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