the company’s focus shifting towards product differentiation, decentralization of the organisation into smaller self-managing business units based on the matrix structure seemed the order of the day. A mechanised and bureaucratic system of centralization would no longer lend itself to the dynamic environment the firm now found itself in. The idea was to bring together the essential functions to work more closely together in achieving the company’s new strategic goals. McKenna (2000) citing Ford & Randolph (1992) states the matrix system could be highly effective in a complex and rapidly changing environment. Davis & Lawrence (1977) add that the matrix style is applicable when there is a high need for information processing. However, there are certain criticisms that could be levelled against the matrix system. McKenna (2000) again cites Daft (1998) and Davis & Lawrence (1997), among others in pointing out some of the key problems associated with Matrix organizations. The most appropriate in this situation appears to be with regards to role conflict of subordinates. The firm has very much shifted its focus from technology to market-driven and there appears to be a danger of the marketing function dominating authority, thereby leading to operational problems.Skills Restructuring:Along with the shift towards decentralized units and product differentiation came the need to restructure the essential skills of its engineering workforce. The major increase in the development of small and distributed systems was achieved through a combination of upskilling of existing, and creation of a new entry-level grade of service oriented representatives.Managing Change:The majority of the new business initiatives had been implemented to reasonable success. Through the various tactical changes made including downsizing, re-structuring and the new product strategy, the company’s financial situation had stabilized and things were back ...
