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 />
defined nor linear. … It has been very important to find those people who can<br />
tolerate this uncertainty.”<br />
Table 18 also shows how boundary <strong>activities</strong> were utilized to commit <strong>and</strong><br />
involve senior management in the change programs. Firstly, various kinds<br />
of in<strong>for</strong>ming <strong>activities</strong> aimed at keeping top management in<strong>for</strong>med of the<br />
program’s key events <strong>and</strong> progress. The following example from case<br />
Bureau illustrates these <strong>activities</strong>:<br />
Q64 (Bureau, middle manager of a central unit involved in the program): “It has<br />
been communicated quite a lot towards the [line management], so the line<br />
managers have accepted this <strong>and</strong> realized its importance. It has also been<br />
communicated to the management of [the business division], so they know quite<br />
well how this will be done.”<br />
As the previous quote shows, communicating about the programs to top<br />
management often aimed at ensuring line management’s support <strong>for</strong><br />
program work. The analysis demonstrated how legitimating <strong>and</strong><br />
committing <strong>activities</strong> were per<strong>for</strong>med to actively convince top management<br />
to get involved in the change programs <strong>and</strong> to visibly demonstrate their<br />
support. Such <strong>activities</strong> were especially common in Bureau, where the<br />
program manager explained that the ultimate aim of the current state<br />
analysis conducted at program initiation was to convince top management<br />
to support the program. The following quote shows how in Bureau the<br />
program owner was in a central role in gaining top management<br />
commitment.<br />
Q65 (Bureau, program manager): “After he was appointed, [the program owner]<br />
examined this <strong>for</strong> a couple of months <strong>and</strong> then he stated that “This is how we’ll<br />
do it”, <strong>and</strong> he started to take this <strong>for</strong>ward with full speed. And through active<br />
ef<strong>for</strong>ts he was able to get every top manager in [Bureau] committed to this,<br />
which was very valuable.”<br />
Table 18 shows how there were as many as four types of boundary<br />
<strong>activities</strong> associated with making the environment more receptive to<br />
change by preparing the change recipients <strong>for</strong> the <strong>for</strong>thcoming changes.<br />
Firstly, linking <strong>activities</strong> created connections between the programs <strong>and</strong><br />
various parts of their parent organizations, which contributed to making<br />
the recipients aware of the programs’ impacts. Such <strong>activities</strong> were<br />
especially common in Chain, where each of the program’s projects<br />
established its specific connections to the line organization, such as to<br />
support units, permanent decision-making <strong>for</strong>ums, <strong>and</strong> local units. The<br />
following quote illustrates these <strong>activities</strong>.<br />
Q66 (Chain, sub-program manager): “Naturally, when we proceed to the<br />
implementation stage, the role of [the local units] will increase. Thus, during<br />
155