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

Results
that many key managers were stuck with rationalizing about the program
concept. The following quote illustrates this observation:
Q88 (Center, program core team member): “I think it’s very important that we
have these discussions in our organization about what we mean by a program.
I have perceived that some talk about this program as just a project,
downplaying its importance. And some say that this topic just requires some
minor coordination. With these presumptions the risks are very high, since this
is so much more than just a project or just minor coordination.”
Especially Center’s unit managers, representing the line management, felt
that the most important issue in program initiation was to clarify the role of
programs in Center’s overall management system. It seemed that a lot of
energy was put into this sensemaking, instead of transforming the initial
program goals into plans and activities and in this way advancing the case
program. Some of Center’s line managers actually seemed to drive their
own agenda by protecting their personal status and opposing the program
that might change the prevailing power relations. It was also clear that
central managers in Center did not have a shared understanding of what it
takes to implement large-scale change in a program form. The following
quote shows how one active program participant concluded the situation:
Q89 (Center, program core team member): “I have reached the conclusion that
we as an organization have not developed far enough to implement programs.
We have been able to develop the way we run individual projects, but now the
challenge is to move to the program level.”
In case Bureau, there was a longer tradition of internal change projects,
but not much experience from large-scale change efforts. Similarly as in
Center, programs were viewed to require a novel approach. However,
instead of arguing about the role of programs in the wider management
system (as in Center), Bureau’s key managers were committed to take the
program further as rapidly as possible. There was still discussion about the
special nature of programs and its implications for program management.
As an example of these sensemaking efforts, the program manager
presented the following analogy:
Q90 (Bureau, program manager): “The nature of programs is such that you
select a path based on what seems to be the most promising to help you achieve
your goals. The goals are not clear, but they are rather fuzzy. When you have
selected your path, at each intersection you need to make a new choice. Little by
little you define your target as you walk the path.”
Bureau’s organization was characterized as slow to change, and the
managers of the program initiation had realized that to make change
171