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 />
The characteristics of the three investigated programs were also similar to<br />
some extent. The decisions to initiate the programs were in all three cases<br />
triggered by multiple reasons, including both external <strong>and</strong> internal triggers.<br />
All case programs were significant both in terms of their potential effects on<br />
the parent organization <strong>and</strong> the scope of the program organization. All<br />
three case programs represented a novel challenge to the case organization.<br />
Also the duration of the initiation stage was somewhat similar, taking in<br />
each case a couple of years. In all three cases a majority of the program<br />
personnel per<strong>for</strong>med program work in addition to other duties, <strong>and</strong> there<br />
were very few (if any) full-time resources committed to the programs.<br />
Despite the many similarities across the cases, there were some visible<br />
differences. Although a large number of indications of possibly relevant<br />
contextual factors were identified that may have a role in explaining the<br />
differences, the main findings were summarized into four factors that<br />
systematically appeared in the three cases. Together these four factors seem<br />
to provide considerable explanatory power to illuminate the differences<br />
across the three cases. Next, each of these four factors is introduced.<br />
4.6.1 Authority, ability <strong>and</strong> commitment of the program’s central<br />
managers<br />
The first contextual factor relates to the authority, ability, <strong>and</strong> commitment<br />
of the program’s central managers. As mentioned above, boundary<br />
<strong>activities</strong> were analyzed to contribute to all other dimensions of <strong>readiness</strong><br />
<strong>for</strong> change program implementation, except <strong>for</strong> the existence of skillful,<br />
committed <strong>and</strong> charismatic leaders. In this case, the causality rather<br />
seemed to run in the other direction: skillful, charismatic <strong>and</strong> committed<br />
leaders were those who actively per<strong>for</strong>med boundary <strong>activities</strong> in order to<br />
achieve the required <strong>readiness</strong>.<br />
In case Center, there appeared to be a lack of strong managers who<br />
would be in charge of leading the program. The original program owner had<br />
left Center fairly soon after the program launch, <strong>and</strong> the remaining top<br />
managers were unable to decide who should take the owner’s position. In<br />
fact, none of the top managers seemed willing to take over the role. The<br />
expert who was appointed as the program manager did not possess<br />
significant authority in the organization, <strong>and</strong> he did not have a strong vision<br />
of what the program should encompass <strong>and</strong> how it should be organized <strong>and</strong><br />
managed. Although the program manager engaged in fairly active ef<strong>for</strong>ts of<br />
presenting the early program ideas in various meetings <strong>and</strong> seminars across<br />
Center’s organization, his primary purpose seemed to be to gather opinions<br />
<strong>and</strong> comments that could be used as a basis <strong>for</strong> goal setting <strong>and</strong> planning,<br />
instead of trying to make others convinced of the need <strong>for</strong> the program <strong>and</strong><br />
166