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

Discussion
achieving the required level of readiness was simply too large. Regarding
the other cases, Bureau may be characterized as a bureaucratic public
sector organization with little experience on change programs, which may
explain why so many legitimating and committing efforts and other
boundary activities had to be performed to establish readiness for change
program implementation. In comparison, case Chain showed a somewhat
more mature context in terms of internal change projects and programs,
suggesting that the initial readiness for change was also higher. This might
also explain why there were not many legitimating and committing
activities in Chain, but the majority of boundary activities had other intents.
To conclude the observations, the findings suggest that the initial
maturity of the parent organization in terms of initiating and implementing
change programs might affect the amount of overall boundary activity
performed at the change program’s boundaries, the pattern of boundary
activity in terms of the emphasis of different activity types, and the level of
challenge in reaching the required readiness for change program
implementation. The observations provide support for Thiry (2004), who
suggests that the program team needs to take into account the parent
organization’s responsiveness to change. The current study proposes that
especially in contexts that lack previous experience from change programs
or other significant change efforts, close attention needs to be paid to
establishing a solid ground for the program through active boundary
management.
The fourth central contextual factor that emerged during the analysis was
the origin of the programs, referring both to the level in the organizational
hierarchy where the program idea originated and the early decision making
process of how the program activities were formally initiated. Previous
literature describes how the impetus and momentum for change may follow
a top-down or a bottom-up process, or a combination of the two (Hope-
Hailey & Balogun, 2002). The three investigated cases appeared to differ in
this aspect.
The change program in case Chain was initiated by the top managers and
the related activities followed a top-down process. The program was from
early on seen as a strategic priority, which was reflected in the composition
of the program: key top managers were appointed in formal program
management positions as development area directors and steering group
members. Combined with Chain’s experience and maturity in internal
projects and their management, this may explain why in Chain’s case there
was no need for extensive legitimating and committing activities targeted at
the top management. The gap between the organization’s initial readiness
for change and the required readiness for implementing the particular
194