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

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