| Course | PJM-6400 Global Project Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Module 3 case analysis: global organizations |
| Length | About 465 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | M.S. in Management in Project Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PJM 6400 Module 3
Two Bosses, Four Countries: Making a Global Matrix Work for Device Programs
Student Name
M.S. in Management in Project Management, Thomas Edison State University
PJM-6400: Global Project Management
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Two Bosses, Four Countries: Making a Global Matrix Work for Device Programs
The Situation
Each site manager controls engineers' hiring, pay and daily assignments. Program managers in New Brunswick are accountable to clients for schedule and budget but control no one. When the Galway site manager moved two verification engineers to a higher-margin client, the infusion pump program lost three weeks. Engineers say they do not know whose priorities come first.
Structural Options
Galbraith (1971) described a range of structures between a functional organization, organized by discipline, and a project organization, organized by product or program, with matrix forms in between that give authority to both functional and project managers in varying balance.
Kerzner (2014) observes that companies moving toward project management excellence often adopt matrix structures, and that the matrix works when authority, responsibility and accountability are clearly divided and when senior management resolves conflicts quickly.
| Structure | Strengths | Weaknesses for this firm |
|---|---|---|
| Functional (by site) | Deep expertise, career paths, efficient use of specialists | Programs have no authority; priorities set locally |
| Project (by program) | Clear authority, client focus | Duplicates specialists across programs; weak technical development |
| Weak matrix | Sites keep control; programs coordinate | Current situation: programs cannot hold resources |
| Balanced matrix | Shared authority; clear decision rights | Requires agreement on who decides what |
| Strong matrix | Program managers control resources | Undermines site expertise and careers |
Recommendation: A Balanced Matrix With Clear Decision Rights
The key rule: once a site manager commits an engineer to a program for a phase, the engineer cannot be moved without the program manager's agreement or a decision by the resource council.
| Decision | Program manager | Site manager |
|---|---|---|
| What work is done and when | Decides | Consulted |
| Who does the work | Requests named people | Decides, honoring commitments |
| How technical work is done | Consulted | Decides |
| Reassignment of a committed engineer | Must agree | Proposes |
| Performance review | Contributes written input | Decides |
A Frame of Mind, Not Only a Structure
Bartlett and Ghoshal (1990) argued that matrix management fails when firms rely on structure alone and that success depends on building a matrix in managers' minds: a shared vision, developed people and a culture of cooperation across lines. Three practices support this. A quarterly resource council of site and program managers will plan capacity across programs. Site managers will carry shared goals for on-time program delivery, not only site margin. And engineers will receive a one-page assignment statement each phase naming their program and priorities.
Risks
Site managers may resist losing control of reassignments; involving them in designing the decision rights, and giving them a seat on the council, reduces that risk.
Conclusion
A balanced matrix with written decision rights, a resource council and shared goals gives programs the stability they need while preserving site expertise, and it treats the matrix as a way of working rather than a chart.
References
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1990). Matrix management: Not a structure, a frame of mind. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 138-145.
Galbraith, J. R. (1971). Matrix organization designs: How to combine functional and project forms. Business Horizons, 14(1), 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(71)90037-1
Kerzner, H. (2014). Project management best practices: Achieving global excellence (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Reading the PJM 6400 Module 3 assignment instructions
The Module 3 case analysis is discussed in the course's synchronous session, worth 10 percent of the grade. Expect to analyze how a global organization structures itself for projects, compare structural options, recommend one and explain how to make it work in practice. Use a table to compare structures and another to divide decision rights, and draw on the textbook and research on matrix management. Prepare to discuss your analysis with classmates during the live session. Describe a specific conflict the current structure has caused, and show how your recommendation would have prevented it. Consider how those who lose authority will respond. Bring specific questions about your recommendation to the live session, since classmates will test it. Show both sides' authority in one table.
How the PJM 6400 Module 3 example is put together
The analysis describes a conflict between site and program managers and its cost. A table compares five structures with their strengths and weaknesses for this firm, drawing on research and the textbook. A decision rights table recommends a balanced matrix and highlights the reassignment rule. A section on the matrix as a frame of mind proposes three practices, and risks and a conclusion follow. Three practices, a resource council, shared goals for site managers and assignment statements for engineers, turn the matrix structure into a working arrangement. A short risks section addresses site managers' likely resistance and how involving them reduces it. Engineers receive one-page assignment statements.
PJM 6400 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Mentors grade this case analysis on accurate comparison of structures, a well-justified recommendation, practical measures to make it work and readiness to discuss it in the live session. Analyses that specify decision rights, rather than naming a structure, show practical insight. Recognizing that a matrix depends on mindset as well as structure demonstrates depth. Addressing likely resistance shows realism. Practices that build cooperation across reporting lines show that the analysis understands matrix management as behavior as well as structure. Tying the reassignment rule to the conflict that caused delays shows focus. Clear tables for structures and decision rights make the recommendation easy to evaluate and discuss.
PJM 6400 Module 3 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students lose points by recommending a structure without explaining how authority is divided, by ignoring the people who lose authority or by treating structure as the whole answer. Others compare structures in general terms. Compare options for your organization specifically. Divide decision rights in writing. Add practices that build cooperation. Plan for resistance. Show how your structure would have prevented the conflict that started the case, and plan for those who lose authority. Write the rule that would have prevented the conflict, and test it against a likely future dispute. A free first sample on your own PJM-6400 global organizations case is available on request.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More PJM 6400 and M.S. in Management in Project Management sample papers
- PJM 6400 Module 1: Discussion: What Changes When a Device Project Spans Four Countries
- PJM 6400 Module 2: Case Analysis: One Methodology for Four Sites and Two Regulators
- PJM 6400 Module 4: Discussion: Choosing Collaboration Tools for a Team That Never Meets
- PJM 6400 Module 5: Final Project: A Report to Executives on a Global Project Management Office
- PJM 5400 Module 1: Written Assignment: The Procurement Team and Trust for a Smart Meter Program
- PJM 5300 Module 2: Case Study: Building the Risk Register for the Packaging Line
- PJM 5200 Module 3: Written Assignment: Monitoring, a Slipping Milestone and a Clean Closure
PJM 6400 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PJM 6400 Module 3 sample paper?
The analysis above recommends a balanced matrix for a four-country device firm.
What is a matrix organization?
A structure in which people report to both a functional manager and a project or program manager.
What is the difference between a weak and a strong matrix?
In a weak matrix functional managers hold most authority; in a strong matrix project managers do.
Why do matrix structures fail?
Often because authority is unclear and firms rely on structure without building cooperation and shared goals.
What are decision rights?
A written division of which manager decides, is consulted or must agree on each type of decision.