Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Research methodology <strong>and</strong> data<br />
program core team members’ boundary <strong>activities</strong>, leaving the programrelated<br />
actions of outsiders out of the analysis (except when these had<br />
triggered core team members’ boundary <strong>activities</strong>). Other principles<br />
concerned the focus, nature, timing, <strong>and</strong> target of the <strong>activities</strong>. Table 11<br />
describes the principles that were used in determining whether the<br />
identified <strong>activities</strong> were interpreted as boundary <strong>activities</strong>.<br />
Table 11 Principles <strong>for</strong> identifying boundary <strong>activities</strong> during the analysis<br />
Principle<br />
Focus on the programparent<br />
organization<br />
boundary<br />
Focus on human action<br />
Program core team<br />
member(s) as actor(s)<br />
Target of the activity<br />
within the parent<br />
organization<br />
Timing of the activity<br />
Description<br />
The activity must somehow address the boundary between the<br />
program <strong>and</strong> its parent organization, either by defining,<br />
crossing or blocking the boundary. The program’s internal<br />
<strong>activities</strong> that do not address the boundary are not included in<br />
the analysis.<br />
The activity needs to directly refer to human action.<br />
(Example: mentioning the existence of a <strong>for</strong>mal integration<br />
mechanism such as a reward system or a decision making<br />
process is not interpreted as a boundary activity. However,<br />
creating those mechanisms in the negotiations between the<br />
parties or utilizing those mechanisms by communicating across<br />
the boundary may be counted as a boundary activity, if other<br />
conditions apply.)<br />
The activity must be per<strong>for</strong>med by a representative of the<br />
program organization. Still, the activity may be triggered by<br />
the actions of those representing the parent organization.<br />
(Example: if a certain group in the parent organization is<br />
actively lobbying against the program, this is not interpreted as<br />
a boundary activity. However, the counteractions of the key<br />
program actors, such as negotiations <strong>and</strong> communications<br />
between that group <strong>and</strong> the program’s key actors may be<br />
counted as boundary <strong>activities</strong>, if other conditions apply.)<br />
The activity needs to be directed at those representing the<br />
parent organization. Extra-organizational boundary <strong>activities</strong><br />
that cross the parent organization’s boundaries, such as<br />
communication <strong>and</strong> cooperation with external consultants or<br />
suppliers, are not included in the analysis, unless they<br />
simultaneously concern those within the parent organization.<br />
The activity must occur during program initiation. The<br />
duration of the initiation stage was defined case-specifically<br />
during the first phase of the analysis (see section 4.1 <strong>for</strong> these<br />
definitions).<br />
When going through the interview data, every time when an excerpt was<br />
identified in the interview transcripts that fulfilled the defined criteria <strong>for</strong> a<br />
boundary activity, the quotation was recorded as a boundary activity <strong>and</strong> it<br />
was connected to the code representing the corresponding boundary<br />
activity type. If a corresponding code did not yet exist, a new code was<br />
created or an existing code was extended <strong>and</strong> relabeled to include the newly<br />
identified activity type. It became apparent during the early days of the<br />
analysis that many <strong>activities</strong> described by the in<strong>for</strong>mants were not related<br />
to just one type of boundary activity, but simultaneously represented two<br />
94