Please answer question 4-7 CASE 15.3 IMPLEMENTING A MATRIX STRUCTURE IN AN R&DLABORATORY23The R&D laboratory of a large Dutch multinational corporation served two roles, split roughly50/50: product/process development (PPD) and support service to product/process development,production, marketing, and other areas of the corporation. The lab's employees were grouped into13 departments, 7 (with 85 employees) devoted to PPD, 6 (with 84 employees) providing supportservices.The decision was made to restructure the lab to operate as a matrix, and a policy commit-tee was appointed to draft a proposal for the restructure. After a year of discussion, a "balancedmatrix" was introduced, and five project managers, recruited from the lab, were appointed to coor-dinate PPD projects. The functional managers of the restructured R&D departments (who wereexcluded from strategic decision-making) felt uneasy about the balanced matrix and suggestedinstead a "weak matrix," but they were overruled. Functional managers responsible for PPD com-plained about loss of operational authority. Those responsible for support services had a differentgrievance: in the past, their work supporting stakeholders outside the R&D lab (e.g. productionand marketing) always took precedence over PPD activities, which they performed in whatevertime remained. The matrix now changed that, with priority going to PPD activities with enforceddue dates.The functional managers, who "didn't feel called upon to cooperate much," rebelled andceased making constructive contributions to the projects their departments were involved in.This forced the project managers to attempt to manage the projects single handedly, whichresulted in serious work overloads. Trying to speed up project work, they stealthily bypassedfunctional managers whenever they visited the functional departments. Further contributing tothe rift was the fact that project managers received higher salaries and nicer company cars thanthe functional managers.Twice the functional managers requested that some projects in the project portfolio be del-egated to their departments. The first time, they created a list of 22 big and 26 small projects["small" defined as requiring less than 1,000 labor hours per half-year, many that involved only oneor two departments), and they proposed that the small ones be delegated to their departments.The policy committee (under the leadership of one of the project managers) countered this by cancelling some small projects and integrating others into the big projects. Six months later, thefunctional managers noted that some of the biggest projects involved seven to eight departments,and coordinating work among them was difficult. They proposed that big projects be divided intosubprojects with responsibility delegated to subproject managers within their functional depart-ments. This proposal was opposed by the project managers and rejected.The project managers, frustrated that personnel were often shifted between projects by thefunctional managers who supplied the personnel, proposed that personnel on larger projects beassigned to projects "semi-permanently." for a period of, say, 6 months, during which they wouldnot be reassigned. After a year of deliberation, the proposal was approved despite the oppositionof managers of the service support departments because it compromised their ability to give high-est priority to service requests. The managers of production and marketing, who wanted quickresponse to their requests for services, supported these objections.Initially, service support tasks that required more than 300 hours were handled by projectmanagers, and those requiring less were handled by functional managers; later, the 300-hourthreshold was lowered to 100 hours. All service requests were sent directly to the departments forsubsequent assignment to project or functional managers, but the project managers suspectedthat functional managers manipulated the rule by creating service projects such that they requiredless than 100 hours. They proposed that service requests be sent directly to them, but this wasrejected.Three years after initiating the matrix structure, the caustic behavior slowly decreased; disa-greements still existed, but the atmosphere improved. Managers of the support-oriented depart-ments admitted that the matrix structure improved objective-setting and project control, but theystill favored a weaker form of matrix over the balanced matrix. Managers of the PPD-orienteddepartments came to accept the balanced matrix, although the general manager remained unsat-isfied and suggested that all departments should split their staff into two groups, one for prod-uct-process development and the other for support work.QUESTIONSWhat would the roles and responsibilities of functional managers have been prior to imple-mentation of a matrix structure? How did the change in roles contribute to conflict afterimplementation of the matrix?Comment on the complaint of functional managers of support-orientated departmentsabout due dates being enforced for product development work. What possible solutions doyou suggest?Many of the projects required the involvement of only one or two departments. Commenton how this fact should have been taken into account in the design of the organizationalstructure.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.Why would it make sense for smaller projects to be handled by functional managers?Why would the proposal for subproject managers in functional departments for the biggestprojects make sense?Sometimes reasonable proposals get "politicized." What role do you think mutual suspicionplays in this? How could this have been prevented in this case? Comment on the idea thatproject managers should display "integrative leadership."In this case, it took a year of discussions prior to implementing the matrix structure andanother 3 years before it started to work reasonably well. Comment on the time you think itshould take to implement a matrix structure. What factors must be considered?

Question

Please answer question 4-7 CASE 15.3 IMPLEMENTING A MATRIX STRUCTURE IN AN R&DLABORATORY23The R&D laboratory of a large Dutch multinational corporation served two roles, split roughly50/50: product/process development (PPD) and support service to product/process development,production, marketing, and other areas of the corporation. The lab's employees were grouped into13 departments, 7 (with 85 employees) devoted to PPD, 6 (with 84 employees) providing supportservices.The decision was made to restructure the lab to operate as a matrix, and a policy commit-tee was appointed to draft a proposal for the restructure. After a year of discussion, a &#34;balancedmatrix&#34; was introduced, and five project managers, recruited from the lab, were appointed to coor-dinate PPD projects. The functional managers of the restructured R&D departments (who wereexcluded from strategic decision-making) felt uneasy about the balanced matrix and suggestedinstead a &#34;weak matrix,&#34; but they were overruled. Functional managers responsible for PPD com-plained about loss of operational authority. Those responsible for support services had a differentgrievance: in the past, their work supporting stakeholders outside the R&D lab (e.g. productionand marketing) always took precedence over PPD activities, which they performed in whatevertime remained. The matrix now changed that, with priority going to PPD activities with enforceddue dates.The functional managers, who &#34;didn't feel called upon to cooperate much,&#34; rebelled andceased making constructive contributions to the projects their departments were involved in.This forced the project managers to attempt to manage the projects single handedly, whichresulted in serious work overloads. Trying to speed up project work, they stealthily bypassedfunctional managers whenever they visited the functional departments. Further contributing tothe rift was the fact that project managers received higher salaries and nicer company cars thanthe functional managers.Twice the functional managers requested that some projects in the project portfolio be del-egated to their departments. The first time, they created a list of 22 big and 26 small projects[&#34;small&#34; defined as requiring less than 1,000 labor hours per half-year, many that involved only oneor two departments), and they proposed that the small ones be delegated to their departments.The policy committee (under the leadership of one of the project managers) countered this by cancelling some small projects and integrating others into the big projects. Six months later, thefunctional managers noted that some of the biggest projects involved seven to eight departments,and coordinating work among them was difficult. They proposed that big projects be divided intosubprojects with responsibility delegated to subproject managers within their functional depart-ments. This proposal was opposed by the project managers and rejected.The project managers, frustrated that personnel were often shifted between projects by thefunctional managers who supplied the personnel, proposed that personnel on larger projects beassigned to projects &#34;semi-permanently.&#34; for a period of, say, 6 months, during which they wouldnot be reassigned. After a year of deliberation, the proposal was approved despite the oppositionof managers of the service support departments because it compromised their ability to give high-est priority to service requests. The managers of production and marketing, who wanted quickresponse to their requests for services, supported these objections.Initially, service support tasks that required more than 300 hours were handled by projectmanagers, and those requiring less were handled by functional managers; later, the 300-hourthreshold was lowered to 100 hours. All service requests were sent directly to the departments forsubsequent assignment to project or functional managers, but the project managers suspectedthat functional managers manipulated the rule by creating service projects such that they requiredless than 100 hours. They proposed that service requests be sent directly to them, but this wasrejected.Three years after initiating the matrix structure, the caustic behavior slowly decreased; disa-greements still existed, but the atmosphere improved. Managers of the support-oriented depart-ments admitted that the matrix structure improved objective-setting and project control, but theystill favored a weaker form of matrix over the balanced matrix. Managers of the PPD-orienteddepartments came to accept the balanced matrix, although the general manager remained unsat-isfied and suggested that all departments should split their staff into two groups, one for prod-uct-process development and the other for support work.QUESTIONSWhat would the roles and responsibilities of functional managers have been prior to imple-mentation of a matrix structure? How did the change in roles contribute to conflict afterimplementation of the matrix?Comment on the complaint of functional managers of support-orientated departmentsabout due dates being enforced for product development work. What possible solutions doyou suggest?Many of the projects required the involvement of only one or two departments. Commenton how this fact should have been taken into account in the design of the organizationalstructure.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.Why would it make sense for smaller projects to be handled by functional managers?Why would the proposal for subproject managers in functional departments for the biggestprojects make sense?Sometimes reasonable proposals get &#34;politicized.&#34; What role do you think mutual suspicionplays in this? How could this have been prevented in this case? Comment on the idea thatproject managers should display &#34;integrative leadership.&#34;In this case, it took a year of discussions prior to implementing the matrix structure andanother 3 years before it started to work reasonably well. Comment on the time you think itshould take to implement a matrix structure. What factors must be considered?

Accepted Answer

The transformation of a Research and Development (R&D) laboratory within a prominent Dutch…