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

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