Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Results<br />
categories, based on the activity type. Still, boundary <strong>activities</strong> representing<br />
all ten types could be found in all three cases, with one exception: in case<br />
Center, no intentional enclosing <strong>activities</strong> could be found. Next, the most<br />
visible case-specific differences in the occurrences of boundary activity<br />
types are described.<br />
In comparison to the other two cases, Center demonstrated a larger<br />
proportion of instances of positioning <strong>and</strong> negotiating <strong>activities</strong> (18% of all<br />
described <strong>activities</strong> in case Center, compared to 10% in Chain <strong>and</strong> only 5%<br />
in Bureau). A significant part of the early program activity in Center was<br />
<strong>for</strong>med of negotiations between the program’s key actors <strong>and</strong> the managers<br />
of the line organization. Another type of boundary activity that was<br />
relatively more common in Center was in<strong>for</strong>ming (36% in Center, compared<br />
to 28% in Chain <strong>and</strong> 21% in Bureau). As an example, Center’s program<br />
manager spent a lot of time attending various meetings, seminars, <strong>and</strong><br />
events where he presented the main ideas behind the program.<br />
Compared to the other two cases, case Bureau demonstrated a larger<br />
proportion of instances of legitimating <strong>and</strong> committing <strong>activities</strong> (18% in<br />
Bureau, while only 10% in Chain <strong>and</strong> just 4% in Center). Illustrating this<br />
finding, in Bureau the program <strong>activities</strong> were started with a current state<br />
analysis <strong>and</strong> a series of planning workshops that, according to the<br />
program’s key managers, aimed at legitimating the changes. Case chain, <strong>for</strong><br />
its part, demonstrated a larger proportion of instances of enclosing<br />
<strong>activities</strong> (6% in Chain, while only 2% in Bureau <strong>and</strong> none in Center). These<br />
enclosing <strong>activities</strong> consisted of active ef<strong>for</strong>ts to keep the confidential<br />
program plans within a small group of people.<br />
A familiar trend across the three cases could also be observed in the<br />
number of distinct boundary <strong>activities</strong> (see Table 14). Case Chain<br />
demonstrated more than three times as many distinct boundary <strong>activities</strong><br />
as Center <strong>and</strong> almost twice as many as in Bureau, indicating that in Chain a<br />
significantly larger spectrum of different <strong>activities</strong> were employed to<br />
manage the program’s boundaries. Similar boundary <strong>activities</strong> were found<br />
across the cases, <strong>and</strong> in some instances a similar activity was reported in all<br />
three cases. As an example, in<strong>for</strong>ming <strong>activities</strong> in all case organizations<br />
included reporting to the management group about the program as well as<br />
organizing briefing sessions about the <strong>for</strong>thcoming changes to the<br />
personnel. Resource seeking in all three cases included a search <strong>for</strong> suitable<br />
project managers, <strong>and</strong> positioning <strong>activities</strong> included negotiation meetings<br />
between the key program actors <strong>and</strong> the top managers of line operations.<br />
The complete lists of distinct boundary <strong>activities</strong> in each case are not<br />
presented due to confidentiality reasons.<br />
136