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

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