Top heavy vs Bottom heavy

Someone once asked me which do you prefer : projects which are “top-heavy” or “bottom-heavy”? He was referring to the project management context. My knee jerk reaction was that nobody would want either. But thinking about it later allowed that the challenges that firms face plays significant role in how projects can be effectively organized.

Top-heavy systems have an excess of management resources. It potentially risks having a bigger hierarchy with a corresponding loss in efficient communication. Bottom-heavy systems have more task-specific professionals. It potentially risks underutilization of resources due to lack of tracking and loss of direction.

Some roles can be classified as part of “management” hierarchy and give the appearance of top-heavy projects. Roles such as Project Management Admin, Change Management, Bridge-to-business, Training roles can be classified as management lending the appearance that projects are top-heavy. There can be no one-size fits all guideline on whether the roles should require a specific specialist or should be consolidated into team lead/project management roles. Project size and complexity dictates whether such roles are required.

In my view, projects that are true-top heavy are characterized by low span of control and many levels of hierarchy, not withstanding specialist project roles mentioned above. In my experience, very few SAP projects in Australia are run this way. The projects that I have had the privilege of joining have dual hierarchies representing joint ownership between clients and the implementing partners. Most often, the inefficiencies arise out of role-conflict between parties owing to different parent company allegiances rather than the sheer number of personnel – whether specialists or management oriented.

So if the number of personnel types is not the primary question to ask for effective project organization, what is?

The top-end plays more than just an administrative role. They play a role in developing a position for long-term goals. In self-managing teams, the top-end administrative tasks are almost negligible. The bottom end, on the other hand, concentrates on the finishing the task at hand. So for example, if the project relates to long-term strategies impacting values on market positioning or internal culture change, then do not shy from a top-heavy structure. In contrast, fairly task oriented, specialist development can be done bottom-heavy.

The challenge that the firms faces plays a significant role in how projects can be effectively organized. The two ideas I am advocating here are : (1) position management levels for strategic leadership and ; (2) enable task specialists to effectively self-organize and adapt to changing market requirements.