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.
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.”