Thomas, R; Keating, J M and Bluedorn, A C (1983) Authority structures for construction project management. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 109(4), pp. 406-422. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Many practitioners believe that how one organizes to support a major construction project will have a significant impact on the successful completion of the project. This paper provides a primer on authority structures. The basic corporate organizational forms are described and construction examples are given. The basic authority structures for project management are also described. These forms are the functional, pure project, and matrix. For each form, the advantages and disadvantages as they relate to the project manager's ability to support the project are cited. Nine factors that influence the choice of authority structure are discussed. The role of the project manager is described. His effectiveness as a manager is related to the organizational form, hierarchy within the organization, authority gap, management style, and the ability to resolve conflict. Six principles for developing a project organization and selecting a project manager are given.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | project organization, project management, practitioner, effectiveness, project manager, management style, construction project management, construction project, manager |
| Subjects: | performance management, management, production management, profession, practitioner, project management theory and practice, organizational theory |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Human Resources, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here