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

Boundary
type
Overall view in case Center Indicators in case Center Illustrative quotes
Temporal A clear temporal boundary caused
mainly by the busy schedules of
Center’s managers and experts and
the lack of deadlines and devoted
resources in the program work.
Social and
identity
Clear social and identity boundaries,
as people identified more with their
units and their daily work than with
the program, and connected the
program with secondary
development work or with special
interests of the R&D unit
Knowledge The boundary was reflected as a
lack of knowledge about the
program and its status.
Center’s managers and experts claimed to be too busy
with their daily work to become truly engaged in the
program.
The program work had not included clear deadlines, and
thus it had not been prioritized.
It was difficult to find time for program-related
meetings, as Center’s personnel were engaged in various
forums and positions of trust, travelling across the
country.
Many saw their own role as an outsider, either as a
supporter or an observer instead of an active participant.
Some Center’s experts received most of their salary from
external parties. They did not identify with Center and
were unwilling to devote time on what they viewed as
Center’s internal development.
The program was identified with Center’s R&D unit
instead of the whole organization.
Development work was traditionally valued less than the
daily work of supervising the interests of Center’s
member organizations.
Some people were skeptic about program management
as an approach and did not identify with the related
management philosophy.
Many peripheral program participants and top managers
were unaware of the program’s goals, scope and status.
Peripheral program participant: “The marching order naturally is that my own
sector comes first, and after that come our unit’s common tasks. After I have
taken care of these, I have to see whether I have resources left for
[organizational development efforts].”
Sub-program manager: “[Time spent on program work] has been very
scarce… There are probably two reasons: no significant pressure has been put
by a higher level, and then there are so many other tasks… Only recently have
they defined some kind of a deadline for this.”
Steering group member: “I admit that this should be number one priority. But
it has happened a couple of times that since I have this [forum in a stakeholder
organization] and I need to be there as well, I have had to leave early [from
program meetings].”
Top manager: “I’m currently an observer. I observe [the program] from aside
… I’m still doubtful about what this program can offer us.”
Peripheral program participant: “It has not been number one in my priorities,
since most of my tangible resources, i.e. the money, come from external
sources, and thus I have always regarded these external relations more
important.”
Steering group member: “I have expressed my worries, and even criticism that
this cannot just be a separate business of the R&D unit”
Key program actor: “[In Center] this kind of development is not valued as
much as it should be. It is not valued and that shows in our culture.
Peripheral program participant: “There is a lot of doubt related to how
[program management] can be positioned in our managerial framework.”
Steering group member: “I don’t even know how this process is currently
doing… It’s not a very visible process; nothing has been heard from it for a
long time.”
Peripheral program participant: “If we ask people, I think that half of them
would say they are familiar with this, but another half hasn’t even heard of
this. … The unit managers are aware of this, but at the expert level it depends
on whether one has a general interest in these things.”