Authority and Responsibility, How They’re Related and How They Affect Project Management

Veteran of the industry project managers know that they accept responsibility for the project when they accept the role of project manager. They also know that the absence of authority can significantly impede their ability to deliver the goals and objectives set for the project. Responsibility is immediately proportional to consequences. Responsibility for project results will not mean that they get located on the seat until the next task if the one they’re leading fails, it has a monetary consequence. That they will suffer with the project through elimination or reduction of bonus, a re-assignment to a less responsible role (with an attendant reduction in salary), or dismissal in the case of consultants. The connection between responsibility and consequences is entrenched in business. Larger more expensive jobs will tend to participate more senior project professionals and the consequence of failure will be proportionate. The connection between job results and consequences will also be heightened. Agil

What is short of my experience (20 plus years as a programme and job manager) is a messages between authority and responsibility. Project managers can do much of the job planning without having gain access to authority. Project operators will need some help from subject matter experts for some of the planning work, even if it’s just to confirm effort or cost estimations. Larger, more complex tasks generally have more need of topic experts to the point that some of the work is planned by these experts. The authority needed to acquire and manage the resources needed for this work will usually come with the territory. It can when the project gets to the build or rendering phase that the job manager needs authority. They will can plan the effort, plan the work, and screen performance but without expert they have a very limited ability to guarantee the work is done on time current necessary quality.

The largest, most expensive, most complex projects are led pre lit by project managers who hold senior positions in their organizations and bring that level of specialist to their projects. The Manhattan project, which provided the Atomic bomb during Ww ii, is a good example of this type of project and project manager. Leslie Orchards, who managed the task, was a 3 superstar (lieutenant) General. The majority of assignments which don’t fall under the Manhattan project category in conditions of size are where the connection between authority and responsibility comes apart.

Most projects nowadays are executed in a “matrix” environment where the organization uses project professionals to perform projects and useful managers to manage people. The matrix environment is a good fit for some organizations because they have a mixture of operational and job work. The problem with the matrix environment is that seldom do they come with a plan for the division of authority between the useful and project manager which means that the job manager has none of the authority and the functional manager has it all from the resource’s perspective. Organizations with an increase of older matrix environments may have taken some steps to resolve the issues that this division causes, but rarely do the descriptions of the 2 tasks will include a precise description of authority. This is probably also due to the fact that the AN HOUR group plays a major role in defining authority through their policies and in addition they have a tendency to be behind the curve in accommodating their policies to the management of projects.