For this post, I analyzed a regional consulting firm that has been having some growing pains. This analysis allowed me to see that the structure of the organization was significantly contributing to their problems, and would have to be changed if they hoped to improve their PM processes and operational efficiency.The graphic allows us to see that while each member of the firm's set (functional areas) is integrated, overall communication throughout the organization is lacking. The concentration of authority and customer contact across the two major hubs (lead technician and business consultant) also presents problems in terms of resource allocation - first, by potentially overextending each hub as business grows (creating bottlenecks); and second, by creating separate factions that may not operate in a unified fashion.
This structure does not facilitate collaboration among the various groups: because of the “stovepipe” reporting structure, and the independent mindset among the functional areas (i.e. marketing operates one way with consulting clients, while the helpdesk uses their own procedures with services clients). With the functional departments empowered to manage and complete isolated projects within their “stovepipe,” there are relatively few issues for small clients with specific needs (which is why this was not a serious issue in the past). However, as the client base shifts, the efforts of more than one department will be required to develop and implement comprehensive programs – efforts that cannot be effectively managed with the existing structure.
From a PM standpoint, as this shift occurs, the functional webs converging on the two main hubs limit overall cooperation throughout the organization and with other key stakeholders. With communication and decision-making authority lying outside of the project structure, because there is no true project manager, the project team and functional managers are removed from the needs analysis, and no one maintains accountability for aggregate team and project performance. When looking specifically at the project planning process and scope definition, this structure would limit the authority and decision-making capability of a project manager. It also serves to erect barriers to teamwork, and results in disparate objectives among “competing” functional areas.
This need for better internal communication, and the division of business and technical personnel, coupled with the lack of a single project manager for large projects, makes it harder to garner scope agreement and create an all-inclusive project plan internally; even before solutions are presented to clients. With no internal consensus on what the scope or plan of action will be, it is impossible to approach the customer as a unified organization with full-spectrum expertise.
Since the firm has moved towards larger and more complex projects, their lack of sophistication and failure to create scope definitions and management plans based on key stakeholder consensus has been very difficult to overcome. As we can see, their organizational structure contributes significantly to this problem.
