科尔尼-矩阵式管理报告ATKEARNEY-matrix structure

..

Waging War on Complexity
Although CEOs have overwhelmingly favored the various forms and states of the matrix, there is little empirical evidence to support (or discredit) its success. Most of the information is subjective and anecdotal, and, rather than increasing understanding, it simply promotes widespread confusion. To establish a more fact-based understanding of the matrix, A.T. Kearney conducted a study. The primary research consisted of interviews and group discussions with more than 200 executives and managers from seven major U.S.-based corporations in six industries. Companies selected for the study had operated within a matrix structure for anywhere from three years to more than 20 years, and were either in the initial stage of implementing a matrix structure, in the process of restructuring their matrix structure, or had been hailed as a high-performing matrix organization. Participants were asked about the challenges and benefits of working in the matrix. Answers were categorized and used to develop insights about characteristics of the matrix and to identify key success factors. In this paper, we highlight the study findings and offer some insight into the matrix that, for the first time, blends concrete fact with stories from the front lines. It begins with a brief discussion about the matrix and identifies reasons why CEOs adopt a matrix organizational structure (see sidebar). We then describe the three predominant types of matrix organizations, all of which have evolved over time. Finally, we identify the challenges and key success factors of top matrix organizations, including best practices. We look at what works in matrix organizations, what doesn’t work — and, more important, offer reasons why. Having gained acceptance in the aerospace industry more than half a century ago, the matrix has thrived ever since. At its best, the matrix helps to reduce complexity, enable the smooth sharing of resources across a company, and establish economies of scale. A company that adopts a matrix structure gains agility, and is able to react more quickly to market and customer demands. At its worst, the matrix can actually increase complexity, but only if it is not implemented properly. Various factors influence a CEO’s decision to adopt a matrix — growth, mergers, acquisitions — factors that are inevitably linked to complexity reduction. Any company that has experienced a growth spurt, for example, can attest to the subsequent division of labor and the formation of various business groups that ensue. The result, especially when it is brought on by multiple, and sometimes conflicting, business goals, is always the same: complexity. As the current trend in industry consolidation continues, and as more organizations expand their global reach, companies will continue to turn to the matrix structure. Similarly, in today’s fast changing Internet environment, information is critical for an organization’s survival and prosperity. Yet most companies continue to operate in a traditional hierarchical structure in which information flows vertically through selected communication points that filter and distribute the information to the appropriate recipients. In a stable environment, this communication process works; in a turbulent environment, organizations quickly become paralyzed by information overload. Once again, complexity reduction is key.
Waging War On Complexity
How to Master the Matrix Organizational Structure
ቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱ

Waging War on Complexity
Introduction
The Sherman tank was among the main battle tanks for the Allied Forces of World War II. A medium-sized tank, weighing just 35 tons, it was hopelessly outclassed by the enemy’s Panzer tanks. The Sherman’s gun could not destroy a Panzer in a head-to-head encounter, even at close range. The Panzer’s guns were more powerful and could easily penetrate the Sherman’s frontal armor. Yet the Sherman was heralded as a prime factor in winning WWII. Despite its disadvantages, the Sherman possessed two critical traits: reliability and simplicity. These may not be very exciting characteristics but, in the heat of battle, a little thing like a slipping clutch can be devastating. A minor breakdown during a retreat can result in the complete loss of a tank. Such problems were rare with Shermans. Their simple design also made it possible to manufacture them in astounding numbers. Today, a similar scenario is taking place on the corporate battlefield as global businesses wage war on complexity — the blight of the new economy. But, rather than taking their cue from history, executives are looking to the design of the Panzer tank to lead them to victory. As markets become more global, organizations face the daunting task of coordinating goals, actions and resources in order to function as one company. The mantra, “think global, act local,” challenges organizations to be more centralized— to leverage size and scale—while simultaneously being more decentralized and able to react to local demands and markets. The need to operate globally but act locally has spawned a flurry of organizational restructurings. The structure of choice among CEOs is the matrix. The matrix is a grid-like organizational structure that allows a company to address multiple business dimensions using various command structures. Like the Panzer tank, the matrix is a far superior organizational structure, particularly when compared to a simple hierarchical structure. It boasts many traits necessary in managing global organizations. For example, it allows companies to leverage vast resources while staying small and task oriented. The matrix encourages innovation and fast action, and speeds information to those who know how to use it. But also like the Panzer, the matrix is plagued by weaknesses. It is complex and unpredictable. It violates all of the principles of authority and thereby tends to breed ambiguity and conflict. The matrix also requires more managerial and administrative support at a time when companies are cutting back on these skills. Rarely, in fact, is a solution so flawed. How is it, then, that this Panzer tank of organizational structures is preferred over more simple organizational structures? Because, when the matrix is properly implemented it is a powerful tool that helps reduce complexity. The secret to success is to build on its strengths while managing its weaknesses.