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