Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Discussion<br />
the actual implementation has begun (ibid). The present study provides an<br />
example of assessing <strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong> change at the end of the initiation <strong>and</strong><br />
planning stage of a large-scale change program, when the change program<br />
is supposed to proceed to implementation.<br />
Providing support <strong>for</strong> yet another proposition by Weiner et al. (2008), the<br />
current study shows how the organization’s general capacity to change does<br />
not fully determine its success in implementing significant changes.<br />
Although the initial capacity or receptivity to change (e.g. Judge & Douglas,<br />
2009) sets the initial conditions, the <strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong> change can be, <strong>and</strong><br />
should be, intentionally created in the early stage of a specific change ef<strong>for</strong>t.<br />
Indeed, the study suggests that the holistic aim of the early stage of a<br />
change program is to build <strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong> change implementation in<br />
technical, structural, social, <strong>and</strong> political respects. The observations from<br />
case Bureau suggest that even if the organization’s general capacity to<br />
change is considered fairly low, the organization may still be able to<br />
successfully launch large change ef<strong>for</strong>ts by paying careful attention to<br />
building <strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong> change. Correspondingly, the findings propose that<br />
an organization with a high general capacity to change still needs to actively<br />
create <strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong> a particular change ef<strong>for</strong>t, <strong>for</strong> example, by identifying<br />
<strong>and</strong> assigning key resources <strong>and</strong> by defining the change visions <strong>and</strong> plans<br />
<strong>for</strong> change implementation.<br />
The findings of the study further contribute to the discussion on <strong>readiness</strong><br />
<strong>for</strong> change by showing how <strong>readiness</strong> may be actively created through<br />
boundary <strong>activities</strong>. Next, the connection between boundary <strong>activities</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong> change program implementation is discussed <strong>and</strong> the<br />
observations are compared to the existing literature.<br />
Question 4: How are the boundary <strong>activities</strong> associated with<br />
building <strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong> change program implementation?<br />
A central ef<strong>for</strong>t of this study has been the analysis of the associations<br />
between the early boundary <strong>activities</strong> <strong>and</strong> the success of the change<br />
program initiation, providing a response to the fourth research question.<br />
First <strong>and</strong> <strong>for</strong>emost, the findings of the study indicate a connection between<br />
the amount of boundary activity <strong>and</strong> the level of success in creating<br />
conditions <strong>for</strong> change implementation. The analysis of the three cases<br />
showed how the most successful case program in terms of the <strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong><br />
change program implementation (case Chain), was also the one with the<br />
most active boundary management. Respectively, the case program that<br />
only showed a limited amount of boundary activity (case Center) ultimately<br />
failed <strong>and</strong> was prematurely terminated without significant outcomes.<br />
187