Matrix organizations and cross-functional teams in the public sector: a systematic review

Prévia do material em texto

International Journal of Public Sector Management
Matrix organizations and cross-functional teams in the public sector: a systematic review
Mikko Pakarinen Petri Juhani Virtanen
Article information:
To cite this document:
Mikko Pakarinen Petri Juhani Virtanen , (2017)," Matrix organizations and cross-functional teams in the public sector: a
systematic review ", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 30 Iss 3 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2016-0065
Downloaded on: 27 March 2017, At: 05:37 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 29 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"Quality of leadership and public service motivation: a social exchange perspective on employee engagement",
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 30 Iss 3 pp. -
(2017),"Challenges and competencies for project management in the Australian Public Service", International Journal of
Public Sector Management, Vol. 30 Iss 3 pp. -
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:173272 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2016-0065
Matrix organizations and cross-functional teams in the public sector: a systematic 
review 
 
Introduction 
 
The objectives of public organizations are numerous, ambiguous, multidimensional and often difficult to 
reconcile, resulting from requirements and prerequisites such as equality and efficiency (e.g. Chun and 
Rainey, 2005; Pandey and Rainey, 2006). Today, this operating framework calls for new understanding to 
manage public organizations as complex systems (e.g. Stenvall and Virtanen, 2015; Virtanen and 
Vakkuri, 2015). In response to these pressures, concepts commonly used in the private sector are filtering 
into the public sector (e.g. Boyne, 2002, Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004). 
 
The research literature of public sector organizations and public policies emphasize the fact that public 
sector institutions need to deal complex and multifaceted problems, and therefore have enormous need to 
personalize and reorganize their services and ways of work (e.g. Boland and Fowler, 2000; Colander and 
Kupers, 2014). There is a plethora of research discussion concerning the “wicked problems” of society 
and how they affect public sector organizations and institutions as well as the whole society. This comes 
together with the pressure to enhance the effectiveness and public sector organizations, which 
consequently leads to tighter budgets and greater scrutiny from governments, media and community 
groups (e.g. Burke et al., 2013; Dunleavy and Carrera, 2013). 
 
As a management practice, the matrix organization structure gained in popularity during the 1970s and 
1980s among many private companies and in multiple industries (e.g. Davis and Lawrence, 1977; 
Galbraith, 2009). The approach was commonly seen as a means of adjusting to an increasingly complex 
operating environment (e.g. Davis and Lawrence, 1977; Galbraith and Kates, 2007). As part of their 
response to these demands to improve coordination and integration, span organizational boundaries and 
cut product development cycle time, organizations also began to set up cross-functional teams (CFTs) 
(e.g. Denison et al., 1996; McComb et al., 2008; Piercy et al., 2013), which can be seen as a part of 
matrix management. 
 
However, deployment of the matrix organization and CFTs in public sector organizations has not been 
extensively studied. Most studies concentrate on private companies, and research interest in the public 
sector seems lesser (Piercy et al., 2013). The present systematic review bridges this gap in the literature, 
following Ford and Randolph’s (1992) review of cross-functional organizational forms. The article 
addresses the following empirical questions: 
1) In what context the matrix structure or CFTs are found and implemented in public sector 
organizations? 
2) What is the motivation for deployment and what is the proven value of implementing matrix 
structure or CFTs in public sector organizations? 
3) How are matrix structures or CFTs able to respond to the problem of coordination, and to handle 
“wicked problems” of public organizations? 
4) How do CFT´s incorporate with the idea of New Public Governance (NPG) in particular? 
 
The article is organized as follows. Definition of key concepts is followed by a detailed account of the 
methods used. Then we present the results from our empirical study, and finally conclude the paper by 
discussing how public sector management practices have developed during the last 25 years also with 
relation to the ideas public management ideologies, with particular reference to matrix structures and 
CFTs. 
 
Key Concepts 
 
Matrix organization, which integrates a functional structure into a horizontal project organization, has 
been widely reflected in the existing research literature (e.g. Davis and Lawrence, 1977; Galbraith, 2009). 
Its purpose is to combine the efficiency of functional design with the flexibility and responsiveness of a 
multi-divisional organization (e.g. Hatch, 2012). According to Burns and Wholey (1993), implementation 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
of a matrix structure constitutes a shift from vertical-functional authority towards a hybrid organization. 
They described matrix structures as “team-oriented arrangements that promote coordinated, 
multidisciplinary activity across functional areas, broad participation in decisions, and the sharing of 
knowledge”. 
 
There are a variety of forms of matrix management and matrix structures. Matrix team working can 
incorporate a number of dimensions, including (Hall, 2013): 
- Cross-functional matrix teams. Team members come from different organizational functions and 
are led by a particular “activity leader” who they may not have a formal reporting line to. 
- Functional matrix teams. Individuals from the same function need to cooperate across an internal 
matrix such as HR specialists, all of whom are within the HR function, but normally working in 
different business units, product groups or regions. 
- Global matrix teams. Individuals from different functions, countries, time zones and cultures come 
together to solve a common problem. 
- Extended matrix teams. Individuals from different organizations need come together to solve 
common problems. 
 
Cross-functional teams (CFTs) are also known as multidisciplinary teams, interfunctional teams or 
integrated product teams (Alexander et al., 2005; Athanasaw, 2003; Parker, 1994). CFTs can take many 
forms, but they are usually structured as groups of people from different functional areas,designed as an 
overlay to the existing functional organization (Galbraith, 1994). Both matrix organization and a project 
organization are cross-functional structures that may include CFTs, but while project structures form 
around specific finite tasks, matrix structures tend to form around ongoing tasks (Ford and Randolph, 
1992). CFTs can exist within a matrix structure as cross-functional matrix teams, with part-time 
commitment and temporary assignment of members to teams, or within a more autonomous team 
structure in which team assignments are full-time and long-term (Denison et al., 1996). Matrix 
organization does not require CFTs as such, but matrix and CFTs are overlapping as concepts. 
 
Similarities between matrix organizations and CFTs are clear as CFTs can help to build understanding, 
problem solving capabilities, co-ordination and communication, ultimately improving quality and 
productivity (Proehl, 1996). Additional benefits of CFTs include increasing skills of the workforce, the 
development of a common language and shared mental models, an enhanced understanding of how the 
organization functions as a whole and how individual employees fit within the organization; this in turn 
increases an employee’s feeling of worth and ability to work interdependently (Piercy et al., 2013). 
 
Integrated Project Teams (IPTs) are sometimes used in conjunction with CFTs. While closely related to 
matrix structures, these place greater emphasis on the team aspect of participation by functional 
representatives (Briggs and Kleiner, 2002). 
 
 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
Methods 
 
The systematic literature review was conducted using Fink’s (2013) seven-step model: 1) selecting 
research questions, 2) selecting article databases and sources, 3) choosing search terms, 4) applying 
practical screening criteria, 5) applying methodological screening criteria, 6) doing the review and 7) 
synthesizing the results. The review was compiled from the following electronic databases: EBSCOhost 
(Academic Search Premier), Emerald, JSTOR, Sage Journals Online (Premier), and Wiley Online 
Library. The search covered the period from January 1990 to December 2015 and was confined to 
academic articles published in the English language. Search terms were applied to abstracts and titles, and 
only journal articles were considered. The Boolean search term combinations used were (“matrix 
organization” OR “matrix structure” OR “cross-functional teams”) AND “Public sector” AND 
(“management” OR “leadership”), as well as (“Matrix organizational structure” OR “Cross-functional 
teams”) AND “Public Administration Management” to improve overall quality. 
 
The search produced 1225 articles; this was reduced to 246 articles after removing duplicates using 
RefWorks. Selected articles were pinpointed by search terms such as “matrix”, “cross-functional teams” 
and “public sector”, and abstracts were read and articles assessed on the basis of inclusion and exclusion 
criteria (see Figure 1). This resulted in the selection of 61 articles to be read in their entirety, of which 20 
were accepted for analysis. References in the selected articles were also reviewed manually to identify 
other relevant publications. The manual search yielded 18 further articles, of which 7 were accepted. 
Thus, the data comprised of 27 (20+7) articles. 
 
The main inclusion criteria were empirical evidence relating to implementation of matrix organization 
structure or CFTs and relevance to public sector organizations. Articles on matrix organization or CFTs 
were included to examine definitions and to emphasize the importance of matrix structures or CFTs in the 
organization and management of public sector organizations. Articles were excluded from further analysis 
if there was no clear description of the public sector organization, or if matrix organization or CFTs were 
merely mentioned or recommended as a possible solution to identified problems. This left 27 articles for 
inclusion in the review. The theoretical literature on matrix organizations and CFTs and on public sector 
organizations was used to support analysis and classification of the selected articles. To begin, the 
selected articles were categorized by area of application—that is, the purposes for which public 
organizations used matrix structures or CFTs. Second, articles were categorized by type of public 
organization. Third, articles were searched by asking about the motivation for deployment. Fourth, the 
perceived utility of deployment was examined. All this information was combined in table (Table 1). The 
last column lists the key references from the articles. Finally, the findings were linked to the problem of 
coordination and how to handle “wicked problems”. The process is summarized in Figure 1. 
 
 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Literature search process. 
 
 
Records identified through the database 
search (n = 1225) 
Database search: Included 
 
Excluded 
Records after duplicates were removed 
(n = 246) 
Abstracts read and search terms searched 
manually 
Articles assessed for eligibility (n = 61) 
Whole text read 
Articles accepted (n = 20) 
Records excluded with reasons (n = 979): 
Duplicates 
Records excluded with reasons (n = 186): 
No scientific journal articles (e.g. book only) 
No search terms (matrix, cross-functional 
teams) found in article 
No organization-related concept of matrix 
No whole article available 
Records excluded with reasons (n = 41): 
No matrix as organization structure or CFTs as 
part of public organization management 
No public sector organization 
Theoretical reconstruction based on published 
research (no empirical results) 
Manual search: Included Excluded 
Whole articles read and references checked 
(n = 61) 
Articles found (n = 18) 
Whole text read 
Articles accepted (n = 7) 
Records excluded with reasons (n = 11): 
No matrix as organization structure or CFTs as 
part of public organization management 
No public sector organization 
Theoretical reconstruction based on published 
research (no empirical results) 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
Results 
 
General description of the included articles 
 
The 27 selected articles spanned three decades; six were published in the 1990s, 16 between 2000 and 
2009 and five between 2010 and 2015. Articles were divided in four categories by the application area of 
matrix or CFTs (Table 1). Findings can also be seen in relationship towards internal and external world of 
organization, and the organizational context they are applied in (Figure 2). 
 
 
Figure 2. The context of matrix and CFTs application areas in public sector 
 
 
Matrix structures and CFTs in creation of new organizations or organization reform 
 
Seven articles were categorized as creation of new organization or organization reform (Table 1). The 
context of these articles varied. The motivation for change are familiar to challenges of public sector 
organizations. The operating environment changes, it creates a need to redefine organizational 
boundaries, to rethink service delivery, the ways organizations function, and the degree of efficiency of 
the organization. Therefore resource and process control, and effectiveness are underlined when creating 
a completely new organization or reforming it (e.g. Iverson and Pullman, 2000; Skærbæk and Melander, 
2004; Werth and Fleming, 2008). As well as resource control and effectiveness, the diversity of cultural 
groupings and tasks and their variationshave also been noted as motivating factors (McMahon, 2004; 
Lawrie et al., 2004) to implement matrix structures. Burns and Wholey (1993) suggested that the 
transition to a hybrid organization improves responsiveness to task diversity, and also discussed 
sociometric location and dissemination of information as motivations in organizations that adopt a matrix 
structure. 
 
As an outcome, Werth and Fleming (2008) described reduced overall bureaucracy, staff savings and 
funds freed for reinvestment in direct services. They went on to list numerous examples of service 
integration and increased innovation and creativity, and how support services became more service-
oriented. However, the benefits found in the study of Werth and Fleming (2008) do not seem to transfer 
when it comes to creation of new organization structure. There were only few observed benefits of matrix 
--- = Organization boundary 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
structures, and a number of familiar problems were identified (e.g. Brooks and Kakabadse, 2014; 
McMahon, 2004). 
 
In the context of wicked problems of public sector, previous studies have focused their attention on the 
main factors and determinants that underlie the impetus for change in the public sector. These are 
increasingly unstable operating environment, the need to redefine organizational boundaries, shortage of 
public resources which is leading to rethinking of service delivery, the ways organizations function, and 
the degree of efficiency of the whole system, and growing pressure from citizens regarding the quality of 
services provided (e.g. Osborne and Brown, 2005). Generally, creating a new matrix organization or 
reforming an organization structure are no answer for wicked problems public sector organizations face. 
In fact, implementing matrix structures seem to create problems of its own in many cases. Reforming 
organization to more matrix-like creates a need to change internal functions and coordinate organization 
management. 
 
Matrix structures and CFTs in HRM and performance management 
 
Eleven matrix articles were categorized as HRM and performance management (Table 1). The context of 
the studies varied considerably. Performance management is emphasized from different perspectives of 
resource use, and HRM is designed to maximize employee performance. Financial performance, cost 
savings, improved internal and external project coordination, control and accountability and more 
effective project management are cited as motivation for deployment or desired outcomes (Kuprenas, 
2003; Opstrup and Villadsen, 2015; Reyes, 1998; Rowlinson, 2001). 
 
As an outcome, CFT´s are linked to better performance and performance management in public sector 
organizations (Athanasaw, 2003; Bitter et al., 2013; Opstrup and Villadsen, 2015). CFTs seem to offer 
one answer to wicked problem of coordination of cross-boundary tasks in public sector organizations, as 
Athanasaw (2003) highlighted competence management, effective team management and team work 
management, noting that CFT provides managers and employees, respectively, with guidelines for team 
formation and teamwork (see also Briggs and Kleiner, 2002; Davison and Hyland, 2002). 
 
The role of HRM policies and practices is increasingly important in improving service quality, efficiency 
and organizational effectiveness in the public sector (Burke et al., 2013). The connection of performance 
management and HRM to service development is clear, as managers seek to maintain or improve the 
quality of service delivery (Arnaboldi et al., 2015). Performance measurement has become pivotal not 
only in reform, but also in daily public management and policymaking (Van Dooren et al., 2015). 
However, the effectiveness rests heavily on the knowledge, skill, and drive of organization´s employees, 
as the key resource in many public services is their human capital. By organizing work in the form of 
matrix per se can´t offer a solution to all above mentioned wicked problems, but CFTs can help public 
sector organizations to improve internal coordination and effective use of human capital, which is the 
core of HRM and performance management. 
 
Matrix structures and CFTs in public service development and public procurement 
 
Eight articles were categorized as service development and public procurement (Table 1). Context of the 
studies varies, but motivation factors are familiar to the challenges of public sector service development 
and management. For example, in the study of Alexander et al.’s (2005) the motivation to use CFTs was 
more to improve the quality of the health service by reorganizing the way of working, but in the study of 
Rowe et al. (2004) the motivation to implement internal matrix is closer to change the whole culture of 
the organization when it comes to entrepreneurial approach of service development within public 
healthcare organization. 
 
The usefulness of CFTs seems clear in public service development. In general, CFTs improve internal 
collaboration and communication, supporting the achievement of declared objectives, and eliminating 
internal competition (Alexander et al., 2005; Bennett and Savani, 2004; Navaratnam and Harris, 1994). 
These findings support the results of Proehl (1996) as CFTs can help to build understanding, problem 
solving capabilities, co-ordination and communication, ultimately improving quality and productivity. 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
Rowe et al. (2004) also noted that an internal matrix structure helped to develop new interdisciplinary 
work practices viewed by other organizations as examples of best practice. To succeed in it requires 
collaboration, coordination and crossing mental and physical barriers. 
 
Public services today are produced by a multitude of institutions, and they exist in the spaces between the 
citizens and the system (Figure 2). One way to respond to the wicked problems of changing environment 
in service development, but which also requires cross-boundary coordination, is public procurement. 
McKevitt et al. (2014) explored the factors that influence buyer decision-making in public procurement to 
better understand the processes and conditions that support different supply arrangements and maximize 
SME participation. Motivation for deployment of the CFT´s are seen in improvement and understanding 
processes and conditions that support different supply arrangements in public procurement, reducing costs 
and providing better services to customers in different levels of public administration (McKevitt et al., 
2014). As an outcome, CFT´s are also seen as possible way to create best possible purchasing unit in 
public sector organization (Murray, 2002). 
 
Economic constraints and advanced technology have an effect how the public services are led, managed, 
organized, and how the organizational cultures are renewed within the domain of public services 
(Argyris, 2010). The idea of public services must be rethought, and perhaps public services should be 
thought as arenas for interaction, cooperation, and co-creation, orchestrated by networks of organizations, 
as Virtanen and Stenvall (2014) suggest. Value of internal matrix in service development rests in 
structure´s ability to help the service organization to open up and operate in and between organizations. 
CFTs seem to be one solution for that in service development. 
 
Matrix structures and CFTs in network organization or inter-organizational collaboration 
 
Cooperative, inter-organizational networks have become a common solution for delivery of public 
services. Goldsmith and Eggers (2005) emphasize that public sector organizations can’t solve complex 
horizontal problems with vertical solutions, andthe role of government is being transformed from direct 
service provider to generator of public value, and we need to figure out how to better manage a public 
sector that does less itself and more through third parties. The idea is that inter-organizational 
collaboration and perhaps network organizations could offer solutions for those wicked problems. 
 
Only one article was categorized as network organization or inter-organizational collaboration. Palmer 
(1996) described a case study of a sample of English local authorities seeking to develop inward tourism, 
based on a network organization involving public-private partnership. It is a clear example of a public 
organization that responds to the changing role from direct service provider to generator of public value, 
and how it requires inter-organizational collaboration. The study of Palmer (1996) used emerging 
frameworks of network organizations to show how public sector organizations can form horizontal 
relationships to exchange core competences with private sector organizations. However, it is possible that 
a local government organization’s decision to collaborate with a tourism development company is a 
consequence of the development of increasingly matrix-type structures within the organization (Palmer, 
1996). Therefore the role of a matrix structure, which forces to act and work in a different way, can be 
seen as a way to move the organization mentally towards more inter-organizational collaboration. 
 
[INSERT TABLE 1 HERE] 
Table 1. Articles included in the review 
 
 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
Discussion 
 
Since 1990s, theoretical discussions on New Public Management (NPM) have focused on issues like 
administrative decentralisation and delegation of authority, managerial autonomy, and flexibility, 
including performance measurement. This has stressed the role of output-based (or effectiveness) 
accountability forms prioritising effective and efficient service delivery above input and process-based 
models that focus on means and procedures (e.g. Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004). However, the shift from 
NPM towards the NPG can be conceived as a shift from a closed system to an open system, by deploying 
the conceptual tool-box offered by the Modern Systems Theory (e.g. Virtanen and Stenvall, 2014). 
 
Conceiving public sector organization as an open system helps to understand the role of matrix organising 
and the CFT´s. Major part of the articles analysed in this paper focus on intra-organizational processes, 
and they can be categorized to represent the ideas of closed system thinking even though that they reach 
beyond inter-organizational boundaries within a single organization. However, public services today are 
provided as a process collaboratively produced by several groups of professionals, organizations, and 
service users. Articles that include inter-organizational relations and co-production as well as co-
production in the delivery of public services can be seen to represent the open system logic (e.g. Bovaird, 
2007). There are also some examples of those (e.g. McKevitt et al., 2014; Palmer, 1996). The answer to 
questions how to coordinate public organizations as a system, and handle wicked problems, is more likely 
to be found in the latter category. 
 
Surprisingly, accountability function arises only in few cases of this study (Goddard, 1992; Kuprenas, 
2003). Accountability can cause many organizational and managerial challenges in the matrix structure, 
and it is worth assessing how accountability could be organized in terms of matrix key roles and the 
effectiveness of public sector organization design or service development (Tevameri and Virtanen, 2013). 
Accountability should be made visible internally and externally in matrix structures in order to avoid 
conflicts, and to achieve objectives set, when combining vertical and horizontal organization, and it 
requires trust and social capital between actors. The notion of accountability is of particular importance 
when we think public organizations from the domain of NPG, which stresses the accountability function 
of publicly financed service-ecosystems and the leadership of networks (e.g. Virtanen et al., 2016). 
 
However, the appropriateness of the matrix structure in public sector organizations remains debated, with 
few definitive successes in terms of objectives or desired outcomes. The contextual background of public 
sector has affected the way public sector organizations have adopted, implemented or otherwise used 
matrix structures or CFTs. The motivation for deploying a matrix structure is very much same for both 
public sector organizations and private companies (e.g. Hatch, 2012). As the reviewed articles indicate, 
efficiency and improved performance is the most common desired outcome. The use of matrix structures 
in organizational networks is surprisingly limited. 
 
Following Brooks and Kakabadse (2014), it seems safe to conclude that public organizations in particular 
should exercise caution in introducing matrix management, as the scale of change required (see Galbraith, 
2009) may be too much if external and internal environments remain the same. CFTs seem to produce 
better results, improving internal collaboration and communication and so helping to reach objectives set 
(Alexander et al., 2005; Bennett and Savani, 2004). CFTs are also linked to better performance in public 
sector organizations (Athanasaw, 2003; Benson and Dresdow, 1998; Bitter et al., 2013; Opstrup and 
Villadsen, 2015). Internal functions such as HRM and performance management can benefit from CFTs, 
and there are examples of service development where cross-boundary tasks can be solved by using CFTs 
(McKevitt et al., 2014; Palmer, 1996). Thus, CFTs represent less of a threat to basic functional 
organization, and the scale of change in structure and ways of working is also smaller. Additionally, there 
is a body of evidence in our research, which suggest that achieving structural and cultural change may be 
harder in public than private sector, as bureaucracy label inherent to many public sectors mitigate against 
any moves towards flatter, looser structures to enhance predictability, fairness, continuity, innovation, 
and organizational change (McMahon, 2004; Rowlinson, 2001). 
 
Although our data is not fully exhaustive, the data offers a useful cross-section of empirical research on 
public sector use of matrix management or CFTs for various purposes. Study consciously excludes some 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
parallel arrangements, such as joint planning groups or joint entities such as advisory boards, in order to 
narrow research and keeping focus on matrix management and overlapping matrix structures such as 
CFTs. One limitation of this study is that it is confined to English language publications. The study also 
excluded books, which may include findings that impact on the big picture. However, Figure 1 shows 
consistency as part of the reliability of the study. We are aware the possible “measurement error” of the 
study, as it may be that used electronic databases and search terms have left some relevant articles outside 
of the literature search. The reliability of the selected articles is also verified by criteria of academic 
journals the articles are published in. The analyzed articles form a valid selection of research concerning 
matrix management in public sector. By looking the selected articles through the lenses of realistic 
evaluation (see Pawson and Tilley, 1997), it must be noted, that the context and mechanisms of 
implementation of matrix structures as a system in each selected article is unique. In many cases time and 
place, people involved, economic, social,political, and cultural factors of organization, and the 
mechanisms used in implementation process of matrix structures, create a unique context which can´t be 
replicated as it was under each study. Hence, the outcomes of each empirical case depend on the context 
and mechanisms, and the transferability of the results can be questioned, but the impact of implementing 
matrix structures in public sector organizations can and is evaluated as a system. 
 
 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
Conclusion 
 
Based on our empirical data, the applications of matrix structure and cross-functional teams (CFTs) 
deployed in the public sector can be categorized as follows: 1) creation of a new organization or 
organization reform; 2) human resource management (HRM) and performance management; 3) service 
development and public procurement and 4) network organization or inter-organizational collaboration. 
 
It seems evident, that public sector organizations have adopted, implemented or used matrix or CFTs. 
These include federal governmental organizations, state organizations, local authorities, municipalities 
and hospitals mainly in the US, UK and Australia, as well as in countries such as Denmark, the 
Netherlands and Ireland. The connecting thread between these disparate organizations is in areas of 
application and motivation for deployment. They are all facing challenges characterized by complexity, 
ambiguities and uncertainty. It is interesting that the motivation for matrix deployment in the public and 
private sectors appears to be rather similar (see Hatch, 2012), such as improved management and better 
performance of services and control systems (Goddard, 1992; Iverson and Pullman, 2000; Werth and 
Fleming, 2008). Cost savings, improved internal and external project coordination, control and 
accountability, and more effective project management have also been mentioned as key drivers of 
deployment (Athanasaw, 2003; Kuprenas, 2003; McKevitt et al., 2014; Reyes, 1998). 
 
For various reasons, the acknowledged benefits of the matrix approach in the public sector remains to be 
debated (e.g. Brooks and Kakabadse, 2014; Goddard, 1992; Priestly, 2009; Rowlinson, 2001; Skærbæk 
and Melander, 2004). Among the success stories (Iverson and Pullman, 2000; Kuprenas, 2003; Rowe et 
al., 2004), Werth and Fleming (2008) reported benefits such as reduced overall bureaucracy, staff savings 
and funds freed for reinvestment in direct services. However, the benefits of CFTs seem clearer in HRM, 
performance management and service development, including improved internal collaboration, 
communication, better performance and achievement of objectives (Alexander et al., 2005; Athanasaw, 
2003; Bennett and Savani, 2004; Benson and Dresdow, 1998; Bitter et al., 2013; Opstrup and Villadsen, 
2015), but the utility of CFT´s is not so visible in complete organizational reforms. 
 
According to our findings, public sector organizations face a wide range of social, political and economic 
problems that are ambiguous and “wicked”. The matrix structures are one attempt to handle these, but so 
far not very successful one. However, especially CFTs can be help in the problem of coordination and 
collaboration in internal processes such as HRM or service development, and sometimes between 
organization boundaries. 
 
Changing operating environment of the public sector in the domain of NPG has a direct effect on the 
ways public organizations organize their internal processes such as HRM, and manage their performance, 
or develop their services. Today, service development requires increasingly inter-organizational 
collaboration and coordination, as adaptive functional integration, fluent inter-organizational information 
flow, common modus operandi between organizations, and sophisticated knowledge management. 
Functional integration in and between public organizations may even be harder than to create structural 
integration by implementing matrix structures. Hence, it seems that matrix structures have a limited 
power to solve wide-ranging wicked problems of public sector organizations. 
 
As far as practical implications from this study are concerned, CFT´s can be conceived as an 
organizational solution to address the idea of public organization in the framework of open systems, the 
possibility to manage so called wicked problems, the emergence of new public sector leadership 
paradigms after the NPM and NPG, as well as the multiple disorder of accountabilities. This systematic 
review sets out number of possibilities for future research. These include the more detailed empirical 
cultivation of the role of CFT´s in the field of public services in-between the “single organizations” and 
the more nuanced understanding of multiple accountabilities brought about with the deployment of the 
CFTs. This research task should include the idea of analyzing public service delivery mechanisms at a 
local level from the point of view of the CFTs – bearing in mind that cooperation mechanisms are at the 
heart of the ´unified government´ agenda and the widening strategic landscape caused by local level 
service ecosystems. 
 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
References 
 
Alexander, J.A., Lichtenstein, R., Jinnett, K., Wells, R., Zazzali, J. and Liu, D. (2005), “Cross-Functional 
Team Processes and Patient Functional Improvement”, Health Services Research, Vol. 40, No. 5, 
pp. 1335–1355. 
 
Argyris, C. (2010), Organizational Traps: Leadership, Culture, Organizational Design, Oxford 
University Press, Oxford. 
 
Arnaboldi, M., Lapsley, I. and Steccolini, I. (2015), “Performance management in the public sector: The 
ultimate challenge”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 1–22. 
 
Athanasaw, Y.A. (2003), “Team Characteristics and Team Member Knowledge, Skills, and Ability 
Relationships to the Effectiveness of Cross-Functional Teams in the Public Sector”, International 
Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 26, No. 10–11, pp. 1165–1203. 
 
Bennett, R. and Savani, S. (2004), “New product development practices of urban regeneration units: a 
comparative international study”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector 
Marketing, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 291–308. 
 
Benson, J. and Dresdow, S. (1998), “Systemic decision application: linking learning outcome assessment 
to organizational learning”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 301–307. 
 
Bitter, J., van Veen-Berkx, E., Gooszen, H.G. and van Amelsvoort, P. (2013), “Multidisciplinary 
teamwork is an important issue to healthcare professionals”, Team Performance Management, 
Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 263–278. 
 
Boland, T. and Fowler, A. (2000), “A systems perspective of performance management in public sector 
organisations”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 417–446. 
 
Bovaird, T. (2007), Beyond engagement and participation – user and community co-production of public 
services. Public Administration Review, Vol. 67, No. 5, pp. 846–860. 
 
Boyne, G.A. (2002), "Public and private management: what’s the difference?" Journal of Management 
Studies, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 97–122. 
 
Briggs, C. and Kleiner, B.H. (2002), “Managing human behaviour in the Federal Government: the 
promise of integrated product teams in managing major system acquisitions”, Management 
Research News, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 21–27. 
 
Brooks, M. and Kakabadse, N.K. (2014), “Introducing matrix management within a children’s services 
setting—personal reflections”, Management in Education, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 58–63. 
 
Burke, R.J., Allisey, A.F. and Noblet, A.J. (2013), “The importance of human resource management in 
the public sector, future challenges and the relevanceof the current collection”, in Burke, R.J., 
Noblet, A.J. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds.), Human Resource Management in the Public Sector, pp. 1–
16, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. 
 
Burns, L.R. and Wholey, D.R. (1993), “Adoption and Abandonment of Matrix Management Programs: 
Effects of Organizational Characteristics and Interorganizational Networks”, Academy of 
Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 106–138. 
 
Chun, Y.H. and Rainey, H.G. (2005), “Goal ambiguity and organizational performance in US federal 
agencies”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 529–557. 
 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Fjopart%2Fmui030&isi=000231826600004
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1475-6773.2005.00418.x&isi=000231708000006
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fnvsm.255
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fnvsm.255
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0892020613516824
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1540-6210.2007.00773.x&isi=000249984300006
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1093%2Facprof%3Aoso%2F9780199586165.001.0001
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13665629810236237
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4337%2F9780857937322.00008
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Ffaam.12049
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1467-6486.00284&isi=000173547000005
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1467-6486.00284&isi=000173547000005
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FTPM-11-2012-0041
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256514&isi=A1993KJ51300005
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256514&isi=A1993KJ51300005
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1081%2FPAD-120019926
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1081%2FPAD-120019926
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01409170210783070
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01409170210783070
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09513550010350832
Colander, D. and Kupers, R. (2014), Complexity and the Art of Public Policy. Solving Society´s Problems 
from the Bottom Up, Princetown University Press, New Jersey and Oxford. 
 
Davis, S.M. and Lawrence, P.R. (1977), Matrix, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA. 
 
Davison, G. and Hyland, P. (2002), “Palliative care teams and organisational capability”, Team 
Performance Management, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 60–67. 
 
Denison, D.R., Hart, S.T. and Kahn, J.A. (1996), “From Chimneys to Cross-Functional Teams: 
Developing and Validating a Diagnostic Model”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 
4, pp. 1005–1023. 
 
Dunleavy, P. and Carrera, L. (2013), Growing the Productivity of Government Services, Edward Elgar, 
Cheltenham and Northampton. 
 
Fink, A. (2013), Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to Paper, 4th edition, SAGE 
Publications Ltd, London. 
 
Ford, R.C. and Randolph, W.A. (1992), “Cross-functional structures: A review and integration of matrix 
organization and project management”, Journal of Management, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 267–294. 
 
Galbraith. J.R. (1994), Competing with flexible lateral organizations, Second edition, Addison-Wesley, 
Reading, MA. 
 
Galbraith, J.R. (2009), Designing Matrix Organizations that Actually Work: How IBM, Procter & 
Gamble, and Others Design for Success, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. 
 
Galbraith, J.R. and Kates, A. (2007), Designing Your Organization: Using the STAR Model to Solve 5 
Critical Design Challenges, Jossey-Bass, Hoboken, NJ. 
 
Goddard, A. (1992), “Perspectives on Management Control in a Multiple Agency, Community Service”, 
Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 115–128. 
 
Goldsmith, S. and Eggers, W.D. (2005), Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector, 
Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 
 
Green, R. (2003), “Markets, Management, and ‘Reengineering’ Higher Education”, The Annals of the 
American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 585, No. 1, pp. 196–210. 
 
Hall, K. (2013), Making the Matrix Work: How Matrix Managers Engage People and Cut Through 
Complexity, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London, England. 
 
Hatch, M.-J. (2012), Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives, 3rd edition, 
Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. 
 
Iverson, R.D. and Pullman, J.A. (2000), “Determinants of Voluntary Turnover and Layoffs in an 
Environment of Repeated Downsizing Following a Merger: An Event History Analysis”, Journal 
of Management, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 977–1003. 
 
Kuprenas, J.A. (2003), “Implementation and performance of a matrix organization structure”, 
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 51–62. 
 
Lawrie, G., Cobbold, I. and Marshall, J. (2004), “Corporate performance management system in a 
devolved UK governmental organisation: A case study”, International Journal of Productivity and 
Performance Management, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 353–370. 
 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256721&isi=A1996VF19100011
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920630002600510&isi=000165666100006
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1515%2F9781400850136
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920630002600510&isi=000165666100006
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4337%2F9780857934994
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0002716202238575&isi=000180150800012
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0002716202238575&isi=000180150800012
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0263-7863%2801%2900065-5
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17410400410533926
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F17410400410533926
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13527590210433357
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13527590210433357
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920639201800204&isi=A1992HX86200004
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1468-0408.1992.tb00208.x
McComb, S.A., Kennedy, D.M., Green, S.G. and Compton, W.D. (2008), “Project team effectiveness: the 
case for sufficient setup and top management involvement”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 
19, No. 4, pp. 301–311. 
 
McKevitt, D.M., Flynn, A. and Davis, P. (2014), “Public buying decisions: a framework for buyers and 
small firms”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 94–106. 
 
McMahon, R.K. (2004), “Changing the organization but maintaining the culture: The centrality of 
organizational mission to the reform process. An overview of the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency and the Environment Agency for England and Wales”, Strategic Change, Vol. 
13, No. 6, pp. 323–332. 
 
Murray, G.J. (2002), “New roles for purchasing: researchers, detectives, teachers, doctors and architects”, 
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 307–315. 
 
Navaratnam, K.K. and Harris, B. (1994), “Customer Service in an Australian Quality Award Winning 
Public Sector Service Industry”, InternationalJournal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 7, No. 
2, pp. 42–49. 
 
Opstrup, N. and Villadsen, A.R. (2015), “The Right Mix? Gender Diversity in Top Management Teams 
and Financial Performance”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 75, No. 2, pp. 291–301. 
 
Osborne, S.P. and Brown, K. (2005), Managing Change and Innovation in Public Service Organizations, 
Routledge, London. 
 
Palmer, A. (1996), “Linking external and internal relationship building in networks of public and private 
sector organizations: a case study”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 9, 
No. 3, pp. 51–60. 
 
Pandey, S.K. and Rainey, H.G. (2006), “Public managers' perceptions of organizational goal ambiguity: 
Analyzing alternative models”, International Public Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 85–
112. 
 
Parker, G.M. (1994), Cross-Functional Teams, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA. 
 
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997), Realistic Evaluation, SAGE Publications, London. 
 
Piercy, N., Phillips, W. and Lewis, M. (2013), "Change management in the public sector: the use of cross-
functional teams", Production Planning & Control, Vol. 24, No. 10–11, pp. 976–987. 
 
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004), Public management reform: a comparative analysis, Oxford 
University Press, Oxford, UK. 
 
Priestly, B. (2009), “An examination of the pay policy line in New Jersey libraries”, Bottom Line, Vol. 
22, No. 4, pp. 106–122. 
 
Proehl, R.A. (1996), “Enhancing the effectiveness of cross-functional teams”, Leadership & Organization 
Development Journal, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 3–10. 
 
Reyes, A.M. (1998), “Multi-Ethnic Project Team Relationships in a High-Tech Organizational Culture”, 
Anthropology of Work Review, Vol. 18, No. 2–3, pp. 30–46. 
 
Rowe, P., Boyce, R., Boyle, M. and O'Reilly, K. (2004), “A Comparative Analysis of Entrepreneurial 
Approaches Within Public Healthcare Organisations”, Australian Journal Of Public 
Administration, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 16–30. 
 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09537287.2012.666913&isi=000324088100009
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09537280802034059&isi=000257068800003
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1525%2Fawr.1998.18.2-3.30
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09513559410055224
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F10967490600766953
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-8500.2004.00375.x&isi=000221740800002
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-8500.2004.00375.x&isi=000221740800002
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FIJPSM-11-2012-0144
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fpuar.12310&isi=000350257300017
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F08880450911010924
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjsc.689
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4324%2F9780203391129
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4135%2F9781412950558.n474
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01437739610127450
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01437739610127450
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09513550210430264
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09513559610124487
Rowlinson, S. (2001), “Matrix organizational structure, culture and commitment: a Hong Kong public 
sector case study of change”, Construction Management & Economics, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 669–
673. 
 
Skærbæk, P. and Melander, P. (2004), “The politics of the changing forms of accounting: A field study of 
strategy translation in a Danish government‐owned company under privatisation”, Accounting, 
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 17–40. 
 
Stenvall, J. and Virtanen, P. (2015), “Intelligent public organizations?”, Public Organization Review, 
Published on-line 2.12.2015. Public Organiz Rev. DOI 10.1007/s11115-015-0331-1. 
 
Tevameri, T. and Virtanen, J.V. (2013), ”Tilivelvollisuuden organisointi ja ilmeneminen 
matriisirakenteessa sairaalaorganisaatiossa, case TYKS matriisiorganisaatiouudistus”, Hallinnon 
tutkimus, Vol. 32, No. 4, 251–269. 
 
Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J. (2015), Performance management in the public sector, 
2
nd
 edition, Routledge, London. 
 
van Hengel, H., Budding, T. and Groot, T. (2014), “Loosely Coupled Results Control in Dutch 
Municipalities”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 49–74. 
 
Virtanen, P. and Stenvall, J. (2014),"The evolution of public services from co-production to co-creation 
and beyond", International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 91–107. 
 
Virtanen, P. and Vakkuri, J. (2015), “Searching for organizational intelligence in the evolution of public 
sector performance management”, The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy 
Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 89–99. 
 
Virtanen, P., Stenvall, J., Kinder, T. and Hatem, O. (2016), “Do accountabilities change when public 
organisations transform to service systems?”, Financial Accountability and Management, 
accepted to be published, forthcoming. 
 
Werth, J. and Fleming, D. (2008), “Creating a ‘Super’ Agency in San Diego County”, Public Manager, 
Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 21–26. 
 
 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Ffaam.12027
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FIJLPS-03-2014-0002
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1515%2Fnispa-2015-0010&isi=000369148200004
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F01446190110066137
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09513570410525193
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F09513570410525193
 I
m
p
le
m
en
te
d
 
st
ru
ct
u
re
 
C
o
n
te
x
t 
M
o
ti
v
a
ti
o
n
 f
o
r 
d
ep
lo
y
m
e
n
t 
 
o
r 
se
a
r
ch
ed
 b
en
ef
it
s 
O
u
tc
o
m
e 
–
 I
d
en
ti
fi
ed
 u
se
fu
ln
es
s 
 
o
r 
b
en
ef
it
s 
fo
u
n
d
 
R
ef
er
en
c
e
s 
A
p
p
li
ca
ti
o
n
 a
re
a
 
P
u
b
li
c 
se
ct
o
r 
 
o
rg
a
n
iz
a
ti
o
n
 t
y
p
e 
m
at
ri
x
 
C
re
at
io
n
 o
f 
n
ew
 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 /
 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 
re
fo
rm
 
H
o
sp
it
al
s 
(U
S
 a
n
d
 
A
u
st
ra
li
a)
 
T
ra
n
si
ti
o
n
 t
o
w
ar
d
s 
h
y
b
ri
d
 o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
, 
w
h
ic
h
 c
an
 r
es
p
o
n
d
 b
et
te
r 
to
 t
as
k
 d
iv
er
si
ty
, 
so
ci
o
m
et
ri
c 
lo
ca
ti
o
n
 (
le
ad
er
s 
an
d
 f
o
ll
o
w
-
er
s)
, 
an
d
 d
is
se
m
in
at
io
n
 o
f 
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
 
U
n
cl
ea
r:
 p
ri
o
r 
to
 a
d
o
p
ti
o
n
, 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
s 
tu
rn
 
to
 t
h
ei
r 
en
v
ir
o
n
m
en
t 
fo
r 
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
 o
r 
n
o
rm
a-
ti
v
e 
su
p
p
o
rt
; 
n
o
n
-t
ec
h
n
ic
al
 m
o
ti
v
es
, 
su
ch
 a
s 
p
er
so
n
al
 e
x
p
er
ie
n
ce
s,
 a
re
 l
ar
g
el
y
 r
es
p
o
n
si
b
le
 
fo
r 
ab
an
d
o
n
m
en
t 
o
f 
th
e 
m
at
ri
x
 s
tr
u
ct
u
re
 
B
u
rn
s 
an
d
 
W
h
o
le
y
 (
1
9
9
3
) 
m
at
ri
x
 
M
o
re
 c
o
st
 e
ff
ec
ti
v
e 
an
d
 f
le
x
ib
le
 i
n
 u
ti
li
za
-
ti
o
n
 o
f 
h
u
m
an
 r
es
o
u
rc
es
 b
y
 h
o
sp
it
al
 m
er
g
er
, 
w
h
er
e 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 c
h
an
g
ed
 t
o
 a
 m
at
ri
x
 
st
ru
ct
u
re
 o
f 
p
ro
g
ra
m
s 
C
o
st
 s
av
in
g
s 
th
ro
u
g
h
 w
o
rk
fo
rc
e 
re
st
ru
ct
u
ri
n
g
, 
es
p
ec
ia
ll
y
 i
n
 t
h
e 
ar
ea
 o
f 
su
p
p
o
rt
 s
er
v
ices
 
Iv
er
so
n
 a
n
d
 
P
u
ll
m
an
 (
2
0
0
0
) 
m
at
ri
x
 
S
ta
te
 a
g
en
cy
 (
E
n
v
i-
ro
n
m
en
t 
A
g
en
cy
 
fo
r 
E
n
g
la
n
d
 a
n
d
 
W
al
es
) 
C
o
m
b
in
at
io
n
 o
f 
d
iv
er
se
 c
u
lt
u
ra
l 
g
ro
u
p
in
g
s 
w
it
h
in
 o
n
e 
n
ew
 o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 (
am
al
g
am
at
io
n
 
o
f 
ab
o
u
t 
8
6
 r
eg
u
la
to
ry
 b
o
d
ie
s)
 
U
n
cl
ea
r:
 c
re
at
io
n
 o
f 
n
ew
 o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 l
ed
 t
o
 a
 
m
is
m
at
ch
 b
et
w
ee
n
 i
n
st
it
u
ti
o
n
al
 f
o
rm
 a
n
d
 c
u
l-
tu
ra
l 
id
en
ti
ti
es
, 
re
su
lt
in
g
 i
n
 f
ai
lu
re
 t
o
 c
re
at
e 
cl
ea
r 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
al
 g
o
al
s,
 w
it
h
 n
o
 d
ev
el
o
p
-
m
en
t 
o
f 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
al
 c
u
lt
u
re
 
M
cM
ah
o
n
 
(2
0
0
4
) 
m
at
ri
x
 
R
es
p
o
n
se
 t
o
 d
iv
er
si
ty
 o
f 
d
u
ti
es
 a
n
d
 v
ar
ia
-
ti
o
n
 o
f 
th
es
e 
d
u
ti
es
 l
o
ca
ll
y
, 
w
h
en
 8
6
 s
ep
a-
ra
te
 g
o
v
er
n
m
en
ta
l 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
s 
w
er
e 
am
al
g
am
at
ed
 
U
n
cl
ea
r:
 c
o
rp
o
ra
te
 p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 m
an
ag
em
en
t 
sy
st
em
 i
n
tr
o
d
u
ce
d
 t
o
 e
n
h
an
ce
 e
ff
ec
ti
v
en
es
s 
L
aw
ri
e 
e
t 
a
l.
 
(2
0
0
4
) 
m
at
ri
x
 
G
o
v
er
n
m
en
t-
o
w
n
ed
 
li
m
it
ed
 c
o
m
p
an
y
 
(D
en
m
ar
k
) 
N
ee
d
 f
o
r 
ti
g
h
t 
co
n
tr
o
l 
o
f 
re
so
u
rc
es
 i
n
 t
ra
n
si
-
ti
o
n
 o
f 
g
o
v
er
n
m
en
t-
o
w
n
ed
 l
im
it
ed
 c
o
m
p
an
y
 
u
n
d
er
 p
ri
v
at
iz
at
io
n
 
U
n
cl
ea
r:
 m
at
ri
x
 o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 s
tr
o
n
g
ly
 c
ri
ti
-
ci
se
d
 b
y
 m
id
d
le
 m
an
ag
er
s 
S
k
æ
rb
æ
k
 a
n
d
 
M
el
an
d
er
 (
2
0
0
4
) 
m
at
ri
x
 
R
eg
io
n
al
 s
er
v
ic
e 
d
el
iv
er
y
 s
y
st
em
 o
f 
H
ea
lt
h
 a
n
d
 H
u
m
an
 
S
er
v
ic
es
 A
g
en
cy
 
(U
S
) 
T
o
 c
re
at
e 
an
 e
ff
ic
ie
n
t,
 e
ff
ec
ti
v
e 
an
d
 c
li
en
t-
fo
cu
se
d
 o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 
R
ed
u
ce
d
 o
v
er
al
l 
b
u
re
au
cr
ac
y
, 
st
af
f 
sa
v
in
g
s,
 
fr
ee
d
 f
u
n
d
s 
to
 r
ei
n
v
es
t 
in
 d
ir
ec
t 
se
rv
ic
es
; 
n
u
-
m
er
o
u
s 
se
rv
ic
e 
in
te
g
ra
ti
o
n
 e
x
am
p
le
s 
an
d
 i
n
-
cr
ea
se
d
 i
n
n
o
v
at
io
n
 a
n
d
 c
re
at
iv
it
y
; 
su
p
p
o
rt
 s
er
-
v
ic
es
 b
ec
am
e 
m
o
re
 s
er
v
ic
e-
o
ri
en
te
d
 
W
er
th
 a
n
d
 
F
le
m
in
g
 (
2
0
0
8
) 
m
at
ri
x
 
L
o
ca
l 
au
th
o
ri
ty
 
ch
il
d
re
n
´s
 s
er
v
ic
es
 
(U
K
) 
M
at
ri
x
 m
an
ag
em
en
t 
as
 a
 r
es
p
o
n
se
 t
o
 c
o
u
n
-
ci
l 
re
st
ru
ct
u
ri
n
g
 a
n
d
 b
u
d
g
et
 d
is
ag
g
re
g
at
io
n
 
in
to
 f
o
u
r 
g
eo
g
ra
p
h
ic
al
 a
re
as
 
U
n
cl
ea
r:
 m
at
ri
x
 m
an
ag
em
en
t 
sh
o
u
ld
 b
e 
in
tr
o
-
d
u
ce
d
 a
n
d
 u
se
d
 w
it
h
 c
au
ti
o
n
; 
lo
ca
l 
au
th
o
ri
ty
 
re
ta
in
ed
 m
at
ri
x
 m
an
ag
em
en
t 
fo
r 
ju
st
 t
w
o
 y
ea
rs
 
B
ro
o
k
s 
an
d
 
K
ak
ab
ad
se
 
(2
0
1
4
) 
m
at
ri
x
 
H
R
M
 a
n
d
 p
er
-
fo
rm
an
ce
 m
an
-
ag
em
en
t 
D
is
tr
ic
t 
H
ea
lt
h
 
A
u
th
o
ri
ty
 (
co
m
m
u
-
n
it
y
-b
as
ed
 p
sy
ch
o
-
g
er
ia
tr
ic
 s
er
v
ic
e)
 
M
an
ag
em
en
t 
o
f 
co
m
p
le
x
 o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
. 
P
er
-
fo
rm
an
ce
 o
f 
se
rv
ic
es
 a
n
d
 c
o
n
tr
o
l 
sy
st
em
s 
U
n
cl
ea
r:
 o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 s
tr
u
ct
u
re
 r
es
u
lt
ed
 i
n
 
m
at
ri
x
 s
tr
u
ct
u
re
 b
u
t 
re
sp
o
n
si
b
il
it
ie
s 
w
er
e 
co
m
-
p
le
x
 a
n
d
 u
n
cl
ea
r 
(a
cc
o
u
n
ta
b
il
it
y
).
 
G
o
d
d
ar
d
 (
1
9
9
2
) 
m
at
ri
x
 
H
i-
te
ch
 p
u
b
li
c 
se
c-
to
r 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 
(U
S
) 
In
te
rn
al
 a
n
d
 e
x
te
rn
al
 p
ro
je
ct
 c
o
o
rd
in
at
io
n
 
U
n
cl
ea
r:
 p
ro
je
ct
 m
an
ag
em
en
t 
cr
ea
te
d
 m
at
ri
x
 
st
ru
ct
u
re
 i
n
 w
h
ic
h
 o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
al
 f
ra
m
ew
o
rk
s 
fo
r 
p
ro
je
ct
 o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 l
ar
g
el
y
 g
u
id
ed
 t
as
k
 
R
ey
es
 (
1
9
9
8
) 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
 
fo
rc
e 
d
es
ig
n
 a
n
d
 o
p
er
at
io
n
 
m
at
ri
x
 
D
ep
ar
tm
en
t 
o
f 
la
rg
e 
ci
ty
 o
rg
an
iz
a-
ti
o
n
 (
U
S
) 
C
o
st
 s
av
in
g
s,
 i
m
p
ro
v
ed
 p
ro
je
ct
 c
o
n
tr
o
l 
an
d
 
ac
co
u
n
ta
b
il
it
y
, 
m
o
re
 e
ff
ec
ti
v
e 
m
an
ag
em
en
t 
o
f 
p
ro
je
ct
s 
M
o
v
e 
to
w
ar
d
s 
p
ro
je
ct
 m
an
ag
em
en
t 
st
y
le
 o
f 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 i
m
p
ro
v
ed
 p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 o
f 
th
e 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 w
it
h
 r
es
p
ec
t 
to
 p
ro
je
ct
 d
el
iv
er
y
 
K
u
p
re
n
as
 (
2
0
0
0
) 
m
at
ri
x
 
G
o
v
er
n
m
en
t 
d
e-
p
ar
tm
en
t 
(H
o
n
g
 
K
o
n
g
) 
E
ff
ec
ti
v
en
es
s:
 n
ee
d
 f
o
r 
p
ro
je
ct
 m
an
ag
em
en
t 
sy
st
em
 a
n
d
 n
ee
d
 t
o
 c
o
p
e 
w
it
h
 i
n
cr
ea
se
d
 
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 d
em
an
d
s 
U
n
cl
ea
r:
 m
aj
o
r 
p
ro
b
le
m
s 
in
 i
m
p
le
m
en
ta
ti
o
n
 
p
ro
ce
ss
, 
es
p
ec
ia
ll
y
 i
n
 t
h
e 
m
is
m
at
ch
 b
et
w
ee
n
 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
al
 c
u
lt
u
re
 a
s 
p
er
ce
iv
ed
 b
y
 w
o
rk
er
s 
an
d
 n
ew
 m
at
ri
x
 s
tr
u
ct
u
re
 
R
o
w
li
n
so
n
 
(2
0
0
1
) 
C
F
T
 
N
et
w
o
rk
 (
p
at
ie
n
t 
ca
re
 t
ea
m
s)
 
M
an
ag
em
en
t 
o
f 
in
n
o
v
at
io
n
 b
y
 C
F
T
s 
in
 
h
ea
lt
h
 c
ar
e.
 T
o
 b
re
ak
 t
h
ro
u
g
h
 a
n
d
 d
im
in
is
h
 
p
ro
fe
ss
io
n
al
ly
-b
as
ed
 p
ar
ad
ig
m
 c
o
n
fl
ic
ts
 a
n
d
 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
al
 p
o
li
ti
cs
. 
P
al
li
at
iv
e 
ca
re
 p
ro
fe
ss
io
n
al
s 
h
av
e 
ad
o
p
te
d
 s
el
f-
re
g
u
la
ti
n
g
 w
o
rk
 t
ea
m
s 
in
 a
 h
ig
h
ly
 u
n
ce
rt
ai
n
 
en
v
ir
o
n
m
en
t 
as
 t
h
e 
m
o
st
 s
u
it
ab
le
 h
u
m
an
 r
e-
so
u
rc
e 
st
ru
ct
u
re
 a
n
d
 p
ra
ct
ic
e.
 
D
av
is
o
n
 a
n
d
 
H
y
la
n
d
 (
2
0
0
2
) 
C
F
T
 (
IP
T
) 
F
ed
er
al
 g
o
v
er
n
m
en
t 
(U
S
) 
A
d
o
p
ti
o
n
 o
f 
in
te
g
ra
te
d
 p
ro
d
u
ct
 t
ea
m
s 
(I
P
T
s)
 i
n
 m
an
ag
in
g
 m
aj
o
r 
sy
st
em
 a
cq
u
is
i-
ti
o
n
s 
S
u
cc
es
sf
u
l 
ap
p
li
ca
ti
o
n
 o
f 
p
ri
v
at
e 
se
ct
o
r 
m
an
-
ag
em
en
t 
th
eo
ry
 t
o
 f
ed
er
al
 g
o
v
er
n
m
en
t 
B
ri
g
g
s 
an
d
 
K
le
in
er
 (
2
0
0
2
) 
C
F
T
 
F
ed
er
al
, 
st
at
e 
an
d
 
lo
ca
l 
g
o
v
er
n
m
en
ts
 
(U
S
) 
C
ro
ss
-f
u
n
ct
io
n
al
 s
o
u
rc
in
g
 t
ea
m
s 
ar
e 
u
se
d
 t
o
 
b
re
ak
 d
o
w
n
 b
ar
ri
er
s 
in
 a
n
 o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 
w
h
er
e 
d
iv
is
io
n
 o
f 
la
b
o
u
r 
an
d
 d
iv
is
io
n
s 
o
f 
ta
sk
 a
re
 p
re
v
al
en
t.
 C
F
T
´s
 a
re
 a
ls
o
 u
se
d
 t
o
 
d
ev
el
o
p
 n
ew
 b
u
si
n
es
s 
st
ra
te
g
ie
s 
an
d
 t
o
 i
m
-
p
ro
v
e 
p
ro
ce
ss
es
, 
re
d
u
ci
n
g
 c
o
st
s 
an
d
 p
ro
v
id
-
in
g
 b
et
te
r 
se
rv
ic
es
 t
o
 c
u
st
o
m
er
s.
 
C
o
m
p
et
en
ce
 m
an
ag
em
en
t;
 e
ff
ec
ti
v
e 
te
am
 m
an
-
ag
em
en
t 
an
d
 t
ea
m
 w
o
rk
 m
an
ag
em
en
t;
 g
u
id
e-
li
n
es
 f
o
r 
te
am
 f
o
rm
at
io
n
 (
m
an
ag
er
s)
 a
n
d
 
te
am
w
o
rk
 (
em
p
lo
y
ee
s)
 
A
th
an
as
aw
 
(2
0
0
3
) 
m
at
ri
x
 
P
u
b
li
c 
li
b
ra
ri
es
 
(U
S
) 
C
ri
ti
ci
sm
 o
f 
cu
rr
en
t 
m
at
ri
x
 o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 
st
ru
ct
u
re
 r
el
at
in
g
 o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 p
ay
 p
o
li
cy
 
li
n
e 
U
n
cl
ea
r:
 h
y
b
ri
d
 m
at
ri
x
-h
ie
ra
rc
h
ic
al
 s
tr
u
ct
u
re
 
re
co
m
m
en
d
ed
 a
s 
in
cr
em
en
ta
l 
ad
v
an
ce
 t
o
w
ar
d
s 
tr
ad
it
io
n
al
 h
ie
ra
rc
h
ic
al
 s
tr
u
ct
u
re
 
P
ries
tl
y
 (
2
0
0
9
) 
C
F
T
 
H
o
sp
it
al
 (
N
et
h
er
-
la
n
d
s)
 
P
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 i
m
p
ro
v
em
en
t 
in
 o
p
er
at
in
g
 
ro
o
m
s 
o
f 
h
o
sp
it
al
s 
th
ro
u
g
h
 m
u
lt
id
is
ci
p
li
-
n
ar
y
 t
ea
m
w
o
rk
 
Im
p
le
m
en
ti
n
g
 c
ro
ss
-f
u
n
ct
io
n
al
 o
p
er
at
in
g
 r
o
o
m
 
sc
h
ed
u
li
n
g
 t
ea
m
s 
d
ir
ec
tl
y
 i
m
p
ro
v
es
 o
p
er
at
in
g
 
ro
o
m
 p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 
B
it
te
r 
e
t 
a
l.
 
(2
0
1
3
) 
m
at
ri
x
 
M
u
n
ic
ip
al
it
ie
s 
(N
et
h
er
la
n
d
s)
 
Im
p
ro
v
e 
an
d
 r
es
p
o
n
d
 t
o
 i
n
co
m
p
at
ib
il
it
y
 
b
et
w
ee
n
 r
ep
o
rt
in
g
 s
tr
u
ct
u
re
 a
n
d
 o
rg
an
iz
a-
ti
o
n
al
 s
tr
u
ct
u
re
 
U
n
cl
ea
r:
 e
x
p
er
im
en
ts
 w
it
h
 n
o
 c
le
ar
 r
es
u
lt
s 
v
an
 H
en
g
el
 e
t 
a
l.
 (
2
0
1
4
) 
C
F
T
 
M
u
n
ic
ip
al
it
ie
s 
(D
en
m
ar
k
) 
H
o
w
 g
en
d
er
 d
iv
er
si
ty
 o
f 
to
p
 m
an
ag
em
en
t 
te
am
s 
su
p
p
o
rt
s 
fi
n
an
ci
al
 p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
 
G
en
d
er
 d
iv
er
si
ty
 i
n
 t
o
p
 m
an
ag
em
en
t 
te
am
s 
is
 
as
so
ci
at
ed
 w
it
h
 h
ig
h
er
 f
in
an
ci
al
 p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
, 
b
u
t 
o
n
ly
 i
n
 m
u
n
ic
ip
al
it
ie
s 
w
it
h
 a
 m
an
ag
em
en
t 
st
ru
ct
u
re
 t
h
at
 s
u
p
p
o
rt
s 
C
F
T
 w
o
rk
. 
O
p
st
ru
p
 a
n
d
 
V
il
la
d
se
n
 (
2
0
1
5
) 
C
F
T
 
S
er
v
ic
e 
d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
t 
an
d
 
p
u
b
li
c 
p
ro
cu
re
-
m
en
t 
P
u
b
li
c 
se
ct
o
r 
se
r-
v
ic
e 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 
(A
u
st
ra
li
a)
 
A
v
o
id
 c
o
m
p
et
it
io
n
 a
m
o
n
g
 d
if
fe
re
n
t 
ar
ea
s 
o
f 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
; 
en
ab
le
 t
o
 w
o
rk
 t
o
g
et
h
er
 t
o
-
w
ar
d
s 
a 
co
m
m
o
n
 g
o
al
 
C
F
T
s 
ad
d
re
ss
in
g
 p
ro
ce
ss
 i
ss
u
es
 a
re
 s
ee
n
 i
n
-
st
ru
m
en
ta
l 
in
 e
li
m
in
at
in
g
 i
n
te
rn
al
 c
o
m
p
et
it
io
n
 
N
av
ar
at
n
am
 a
n
d
 
H
ar
ri
s 
(1
9
9
4
) 
C
F
T
 
U
n
iv
er
si
ti
es
 /
 
L
ea
rn
in
g
 o
u
tc
o
m
es
 a
ss
es
sm
en
t 
o
f 
o
rg
an
iz
a-
U
si
n
g
 C
F
T
s 
an
d
 d
ev
el
o
p
in
g
 i
n
te
g
ra
ti
v
e 
sy
s-
B
en
so
n
 a
n
d
 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)
 
H
ig
h
er
 e
d
u
ca
ti
o
n
 
(U
S
) 
ti
o
n
al
 l
ea
rn
in
g
 t
o
 p
ro
v
id
e 
k
n
o
w
le
d
g
e 
w
o
rk
-
er
s 
b
u
si
n
es
se
s 
re
q
u
ir
e 
te
m
ic
 a
ss
es
sm
en
t 
p
ro
ce
ss
es
 t
o
 m
o
v
e 
b
u
si
n
es
s 
co
ll
eg
es
 t
o
w
ar
d
s 
m
o
re
 e
ff
ec
ti
v
e 
m
ea
su
re
m
en
t 
o
f 
h
o
w
 w
el
l 
co
ll
eg
es
 a
n
d
 s
tu
d
en
ts
 c
an
 i
n
te
-
g
ra
te
, 
co
m
m
u
n
ic
at
e 
an
d
 a
p
p
ly
 k
n
o
w
le
d
g
e 
in
 
co
m
p
le
x
 s
y
st
em
s 
o
f 
w
o
rk
in
g
 l
if
e 
D
re
sd
o
w
 (
1
9
9
8
) 
m
at
ri
x
 /
 C
F
T
 
H
ig
h
er
 e
d
u
ca
ti
o
n
 r
ee
n
g
in
ee
ri
n
g
 b
y
 m
ar
k
et
 
p
ri
n
ci
p
le
s 
an
d
 m
an
ag
em
en
t 
ap
p
ro
ac
h
es
 
fr
o
m
 b
u
si
n
es
s 
U
n
cl
ea
r:
 r
ee
n
g
in
ee
ri
n
g
 t
y
p
ic
al
ly
 c
ar
ri
ed
 o
u
t 
w
it
h
o
u
t 
re
g
ar
d
 t
o
 t
h
e 
n
u
an
ce
s 
o
f 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
al
 
d
es
ig
n
; 
n
o
 a
tt
en
ti
o
n
 p
ai
d
 t
o
 l
ik
el
y
 r
es
u
lt
in
g
 
co
n
fl
ic
ts
 
G
re
en
 (
2
0
0
3
) 
C
F
T
 
U
n
iv
er
sa
l 
p
u
b
li
c 
se
ct
o
r 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 
(U
K
) 
T
o
 c
re
at
e 
b
es
t 
p
o
ss
ib
le
 p
u
rc
h
as
in
g
 u
n
it
 
C
F
T
s 
h
av
e 
th
e 
n
ec
es
sa
ry
 m
ix
 o
f 
ex
p
er
ti
se
, 
as
 
an
d
 w
h
en
 r
eq
u
ir
ed
; 
fi
v
e 
n
ew
 u
n
iv
er
sa
l 
ro
le
s 
in
 
p
u
rc
h
as
in
g
 u
n
it
 
M
u
rr
ay
 (
2
0
0
2
) 
C
F
T
 
U
rb
an
 r
eg
en
er
at
io
n
 
u
n
it
s 
in
 c
it
ie
s 
(U
K
, 
D
en
m
ar
k
, 
U
S
) 
N
ew
 p
ro
d
u
ct
 d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
t 
p
ra
ct
ic
es
 o
f 
u
r-
b
an
 r
eg
en
er
at
io
n
 u
n
it
s 
C
o
ll
ab
o
ra
ti
o
n
 a
n
d
 i
n
fo
rm
at
io
n
 s
h
ar
in
g
 v
ia
 
C
F
T
s 
B
en
n
et
t 
an
d
 
S
av
an
i 
(2
0
0
4
) 
m
at
ri
x
 
P
u
b
li
c 
se
ct
o
r 
h
ea
lt
h
 
se
rv
ic
e 
o
rg
an
iz
a-
ti
o
n
 (
A
u
st
ra
li
a)
 
E
n
tr
ep
re
n
eu
ri
al
 a
p
p
ro
ac
h
 t
o
 o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 
ch
an
g
e;
 n
ee
d
 t
o
 w
o
rk
 s
m
ar
te
r 
an
d
 t
o
 o
v
er
-
co
m
e 
fu
n
ct
io
n
al
 b
ar
ri
er
s 
to
 e
ff
ic
ie
n
t 
p
ro
v
i-
si
o
n
 o
f 
sc
ar
ce
 a
ll
ie
d
 h
ea
lt
h
 s
er
v
ic
es
 t
o
 p
u
r-
ch
as
er
s 
an
d
 c
o
n
su
m
er
s 
In
te
rn
al
 m
at
ri
x
 s
tr
u
ct
u
re
 h
el
p
fu
l 
in
 d
ev
el
o
p
in
g
 
n
ew
 i
n
te
rd
is
ci
p
li
n
ar
y
 w
o
rk
 p
ra
ct
ic
es
 
R
o
w
e 
e
t 
a
l.
 
(2
0
0
4
) 
C
F
T
 
H
o
sp
it
al
s 
(U
S
) 
M
en
ta
l 
h
ea
lt
h
 o
f 
p
at
ie
n
ts
 a
n
d
 g
re
at
er
 i
m
-
p
ro
v
em
en
t 
in
 a
ct
iv
it
ie
s 
o
f 
d
ai
ly
 l
iv
in
g
 
L
ev
el
 o
f 
p
ar
ti
ci
p
at
io
n
 b
y
 t
h
e 
te
am
 a
s 
a 
w
h
o
le
 
m
ay
 b
e 
m
o
re
 i
m
p
o
rt
an
t 
fo
r 
p
at
ie
n
t 
o
u
tc
o
m
es
 
th
an
 C
F
T
s 
sm
o
o
th
 f
u
n
ct
io
n
in
g
 
A
le
x
an
d
er
 e
t 
a
l.
 
(2
0
0
5
) 
C
F
T
 
M
u
lt
ip
le
 o
rg
an
iz
a-
ti
o
n
al
 c
o
n
te
x
ts
: 
lo
ca
l 
au
th
o
ri
ty
, 
co
m
m
er
ci
al
 s
em
i-
st
at
e,
 p
o
li
ce
 f
o
rc
e,
 
an
d
 t
o
u
ri
st
 a
g
en
cy
 
(I
re
la
n
d
) 
T
o
 b
et
te
r 
u
n
d
er
st
an
d
 p
ro
ce
ss
es
 a
n
d
 c
o
n
d
i-
ti
o
n
s 
th
at
 s
u
p
p
o
rt
 d
if
fe
re
n
t 
su
p
p
ly
 a
rr
an
g
e-
m
en
ts
 a
n
d
 m
ax
im
iz
e 
S
M
E
 p
ar
ti
ci
p
at
io
n
 
C
F
T
s 
as
 a
n
 i
m
p
o
rt
an
t 
el
em
en
t 
in
 p
u
b
li
c 
p
ro
-
cu
re
m
en
t 
p
ro
ce
ss
es
 
M
cK
ev
it
t 
e
t 
a
l.
 
(2
0
1
4
) 
m
at
ri
x
 
N
et
w
o
rk
 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 /
 
in
te
r-
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
al
 
co
ll
ab
o
ra
ti
o
n
 
L
o
ca
l 
au
th
o
ri
ti
es
 
(U
K
) 
P
u
b
li
c-
p
ri
v
at
e 
p
ar
tn
er
sh
ip
 i
n
 t
o
u
ri
sm
 m
ar
-
k
et
in
g
 d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
t 
T
o
u
ri
sm
 d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
t 
co
m
p
an
y
 (
P
P
P
) 
ca
n
 b
e 
se
en
 a
s 
an
 e
x
te
n
si
o
n
 o
f 
m
at
ri
x
-t
y
p
e 
st
ru
ct
u
re
 
w
it
h
in
 l
o
ca
l 
au
th
o
ri
ty
, 
le
ad
in
g
 t
o
 d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
t 
o
f 
a 
“s
ea
m
le
ss
” 
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
 
P
al
m
er
 (
1
9
9
6
) 
 
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
ca
st
le
 A
t 0
5:
37
 2
7 
M
ar
ch
 2
01
7 
(P
T
)