Buzz

There are many different ways of defining responsibilities and accountabilities within an organisation. Need to narrow this down to something a bit more specific I think. Meanwhile a starter for ten below:

• Job descriptions
• H&S Policy
• Contract documents
• Organograms

Hi both, thanks for your responses.

Ray - I am clear the route you can define the different R&R's etc., it's more how to visually present this to the organisation, which I like the idea of an organogram - do you have any examples you would share?

Kurdziel - you are spot on. So we have programme and project managers who essentially 'tout' and bid for work, who are responsible for the delivery of the work, on time, within budget etc., they will then 'utilise' staff from other areas of the business to deliver the work, staff who are line managed elsewhere. You also have engineers, trials managers, supervisors etc. who also 'deliver / do' the work.   It is the PM side of the business who are struggling to understand what they're responsible for, why they do have to manage risk, whether they conduct risk assessments, or whether others do, or whether the PM just signs off etc. etc.

I'm looking for an analogy or way to relay this which will make sense to them, or maybe through an organogram as Ray suggests.

Having been in a matrix management structure the conflicts generally arise from traditional working concepts - I report to / am reported to (as detailed in my Job Description).

This singular linearity is important for most HR activity - discipline, development, authorisation (holidays, expenses, training etc.).

Most H&S tends to follow this traditional structure of employee - supervisor - manager - senior manager - name on the policy.

When the system was introduced the roles and responsibilities remained assigned in accordance with linear levels for general arrangements.

As A Kurdizel has stated for the cross-function the named manager/project leader took on any activity specific responsibilities. The big difference implemented compared to linearity was that in the event of concerns with arrangements these would be simultaneously raised to both the direct and activity managers who would have to jointly formulate a single company response.

This is probably the area you are getting push back - how can I be held accountable for.. as they are currently under the control of... and conversley why should I be accountable for... they report to...

The MD adressed this by stating we were all part of a single business following the same goals and in essence advised those who could not get out of their personal bunkers they should seek new opportunities.

Sympathies - if it is the man at the top there will be no buy-in from those below. Your commment re:ambiguity makes me think a predecessor implemented the matrix system and this MD is struggling to operate in such an environment hoping disruptive influence will allow reversion to a traditional heirarchy.

Insist part of the "touting" is that the PM presents their H&S plan, RA/MS etc. for the project.

No safety considerations = no project (just as would happen with any external contractors bidding for work)

Being matrix does not mean they have to do all the tasks/paperwork BUT they are accountable for making sure it is all in place

Whatever system is in place the man in charge i.e. MD, needs to ensure adequate safety processes are in place, if that includes lines of reporting or other communication, then so be it. Just because it has a label attached it does not negate recognised good practices, nor should everything fall to the h&s person to organise in the absence of these processes.