Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti

Results
Figure 9 The program structure in Bureau
The management approach of the program was changed for the detailed
planning phase and the responsibility for planning was decentralized. At
this stage, the program manager and the program owner both left the
program organization for other duties. Each project was assigned a
schedule and some guidelines, but the details of the technical
implementation were left to be worked out by the project managers and
their teams. The projects were interrelated, but operated fairly
independently and were scheduled to reach implementation at different
stages. There were no program-wide consultants or contractors, but each
project chose its own partners. There was very little program-level
coordination, and very few program-level management mechanisms. The
program steering group did not meet very often and was described by the
interviewees as fairly inactive. The communication between the projects
relied largely on the personal networks of the project managers.
Different projects took very different approaches to detailed planning. In
some projects, the planning work was led by a determined project manager
with a clear vision and a strong authority. In other projects, external
contractors took over the responsibility for planning. The high level of
autonomy in project planning seemed to motivate some of the project
managers, whereas others desired more guidance and clearer specifications
and their projects did not proceed as fast as had been desired.
At the time of the interviews, the program was in early implementation.
One project had reached closure and its results were handed over to the line
organization. Another project was about to reach completion, one year
ahead of the original schedule. This project was regarded as highly
successful, although some criticized the project manager of defining the
110