A word on matrix management

As a service to the industry Eye thought it timely to revisit the Laidlaw Inquiry findings into the ICWC debacle:

Deficiencies in organisational structure and resourcing

7.15 The Inquiry team has considered the organisational changes at the DfT in early 2011 and the impact of multiple changes in leadership and the significant reduction in resources at the DfT over the relevant period. I consider that these organisational changes and resourcing constraints contributed to the flaws in the ICWC franchise process and adversely impacted the DfT’s effectiveness in identifying and/or resolving those flaws. Specifically, I would draw out the following material points in this regard:

7.15.1 until late 2010 the DfT’s activities in relation to refranchising were organised under a single Director-General (“DG”) (refer to Appendix G for details). From late 2010, a client provider relationship, effectively a partial matrix structure, was put in place, with full implementation of the organisational redesign completed in May 2011. This resulted in rail franchising responsibilities within the DfT being split across three DGs (as illustrated in Appendix G). As a result, there was no single accountable lead within the DfT for rail refranchising as a whole; 

Matrix management structures? Treat with caution!