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

Results
stronger during the course of the program. It seemed that after the program
had been divided into projects, the program had become more distant from
the rest of the organization. The projects were considerably autonomous
and there was little program-wide coordination that would link the
program to the line organization’s management structure.
Case Chain seemed to differ from the other two cases in some aspects
related to the program boundaries. Firstly, concerning the task boundary,
the program management approach did not cause much confusion. In
Chain, temporary organizing was familiar to the personnel: there was a long
tradition of internal projects, and there had been some attempts of smaller
programs, even though these programs were described as somewhat
unsuccessful. Overall, program work was viewed as similar to project work
and the program as a way of organizing internal development activities was
fairly well understood and accepted. Still, a few people compared the
program to simpler and clearer projects and complained about the
program’s lack of clear targets and a vision of the end state:
Q14 (Chain, sub-program manager): “Somehow it still bothers me that I cannot
see the overall picture ... We do not know the end result. And this in my opinion
makes the program so challenging.”
In Chain, the authority boundary between the program and the parent
organization seemed weak. The program structure was designed in a way
that linked the program closely to the line organization’s decision making
processes and forums. Many of the central managers of Domain’s (the main
business division involved in the program) operations became heavily
involved in the program based on their position in the line organization and
their management board role. They were appointed as the managers of the
program’s development areas, and they together formed the program’s
steering group. This provided a clear connection between the program and
Chain’s permanent activities. The following quote from a steering group
member describes this connection:
Q15 (Chain, steering group member): ”In my own [development area], I also
genuinely have the business responsibility for this entity, so one could say that I
have a deeper interest to take care of all these entities and to make sure that
each reach their results.”
Further related to the authority boundary, Chain’s program coordinator did
not originally possess much formal or informal authority, but he gradually
gained more authority in the program as he demonstrated managerial
capabilities and his knowledge on the program’s topic area accumulated.
The gained authority was visualized in the change of his title from program
coordinator to program manager. Also, the original program owner was
124