02.07.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Indicators of<br />

<strong>readiness</strong> <strong>for</strong><br />

change<br />

Descriptions Illustrative quotes<br />

Resources (continued from the previous page)<br />

Visible senior<br />

management<br />

support <strong>and</strong><br />

involvement<br />

Receptive<br />

environment<br />

<strong>and</strong> prepared<br />

recipients of<br />

change<br />

Autonomy<br />

Legitimate<br />

position in the<br />

organization<br />

Authority <strong>and</strong><br />

autonomy to<br />

realize change<br />

Overall<br />

<strong>readiness</strong><br />

There was a general agreement about senior management<br />

support to the program. This support had been acquired<br />

with the help of a thorough current state analysis <strong>and</strong><br />

especially by the program owner’s active ef<strong>for</strong>ts during<br />

program initiation.<br />

Although Bureau was viewed as slow to change, the ef<strong>for</strong>ts<br />

during the early program phase had made the environment<br />

more receptive to change. There were still some doubts<br />

about the attitudes of those recipients of the changes who<br />

were not actively involved in the program.<br />

The program had achieved a legitimate position, <strong>and</strong> its<br />

scope had also been exp<strong>and</strong>ed from a pure IT program to a<br />

wider change program. However, the program’s position in<br />

relation to other projects <strong>and</strong> to the line organization was<br />

not fully clear.<br />

The original managers had utilized their <strong>for</strong>mal position<br />

<strong>and</strong> charisma to gain ground <strong>for</strong> the program. After they<br />

left the program, the responsibility was given to project<br />

teams who received high autonomy. The teams differed in<br />

how they reacted: some appreciated the granted authority,<br />

whereas others complained about a lack of guidance.<br />

Readiness was purposefully <strong>and</strong> skillfully built during the<br />

early phase <strong>and</strong> was at a quite high level, although some<br />

problems had been encountered <strong>and</strong> delays caused when<br />

the responsibility was given to project teams.<br />

Project participant: “I believe that [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 />

Project participant: “We have received top management support, from the very highest level, at least in the<br />

sense that they know what we are doing <strong>and</strong> they have accepted the idea. This has also set expectations <strong>for</strong><br />

us to achieve something.”<br />

Program manager: “To get the [organization committed] was a constantly improving process that started<br />

from the negative side <strong>and</strong> ended up with “I guess we just have to do this”.”<br />

Project manager: “Of course there are discussions <strong>and</strong> doubts, <strong>and</strong> sometimes even criticism. But it has<br />

mainly been a question of marketing, <strong>and</strong> getting as many as possible involved in this from the local units,<br />

<strong>and</strong> also getting enough people in the planning team.”<br />

Support team manager: ”Let’s say that this was started as a project, but we don’t talk about a project<br />

anymore, it has become a kind a of “program cloud” which pretty much equals our IT management.”<br />

Project manager: “Also the relationship of [the program] with our other development programs <strong>and</strong> the<br />

cross-functional collaboration in this matrix organization still require much development… So that we’ll<br />

learn to operate in this matrix organization.”<br />

Project manager of a project that was considered successful: “From the beginning we realized that if we do<br />

[this project] with a low profile, we will get fewer comments from others. Thus we started to do this very<br />

independently, keeping a low profile, <strong>and</strong> we don’t really report to anyone either. … It provides us with<br />

freedom <strong>and</strong> enables fast operation.”<br />

Key actor in a project that had suffered from delays: “The initial conditions <strong>for</strong> the project were very poor…<br />

Especially when the tasks had been allocated to us <strong>and</strong> we started the iteration, <strong>and</strong> then some of the related<br />

tasks were allocated to the line organization. At that point, leadership, concerning both this line activity <strong>and</strong><br />

the project work, was in my opinion quite vague.”<br />

Middle manager of a central unit involved in the program: “[The program] is still making progress <strong>and</strong> we<br />

haven’t encountered any major problems. And we haven’t encountered un<strong>for</strong>eseen, major resistance either<br />

now that the program is ongoing, indicating that people have now accepted that a change is taking place. It<br />

won’t be stopped anymore.”

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!