Matrix Organization and Organizational Networks

Year:

1971

Next Step in Inter-organizational Relationships

(Originally published in International Associations, 23, 1971, 3, pp 154-170; PDF version). Annex II of: Next Step in Inter-organizational Relationships. Notes on the problems associated with the current crisis in the relations between intergovernmental and nongovernmental bodies, with particular regard to the United Nations Specialized Agencies and the consultative status arrangement. Distributed by the Union of International Associations as UAI Study Papers ORG/1.

The potential association technique is closely related to a technique used to handle complex multidisciplinary projects, such as the effort to get a man on the moon. Projects of equivalent complexity are the essence of development and the regeneration of urban areas, for example. This new technique, of proven worth, is known as the project or matrix organization.

The success of the program to get a man on the moon is not only a technological triumph.

"Apollo 11 has been referred to as the most complicated piece of hardware ever conceived by man. The mind boggles when one tries to envision the total configuration of this undertaking from the millions of hardware parts through to the actual mission flight which encompasses a world-wide communications network. The managerial dimensions of the task are staggering....The administrative-management segment is perhaps less glamorous, and is prone to be overshadowed during the elation of accomplishment, but it is one that plays a vital role in achievement."

Development, peace and environmental problems are coming to be perceived as enormously complex — whether they are as complex as the task of getting a man to the moon is not yet clear. Many people would have wished that the resources devoted to the Apollo project could have been diverted into development type programs. But whatever one's views of the significance of the Apollo project and criteria of success, there is no reason why the technique used to manage this complex multi-disciplinary program should not be examined for relevance, as a technique, to the problem of relating the many organizations working to solve different aspects of the population-food-health-environmentpeace crisis.

The management techniques developed by NASA are unorthodox because they must tie together: fundamental research on new approaches, development of research insights into realistic projects, contracting out aspects of the research, development or manufacturing programme (to industry, universities, governmental agencies, professional associations, etc.) programme initiation, programme implementation, coordination of the programmes of a maze of semiautonomous departments and institutions, human relations of a high order to blend together creative, talent, highly individualistic and sensitive to restrictions to their autonomy in their area of expertise, and external relations (with the general public, the press, government, industry, the academic community, and specialst groups). At the same time priorities and organizational patterns are constantly changing. To succeed in this complex situation necessitates the abandonment of most of the standard rules of management practice.

Each of the features noted above is present in the elaboration of development-peace-environment-food programmes. It is therefore probable that the NASA techniques may contain important clues for the improvement of such programmes.

But programmes depend for their final success (in problem-solution rather than administrative performance terms) on the participation of many people from different backgrounds, organizations (e.g., government, industry, universities, professional associations, youth groups, etc.), and disciplines (economics sociology, psychology, management, statistics, agriculture, communications, etc.) within programme frameworks which are as unrestrictive on decentralized initiative as is feasible. Consider some of the elements of the NASA philosophy. NASA decided that it would act as technical manager of a government-contractor- university team rather than be the designer and manufacturer of its various requirements — namely a team effort between essentially different types of organization. This meant an emphasis on contracting out work to non-NASA controlled bodies (whether government, industry, university or professional association).

A very important decision was the switch to the concept of a "matrix organizational structure" in contrast to the traditional hierarchial, one-man-one-boss structure. Within this new structure, each participating body — whether controlled by NASA or not— is considered to be at the intersection of influences from other parts of the structure and itself in turn influences several others. It is a system which tends to diminish the visibility of authority and to emphasize consensus as an operative mode. Every participating organization or department is therefore at the point of intersection of competing forces with each part giving particular expression to the overall system's goal. Operating decisions are part of the give and take of specialized units struggling for a share of the system's total resources.

A key part of matrix management is the presence of elements with the power of precise decision; able to freeze the dialogue of decision making at ad hoc points. In place of a rigid hierarchy and the pressure to conform to directives from the top, matrix management tries to substitute operating unit drive for expression within a climate of mutual respect united around fundamentals. Why the expression "matrix" organization? Consider a simple example helow.

Figure 1: Matrix organization chart
.	1. IGO A	2. IGO B	3. INGO A	4. INGO B	5. Nat. NGO A	6. Multinat. corp.	7. Govt. A	8. Govt. B	9. Found. A	10 Found. B
Phase 1	X		X	X	.	.	.	.	.	.
Phase 2	X	X	X	.	X	.	.	.	.	X
Phase 3	.	.	X	.	.	X	.	.	X	X
Phase 4	.	X	.	X	X	.	.	X	X	.
Phase 5	X	.	.	X	.	X	X	.	.	X

The project is divided into 5 Phases and requires the participation of 10 organizations of various types. Organizations participate to a different degree at different Phases. At each Phase there is a problem of coordination between the participating bodies. Between Phases there is the problem of ensuring continuity. Phases may of course overlap one another or run in parallel. In a real case several departments from each organization might be involved at different Phases, and there would probabllybe many more Phases. The matrix would be very much larger.

In a matrix organization each Phase has its own coordinating body which exists only for the duration of the Phase. The manager of the coordinating body has no formal line of authority over the participating functional units — but he does have deterministic authority over the units which do participate. Within the project as a whole, therefore, the activities of one participating body are coordinated by several such bodies — the one-man, one-boss approach is dropped — with the result that the span of control becomes very large.

"Issues like human relations trust, people understanding one another -- which weused to think of as the frills of a business organization — now become absolutely central. When TRW Systems was running the Minuteman project, the heads of each of the resource pools and of the projecting group met together for an hour at eight o'clock every morning , every day of the week. Wot because they were nice fellows or thought that human relations were a good thing, but because the informational complexity of running a matrix was so great that without that sort of meeting they couldn't manage at all." (Donald Schon, BBC Reith Lectures 1970. The Listener, 3 December 1970, p. 774)

Each organizational unit can therefore be seen as an area of tension between the forces of integration and fragmentation which cut through the system. Matrix management attempts to enhance both these tendencies.

Disintegration tendencies derive, in a development-environment- food problem example, from: the "economists" responsibilities to proposemechanisms to improve the availability of funds to developing countries. Similarly "human rights NGGs" must focus on the social aspects and consequences of development. The "peace researchers" must attempt to isolate factors which hinder moves towards a reduction in international tensions and an increase in world stability. The "medical organization"must attempt to stress the importance of health in relation to development, pollution and malnutrition. The "pure science bodies" must stress the importance of new understanding of ecology, control of natural phenomena, etc. The "mass media bodies" must stress the importance of informing and educating the general public on their responsibilities. And so on.

Figure 2: NASA Organizational chart

Each such autarky — and it is as such that NASA views many of its sub-systems — is however related to the others. Certain unifying techniques are provided. These have been well illustrated by the contrast between the traditional formal organization (one-man-one-boss) structure as shown in Fig. 2 and the new diagrammatic representation as in Fig. 3. In the NASA case, the first is judged as no longer reflecting the reality of the matrix environment. The second is considered to be a closer approximation to the management dynamics. This is more than a "space age" portrayal of a structural-functional system. Just as the components of our own social system are held in juxtaposition by the forces of nature, so also does each "planet" in the matrix organization owe its position to more than just gravitational interaction with the "aun" or its "moon(s)". Each planet interacts with all components of the system to bring about a balance or stability which serves to maintain the system.

Figure 3: Manned spacecraft center -- solar organizational system

But is this solar system diagram relevant to the problems of interrelating IGOs, INGOs, Multinational corporations, Governments, National bodies, etc. There never has been any question that they could all be considered as linked within some overall structure with formal lines of authority such as in Fig. 2. Even in the case of limited groups of organizations the formal lines of authority are practically non-existant — this is one of the greatest "weaknesses" of international organization.

But suppose that instead of focusing on the formal lines of authority we look at the flows of information, resolutions and, lam, namely the information which regulates — directly or indirectly — activities within the world system. We could perhaps dram out some sort of rigid hierarchy with the United Nations at the top. Each line would then represent some flow of regulative information. But just as in the NASA case this could not be considered an adequate picture of the way such processes actually work. In particular, many organizations would not wish to think of themselves as beholden to others — there is a much greater impression of autonomy and freedom of action. Inaddition, we can not clearly see how information flows from the UN down to the national level — the lines in the "world organization chart" are not all known. In many cases the information flow lines can be only dotted in. We are dealing with a system of autarkies.

It is therefore much more useful to think of the organic relationship between all the organizational elements of the world system as based on the solar system model. Each area of interest functions quite independently within its own "planetary" orbit, together with its own sub-interests in their respective "lunar" orbits.

Each body influences every other body, just ,as the gravitational influence of each planet influences every other planet. Stability is maintained because all bodies revolve about a common central point.

But in the case of the world system there is no body which sits at the central position as a meeting point or origin for coordinative information. For some a "world government" would take this central position. For others a governmental structure organized in terms of the concepts current in national government would be a disaster. This position can therefore be considered a future or potential development -- an idea for which we do not yet have an adequate organizational form. This approach does not however prevent us from treating this common (or "virtual") point as the centre of a solar system model. (The "inhabitants"of a particular body do not have to think of it in these terms — just as it is possible for someone on the surface of the Earth to say both "the Sun rises" and "the Earth revolves around the Sun".)

As a first attempt at organizing thinking in these terms, governmental, business-industry, and non-profit-academic organizational forms have bean treated as three planetary systems in Fig. 4. This therefore stresses the importance of the equilibrium between the three basic typos of organization present in the social system.

Figure 4: Suggestive outline sketch map of world system

To include more details, we can now treat each of these planets as a solar system in its own right. The first treated in this way is action with the "aun" or its "moon(s)". Each planet interacts with all components of the system to bring about a balance or stability which serves to maintain the system.

But is this solar system diagram relevant to the problems of interrelating IGOs, INGOs, Multinational corporations, Governments, Notional bodies, etc. There never has been any question that they could all be considered as linked within some overall structure with formal linesof authority such as in Fig. 2. Even in the case of limited groups of organizations the formal linesof authority are practically non-existant — this is one of the greatest "weaknesses" of international organization.

But suppose that instead of focusing on the formal lines of authority we look at the flows of information, resolutions and law, namely the information which regulates-- directly or indirectly — activities within the world system. We could perhaps draw out some sort of rigid hierarchy, with the United Nations at the top. Each line would then represent some flow of regulative information. But just as in the NASA case this could not bo considered an adequate picture of the way such processes actually work. In particular, many organizations would not wish to think of themselves as beholden to others — there is a much greater impression of autonomy and freedom of action. In addition, we can not clearly see how information flows from the UN down to the national level —the lines in the "world organization chart" are not all known. In many cases the information flow lines can be only dotted in. We are dealing with a system of autarkies.

Each body influences every other body, just as the gravitational, influence of each planet influences every other planet. Stability is maintained because all bodies revolve about a common central point.

But in the case of the world system there is no body which sits at the central position as a meeting point or origin for coordinative information. For some a "world government" would take this central position. For others a governmental structure organized in terms of the concepts current in national government would be a disaster. This position can therefore be considered a future or potential development — an idea for which we do not yet have an adequate organizational form. This approach does not however prevent us from treating this common (or "virtual") point as the centre of a solar system model. (The "inhabitants" of a particular body do not have to think of it in these terms -- just as it is possible for someone on the surface of the Earth to say both "the Sun rises" and "the Earth revolves around the Sun" .)

As a first attempt at organizing thinking in these terms, governmental, business-industry, and non-profit-academic organizational forms have been treated as throe planetary systems in Fig. 4. This therefore stresses the importance of the equilibrium between the three basic types of organization present in the social system.

To include more details, we can now treat each of these planets as a solar system in its own right. The firsttreated in this way is the governmental system shown in Fig. 5.This stresses the gobgraphical territorial aspect of the coordination problem. Namely that the planets closer to the centre represent the most coordinative bodies (e.g. the United Nations). Further out, the smaller regional intergovernmental organizations are shown, then the national governments, then local governments.

Figure 5: Suggestive outline sketch map of governmental system

The second system is that of the non-governmental, non-profit organizations. This is shown in Fig. 6. Again the non-existent "plenary conference" of all international nongovernmental bodies is shown at the centre — this is a potential or future development for which the adequate organizational form and function had not yet been evolved. In the nearest orbits around this move the various coordinating conferences of INGOs. These have different degrees of substantiality, depending upon whether there is an organization with a secretariat, a committee with no secretariat, or merely an infrequent meeting. Each of these bodies may of course have its own "moons" in the form of sub-committees or working parties. In this case, the larger the orbit, the more specialized and limited is the coordinative function in both geographical and subject area terms.

A similar attempt could be made to sketch out the business-industry complex in terms of a solar system model. Significant features mould be the multinational corporations, world trade centres, etc.

In each case we now have a way of looking at a maze of independent and semi-autonomous bodies. In each case the important point is that this approach shows how justified each body is in considering itself independent -- but at the same time attention is drawn to the extent to which each body is related to others. It is a truism to say that every body is dependent upon everyone else in society, but we have enormous difficulty in balancing this intégrative concept against our individually felt justification for a sense of independence and freedom. This is what a solar system model accomplished. It balances centrifugal and centripetal forces, justifyingboth.

Ina rapidly changing society one must expect the features of the solar system model to evolve. Potential structures which have acted as focal points may take on an organizational form. Existing planets may cease to be considered useful and may disintegrate — "releasing" any dependent bodies ( which retain their usefulness) to gravitate into some now orbit. A solar system model can "contain" conceptually and portray such social dynamism in a very adequate manner.

Another important feature of the model is that it can suggest or draw attention to the possibility of new structures and thus speed up evolution of the social system to newforms. The solar system model can be interpreted in another way. If two bodies are placed close together on the model, then communication between them — the transfer of new concepts and information on now problems -- will be relatively easy compared to the case where the bodies are far apart on the model. Increased distance means increased difficulty in communication.

Figure 6: Suggestive outline sketch map of non-governmental system

This is a very important point because there is a tendency to treat the centre of any such social system as the "controller" of all "dependent" bodies. From this it is just one stop to suggesting that the centre should instruct all dependent bodies on the action they should take under any given set of circumstances.

This view completely loses sight of the fact that precisely because bodies on the periphery are not at the centre they have a better understanding of problems developing intheir sector. And it is because such peripheral bodies feel that they should modify their own actions to respond to the problems they detect, before the centre has registered the importance of these problems (due to the communication lag) that the peripheral bodies feel justified in stressing the importance of "a high degree of autonomy. The centre just does not respond to crises quickly enough, on top of which it is usually so over-burdened — when attempting to control every- thing — that it is not sensitive to information on "minor" (from its own perspective) crises. These are therefore allowed to grow, until the centre can recognize the crisis as worthy of its attention with disastrous consequences to the peripheral bodies in the sector in question. A more organic approach sees the peripheral bodies handling all the problems to which they can respond effectively, only referring to more central bodies when the problem overflows their sector.

The centre-periphery or solar system model has, recently boon criticized by Donald Schon (BBC Reith Lectures, 1970. Published in "The Listener", November-December, 1970.) in a very interesting may which throws much light on the direction in which forms of organization can expect to develop. .

He is concerned with social changes and changes in institutions, as a consequence of the spreading of something, whether it be a new product, anew concept, a new technology, or a now type of institution. Social change becomes a by-product of the diffusion of information.

He argues that society's diffusion systems change over time and evolve and that this evolution is absolutely critical to how it is that society works and that management of the society depends on our ability to spread things in it, for novelty to arise at points and then to spread throughout the rest of society.

He takes as a classic model of the diffusion process the solar system with a centre and a periphery to it. In following his criticism it is important to note that he is only concerned with the analogy to the diffusion of "light" from the sun as centre point. He is not concerned with the analogy to the "gravitational" influence of each body (whether at the centre or not) on every other body, as is the case in the NASA solar system model.

In the case of international organizations, the centre in the following argument could represent either the international NGO (with its members or its public as the periphery), the United Nations system (with national organizations and the general public as the periphery). The "novelty" is peace or development- oriented thinking.

In the limited model, which he criticizes, the novelty to be spread is at the centre and the potential adapters or users of the novelty are at the periphery. This is the model of diffusion that is practised in the classroom. It rests on a series of assumptions: "dependent" bodies. From this it is just one step to suggesting that the centre should instruct all dependent bodies on the action they should take under any given set of circumstances.

This view completely loses sight of the fact that precisely because bodies on the periphery are not at the centre „they have a better understanding of problems developing in their sector. And it is because such peripheral bodies feel that they should modify their own actions to respond to the problems they detect, before the centre has registered the importance of these problems (due to the communication lag) that the peripheral bodies feel justified in stressing the importance of a high degree of autonomy. The centre just does not respond to crises quickly enough, on top of which it is usually so over-burdened — whenattempting to control everything -- that it is not sensitive to information on "minor" (from its own perspective) crises. These are therefore allowed to grow, until the centre can recognize the crisis as worthy of its attention with disastrous consequences to the peripheral bodies in the sector in question. A more organic approach sees the peripheral bodies handling all the problems to which they can respond effectively, only referring to more central bodies when the problem overflows their sector.

The centre-periphery or solar system model has recently been criticized by Donald Schon (BBC Reith Lectures, 1970. Published in "The Listener", November-December, 1970.) in a very interesting way which throws much light on the direction in which forms of organization can expect to develop.

He is concerned with social changes and changes in institutions, as a consequence of the spreading of something, whether it be a new product, a new concept, a new technology, or a new type of institution. Social change becomes a by-product of the diffusion of information.

He argues that society's diffusion systems change over time and evolve and that this evolution is absolutely critical to how it is : that society works and that management of the society depends on our ability to spread things in it, for novelty to arise at points and then to spread throughout the rest of society.

He takes as a classic model of the diffusion process the solar system with a centre arid a periphery to it. In following his criticism it is important to note that he is only concerned with the analogy to the diffusion of "light" from the sun as centre point. He is not concerned with the analogy to the "gravitational" influence of each body (whether at the centre or not) on every other body, as is the case in the NASA solar system model.

In the case of international organizations, the centre in the following argument could represent either the international NGO (with its members or its public as the periphery), the United Nations system (with national, organizations and the general public as the periphery). The "novelty" is peace or development- oriented thinking.

that which is to be diffused or spread exists before the spreading begins
the growth or spreading of new things takes place by the, movement of those things out from the centre to a periphery
that which is spread is a product or a technique

The model has certain limits built into it:

only a certain amount of energy or resources can be concentrated at the centre (i.e., the centre does not have the time and energy to do everything all the time)
depending on the number of points on the periphery, the distance from the centre to the periphery, the effectiveness of the communication system between centre and periphery, the work that must be done by the centre to got the periphery to accept novelty may be considerably increased .
the ability of the

[Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx ]

Kairos @ Laetus-in-Praesens.org

Navigation

Matrix Organization and Organizational Networks