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 />
happen in this challenging context, they needed to put emphasis on<br />
constructing a solid basis <strong>for</strong> the change program. One manager explained:<br />
Q91 (Bureau, manager of a central unit involved in the program): “It is better to<br />
take small steps … In this way we will not have a rapid change, but we will have<br />
a change that may be considered rapid in proportion to our organization’s<br />
ability to change.”<br />
In Bureau, <strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong> change program implementation was purposefully<br />
<strong>and</strong> skillfully built by the key managers’ active ef<strong>for</strong>ts during the early<br />
program phases, <strong>and</strong> it seemed that those ef<strong>for</strong>ts had made the<br />
organization more receptive to change. There were still some doubts about<br />
the attitudes of those not involved in the program <strong>activities</strong>. Also, the<br />
progress of the program had relied significantly on the original program<br />
owner <strong>and</strong> original program manager. When they left the program <strong>and</strong> the<br />
responsibility was allocated to the project teams, some projects were unable<br />
to proceed as quickly as desired as they could not cope with the uncertainty<br />
involved in the program plans. In addition to these challenges, there was a<br />
larger structural re<strong>for</strong>m going on <strong>and</strong> as a part of it, other change initiatives<br />
were being implemented. In addition to Bureau’s personnel being<br />
overloaded with different projects, one specific change ef<strong>for</strong>t focused on<br />
restructuring organizational units <strong>and</strong> included staff reduction. This caused<br />
uncertainty <strong>and</strong> stress among the personnel, which was also reflected in the<br />
case program. These challenges were perceived to contribute to the long<br />
duration of the case program’s initiation <strong>and</strong> planning stage.<br />
From the three case organizations, Chain was probably the most mature<br />
in terms of project management, although there were no successful<br />
examples of large-scale change programs. Rather than spending time on<br />
rationalizing about the nature <strong>and</strong> usefulness of the program management<br />
approach, the key program actors concentrated on the actual program<br />
work. The program approach still caused some challenges, since several<br />
people felt discom<strong>for</strong>t with the lack of a “full picture” of the end state. In a<br />
way, the strong project management culture may have even hindered<br />
Chain, as the experts were used to working in projects with clear objectives<br />
<strong>and</strong> clearly defined tasks, <strong>and</strong> now they were involved with high levels of<br />
uncertainty. The program manager described how he had to spend a<br />
considerable amount of time explaining the nature of programs to others.<br />
Similarly as in Bureau, there seemed to be ongoing discussion about the<br />
special characteristics of the program management approach:<br />
Q92 (Chain, steering group member): “It has been recognized that goal setting<br />
requires iteration. Since we aim at a change that must respond to the changes in<br />
the markets in five years of time, it is clear that the world will change in five<br />
172