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.
Theoretical background<br />
of a given, clear <strong>and</strong> plannable task, i.e., that plans can be defined in detail<br />
at the beginning of the project. However, projects often involve high levels<br />
of uncertainty, especially in the beginning (Andersen, 2008). The project<br />
manager is given an initial assignment, but often a lot of interaction <strong>and</strong><br />
negotiation is required both within the project team <strong>and</strong> with external<br />
stakeholders in order to refine the project goals <strong>and</strong> scope (Ives, 2005).<br />
Especially in truly unique projects, such as in organizational change ef<strong>for</strong>ts,<br />
it may be impossible to create detailed plans at the outset (Andersen, 2006;<br />
2008). Particularly in turbulent environments, changes to the plans can be<br />
expected due to changing conditions <strong>and</strong> stakeholder requirements (Collyer<br />
& Warren, 2009).<br />
As a further criticism, the task-oriented perspective has been described as<br />
too project-centric, viewing projects as isolated <strong>and</strong> independent “isl<strong>and</strong>s”<br />
(Engwall, 2003). The focus of the task-oriented project management<br />
tradition has been solely on projects, <strong>and</strong> their relations with permanent<br />
organizations <strong>and</strong> other elements of their organizational context have been<br />
largely neglected. In reality, projects do not <strong>and</strong> cannot exist in isolation,<br />
but are in many ways embedded in their context (Andersen, 2008; Ekstedt<br />
et al., 1999). Increasingly, researchers have acknowledged how projects are<br />
enabled <strong>and</strong> inhibited by their parent organizations, other stakeholders <strong>and</strong><br />
the wider institutional context (e.g. Jensen et al., 2006; Manning, 2008;<br />
Modig, 2007; Sydow, Lindqvist, & DeFillippi, 2004).<br />
Building on this criticism, especially Sc<strong>and</strong>inavian scholars have called <strong>for</strong><br />
an alternative perspective to the overly rationalistic <strong>and</strong> mechanistic project<br />
management, viewing projects as temporary organizations (Andersen,<br />
2006; Ekstedt et al., 1999; Løvendahl, 1995; Lundin & Söderholm, 1995;<br />
Lundin & Steinthórsson, 2003; Packendorff, 1995). In line with this view,<br />
Andersen (2008: 10) defines a project as “a temporary organization,<br />
established by its base organization to carry out an assignment on its<br />
behalf”. Similarly, Turner <strong>and</strong> Müller (2003: 4) define a project as “a<br />
temporary organization designed to deliver a specific set of change<br />
objectives”. The proponents of the perspective examine the nature of<br />
projects <strong>and</strong> programs as temporary organizations (Ekstedt et al., 1999;<br />
Lundin & Söderholm, 1995). The parent organization of a project or a<br />
program, also called the base organization (Andersen, 2008), host<br />
organization (Heller, 1999), or mother organization (Shenhar & Dvir, 1996),<br />
is viewed as a permanent organization, since its lifetime is not limited<br />
be<strong>for</strong>eh<strong>and</strong> (Andersen, 2008). Unlike permanent organizations that are<br />
designed <strong>for</strong> repetitive routine <strong>activities</strong> <strong>and</strong> focus on maintaining the<br />
current order, temporary organizations are designed <strong>for</strong> change <strong>and</strong> they<br />
offer more flexibility <strong>and</strong> a focused, accomplishment-oriented approach<br />
13