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 />
During the analysis, the targets of the boundary <strong>activities</strong> were also<br />
examined. A systematic analysis of the targets could not be conducted since<br />
they often were not mentioned by the interviewees, but a general view from<br />
each case was drawn. In case Center, boundary <strong>activities</strong> were largely<br />
focused towards the peripheral program participants <strong>and</strong> towards Center’s<br />
top managers, <strong>and</strong> very few <strong>activities</strong> involved the main targets of the<br />
change program, i.e. the member organizations of Center. In the other two<br />
cases, boundary <strong>activities</strong> were targeted at all organizational levels <strong>and</strong> at<br />
various stakeholder groups within the organizations. In Bureau <strong>and</strong> in<br />
Chain, a relatively larger share of boundary <strong>activities</strong> was targeted towards<br />
the change recipients, in both cases referring mainly to the personnel in<br />
regional units. However, in all three cases several interviewees expressed<br />
fears that the change recipients had not been included actively enough.<br />
Yet another central observation that relates especially to case Center was<br />
that instead of describing actual boundary <strong>activities</strong>, Center’s interviewees<br />
often described what they thought that should already have been done or<br />
what should be done in the future. Consequently, an additional code<br />
category was created during the coding process, describing the desired or<br />
future actions. These hypothetical <strong>activities</strong> are naturally not included in<br />
the counts of boundary <strong>activities</strong> presented in Table 14, but they rather<br />
illustrate the lack of actual boundary activity in Center. As an example,<br />
several peripheral program participants stated that they knew very little<br />
about the program’s situation, <strong>and</strong> they expressed their wishes <strong>for</strong> more<br />
communication. Many also complained that the program remained distant<br />
from the daily work of Center’s experts <strong>and</strong> stated that this work could be<br />
linked better to the program. The quote below provides an example of these<br />
desired <strong>activities</strong>:<br />
Q37 (Steering group member of Center’s program): “[The program] should<br />
probably be made more visible <strong>and</strong> people within our organization should be<br />
in<strong>for</strong>med about it. … The communication should be ensured <strong>and</strong> the program<br />
should be linked to the <strong>activities</strong> of our experts.”<br />
To conclude the findings of the cross-case analysis, case Chain<br />
demonstrates a significantly high volume of boundary activity <strong>and</strong> clearly<br />
the most active boundary management across the three cases. When<br />
compared to the other two cases, case Center shows lower boundary<br />
activity, indicating relatively inactive boundary management. While case<br />
Bureau falls between these two, it still indicates fairly active boundary<br />
management, with a considerably high volume of boundary activity.<br />
137