Ambiguous jurisdiction, where authority and responsibilities are unclear, is more common in functional or weak matrix organizations than in strong matrix or projectized organizations. Why does this happen more often in functional or weak matrix structures?

Introduction / Context:
Organizational structure strongly influences how authority and responsibilities are distributed in projects. Ambiguous jurisdiction occurs when it is not clear who has the right to make decisions or direct work. This is a key issue in matrix environments. Understanding why functional and weak matrix structures create more ambiguity helps the project manager anticipate and manage conflicts.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- The comparison is between functional or weak matrix organizations and strong matrix or projectized organizations. - The phenomenon being discussed is ambiguous jurisdiction. - The question asks why ambiguity is more common in functional or weak matrix structures. - Standard PMI definitions of organizational structures are assumed.

Concept / Approach:
In a functional organization, authority is concentrated in functional managers. In a weak matrix, the project manager has limited authority and often acts more like a coordinator or expediter. The result is overlapping lines of authority between functional managers and project managers. Team members may receive conflicting directions and may not be sure whose priorities to follow. In contrast, strong matrix and projectized organizations give the project manager clearer authority, reducing ambiguity about who is in charge of project work.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Recall that functional and weak matrix structures favor functional managers, leaving the project manager with less formal authority. Step 2: Recognize that this overlap in control often leads to conflicts about who can assign work or approve changes. Step 3: Evaluate the options and select the one that directly mentions conflict between functional managers and project managers as the cause of ambiguous jurisdiction. Step 4: Confirm that this explanation fits the known characteristics of functional and weak matrix organizations.

Verification / Alternative check:
Another way to verify the answer is to think about projectized organizations, where the project manager has most of the authority and functional managers play a supporting role. In such organizations, jurisdiction over project work is clear. If ambiguous jurisdiction mainly arises from overlapping authority between functional and project managers, it logically follows that it is more common in structures where this overlap is strongest, that is, functional and weak matrix organizations.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A is wrong because organization size does not automatically determine the level of ambiguity; structure and authority distribution are more important. Option C is wrong because legal and regulatory issues can arise in any structure and do not specifically explain ambiguous jurisdiction. Option D is wrong because it is an opinion statement about best companies rather than an explanation of ambiguous jurisdiction. Option E is wrong because functional and matrix organizations often do use organizational charts; ambiguity comes from shared authority, not from lack of charts.

Common Pitfalls:
A common misunderstanding is to think that matrix structures always clarify roles by combining expertise, when in reality they also create dual reporting lines. Another pitfall is to assume that strong matrix organizations have the same level of ambiguity as weak matrix structures, even though the project manager has more authority in a strong matrix. Project managers should also be careful not to attribute every conflict to personality issues when structural ambiguity is often the underlying cause.

Final Answer:
Ambiguous jurisdiction is more common in functional or weak matrix structures because conflict between functional managers and project managers over authority is more common in functional or weak matrix structures.