Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Theoretical background<br />
organization, that have an effect on the management <strong>and</strong> success of change<br />
program initiation. These contextual factors will be examined on three<br />
levels: the program’s characteristics, the parent organization’s<br />
characteristics, <strong>and</strong> the individual characteristics of the involved key actors.<br />
The next section reviews existing literature on the contextuality of<br />
projects, programs <strong>and</strong> other temporary organizations.<br />
2.3.2 Contextuality of temporary organizations<br />
Traditionally, project management research has taken an inward-looking<br />
perspective, viewing projects as isolated entities or as independent “isl<strong>and</strong>s”<br />
(Engwall, 2003). Nowadays an increasing number of researchers<br />
acknowledge that projects <strong>and</strong> programs are in many ways embedded in the<br />
wider context (Blomquist & Packendorff, 1998; Hällgren & Maaninen-<br />
Olsson, 2005; Jensen et al., 2006; Manning, 2008; Modig, 2007; Sydow et<br />
al., 2004). Projects <strong>and</strong> programs have relations with previous,<br />
simultaneous <strong>and</strong> future <strong>activities</strong> <strong>and</strong> projects, <strong>and</strong> with the traditions <strong>and</strong><br />
norms of their organizational context (Engwall, 2003). Similarly to all<br />
organizational <strong>activities</strong>, projects <strong>and</strong> programs are affected by their<br />
economic, political, social, technical, legal, <strong>and</strong> environmental contexts<br />
(Harpham, 2000).<br />
In line with the contextual view, an increasing number of authors have<br />
adopted an open systems perspective to projects <strong>and</strong> programs (e.g. Artto,<br />
Martinsuo, Dietrich, & Kujala, 2008; Craw<strong>for</strong>d & Pollack, 2004; Hellström<br />
& Wikström, 2005; Morris, 1988). There is also a growing stream of<br />
research that takes a contingency view of projects, arguing that different<br />
kinds of projects <strong>and</strong> programs require different management approaches<br />
(e.g. Blomquist & Müller, 2006; Dietrich, 2007; Larson & Gobeli, 1989;<br />
Sauser et al., 2009; Shenhar & Dvir, 1996; Shenhar, Tishler, Dvir,<br />
Lipovetsky, & Lechler, 2002). In addition to the “classical” project-related<br />
contingency factors like the project size <strong>and</strong> type, recent studies argue that<br />
also the external environment of the projects <strong>and</strong> programs affects their<br />
management, as the context simultaneously enables <strong>and</strong> inhibits the<br />
projects’ actions (Modig, 2007; Pellegrinelli et al., 2007). Engwall’s (2003)<br />
findings suggest that the probability of smooth <strong>and</strong> efficient project<br />
execution is greater if the project’s purpose <strong>and</strong> the employed practices are<br />
aligned with the ideas, structures <strong>and</strong> behavioral patterns of the<br />
surrounding organization(s).<br />
Traditionally, project <strong>and</strong> program management literature has addressed<br />
the projects’ <strong>and</strong> programs’ interplay with their context indirectly, through<br />
stakeholder management, communications management, <strong>and</strong> purchasing<br />
management (e.g. Office of Government Commerce, 2007; Project<br />
Management Institute, 2004, 2006). For example, Bourne <strong>and</strong> Walker<br />
51