1.1 Executive Summary
Executive leaders are the guardians of an organisation’s preferred culture and behaviour, however this is not evident in this organisation, There is clearly no mutual respect for employees’ rights and support from top-level management as people are intimidated and threatened if they do not deliver results. The organizations behavioural strategy needs to transform from a bureaucratic to a learning organisation where employees operate in high performance teams and where good communication and free flow of information flourish (Pieter Steyn & Erik Schmikl, Pg 112 – Pg 113).
The organisation does not address any sort of training, employee development, relationships with customers and other factors bearing on quality. Instead it focuses on mistakes and condemns them instead of viewing them as opportunities for growth and learning. Top leadership failed by not providing a culture of trust, support, cohesion and lacked motivational leadership. Arbitrary induction of methodologies believing it would solve the absence of management acumen. The project manager found himself in an activity trap; he spent more time preparing paperwork, reports and projection, which was needed for his weekly meeting with the corporate, instead of managing the project. (Harold Kerzner, Ph.D. Project Management A System Approach to Planning Scheduling and Controlling, Pg 265)
In order to resolve some of these inherent problems, we propose the organisation consider the Organic Structure .The organic structure tends to work better in dynamic environments where managers need to react quickly to change. An organic structure is a management system founded on cooperation and knowledge-based authority.
The corporation will need to identify its strategy and communicate the strategy to the organisation.
The Balanced Scorecard created by Kaplan and Norton is an ideal tool for describing corporate strategy in uncomplicated terms so that the vision and mission are easily communicated to and understood by all people in the organisation.
1.2 Identified Problems
The case depicts a project oriented organization. A dysfunctional matrix structure seems to be in place as there exists inter-departmental billing for human resources as functional managers are working on their own “pet” projects. This clearly indicates lack of accountability from functional managers. Moreover, the organisation in question is of bureaucratic leadership style of which affects productivity in the following sense:
Each department has its own agenda; departments don’t cooperate in order to help other departments get the job done.
There is political in-fighting with managers striving for personal advancement and power.
1.2.2Project Management Problems
Even though, a Project Management Office (PMO) has been “put in place”, the organisation is structured in such a way which does not support the execution of projects through this office. The below mentioned problems have thus been noted in this regard:
There is no proper governance structure for the management of projects from conception to delivery.
Lack of project focus and prioritization was shown when the Trophy project was neglected; and the allocated resources were working on the computer program to resolve scheduling instead of the project.
The project office does not have any Project Management Processes and authority over resources (let alone Reichart), in terms of project prioritization. There is also evidence that the PMO only provides resources to the projects and they don’t govern the prioritisation of projects. Functional managers prioritise their pet projects which indicate lack of PMO governance on projects in the organization.
1.2.3No continuous project monitoring.
The Trophy project started to slip from day one and the expenditure is excessive, if there was proper project...