Clarity of manager roles and performance of R&D multidisciplinary projects in matrix structures

Abstract

The matrix structure recommends itself as a convenient framework for implementing cross‐disciplinary projects. However, this structure tends to generate conflict between project and disciplinary managements. In excess, conflict can reduce performance. The aim of the work described in this paper was to see whether conflict could be controlled by better definition of the respective roles of project and functional managers. The study was carried out in a large laboratory in Brazil. A group of project managers, responsible for 58 cross‐disciplinary projects, quantified their perceptions of the strength of their responsibilities for ten management activities, via a specially devised questionnaire. A Clarity about Responsibilities Index (CRI) was constructed to represent the fraction of these activities each respondent felt responsible for. Project performance was measured according to four criteria, technical, cost, schedule and client satisfaction. The results show that better technical performance was associated with higher role clarity; no significant association was found with the other performance measures. The author discusses the reasons for these results, the validity of the measures used and the generality of the conclusions.

Analysis of the project manager's role in the research and development projects

“…Među ovim menadžment nivoima neretko dolazi do nesporazuma o raspodeli dužnosti i odgovornosti, tj. do sukoba i napetosti koje proizilaze iz zanemarivanja određenih obaveza i preklapanja dužnosti (istraživanje Videlo-a pomenuto kod Sbragia, 1984). Projektni menadžer, osim funkcionalnom, za svoje aktivnosti može odgovarati i menadžeru programa ili portfolio menadžeru čija su zaduženja vezana za veći broj projekata širom organizacije (Project Management Institute, 2013).…”

The Impacts of Business Relational Characteristics on the Performance of Innovation Diffusion

“…Product development performance has been assessed differently from the supplier's perspective by such criteria as project efficiency [or performance] [43], financial and nonfinancial goal performance [52], or satisfaction of development performance [2]. This study aims to focus on measuring innovation diffusion from the customer's point of view, that is, how willing that relational partners [customers] will try and accept new products or services introduced by their suppliers.…”

Performance evaluation of resource allocation strategies for new product development under different workload scenarios

“…Non‐financial performance measures are often subjective variables that can be classified into four categories. The “customer” category includes customer satisfaction as a performance measure (Sbragia, 1984; Page, 1993; Griffin and Page, 1993; Barczak, 1995). The “market” category, by comparison, consists of market share (Cusumano and Nobeoka, 1992; Page, 1993; Barczak, 1995; Calantone et al , 1995) and success rate (Cooper, 1984; Song et al , 1998).…”

“…The “market” category, by comparison, consists of market share (Cusumano and Nobeoka, 1992; Page, 1993; Barczak, 1995; Calantone et al , 1995) and success rate (Cooper, 1984; Song et al , 1998). The “product efficiency” category focuses on time‐based indicators, such as time to market, speed to market, and time for project completion (Sbragia, 1984; Griffin and Page, 1993; Song et al , 1998; Driva et al , 2000; Swink, 2000). Finally, the “product effectiveness” category mainly refers to product quality (Griffin and Page, 1993; Olson et al , 1995; Song et al , 1998; Kusunoki et al , 1998; Swink, 2000; Gruner and Homburg, 2000).…”