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

Results
authority, but he gradually gained a lot of respect as his knowledge on the
program’s content increased and he demonstrated managerial capabilities.
This increased authority was formally enforced when the new program
owner officially appointed him as the program manager. The following
quote provides an example of how the capabilities of the newly appointed
program manager were described among the program participants:
Q84 (Chain, expert involved in the program): “If there are loose ends, [the
program manager] spots them very quickly. Extremely good cooperation skills
are his advantage, and his approach to issues is dedicated and positive. He is
not a technocrat, he can be firm when needed, and he does not go into too much
detail.”
To sum up these observations, similarly as in Bureau, the key managers of
Chain’s program were highly dedicated to managing both the internal work
of the program as well as the program’s external relations. They engaged in
active boundary management and visibly contributed to the readiness for
change program implementation. The key managers of Bureau’s and
Chain’s programs also encouraged others in the core program teams to
perform boundary activities, leading the teams by their own example.
4.6.2 Scope and complexity of the program
The second contextual factors that may explain some of the identified
differences across the cases is the scope and complexity of the change
programs. Even though all of the three case programs aimed at significant
change, the programs still differed in terms of their scope, referring both to
the scope of the intended change and the scope of the program organization
that was established to implement it. The complexity of the programs was
reflected in the number of projects and tasks initiated or included in the
program, with multiple linkages and interdependencies both with each
other and with other organizational activities.
In Center, the scope of the desired change was probably the widest of the
three cases. According to the original intent, Center’s program was
supposed to significantly alter a wide spectrum of services and their
production processes regarding both Center and its member organizations.
Still, the program organization did not reflect these ambitious plans. While
Center’s program was divided into three sub-programs, only few people
could be named to be active participants in each sub-program. In all, just a
handful of people were committed to actively participate in program
initiation and planning. The perceived lack of commitment concerned both
Center’s top managers who should have taken more responsibility for the
program, as well as Center’s various experts who would have been able to
168