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 />
Table 17 Identified associations between the boundary <strong>activities</strong> <strong>and</strong> the intent of the change<br />
program<br />
<strong>Boundary</strong> activity types<br />
Visible need<br />
<strong>and</strong> pressure<br />
<strong>for</strong> change <strong>and</strong><br />
sustained<br />
momentum<br />
Intent<br />
Clear <strong>and</strong><br />
shared vision,<br />
sense of<br />
direction, <strong>and</strong><br />
commonly<br />
accepted goals<br />
Purposeful plan<br />
<strong>for</strong> change<br />
content, change<br />
process, <strong>and</strong><br />
program<br />
structure<br />
Positioning <strong>and</strong> negotiating X X<br />
Linking<br />
Task coordinating<br />
In<strong>for</strong>mation seeking X X<br />
Resource seeking<br />
In<strong>for</strong>ming<br />
Legitimating <strong>and</strong> committing<br />
Influencing<br />
Guarding<br />
Enclosing<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
X<br />
As Table 17 indicates, in<strong>for</strong>ming <strong>activities</strong> as well as legitimating <strong>and</strong><br />
committing <strong>activities</strong> were seen to contribute to the visible need <strong>and</strong><br />
pressure <strong>for</strong> change <strong>and</strong> sustained momentum. The data indicates how<br />
boundary <strong>activities</strong> did not create the need <strong>and</strong> pressure <strong>for</strong> change, but<br />
they were utilized to make a wider audience of people aware of the need <strong>and</strong><br />
to make them agree with the reasoning behind launching the change<br />
program. Firstly, according to the analysis, various kinds of in<strong>for</strong>ming<br />
<strong>activities</strong> were per<strong>for</strong>med to communicate the need <strong>and</strong> pressure <strong>for</strong><br />
change. In all three cases, the need <strong>for</strong> change had been acknowledged by<br />
the key managers even several years be<strong>for</strong>e the program launch, but after<br />
the change programs were officially initiated, in<strong>for</strong>ming others about the<br />
need <strong>for</strong> change became a significant activity. To give an example, the<br />
program owner in Chain described these <strong>activities</strong> in the following way:<br />
Q53 (Chain, program owner): “To get people to wake up <strong>and</strong> realize that there is<br />
a need <strong>for</strong> change, <strong>and</strong> to point out that something is happening <strong>and</strong> we need to<br />
change in order to survive also in the future, all this has required a lot of<br />
discussion … Nowadays we don’t need to talk about this that much, we don’t<br />
need to assure people that something is happening. But we have spent a lot of<br />
resources on talking about those changes during the past two years.”<br />
Similarly as in<strong>for</strong>ming <strong>activities</strong>, the data shows how legitimating <strong>and</strong><br />
committing <strong>activities</strong> aimed at making people acknowledge <strong>and</strong> accept the<br />
need <strong>for</strong> change, <strong>and</strong> also at sustaining the commitment to the change<br />
150