Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti

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