| Course | GM543 Strategic Organizational Design and Architecture |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Matrix case analysis |
| Length | About 1,160 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GM543 Unit 7
Twenty-Three Days Over Two Weeks of Testing: A Unit 7 Matrix Case Analysis
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM543: Strategic Organizational Design and Architecture
Unit 7 Matrix Case Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Harrow Contract Furniture, its engineers and every date and figure are composite and illustrative; the frameworks and studies cited are real.
The Pilot
Six months ago Harrow Contract Furniture began a matrix pilot for its healthcare seating line. Four engineers who design healthcare products now report to two managers. The seating engineering director remains their manager for methods, design reviews and performance appraisals. A new healthcare market leader, hired from a medical equipment company, sets their priorities and owns the healthcare product plan. The pilot charter, two pages long, describes both reporting lines in detail and says nothing about what happens when the two managers want different things.
One of the four, Renata Okafor, is the company's most experienced test engineer and the only one qualified to run the 500-pound static load test that hospital buyers require. The seating director had also assigned her to a tables line update, because she had designed the original base. Both assignments were reasonable on their own. The healthcare leader was building the line the board had asked for, and the seating director was protecting a catalog product that dealers order every week. The conflict came from the overlap in dates, which neither manager could see in the other's plan because the two plans were kept in separate spreadsheets.
The Dispute
On March 3 the healthcare leader asked Renata to run the weight test on a new bariatric recliner in the last two weeks of March, so that a hospital system bid due April 15 could include test results. The same day the seating director confirmed her two weeks on the tables base update, due to the plant on March 31.
On March 5 Renata emailed both managers asking which project came first. Neither replied that week. On March 10 the healthcare leader wrote to the seating director, copying the vice president of engineering, saying the hospital bid was worth about $1.4 million. The seating director replied that the tables update affected every dealer order for the base, about $6 million a year in catalog revenue.
On March 14 the two managers met and failed to agree. On March 17 the matter went to the Tuesday order review, which referred it to the vice president of engineering. He was traveling and met both managers on March 26. That day, twenty-three days after the first request, he split Renata's time in half between the two projects.
Neither project finished on time. The weight test was completed on April 18, three days after the bid deadline, and the hospital bid went in without test results. The tables update reached the plant on April 9, nine days late.
The matrix did not fail because two managers disagreed; it failed because nobody had decided in advance who would settle the disagreement.
Diagnosis
Stanley Davis and Paul Lawrence described several pathologies that matrix organizations are prone to (Davis & Lawrence, 1978). Three of them appear in Harrow's record.
Power struggles. Davis and Lawrence note that a matrix deliberately balances power between two dimensions, and that each boss may try to gain an advantage over the other. Both Harrow managers argued from the size of their revenue, each treating the other's project as an intrusion on their engineer. Neither was wrong to defend a project; the design gave them no shared measure to settle it.
Decision strangulation. When decisions in a matrix need too many people to agree, they slow down or stop. Harrow's dispute moved from an engineer to two managers, to a meeting of seventeen people, and to a vice president who was traveling. Each step added time and no new information.
Groupitis. Davis and Lawrence warn against assuming that every matrix decision must be made in a group meeting. Sending a scheduling conflict about one engineer to the Tuesday order review is an example. The meeting had no authority and no knowledge of the testing schedule, and it added four days before referring the matter upward.
Christopher Bartlett and Sumantra Ghoshal argue that a matrix works only when managers share a view of the company's priorities, and that structure alone cannot create that view (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1990). Harrow's two managers had no shared view of how healthcare growth and catalog reliability should be balanced, because the company had never stated it.
The Redesign
Davis and Lawrence identify three roles in a matrix: the top leader who sits above both dimensions, the matrix bosses who each manage one dimension, and the two-boss manager who reports to both (Davis & Lawrence, 1978). The redesign assigns each role clear rights.
The top leader. The vice president of engineering is the top leader for the pilot. He sets the annual balance of engineering time between healthcare and the catalog, fixed at 60 percent healthcare for the four pilot engineers, and he settles any conflict that the rules below do not cover within two working days, by phone if he is traveling.
The healthcare market leader. She owns priorities within the healthcare share of time. When a healthcare project and a catalog project conflict, she decides if the conflict falls within the 60 percent healthcare share and if the healthcare work is tied to a customer deadline.
The seating engineering director. He owns methods, design reviews, training and the frame standard. He decides any conflict involving a safety or quality standard. He conducts performance reviews, with written input from the healthcare leader, who rates each engineer on healthcare work.
The two-boss engineer. Renata and her three colleagues may ask either boss for a decision, and if the two disagree, the engineer asks the top leader directly after two working days without an answer.
Tie-break rules then cover the most common conflicts. For priorities between customer deadlines, the project with the nearer customer deadline goes first, unless the top leader decides otherwise. For budget, the healthcare leader controls the healthcare engineering budget; the seating director controls testing equipment and training. For reviews, the seating director writes the review and the healthcare leader's rating counts for 60 percent of the score on healthcare work.
Under these rules the March dispute would have been settled on March 5. The hospital bid had a customer deadline of April 15 and the tables update a plant deadline of March 31. Under the nearer deadline rule the tables work would have gone first, yet the healthcare leader would have known by March 5 to book the weight test at an outside laboratory in time for the bid. Robert Ford and Alan Randolph note that a matrix's benefits depend on rules that let conflict be resolved quickly at the lowest level able to do so (Ford & Randolph, 1992). The pilot already had the people; it lacked the rules.
References
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1990). Matrix management: Not a structure, a frame of mind. Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 138-145.
Davis, S. M., & Lawrence, P. R. (1978). Problems of matrix organizations. Harvard Business Review, 56(3), 131-142.
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
Reading the GM 543 Unit 7 instructions
In GM543 Unit 7 you analyze a matrix organization, usually through a dispute that shows how it handles conflict. Describe the matrix precisely: who reports to whom, for what, and what the charter says about conflicts. Tell the dispute as a dated sequence of requests, emails, meetings and escalations, ending with how it was settled and what it cost. Diagnose it with a framework such as Davis and Lawrence's matrix pathologies, naming the ones the record shows. Then redesign the matrix by assigning clear rights to each role, the top leader, the matrix bosses and the two-boss manager, and write tie-break rules for the common conflicts over priorities, budget and reviews. Test your rules against the original dispute. Expect about six pages in four parts, citing matrix research in APA 7.
How this GM543 Unit 7 example is built
The pilot section describes four healthcare engineers reporting to the seating engineering director for methods and reviews and to the healthcare market leader for priorities, under a charter silent on conflict. Renata Okafor, the only engineer qualified for a 500-pound load test, is wanted for a hospital bid due April 15 and a tables update due March 31. The dated dispute runs from March 3 to a time split on March 26, after which the test finished three days after the bid deadline and the update arrived nine days late. The highlighted sentence places the failure in the missing rule. Power struggles, decision strangulation and groupitis are diagnosed, with Bartlett and Ghoshal on shared priorities. The redesign gives each role clear rights, sets a 60 percent healthcare share and a nearer deadline rule, and Ford and Randolph close the test.
Reading the GM543 Unit 7 grading rubric
GM543 instructors grade this case on the precision of the matrix description and the quality of the tie-break rules. A dated dispute sequence earns more than a general account, because it lets the reader see where time was lost. Pathologies should be identified from specific events, not listed from the reading. Recognizing that conflict in a matrix is expected, and that the failure lies in missing rules, shows understanding of why matrices are adopted. The redesign carries the most weight: each of the three matrix roles should receive clear rights, and rules should cover priorities, budget and reviews. Testing the rules against the original dispute shows they work. Davis and Lawrence's Problems of Matrix Organizations, Bartlett and Ghoshal in Harvard Business Review and Ford and Randolph in Journal of Management form the reference list in APA 7.
GM543 Unit 7 help: mistakes that cost points
Many GM543 Unit 7 papers blame the two managers for disagreeing, which misses that a matrix is designed to produce such conflicts. Others recommend abolishing the matrix without showing the dual focus is no longer needed. A frequent gap is the redesign: naming roles without stating what each may decide leaves the next dispute as open as the last. Some writers write rules that cover priorities but forget budget and reviews, where conflicts also arise. Describe the reporting lines, date the dispute, name the pathologies the record shows, give the top leader, both bosses and the shared engineer explicit rights, write a rule for each common conflict and replay the original dispute under your rules.
Get a GM543 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Describe the matrix or dual-reporting arrangement in your Unit 7 case, whether the section supplied it or it comes from work, and any dispute you know of between the two lines. Include the instructions and rubric. Expect the first analysis within 24-48h at no charge, the conflict dated and a tie-break rule written, rather than a list of matrix pros and cons. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GM543 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM543 Unit 1: Functional Structure Discussion Post
- GM543 Unit 2: Star Model Organization Profile
- GM543 Unit 3: Functional vs Divisional Comparison
- GM543 Unit 4: Coordination Mechanism Analysis
- GM543 Unit 5: RAPID Decision Rights Map
- GM543 Unit 6: Reorganization Swings Reflection
- GM543 Unit 8: Span and Layers Review
- GM543 Unit 9: Fit Assessment Memo
- GM543 Unit 10: Organization Design Recommendation
- GM541 Unit 7: Sensor Service Stakeholder Impact Map
- GM506 Unit 7: Second Plant Funding Memo
- GM505 Unit 7: Insider Consultant Reflexivity Analysis
- GM504 Unit 7: Scan-Confirmed Picking Proposal
GM543 Unit 7 questions, answered
What if the case gives no specific dispute?
Construct the likeliest one from the case facts and say so. Most matrix cases describe two sets of goals competing for shared people or budget, and a conflict follows naturally from that competition. Stating it as a probable dispute, then testing the design against it, gives the analysis the concrete point it needs. The sample's dispute is composite, drawn from patterns common to engineering matrices.
Should the paper recommend removing the matrix?
Only if the evidence shows the dual focus is no longer needed. A matrix usually exists because two dimensions, here engineering depth and a market's demands, both matter. Removing it brings back the problem it was adopted to solve. Most strong papers keep the matrix and repair its conflict rules, or narrow it to the people who genuinely need two lines.
Who should write the performance review in a matrix?
One person, with required input from the other boss, is the usual answer, and the paper should say which. Splitting the review evenly tends to produce two partial reviews and no accountable writer. The sample gives the review to the engineering director, since careers and technical standards live there, and makes the healthcare leader's written input a condition of completing it.
Where can I find a free GM543 Unit 7 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM543 Unit 7 matrix case analysis of a twenty-three day dispute over one engineer at a furniture maker, with Davis and Lawrence's pathologies, tie-break rules and APA 7 references.
Which line prevails in the redesigned matrix?
It depends on the conflict. The healthcare leader decides priorities within the healthcare share of time for work tied to a customer deadline, the engineering director decides anything touching safety or quality standards, and the vice president settles the rest within two working days.