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

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