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

Discussion
description responsible for further clarifying the program goals and
preparing plans for how to reach them. Presumably, much of this important
work takes place within the boundaries of the program core team,
indicating that the program’s internal activities create a basis and a
framework for conducting the appropriate boundary activities.
Next, the discussion is turned to the contextual factors that may explain
the identified differences among the three cases.
Question 5: Which contextual factors may impact the use of
boundary activities in building readiness for change program
implementation?
The last research question addressed contextual factors that impact the use
of boundary activities during the early program stage in creating readiness
for change program implementation. Based on the analysis, four central
factors were brought up, each of them potentially explaining some of the
observed key differences between the three cases. Next, the findings related
to each of these factors are discussed in light of the existing literature.
The first identified factor concerns the key managers of the change
programs. This study has focused on boundary activities, while the actors
behind those activities have not received as much attention. Still, the
existence (or the lack) of skilled, committed, and authorized managers was
identified as a central factor behind the differences between the three cases.
In the successful cases Bureau and Chain, the key managers of the change
programs actively performed boundary activities in order to achieve the
required readiness to implement the changes. The key managers also
guided and encouraged others in the program core teams to perform
boundary activities, targeted at different stakeholder groups within the
parent organizations. The third case, Center, differed significantly from the
other two cases, as there appeared to be a lack of strong and committed
managers who would actively lead the program. The analysis suggests this
to be a central factor in explaining the low number of boundary activities
and consequently the low readiness for change implementation in Center.
In conclusion, the performed boundary activities (or the lack of them) seem
to reflect the capabilities and aspirations of the programs’ central
managers. This observation is supported by Choi (2002), who proposes that
in the early stage of team development, when the team does not yet have a
clear structure and boundary, a determined leadership style increases
boundary activity. Ancona and Caldwell (1988) also note that individual
characteristics such as skills and experiences affect whether people actively
take on boundary activities. These observations direct attention to the
selection of the key managers for new programs.
190