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.
Theoretical background<br />
2.3.3 Program-parent organization interplay<br />
Within mainstream project management literature, the interplay of projects<br />
with their parent organizations has been primarily covered as structural<br />
<strong>and</strong> governance choices (Project Management Institute, 2004), such as<br />
matrix organizing (Arvidsson, 2009; Kuprenas, 2003; Wilemon, 1973). The<br />
discussion has centered on comparing the advantages <strong>and</strong> challenges<br />
related to different organizational structures (Alsène, 1998; Andersen,<br />
2000; Larson & Gobeli, 1989), <strong>and</strong> especially on describing tensions<br />
between the project personnel <strong>and</strong> the functional organization. Previous<br />
literature has reported difficulties related to dual reporting, role conflicts<br />
<strong>and</strong> authority issues (e.g. Andersen, 2000; Wilemon, 1973).<br />
Some studies have taken a broader perspective to the relationship<br />
between a project <strong>and</strong> its parent organization, examining this interplay as<br />
loose vs. tight coupling (Heller, 1999), attachment vs. detachment<br />
(Johansson, Löfström, & Ohlsson, 2007), or integration vs. isolation<br />
(Lehtonen & Martinsuo, 2009). The studies have reported how project<br />
goals are derived from the goals <strong>and</strong> strategies of the parent organization<br />
(Heller, 1999), <strong>and</strong> how the parent organization may provide tools,<br />
techniques, infrastructure, funding, resources, <strong>and</strong> support <strong>for</strong> the project<br />
(Besner & Hobbs, 2008; Gelbard & Carmeli 2009; Ives, 2005). The parent<br />
organization may establish various governance mechanisms to guide <strong>and</strong><br />
control the project’s progress (Ives, 2005). Especially, the appointment of a<br />
project owner or a sponsor provides a central link between the project <strong>and</strong><br />
the parent organization (ibid.). Project teams may also be linked with other<br />
members of the parent organization by common location choices<br />
(Lakemond & Berggren, 2006) <strong>and</strong> by shared resources (Eskerod, 1996).<br />
Related to the interplay of projects with their parent organizations, a<br />
growing stream of studies examines how knowledge <strong>and</strong> learning is<br />
transferred across the projects’ boundaries (e.g. Bresnen, Goussevskaia &<br />
Swan, 2004; Cacciatori, 2008; Dougherty & Takacs, 2004; Grabher, 2004),<br />
so that this knowledge can be utilized in other projects <strong>and</strong> <strong>activities</strong>.<br />
Literature on program management gives more emphasis to the<br />
program’s connections with its parent organization than the traditional<br />
project management literature. Artto et al. (2009) compared literature<br />
sources on project <strong>and</strong> program management <strong>and</strong> concluded that whereas<br />
project management articles tend to focus on issues at the level of single<br />
projects, the level of analysis in program management studies is often the<br />
organization as a whole. There are several reasons <strong>for</strong> the higher level (<strong>and</strong><br />
more external) focus of the program management studies. Firstly, the need<br />
to link the program to the business <strong>and</strong> strategy of the parent organization<br />
is widely reported (Ferns, 1991; Pellegrinelli, 1997; Ribbers & Schoo, 2002).<br />
53