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 />
Chain’s program manager (originally: program coordinator) was appointed<br />
based on his earlier expertise in planning <strong>and</strong> organizing development<br />
<strong>activities</strong>, <strong>and</strong> as soon as he started in his position he systematically<br />
organized discussions with the central managers to clarify his own role <strong>and</strong><br />
to sketch the best possible structure <strong>for</strong> program governance. While some<br />
adjustments to the roles <strong>and</strong> responsibilities as well as some personnel<br />
changes took place during program initiation <strong>and</strong> planning, the program<br />
was constantly under the protection <strong>and</strong> control of Chain’s top<br />
management. Although individual projects received significant autonomy<br />
in planning <strong>and</strong> organizing their internal work, major program related<br />
decisions were taken within the program steering group, providing<br />
coordination across the program <strong>activities</strong>.<br />
4.6.5 Comparison of the contextual factors across the cases<br />
Table 21 concludes the discussion on the contextual factors that may<br />
explain the differences across the cases, summarizing how each of the four<br />
factors appeared in the three cases.<br />
Table 21 Comparison of the contextual factors across the cases<br />
Contextual factor Case Center Case Bureau Case Chain<br />
Authority, ability<br />
<strong>and</strong> commitment of<br />
the program’s<br />
central managers<br />
Scope <strong>and</strong><br />
complexity of the<br />
change program<br />
Maturity of the<br />
parent organization<br />
in terms of largescale<br />
change<br />
Origin of the change<br />
program <strong>and</strong><br />
progress of the<br />
initiation process<br />
Shifted from<br />
moderate to low as<br />
the program<br />
progressed<br />
Shifted from high to<br />
moderate as the<br />
program progressed<br />
Shifted from<br />
moderate to high as<br />
the program<br />
progressed<br />
Highly complex Moderately complex Highly complex<br />
Low Moderately low Neither high nor<br />
low<br />
Middle-top-down<br />
process with<br />
significant<br />
discontinuities<br />
Middle-top-down<br />
process with some<br />
discontinuity<br />
Coherent top-down<br />
process<br />
As the table above shows, Center’s change program seemed to have the<br />
most challenging context: the program was very complex, <strong>and</strong> the maturity<br />
of the parent organization in terms of implementing large-scale change was<br />
seemingly low. Center’s program was lacking strong, committed <strong>and</strong><br />
authorized managers, <strong>and</strong> program initiation was not firmly led but seemed<br />
to suffer from several discontinuities, which caused significant delays. The<br />
difficulties in finding a suitable program manager, the resignation of the<br />
original program owner, lack of top management involvement, <strong>and</strong><br />
deterioration of motivation of the key program personnel contributed to the<br />
slow progress of the program.<br />
175