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

Results
change program, and some even connected the program with the special
interests of the R&D unit, instead of viewing it as something that would
concern their own unit and themselves. Although the interviewees in Center
were pointed out by the contact persons as central program participants,
most of the interviewed people did not truly identify with the change
program, but rather saw their own role as an external observer or as a
peripheral, casual participant. For example, the steering group members
did not view themselves as a part of the program organization, but rather
thought that they were monitoring and evaluating the program from the
outside. Some people also expressed skepticism towards the entire program
management approach, especially in their particular organizational context,
and did not want to identify with the approach. In the following quote, a
top manager characterizes his position in the program:
Q6 (Center, top manager): “I’m currently an observer. I observe [the program]
from aside … I’m still doubtful about what this program can offer us.”
Finally, in addition to the above discussed boundary types, it seemed that in
Center many interviewees lacked knowledge about the program, its goals
and the current status. These observations were interpreted as
demonstrations of a knowledge boundary, indicating unequal distribution
of knowledge across the change program’s boundary. The following quote
from a peripheral program participant illustrates the knowledge boundary:
Q7 (Center, peripheral program participant): “If we ask people, I think that half
of them would say they are familiar with this, but another half hasn’t even
heard of this. … The unit managers are aware of this, but at the expert level it
depends on whether one has a general interest in these things.”
To summarize the observations concerning case Center, the overall
boundary between the change program and the parent organization was
noticeably high. Authority boundaries, temporal boundaries, and social and
identity boundaries were especially visible. The program was viewed as very
different and distinct from the other parts of the organization. In Center,
the program--parent organization boundary remained high during the
initiation stage and did not seem to evolve significantly across time.
Case Bureau demonstrated some differences but also certain similarities
with Center in terms of the program boundary. Firstly, related to the task
boundary, in Bureau some of the program participants also reported that
their responsibilities in the program dealt with similar issues as their daily
work. Consequently, some of these interviewees stated that it was
sometimes hard to distinguish between program work and line work. An
expert participating in one of the projects in Bureau’s program described
the situation:
121