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

Indicators of
readiness for
change
Descriptions Illustrative quotes
(To illustrate the program’s situation at the end of the initiation stage, the quotes are from the second
round of interviews, unless noted otherwise)
Resources (continued from the previous page)
Dedicated
program team(s)
with explicitly
committed,
motivated
members
Visible senior
management
support and
involvement
Receptive
environment
and prepared
recipients of
change
Autonomy
Legitimate
position in the
organization
Authority and
autonomy to
realize change
Overall
readiness
Many complained that there were too few committed resources
for the program work. There were no full-time program
participants (program manager allocated 70% and program
coordinator about 20% of work time to the program).
The initial program owner had left the organization, and the other
top managers were unable to decide who should take the
responsibility for the program. The program participants
complained about the top management’s lack of commitment.
The environment was described as immature in terms of program
management and large-scale internal change efforts. The
organizational culture promoted individual expertise and high
unit boundaries, and did not support cross-functional
collaboration.
The program lacked a clear position in the organization, and it
was not perceived as a legitimate actor but rather as a threat
towards the existing order.
The program manager and his team felt that they lacked authority
to engage resources in the program and to proactively plan and
realize changes. The steering group members felt that they had
sufficiently authorized the program team and they were waiting
for the program to demonstrate progress.”
The overall readiness for change was poor, and the program
seemed paralyzed.
Sub-program manager: “Doing this in addition to other duties, many other tasks, is a problem in our
organization … That’s why these initiation activities have taken so long. Not until our latest meeting
did we agree on finalizing the sub-program plan. Obviously these things could have been done much
faster.”
Peripheral program participant: “I think the program has taken a step backwards. It was first launched,
but then challenges appeared. It proved difficult to organize it so that all people or even all units that
were invited or persuaded to take part would contribute.”
Peripheral program participant: “Our top managers have of course been [committed] to this when they
established this, but I suspect that they may not currently be actively involved.”
Peripheral program participant: “[Top management] should secure a certain position for this program.
Coordination should stem from the management group level… Top managers should be aware of the
program contents, but currently their motivation is not at its best.”
Program core team member in round 1: “A stronger management approach is required: the program
should be led more firmly ... The problem is in our culture: the program management approach has
not been internalized. …I fear that this will remain a modest effort of a handful of people, and the
strategic dimension and top management support will remain absent.”
Peripheral program participant: “Regarding this program management, I have sensed that we have
many people … who doubt whether there really is room or a need for program management in our
management system.”
Program manager: “There have been political interests or fears that this kind of a larger program
would aim at altering the power relations among the top managers. It is quite a mess.”
Peripheral program participant: “Could it be that the program managers feel their position is not clear
enough, in relation to the management group and the board.”
Program manager: “I wish my mandate was confirmed. We should agree on that and on my
authority… In my view, top management should confirm my position and support me in it.”
Top manager in round 1: “I’m wondering whether [the program’s managers] have what is needed for
this kind of a program … The position of [a program manager] is very contradictory, and most often
the mistakes that are made in program management in [the public sector] relate to granting a formal
position but not providing the required instruments.”
Peripheral program participant: “I wonder whether [the program] is at a halt. … I think it should be
activated, it is not visible enough.”