BUSI 680 Week 3 Group DB Forum 2 Thread Example

Group Discussion Board Forum 2: Thread

BUSI 680 Advanced Project Management I, Group Discussion Board Forum 2: Thread

Thread by [Student Name]

The forum prompt and the water utility are composites standing in for the course's own; the textbook, Scripture and research cited are real, and the requirements follow Liberty's public course guide for BUSI 680.

Thread

Last spring, the design of a new pump station at the composite water utility whose capital program I help run slipped eleven weeks. No one on the team was careless. The two civil engineers and the electrical engineer assigned to it also carried departmental work, and whenever a main break or a regulatory report demanded attention, their department heads pulled them back. I learned about the delays at the monthly status meeting, long after they could have been prevented.

Larson and Gray (2018) describe three basic ways to organize projects: within the functional organization, through dedicated project teams and through a matrix that overlays projects on functional departments. They also distinguish weak, balanced and strong matrices by how much authority the project manager holds relative to functional managers. Our utility runs a weak matrix. I coordinate, but department heads control assignments and priorities, which is why my engineers' time disappeared whenever their departments needed them.

Research has long recognized the tension. Ford and Randolph (1992) reviewed the literature on cross-functional forms, including matrix organizations and project management, and summarized both their advantages, such as flexible use of specialists, and their disadvantages, including conflict over authority and the stress of dual reporting. They called for more empirical work on the many questions and paradoxes these structures raise. The paradox at our utility is plain: the matrix lets us share scarce engineers across projects, but it leaves no one accountable for protecting a project's schedule.

Structure is only half of the story, and the chapter's emphasis on culture explains the other half. Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001) developed the concept of teamwork quality, which combines how well members communicate and coordinate, whether contributions are balanced, how much they support one another, how hard they work and how cohesive they are, and tested its relationship to success using data from 575 members, leaders and managers of 145 German software teams. Our pump station team scored poorly on communication and coordination; the engineers knew the schedule was slipping but said nothing. Edmondson (1999) helps explain why. Studying 51 teams at one manufacturer, she showed that where members felt they could admit mistakes or question one another without penalty, teams engaged in more learning, such as asking for input and openly examining what went wrong, and that this learning carried the link to better performance. Engineers who expect blame for a late drawing will not mention it until the drawing is due.

Scripture offers a model of a project organized for its purpose. When the tabernacle was to be built, the Lord called Bezalel by name, filled him with skill and understanding for every kind of craft and appointed Oholiab to work with him, and He gave ability to all the skilled workers to make what was commanded (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Exodus 31:1-6). The workers were chosen for the work, equipped for it and devoted to it. Our engineers were chosen and equipped, but never truly assigned.

I would propose two changes: move our largest capital projects to a balanced matrix, in which named engineers commit a fixed share of their time that department heads cannot reclaim without my agreement, and hold brief weekly huddles in which reporting a problem early is explicitly welcomed. I am curious how our group's organizations protect project time when functional work competes for the same people.

References

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

Ford, R. C., & Randolph, W. A. (1992). Cross-functional structures: A review and integration of matrix organization and project management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 267-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800204

Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435-449. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.435.10635

Larson, E. W., & Gray, C. F. (2018). Project management: The managerial process (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.