour
New York
special order
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-10
Product Differentiation
If produce a variety of products.
Megaglomerate
Octopi
Dr. Sweitzer
Tobacco
J. Ripper
Health Products
production
A. Onassis
Tankers
marketing
J. Helms
Environmental
marketing
legal
Integration between subdivisions tends to be low
use standardized financial & reporting
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-11
Customer Differentiation
If a particular customer very important
Gunn Runner
Overnight Delivery
George Patton
Military Sales
Che Guevera
covert sales
functions
geographic
A. Nobel
special ops
explosives
peace prizes
Integration level depends on interdependence of
products (usually low)
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-12
Process Differentiation
some logical process basis for differentiation
Little 600 Consulting
Phyllis Knight
Customer
Contactor
Systems
Analysis
Programming
need more integration, as problem in one area
affects others; task forces, teams
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Customer
Training
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-13
Project Organization
• traditional organizational design
– when change required, add layers of mgmt, rules
– less flexibility, slow
• Projects
complexity
uncertainty
change
unpredictability
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-14
Project Organizations
• need to be highly differentiated to meet variety of
problems
• need to be highly integrated to respond rapidly
• need to be highly flexible
• must integrate subunits through
horizontal relationships
• must have structures suited to unique
environments
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-15
Comparison
Project
Traditional
project
manager
supreme
high ruler
big
boss
little
boss
big
boss 2
another
one
little
boss 2
etc
staff
people
designer
folk
rigid, clumsy
customer
liaison
worker
bees
horizontal communication
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-16
Pure Project Organizations
if high complexity, major resource
requirements, heavy stake outcome
PURE PROJECT organization appropriate
separate organization created for this goal
TYPES
PROJECT CENTER
STAND-ALONE PROJECT
PARTIAL PROJECT
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-17
Project Center
linked to parent organization
draw resources & personnel as needed
EXAMPLES:
• General Motors task force to develop
suggestions for downsizing
• relocation operations
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-18
Stand-Alone Project
newly created organization for this mission
draw from several organizations
EXAMPLES:
• large-scale public works
• NASA space station development
• construction joint-ventures
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-19
Partial Project
project manager responsible for some activities
other activities (support-oriented) remain with
functional divisions
TYPICAL ARRANGEMENT
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-20
Pure Project Disadvantages
cost in personnel (facility duplication)
lose training investment - no place else to
use key people
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-21
Matrix Organization
if organization continually operates on a project
basis (and many MIS shops do)
need to be able to quickly create large project
groups
Grid-like structure of reporting and authority
relationships overlaying traditional functional
organization
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-22
Definition
• used to describe organizations that make more
than minimal use of project teams or product
groups
• can become an organizational pattern (TRW
Systems)
• combines project management (improved
coordination) and functional organization
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-23
Origins
• NASA & Department of Defense initiated (1960s)
contracting practices requiring contractors to use
project management
• For each particular project, firm had to develop a
project organization
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-24
Why
• MATRIX ORGANIZATION came from needs to
– maintain advantages of specialization &
resource minimization
– meet government requirements
– obtain coordination advantages of project
management
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-25
Matrix Capabilities
• functional part provides repository for
technical expertise and physical
resources
• when in functional home, workers keep
up professionally (train)
• functional homes a place to go when
project over (no new job search)
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-26
Hybrid Forms
• Firms combine matrix, functional, project
features, custom design their own
organization
• COST CONTROL: functional worst
• SCHEDULE: project best, functional worst
• TECHNICAL: functional worst
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-27
Project Risks
• If high technical risk
– give project manager more authority
– matrix better (more skills readily available)
• If high cost risk
– clear goals paramount
– give project manager high authority
– more planning, monitoring, control
• If high schedule risk
– more project manager experience, monitoring
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-28
Matrix Problems
• must be reinforced by information systems and behavior
supporting two-dimensional information flow, dual
reporting
“No Man Can Serve Two Masters!”
military principle of UNITY OF COMMAND
• chaos, confusion more common
• often project manager tells you what to do, but your raise comes
from functional manager
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-29
Other criteria
• stake of the project
if high, matrix or pure give better control
• degree of technological uncertainty
if high certainty, task forces & teams
• criticalness of time & cost goals
if time & cost not major, task forces & teams
• project uniqueness
if unique, partial or full project
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-30
Project Management Processes
• Project Processes:
– Initiating processes –recognizing that a project or phase
should begin and committing to do so
– Planning processes –devising and maintaining a workable
scheme to accomplish the business need that project was
undertaken to address
– Executing processes – coordinating people and other
resources to carry out the plan
– Controlling processes – ensuring the project objectives are
met by monitoring and measuring progress and taking
corrective action when necessary
– Closing processes –formalizing acceptance of the project or
phase and bring it to an orderly end
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-31
Process Interactions
• Inputs: documents or documentable items that
will be acted upon
• Tools and Techniques –mechanisms applied to
the inputs to create the outputs
• Outputs –documents or documentable items
that are a result of the process
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-32
Executing Processes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project Plan Execution
Scope Verification
Quality Assurance
Team Development
Information Distribution
Solicitation
Source Selection
Contract Administration
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-33
Controlling Process
•
•
•
•
•
•
Overall Change control
Scope change control
Schedule Control
Quality Control
Performance Reporting
Risk Response control
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004
Information Systems Project Management—David Olson
3-34
Summary
• organization structure is means to
achieve goals & respond to problems
• differentiation
• project organizations more flexible
• need to know criteria for appropriate
project organization structure
© McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2004