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.
CASE BUREAU<br />
Indicators of Descriptions Illustrative quotes<br />
<strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong><br />
change<br />
Intent<br />
Visible need <strong>and</strong> pressure <strong>for</strong> change <strong>and</strong> Early initiation <strong>activities</strong> aimed at providing rationale <strong>for</strong> the change through a current state analysis. This phase was largely considered successful, resulting in a shared Manager of a central unit involved in the program: “In my opinion [program initiation] has been conducted<br />
quite thoroughly … It was good that the starting point was a necessity of change. … It is very hard to justify<br />
something merely with cost savings.”<br />
sustained underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the need <strong>for</strong> change.<br />
Project participant: “I think the number one [enabler] is the fact momentum<br />
have understood that we cannot continue like this <strong>for</strong> long.”<br />
that we have needed this change … People<br />
Clear <strong>and</strong> shared<br />
vision, sense of<br />
direction, <strong>and</strong><br />
commonly<br />
accepted goal<br />
Purposeful plan<br />
<strong>for</strong> the change<br />
content, process,<br />
<strong>and</strong> program<br />
structure<br />
Resources<br />
Skillful <strong>and</strong><br />
charismatic<br />
leaders, incl.<br />
program owner<br />
<strong>and</strong> program<br />
manager<br />
Dedicated<br />
program team(s)<br />
with explicitly<br />
committed,<br />
motivated<br />
members<br />
The participative approach of program initiation had<br />
resulted in a high-level vision <strong>for</strong> the program, which was<br />
shared at least by those involved in planning. People<br />
seemed to have a similar view of the purpose <strong>and</strong> main<br />
goals of the program.<br />
During the general planning phase, an overall plan <strong>for</strong> the<br />
program was created, but after that further planning was<br />
left to project teams. Actors of different projects had<br />
varying views about whether the level of detail in planning<br />
had been sufficient.<br />
The program originally had two charismatic leaders, who<br />
were recognized as the driving <strong>for</strong>ce of the program. After<br />
the general planning phase they left the program, <strong>and</strong><br />
although new managers were appointed <strong>for</strong> the program, it<br />
seemed to lack a strong leader.<br />
Although program participants seemed motivated <strong>and</strong><br />
committed, some complained about the lack of resources,<br />
particularly concerning technical experts.<br />
Program manager: “We were able to set goals that were commonly accepted <strong>and</strong> at least then a sufficient<br />
number of people in the organization were committed to them. The goals were acceptable politically, <strong>and</strong><br />
from IT <strong>and</strong> business process perspectives. Furthermore, the goals did not seek a compromise … but were<br />
quite ambitious; they would lead us to good results.”<br />
Manager of a central unit involved in the program: “There are still some issues, even major ones to solve,<br />
but the program’s main principles, goals <strong>and</strong> plans have been generally accepted.”<br />
Key actor in a project that was considered successful: “After [the general planning phase] the guidelines<br />
were extremely detailed <strong>and</strong> clear. Of course things have been refined <strong>and</strong> developed, but these guidelines<br />
were expressed very clearly, as were the related technologies <strong>and</strong> the implementation schedule <strong>and</strong> other<br />
things, at least to some extent.”<br />
Key actor in a project that had suffered from delays: “[The general planning phase] provided the basis <strong>for</strong><br />
the projects, but [from our project’s] perspective its outcomes were on a too general level. We had to take<br />
several steps backwards to clarify the background; we didn’t have the prerequisites… They should have<br />
defined the focus <strong>and</strong> the technologies in more detail.”<br />
Project participant: “I believe [the original program owner] has been in a central role, as well as [the<br />
original program manager]. There has to be someone with the vision … It has required these people who see<br />
the importance of it, who have an idea of what it will be <strong>and</strong> who take it <strong>for</strong>ward.”<br />
Manager of a central unit involved in the program: “I think that [the program owner] has been the primus<br />
motor during [initiation].”<br />
Program manager: ” Although the [program] structure was appropriate, it was not properly resourced,<br />
neither in terms of the headcount nor the expertise. … The people were all first-timers, they didn’t have a<br />
clue about this... On the whole this has been underresourced in terms of both competence <strong>and</strong> the number of<br />
personnel, in terms of both money <strong>and</strong> authority.”<br />
Project manager: “I must be grateful that the motivation [of the experts working in the project] hasn’t<br />
dropped <strong>and</strong> there hasn’t occurred significant absence. We cannot really replace the resources, since this<br />
concerns complex issues <strong>and</strong> requires a lot of expertise.”