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.
Discussion<br />
h<strong>and</strong>, in time orientation, in authority relations, in social relations <strong>and</strong><br />
perceptions of identity, <strong>and</strong> in knowledge. Together these aspects <strong>for</strong>m a<br />
boundary that separates the change program from its parent organization.<br />
The empirical findings further indicate that change programs differ in<br />
terms of the overall boundary strength. Although the analysis showed<br />
evidence of a boundary between the change program <strong>and</strong> its parent<br />
organization in all three investigated cases, the boundary appeared to be<br />
strong in case Center, medium-strong in case Bureau <strong>and</strong> fairly weak in<br />
case Chain. This finding will be discussed in more detail later in this<br />
section.<br />
By shedding light on a temporary organization’s boundaries <strong>and</strong> their<br />
<strong>for</strong>mation, the results of the current study extend the research on<br />
organizational boundaries that has mainly focused on the boundaries of<br />
permanent organizations (e.g. Leifer & Delbecq, 1978; Thompson, 1967) or<br />
organizational units (e.g. Yan & Louis, 1999). Previous research has<br />
acknowledged how temporary organizations differ from permanent<br />
organizations in two distinct aspects: they have a clear beginning <strong>and</strong> an<br />
ending (e.g. Dobers & Söderholm, 2009). The current study shows that<br />
when a change program as a specific <strong>for</strong>m of a temporary organization is<br />
established, the program’s boundary also starts to emerge. The findings<br />
suggest that the boundary may be built both deliberately <strong>and</strong><br />
unintentionally. The basic elements of the boundary are established as the<br />
decision to launch a program is made <strong>and</strong> the set-up of the program<br />
organization begins, as the program receives a task that sets it apart from<br />
the rest of the organization. The program management approach also<br />
brings some distinctive methods, structures <strong>and</strong> deadlines which<br />
distinguish the emerging program from its environment. After the first<br />
program participants have been appointed, the program team starts to<br />
build its own identity, further separating the team from the other members<br />
of the parent organization.<br />
Whereas previous research has suggested that permanent organizations<br />
define the boundaries of a project or a program by determining its authority<br />
<strong>and</strong> responsibility (e.g. Andersen, 2006), the current study shows how the<br />
advocates of a change program may actively participate in defining its<br />
boundaries. The findings suggest that the definition of a program’s<br />
boundaries is an ongoing process during program initiation, involving<br />
constant discussions <strong>and</strong> negotiations between the program’s advocates<br />
<strong>and</strong> those representing the permanent organization. The study illustrates<br />
how the key program actors may deliberately build <strong>and</strong> shape the program’s<br />
boundaries. Examples from case Bureau demonstrate how the program’s<br />
managers may distinguish <strong>and</strong> isolate the program from the parent<br />
178