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

Results
Q8 (Bureau, project participant): “Of course, when the same people do similar
tasks in the line organization and in the project, it is very difficult to identify
whether it is project work or line work.”
Compared to case Center, the program management approach caused less
confusion in Bureau, where there was a long history of systematically
managed internal projects. Still, internal change programs of this
magnitude had never been implemented. Many interviewees recognized
that the program involved a mode of working that was distinct from the
traditional work mode of Bureau. As an example, one program participant
characterized the differences in the mode of working in the following way:
Q9 (Bureau, middle manager of a central unit involved in the program): "One
noticeable difference in the work methods is that in [the program] we have
clearly sought for partnerships and partner companies, and we have
outsourced larger entities than before."
Bureau’s hierarchical organization structure and the organization’s
fragmentation into separate, strong units were reflected in the change
program as indicators of an authority boundary. The responsibilities in
Bureau’s program were mostly clear and well-defined, but they were largely
dictated by, and restricted by, the authority structure of the line
organization. One support team manager described:
Q10 (Bureau, support team manager): “The implementation of a large program
is a huge challenge in a functional, hierarchical organization such as ours. In
principle, the program or project manager’s resources and authority are
precisely as high as his or her position in the line organization.”
The original program manager and the original program owner utilized
Bureau’s formal decision-making hierarchy and gained the required
authority by actively lobbying for top management support for the program.
When the top management was convinced about the need for change, the
program was granted substantial authority. Thus, the authority boundaries
evolved during the early program stages due to actions of the key program
actors.
The geographical fragmentation of the Bureau’s organizational units was
also manifested as physical and spatial boundaries, providing challenges
for cooperation during program planning. In Bureau, virtual
communication tools were quite actively utilized to maintain contact
between the geographically scattered units. Such tools were also utilized in
the program work.
Related to a temporal boundary, the findings in Bureau resembled those
in Center. Some peripheral program participants in Bureau stated how it
was hard to find time to participate in program planning due to other
122