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 />
As Figure 13 shows, in comparison to the two other cases, case Center<br />
demonstrated very little boundary activity <strong>and</strong> also the lowest level of<br />
<strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong> change program implementation. As boundary <strong>activities</strong> were<br />
analyzed to contribute to this <strong>readiness</strong> in many ways, the lower amount of<br />
boundary activity in Center may be a central explanation <strong>for</strong> Center’s low<br />
<strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong> change. The instances of inactive or lacking boundary activity<br />
in case Center support the proposition that boundary <strong>activities</strong> are essential<br />
during the early stage of change programs. For example, the lack of<br />
legitimating <strong>and</strong> committing <strong>activities</strong> in case Center may explain why<br />
Center’s change program was not perceived legitimate, <strong>and</strong> also why the top<br />
management did not seem to genuinely support the program.<br />
In case Bureau <strong>and</strong> especially in case Chain, more active boundary<br />
management was detected, <strong>and</strong> also the <strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong> change program<br />
implementation in these two cases was significantly higher. Case Chain<br />
demonstrated the most frequent boundary management, <strong>and</strong> also the<br />
highest level of <strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong> change program implementation. These<br />
results, complemented with the identified associations between the<br />
different types of boundary <strong>activities</strong> <strong>and</strong> the various indicators of <strong>readiness</strong><br />
<strong>for</strong> change, suggest that boundary <strong>activities</strong> have a central role in building<br />
<strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong> change program implementation.<br />
4.6 Identified contextual factors contributing to the differences<br />
across the cases<br />
The differences in how the three case programs proceeded <strong>and</strong> how they<br />
had succeeded in program initiation may be examined through contextual<br />
differences. Some aspects of the programs’ context appear as possible<br />
explanations to the identified differences. Be<strong>for</strong>e discussing these<br />
differences, the similarities of the cases are examined. A certain level of<br />
similarity was guaranteed from the beginning by the common criteria in<br />
case selection (see section 3.3). The analysis revealed a number of<br />
additional similarities across the three cases.<br />
First of all, many of the characteristics of the change programs’ parent<br />
organizations were similar. All three organizations can be described as<br />
traditional, hierarchical organizations dominated by strong functional<br />
units. In all three organizations, there was a long history of projects <strong>and</strong> at<br />
least some guidelines <strong>for</strong> project management, but either there were not<br />
any previous examples of programs, or the previous development ef<strong>for</strong>ts<br />
characterized as programs were not perceived as very successful. There<br />
were no defined processes or guidelines <strong>for</strong> program management in any of<br />
the organizations.<br />
165