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 />
In case Center, the overall <strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong> change program<br />
implementation appeared to be very poor. Firstly, Center’s program lacked<br />
a shared intent. Although all seemed to agree that the program’s topic was<br />
important <strong>and</strong> there was a need <strong>for</strong> change, the program’s role, goals, scope<br />
<strong>and</strong> content remained unclear. Secondly, the program goals remained at a<br />
too high level <strong>and</strong> they could not provide the desired guidance <strong>for</strong> preparing<br />
more detailed plans <strong>and</strong> defining the scope of the program. The initial goals<br />
were defined as very ambitious <strong>and</strong> extremely relevant, but the key program<br />
actors were struggling to translate them into more tangible <strong>and</strong> measurable<br />
objectives. Also, while the basic structure <strong>for</strong> the program organization had<br />
been sketched, consisting of three sub-programs with responsible<br />
managers, there were visible difficulties in further defining the program<br />
management model <strong>and</strong> the <strong>activities</strong> of each sub-program. One expert who<br />
had been involved in one of the three sub-programs described the situation:<br />
Q38 (Center, peripheral program participant): “It keeps bothering me that we<br />
don’t seem to really know where we are with this program. The work approach<br />
has been somewhat loose, concerning both [this sub-program] <strong>and</strong> the<br />
coordination of this whole entity. It sometimes feels that we don’t keep our feet<br />
on the ground.”<br />
Center’s program also lacked resources, as there were clearly too few<br />
committed people. Illustrating this notion, the interviewees were<br />
nominated by the key program actors as central program participants, but<br />
based on their own accounts, most of them saw themselves as outsiders or<br />
as peripheral participants <strong>and</strong> did not truly identify with the program.<br />
Many of the interviewees of the second round of interviews were revealed to<br />
be unaware of the program’s status, <strong>and</strong> they did not seem motivated to<br />
contribute to the program. With the exception of the program manager <strong>and</strong><br />
program coordinator, work time was not clearly allocated to the program<br />
<strong>activities</strong>. The key program actors claimed that the resources <strong>for</strong> the<br />
program work were too scarce <strong>and</strong> in no proportion to the ambitious goals<br />
<strong>and</strong> initial schedules. Practically all of the more peripheral program<br />
participants stated that they were too busy with other duties to get more<br />
actively involved in the program. Many blamed the lack of dedicated<br />
resources <strong>for</strong> the slow progress of the program. An example of these<br />
accounts is given below.<br />
Q39: (Center, Sub-program manager): “Doing this in addition to other duties,<br />
many other tasks, is a problem in our organization … That’s why these<br />
initiation <strong>activities</strong> have taken so long. Not until our latest meeting did we agree<br />
on finalizing the sub-program plan. Obviously these things could have been<br />
done much faster.”<br />
140