“Moss and McAdams Accounting Firm”

 

1 “Moss and McAdams Accounting Firm” in your textbook. Once you have finished reading the case study, you will address the prompts below.
1. Define functional, matrix, and projectized organizational structures, and list the strengths and weaknesses of each.
2. Determine which organizational structure was being used in the two projects discussed in the case study, and explain how you came to that conclusion using evidence from the case study.
3. Do you believe that the projects described in this case study could have been managed better using a different type of organizational structure? If so, which one do you think would have worked better, and why? If you believe that the organizational structure used was the correct one, explain why you think so.
4. Describe what is meant by the technical side of a project and the sociocultural side of a project. Do you think Sands and Crosby were masters of both sides of their projects? Why, or why not?
5. Do you believe that a better knowledge of the organization’s strategy would have improved the outcome of this case study? Why, or why not?

Sample Solution

Having reviewed the case study, let’s delve into the key concepts and address the prompts:

  1. Organizational Structures: Strengths and Weaknesses
  • Functional Structure: Departments are grouped by similar functions (e.g., accounting, marketing, IT).
    • Strengths: Clear chain of command, specialization leads to expertise, efficient for routine tasks.
    • Weaknesses: Limited communication across departments, slow response to change, silos can form.
  • Matrix Structure: Employees report to both functional and project managers.
    • Strengths: Encourages collaboration, promotes knowledge sharing, flexible for project-based work.
    • Weaknesses: Potential for conflict between managers, can be confusing for employees, requires strong leadership.
  • Projectized Structure: Teams are dedicated to specific projects, with a project manager as the central authority.
    • Strengths: Fast decision-making, clear focus on project goals, strong team collaboration.
    • Weaknesses: Duplication of resources, can be disruptive to ongoing functional work, less focus on core competencies.
  1. Organizational Structure in the Case Study

The case study suggests a matrix structure. Here’s the evidence:

  • Ruby Sands, the office manager, assigns personnel to different accounts, indicating a central authority figure overseeing resource allocation across projects (tax preparation teams).
  • Senior and staff accountants are assigned to multiple client teams, implying they report to both a functional manager (e.g., head of tax) and project managers (client team leads).
  1. A Different Structure?

A stronger functional structure might have improved efficiency for routine tax preparation. Dedicated tax teams with clear functional leadership could streamline processes. However, it might lack the flexibility needed to handle diverse client needs and could slow down response to changes in tax regulations.

The current matrix structure offers a balance, allowing for specialization while enabling project-specific collaboration.

  1. Technical vs. Sociocultural Sides of Projects
  • Technical Side: Refers to the skills and knowledge necessary to complete the project tasks (e.g., tax code expertise, accounting software proficiency).
  • Sociocultural Side: Focuses on human dynamics, communication, team building, and managing client relationships.

Sands and Crosby likely excelled in the technical side, given their accounting expertise. However, the case study suggests challenges with the sociocultural aspects:

  • Assigning staff to multiple projects could lead to overloaded employees and communication breakdowns.
  • Lack of dedicated client relationship management could result in dissatisfied clients (Ruby’s concern about client updates).
  1. Importance of Organizational Strategy

A deeper understanding of the firm’s strategy would have benefited the case study in two ways:

  • Focus on Client Retention: If client satisfaction is a strategic priority, the firm might need to adjust its structure to ensure dedicated client relationship management.
  • Project Selection: Knowing the firm’s future growth plans could guide project selection and resource allocation decisions. For instance, prioritizing complex projects might favor a projectized structure.

Conclusion

The Moss and McAdams case study highlights the importance of choosing the right organizational structure for project management. While the current matrix structure offers some flexibility, potential improvements lie in better addressing the sociocultural aspects of project management and aligning project selection with the firm’s overall strategy.

 

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.