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 />
presented by Ericksen <strong>and</strong> Dyer (2004) in the context of early project team<br />
development. Ericksen <strong>and</strong> Dyer examined early events in project teams<br />
<strong>and</strong> their effects on team development <strong>and</strong> per<strong>for</strong>mance. They found that<br />
the mobilization <strong>and</strong> launch <strong>activities</strong> of high per<strong>for</strong>ming teams lead the<br />
teams into a virtuous path, contributing positively to team per<strong>for</strong>mance.<br />
They further showed how low per<strong>for</strong>ming teams may end up on a vacuous<br />
path where the lack of competencies <strong>and</strong> resources lead to frustration <strong>and</strong><br />
failure. In this section, the idea of vacuous <strong>and</strong> virtuous paths is applied to<br />
change program initiation. The ideas presented by Ericksen <strong>and</strong> Dyer are<br />
complemented with the findings of the current study concerning boundary<br />
<strong>activities</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong> change program implementation.<br />
The program initiation in case Center provides an example of a vacuous<br />
path. The findings show how program initiation in Center was<br />
characterized by discontinuity, slow progress, <strong>and</strong> lack of momentum. The<br />
first discontinuity took place at the very beginning of the program, as it<br />
proved difficult to find a program manager <strong>for</strong> the program. Although<br />
program initiation was <strong>for</strong>mally approved by Center’s top management, top<br />
managers did not seem fully convinced of the need <strong>for</strong> the program. They<br />
were expecting the appointed program personnel to assure them of the<br />
viability of the program, by coming up with tangible objectives <strong>and</strong> credible<br />
plans <strong>for</strong> achieving them. The appointed program core team did not feel<br />
equipped with a clear enough task nor requisite resources. They were<br />
waiting <strong>for</strong> the input from the top managers to get the program fully<br />
started.<br />
The fairly inactive boundary activity in case Center focused mainly on the<br />
joint sensemaking of what the program was about <strong>and</strong> how it should be<br />
linked to the existing organizational structures. There were very few<br />
legitimating <strong>and</strong> committing ef<strong>for</strong>ts that would persuade the top<br />
management or other organizational members to engage in the program. As<br />
time passed, the key members of the program organization got frustrated<br />
due to the continuous lack of feedback <strong>and</strong> support, which discouraged<br />
them <strong>and</strong> further decreased their motivation <strong>for</strong> promoting the program.<br />
Due to the lack of boundary crossing <strong>activities</strong>, Center’s program <strong>and</strong> its<br />
modest progress remained largely invisible to the peripheral program<br />
participants, many of whom even wondered whether the program was still<br />
active. Simultaneously, top managers <strong>and</strong> other representatives of the<br />
parent organization received proof <strong>for</strong> their initial suspicion towards the<br />
program’s capability of delivering change, adding to their reluctance to<br />
commit to the program <strong>activities</strong>.<br />
Center’s program seemed paralyzed in front of the challenges <strong>and</strong> never<br />
obtained a strong enough position to serve as a viable vehicle <strong>for</strong> large scale<br />
204