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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendices Appendix 2: Code framework used in the analysis Italic means that the code was created during the analysis Indicators of program boundary Task boundaries Authority boundaries Physical or spatial boundaries Temporal boundaries Social and identity boundaries Knowledge boundaries Other/general boundaries Readiness for change program implementation: intent Visible need and pressure for change and sustained momentum Clear and shared vision, a sense of direction and commonly accepted goal Purposeful plan for the change content, process and program structure Intent: other/general Readiness for change program implementation: resources Skillful and charismatic leaders Dedicated program teams Visible senior management support and involvement Receptive environment and prepared recipients of change Resources: other/general Readiness for change program implementation: autonomy Legitimate position in the organization Authority and autonomy to realize change Autonomy: other/general Readiness for change program implementation: other Other indicators of readiness for change General readiness for change Boundary activities Positioning and negotiating Linking activities Task coordinating activities Information seeking activities Resource seeking activities Informing activities Legitimating and committing activities Influencing activities Guarding activities Enclosing activities Other/general boundary activities Desired or planned boundary activities Contextual factors Contextual factors related to the parent organization Contextual factors related to the program Contextual factors related to the key program actors Other contextual factors 246
Appendix 3: Illustrations of the different aspects of the program-parent organization boundary in the three cases CASE CENTER Boundary type Overall view in case Center Indicators in case Center Illustrative quotes Task A fairly low task boundary in terms of the content and goals of the program, but a high task boundary in terms of the process and practices in program work, compared to Center’s traditional way of working. Authority A clear authority boundary caused by the program’s lack of authority in comparison to Center’s strong units. Physical and spatial Some indicators of physical and spatial boundaries mainly due to Center’s distinct and separated units. The program's topic was very close to many people's daily work. For some, this resulted in inability to distinguish the program work from other activities. The program management approach was viewed as a novel way of working, different from “normal” work and from traditional projects. Development activities were generally viewed as separate from Center’s core tasks and less valuable. The program manager did not have much authority in the organization and was not granted a clear authority as the program manager. The units’ internal work was prioritized over the crossfunctional program work. Center’s units were traditionally separate and there was little cross-unit collaboration. Many Center’s experts spent much of their work time in the geographically dispersed member organizations, and thus it was difficult to schedule meetings so that all people could participate. Steering group member: “This has provided us a title, under which we have now gathered a lot of things, but I do not see this as a very separate effort, this is just work as usual for us.” Peripheral program participant: “This is a program, this is not a project but a program, so it is a novel approach … It might be just me, but it does make one wonder what on earth this is about. Who has come up with this, and do [the top managers] on the top floor even themselves know what they are thinking about?” Steering group member: “Very often our programs and projects are disconnected [from other work]… they are forgotten after the final report has been written.” Steering group member: “In my view, program manager is an operational position; he is the one running the process. … we cannot give this [significant program] on a single expert’s responsibility, even though we may nominate him as a program manager.” Top manager involved in the program: “Sometimes, conflicts may be observed between our [functional operations] that claim to have too little resources … and the resource needs of this program.” Top manager involved in the program: “I think that [adopting the program management approach] requires a matrix approach, since one cannot manage these programs unless one is able to genuinely cross the business sector and unit borders. We have not been able to do this sufficiently and this is a great challenge for us.” Peripheral program participant: “Communication is always a problem in this kind of an organization where everyone is travelling two or three days a week.”
Page 1:
DepartmentofIndustrialEngineeringan
Page 4 and 5:
Supervisor Professor Karlos Artto I
Page 7:
Tiivistelmä Aalto-yliopisto, PL 11
Page 10 and 11:
I would also like to thank many oth
Page 12 and 13:
4.3 Boundary activities at the prog
Page 14 and 15:
List of tables Table 1 Comparison o
Page 16 and 17:
Introduction require different mana
Page 18 and 19:
Introduction information on the pla
Page 20 and 21:
Introduction activities contribute
Page 22 and 23:
Introduction spanned and protected
Page 24 and 25:
Theoretical background 2. Theoretic
Page 26 and 27:
Theoretical background management i
Page 28 and 29:
Theoretical background (Grabher, 20
Page 30 and 31:
Theoretical background require coll
Page 32 and 33:
Theoretical background 2.1.2 Defini
Page 34 and 35:
Theoretical background on large pro
Page 36 and 37:
Theoretical background to the progr
Page 38 and 39:
Theoretical background detailed pla
Page 40 and 41:
Theoretical background As the early
Page 42 and 43:
Theoretical background organization
Page 44 and 45:
Theoretical background Although man
Page 46 and 47:
Theoretical background The multipli
Page 48 and 49:
Theoretical background types of cha
Page 50 and 51:
Theoretical background disruption o
Page 52 and 53:
Theoretical background the impact o
Page 54 and 55:
Theoretical background change, unre
Page 56 and 57:
Theoretical background plans should
Page 58 and 59:
Theoretical background Rainey, 2006
Page 60 and 61:
Theoretical background pamphlets, b
Page 62 and 63:
Theoretical background change capac
Page 64 and 65:
Theoretical background change proce
Page 66 and 67:
Theoretical background (2005) descr
Page 68 and 69:
Theoretical background Similarly, p
Page 70 and 71:
Theoretical background Petersen, Ha
Page 72 and 73:
Theoretical background already duri
Page 74 and 75:
Theoretical background physically i
Page 76 and 77:
Theoretical background environment.
Page 78 and 79:
Theoretical background satisfaction
Page 80 and 81:
Theoretical background As can be se
Page 82 and 83:
Theoretical background directional:
Page 84 and 85:
Theoretical background Delbecq, 197
Page 86 and 87:
Theoretical background managed. Wit
Page 88 and 89:
Theoretical background change progr
Page 90 and 91:
Theoretical background of each type
Page 92 and 93:
Research methodology and data 3. Re
Page 94 and 95:
Research methodology and data chara
Page 96 and 97:
Research methodology and data theor
Page 98 and 99:
Research methodology and data As al
Page 100 and 101:
Research methodology and data In li
Page 102 and 103:
Research methodology and data and p
Page 104 and 105:
Research methodology and data termi
Page 106 and 107:
Research methodology and data main
Page 108 and 109:
Research methodology and data progr
Page 110 and 111:
Research methodology and data point
Page 112 and 113:
Research methodology and data case.
Page 114 and 115:
Research methodology and data activ
Page 116 and 117:
Results Center has a long tradition
Page 118 and 119:
Results Figure 8 The program struct
Page 120 and 121:
Results made the change extremely c
Page 122 and 123:
Results from Bureau’s various uni
Page 124 and 125:
Results Figure 9 The program struct
Page 126 and 127:
Results “Domain” (a pseudonym).
Page 128 and 129:
Results Instead of an official prog
Page 130 and 131:
Results program was seen to be on t
Page 132 and 133:
Results Figure 11 Illustration of t
Page 134 and 135:
Results Q4 (Center, program manager
Page 136 and 137:
Results Q8 (Bureau, project partici
Page 138 and 139:
Results stronger during the course
Page 140 and 141:
Results personnel of the local unit
Page 142 and 143:
Results Figure 12 Different types o
Page 144 and 145:
Results planning. Information seeki
Page 146 and 147:
Results practice, guarding activiti
Page 148 and 149:
Results Table 14 Comparison of boun
Page 150 and 151:
Results categories, based on the ac
Page 152 and 153:
Results 4.4 Readiness for change pr
Page 154 and 155:
Results In case Center, the overall
Page 156 and 157:
Results Q42 (Center, top manager):
Page 158 and 159:
Results daily work to take care of
Page 160 and 161:
Results work. At the time of the se
Page 162 and 163:
Results view of readiness for chang
Page 164 and 165:
Results Table 17 Identified associa
Page 166 and 167:
Results has been vital to show that
Page 168 and 169:
Results Table 18 Identified associa
Page 170 and 171:
Results this fall we have establish
Page 172 and 173:
Results 4.5.3 Identified associatio
Page 174 and 175:
Results central line managers in pr
Page 176 and 177:
Results Table 20 Summary of the ide
Page 178 and 179:
Results Like task coordinating acti
Page 180 and 181:
Results The characteristics of the
Page 182 and 183:
Results authority, but he gradually
Page 184 and 185:
Results Regarding the third case, t
Page 186 and 187:
Results happen in this challenging
Page 188 and 189:
Results program launch the program
Page 190 and 191:
Results The other two cases, Bureau
Page 192 and 193:
Discussion hand, in time orientatio
Page 194 and 195:
Discussion To sum up the discussion
Page 196 and 197:
Discussion and resource seeking has
Page 198 and 199:
Discussion differ on the amount of
Page 200 and 201:
Discussion Case Center demonstrated
Page 202 and 203:
Discussion Previous empirical resea
Page 204 and 205:
Discussion description responsible
Page 206 and 207:
Discussion and these representative
Page 208 and 209:
Discussion achieving the required l
Page 210 and 211: Discussion 2009; Blomquist & Mülle
Page 212 and 213: 198 Discussion program initiation a
Page 214 and 215: Discussion 5.2.3 Program autonomy a
Page 216 and 217: Discussion may even be portrayed as
Page 218 and 219: Discussion presented by Ericksen an
Page 220 and 221: Discussion a legitimate position, a
Page 222 and 223: Discussion internal validity, espec
Page 224 and 225: Conclusion 6. Conclusion In this ch
Page 226 and 227: Conclusion Finally, in line with re
Page 228 and 229: Conclusion provided indications of
Page 230 and 231: References References Aaltio-Marjos
Page 232 and 233: 218 References Balogun, J. 2003. Fr
Page 234 and 235: References Cacciatori, E. 2008. Mem
Page 236 and 237: References Dunphy, D. 1996. Organiz
Page 238 and 239: 224 References Glueck, W. F. 1969.
Page 240 and 241: References Jensen, C., Johansson, S
Page 242 and 243: References Lehtonen, P. 2007. The e
Page 244 and 245: References Mealia, L. W. 1978. Lear
Page 246 and 247: References Parker, R., & Bradley, L
Page 248 and 249: 234 References Sashkin M., & Burke,
Page 250 and 251: References Thompson, J. D. 1967. Or
Page 252 and 253: Appendices Appendices Appendix 1: I
Page 254 and 255: Appendices Interview outline: case
Page 262 and 263: Boundary type Overall view in case
Page 264 and 265: Boundary type Overall view in case
Page 266 and 267: Boundary aspect Temporal Most progr
Page 268 and 269: Categories and types of boundary ac
Page 274 and 275: Indicators of readiness for change
Page 276 and 277: Indicators of readiness for change
Page 278: Indicators of readiness for change
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?