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