Making the matrix work more effectively right now

<In future years, BioPharma organisations will need to work as efficiently as they can to thrive in a much more challenging commercial world. This series of articles explores what might need to happen to the 'standard model' of collaboration in project work.>

Over the years, some BioPharma companies have developed impressive and agile cross-functional working cultures. But many have not. And these days, there are many more mid-sized companies which, as they have grown, without the luxury of time, thinking headroom and central support functions, have evolved into silo cultures.

Nevertheless, many senior managers are all too aware that their organisations don't operate as effectively as they should. In my time I have encountered companies who have strived to build better ways of working and have sponsored many and varied initiatives to get matrix structures to operate seamlessly. Examples of these initiatives are:

• Detailed process descriptions / 'SOPs' - drafted to describe exactly how the project system should work, and who should do what. Provided centrally to provide quick access to to standard methods and tools. Pros - these can be provided centrally, made searchable, comprehensive, indexed. Cons - Lots of people don't have time, or don't bother to look at them; things like using common templates for key processes is not necessarily demanded by management. Score: Low

  
  

• Town hall meetings - senior leadership setting out a vision and an expectation for working across functions. Pros - messages about cross-function working should come from the top. Cons - The initial inspiration fades. In reality, people are influenced most by the immediate level above them. There's often no reinforcement from middle manager levels. Messages are soon forgotten. Score: Low

  
  

• Technical solutions - there have been many evolutions of project-specific systems, culminating in solutions such as Microsoft Teams. Pros - quick access to comms with project members, with reference to documentation and plans. If it's well integrated to facilitate easy 'chat' - great. Cons - it doesn't change behaviours by itself, even though technically it's not a bad thing. Score: Medium

  
  

• Project Kickoffs / Team builds - taking time for structured conversations in the project team. Sometimes with senior sponsors present. Pros - team members can forge genuine commitments to project/functional interfaces and good collaborative behaviours. Cons - These events should definitely be done - but a caveat is that they can misfire without involvement of senior managers. Score: Medium/High

  
  

• Training - typically skills workshops for Project Managers. Also, PM awareness courses for functional team members. Pros: Life science specific courses can be very helpful kick-starters and introduce key tools. Cons: Training is often used as a 'fix' for needs that it won't help with. It doesn't automatically make behaviour changes back in the workplace . Score: Medium

What's the problem?

Any of these initiatives may make some improvement. And of course, doing more than one of them adds benefits. But as you see above, some tactics are not so effective as commonly assumed. Plus, what's much more difficult to see, is that even a reasonably thought-out mix of the more effective approaches may have a key element missing. This will cause well-meaning development initiatives to misfire.

This article homes in on a particular case study. But this concept of 'Balance' is explored in depth in a complimentary series - see the end of this article*.

A case study

A few years ago, when I was asked to work with them, well-meaning initiatives were in the recent prior history of a medium sized CDMO. Their business was services rather than products, but the range of organisational challenges was very similar to a BioPharma. Their three project managers were having a tough time pulling all company players together to get customer projects delivered. Commercial/Sales people were consistently asking for quotes and lead times from the production guys, who frequently said they were too busy to work on them. Project meetings were chaotic. Loads of people would turn up, except for some critical individuals! The PMs were uncertain about the scope and authority of their roles. They’d been sent on a highly expensive external training course, which added virtually nothing positive to the situation. The leadership team had gotten together to map the company’s delivery process – a session which had slid into huge complexity and detail, adding little until time ran out. All in all, the risk – delay to customer deadlines, increasing potential for losing projects to competitors. In summary, they had tried a few things - that didn't really work very well.

What made a difference?

For situations like this, a three-part approach is often the way forward, and so it was here:

1. A session with the leadership team, essentially to help them express what they wanted and to underwrite an action plan. Critical questions: 'What do you want from projects?' ; 'What are the critical responsibilities of the Project Managers?' ; 'What are the expectations of the Project Team Functional team members?' ; 'Which decisions should be made by the Project Team and which by Functions?' ... and so on. This was summarised into a clear communication, and an action plan for the next phases.

2. Workshop sessions with mixed groups across the business. To follow up the communication, explain how proper matrix operations worked, field questions - identify further problems - and agree commitments ongoing.

3. Coaching for the Project Managers. They now had a clear brief - but sought more confidence to take it on.

The results from this were dramatic. As is so often the case, clarification of expectations at senior level, had been missing; people weren't pointlessly uncooperative, they just needed to know what they were expected to do, and why. From this point onward, a critical core team only, attended project meetings. Meetings they self-limited to one hour (!) and generated a terse summary of actions.The PMs were able to lead, firmly yet collaboratively! Imperatives from them were expressed in terms of customer delivery and satisfaction. Production, Development and Commercial cooperation, still tetchy at times, nevertheless built agreements where most important issues were at stake.

Would this help us?

Are the three steps as described, exactly what’s needed for you? No, not necessarily. But a quick initial diagnosis exercise will identify exactly what will make a difference - and it could well be something like this.

Is it for any size of organisation? Yes in theory, but some caveats. Very small / startup companies may not of course have a significant ‘matrix’ structure. But an even simpler exercise may well help get everyone on the same page. A large Pharma company is a bit of a different ball game; they have extensive internal departments to manage projects – our help is more directed toward smaller and mid-sized organisations.

Can we afford it?

We could be glib and say 'can we afford not to do it?' But let's a bit more practical. Inefficient operations waste resource. You daresay have very large bills for your resources: paying your staff, your premises, buying high tech equipment, contracting with complex suppliers and partners. The sort of exercise we have described above, can optimises your use of these highly expensive outgoings, for a small fraction of that investment! Perhaps 0.5% or less.

John Faulkes, August 2025.

---

In case you missed it - the previous article in this series: 'The Organisation's Castle'

Look out for the next article in this series: 'Do we need a Matrix in future?'

*Also, more in-depth look at the concept of 'Balance' - check out Mike Florence's series here.

---

Can we help? We are happy to talk! Get a performance diagnosis, the right training or team coaching. If it's outside your remit connect us with your COO! Contact Us to chat.