Organizational change encompasses two distinct dimensions: naturally occurring change and managerial efforts to produce change (Edmondson, 2018). This paper focuses on the latter, the management of change. Research in public administration and traffic management applies various theoretical approaches to organizational change, notably planned and emergent (Bamford and Forrester, 2003; Biedenbach and Söderholm, 2008; Todnem By, 2005). The planned approach is common in traffic management, particularly in implementing new technologies through a top-down strategy (Lofquist and Isaksen, 2019; Long et al., 2012; Stathis et al., 2022). Lewin’s (1947) model—unfreeze, move, refreeze—illustrates planned change, assuming stable conditions allowing movement between equilibrium states. Critics argue that this approach overly depends on top management dictating timelines, goals, and methods (Todnem By, 2005). The emergent approach, conversely, is addressing a bottom-up processes where technology development emphasizes human-technology interactions (Nylin et al., 2022; Patriarca et al., 2016; Reyes-Muñoz et al., 2023). Here, change is viewed as a continuous, adaptive process characterized by experimentation and rapid responsiveness (Bamford and Forrester, 2003; Biedenbach and Söderholm, 2008; Burnes, 1996, 2004; Dawson, 1996; Edwards et al., 2020). Higher-level management acts as a facilitator rather than a controller of change (Bamford and Forrester, 2003).

In the public sector, one important driver for organizational change is digitalization which include leveraging new Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) to transform strategies and operations. These initiatives remain challenging despite extensive research and practice (Li, 2020; Molin and Norrman Brandt, 2023; Norrman and Näslund, 2025). Public organizations have increasingly adopted the use of portfolio, programme, and project management logics to achieve organizational change (Bonomi Savignon and Costumato, 2024). Challenges mentioned for succeeding with these changes include, for example: lack of strategic communications, failure to define a clear roadmap, and to plan and execute the right steps (Li, 2020). Although context is briefly mentioned in these studies, surprisingly little research focus specifically on context adaptation.

An organization’s context encompasses its internal and external environments (Kuipers et al., 2014), see Figure 1. Internal context refers to organizational and individual factors (Alfes et al., 2019; Anderson and Young, 1999). Organizational factors include the availability of necessary resources, communication, organizational culture, involvement, leadership, plan for implementation and monitoring of change, organizational structures, team relationships, technology, motive and extent of the change, time, prevalence of change and readiness for change (Anderson and Young, 1999; Balthu and Clegg, 2021; Brandes and Lai, 2022; Brazzale et al., 2021; Dawson, 1996; Øvretveit et al., 2012). Individual factors encompass motivation, knowledge, experience, and learning, past experience of change, propensity to change, resistance to change and values and needs of individuals are mentioned as individual contextual factors (Anderson and Young, 1999; Brandes and Lai, 2022; Chaudhry, 2020). External context, on the other hand, covers technological factors, legislative factors, social factors, political factors, economic factors, market factors and competitive factors (Abeygunasekera et al., 2022; Dawson, 1996; Dmitrijeva et al., 2020; Silver et al., 2016).

Understanding context involves analysing not only processes and structures but also incorporating the human dimensions which shape organizational change (Pettigrew et al., 2001). Organizations are composed of several contexts that are interpreted by humans (Frishammar, 2006; Khaw et al., 2023; Pettigrew et al., 2001; Tsoukas and Chia, 2002). Therefore, when studying the enactment of context adaptation, it is important to take into account both processes, structures and the human dimensions.

The contingency approach is applied as theoretical lens to enable an analysis of context adaptation in terms of processes, structures and human dimensions. This approach focuses specifically on variables that affect organizational performance (Donaldson, 2001; Galbraith and Nathanson, 1978). One key assumptions within the contingency approach is that organizations function as open rational systems, meaning purposefully designed and managed to achieve specific goals (Turkulainen, 2022). This perspective implies that organizational processes and structures are not fixed but should be adapted to fit environmental conditions and strategic objectives. This means that there is no single best way to organize; efficiency depends on alignment with internal and external contingencies (Donaldson, 2001; Thompson, 1967; Woodward, 1966). If contingencies shift and structures remain static, performance declines, requiring adaptive change to realign structures and processes (Donaldson, 2001). Thus, organizations must continually seek the “one best way for each” (Burnes, 1996, p. 15) organization. This study differentiates between contingency variables, which are immutable and require adaptation, and contextual factors, which organizations can influence as part of change efforts. Another key assumption is that humans are boundedly rational, and operate within cognitive and informational limits (Turkulainen, 2022). This means, that while they strive to make rational choices, their capacity to gather, interpret, and process information is limited. Instead of identifying optimal solutions, they simplify decision-making by setting achievable targets and selecting satisfactory options. Therefore, when studying the enactment of context adaptation, it is important to include the behavioural implications, including managers’ and employees’ perceptions and accordingly how they shape the change process.

Within the field of organizational change, various models have been developed to facilitate context adaptation. First, Luthans and Stewart’s (1977) model of planned change involves four steps: (1) contingency audit, (2) strategy development, (3) implementation, and (4) result evaluation. Evaluations feed into a database to inform future strategies. Second, Dunphy and Stace’s (1988) situational model factors in both type of change and leadership approach, recommending strategy variation for an “optimal fit” with a dynamic environment (Dunphy and Stace, 1993, p. 905). Third, Hailey and Balogun’s (2002) Change Kaleidoscope broadens earlier models by integrating a wider set of contextual features and offering repeated evaluations during the change process (Balthu and Clegg, 2021; Hailey and Balogun, 2002). Unlike earlier models, which assume stable contexts, the Change Kaleidoscope recognizes that both context and change strategies must evolve during implementation.

Despite such context adaptation frameworks in a public sector setting, it remains unclear how the human dimension, together with processes and structures, shape the change process. Existing public administration literature emphasizes that managers can have a significant effect on how employees perceive change. Seijts and Roberts (2011) argue that the management-level can shape both the context and the process of organizational change by establishing structures to enhance employees’ opportunities to actively participate in the change process. Khaw et al. (2023), highlight that thoughtful and inclusive communication strategies can foster positive engagement, whereas a poor framing of the change process may trigger adverse reactions. Hameed et al. (2019), underscore the importance of a clear purpose, noting that managers must address the critical question: ‘What do I gain from this change?’ Furthermore, Seijts and Roberts (2011) demonstrate that managers play a crucial role in fostering desired behavioural change by providing employees with the necessary support and resources. However, limited attention has been given to the enactment of context adaptation and its human elements in terms of bounded rationality when managers operate within cognitive and informational limits (Turkulainen, 2022).

Conversely, for employees, existing literature highlights both positive and negative behavioural implications when context adaptation is enacted, particularly in relation to factors such as communication, involvement, planning, and managerial support. In terms of communication, employees report negative perceptions when they feel insufficiently informed in a inaccessible manner (Jones et al., 2008), whereas timely and transparent communication about the change is perceived positively (Seijts and Roberts, 2011). When it comes to involvement, employees who are encouraged to participate in the change process, and whose input is valued and utilized, are more likely to remain positive about the change (Seijts and Roberts, 2011). When it comes to planning, employees may experience changing roles, heavier workload, and intensified training as challenging (Jones et al., 2008). Finally, employees who are supported by the management feel empowered and are more open to organizational changes (Seijts and Roberts, 2011).

For this study, the orienting frame of reference synthesizes the theoretical background and form the basis for exploring how context adaptation is enacted in change processes and what the behavioural implications are, see Figure 2. Based on the theoretical lens of contingency, the orienting frame of reference highlights the organizational context consisting of different internal and external contextual factors (including contingency variables) (Alfes et al., 2019; Anderson and Young, 1999; Kuipers et al., 2014; Silver et al., 2016). The contextual factors can be assessed with the aim to find the fit between context and change strategy (Dunphy and Stace, 1988; Hailey and Balogun, 2002; Luthans and Stewart, 1977). However, the contingency variables cannot be changed but the organization can adapt to them while the contextual factors can be influenced. Changes based on planned change is related to the top-down perspective while emergent change relates to the bottom-up perspective (Biedenbach and Söderholm, 2008; Todnem By, 2005). During the change process re-evaluations could be performed to adapt change strategy to the changing context (Balthu and Clegg, 2021). Finally, an evaluation of the final result is made after the implementation (Hailey and Balogun, 2002; Luthans and Stewart, 1977). Adaptation is initially assumed to take place during the development of the change strategy and then during the change process through the implementation of the change strategy. Assessment of whether the adaptation is sufficient is assumed to take place during initial assessment of the context (including previous evaluations), implementation of change strategy (the change process) and evaluation of results. Aligned with the contingency approach, the orienting frame of reference (see Figure 2) is based on the assumption that humans are boundedly rational and operate within cognitive and informational limits (Turkulainen, 2022). This implies that humans are simplifying change processes and seeking satisfactory solutions, rather than finding the optimal one (Turkulainen, 2022). As a result, the behavioural implications address both top-level managers’ and employees’ perceptions of context adaptation when the change process is enacted.

The context for this study is The Swedish Transport Administration (STA). This public authority is publicly funded through taxation, and political authority plays an important role through annual appropriations letters, government mandates, and resource allocation. Their vision “Everybody arrives smoothly, the green and safe way”, combined with reduced financial budgets, illustrate the contemporary complex challenges STA as a public authority is facing. STA is responsible for the long-term planning of the transport system for road, rail, shipping and air. STA is also responsible for building, operating and maintaining state roads and railways, and ensuring that this infrastructure is used efficiently. Organizationally, the authority is divided into several business areas and central functions and has approximately 9000 employees (Trafikverket, 2025).

The specific empirical context for this study is Business area Traffic management. The Business area is responsible for providing traffic management and traffic information to the Swedish road and rail network. Operations are conducted at traffic control centres spread across the country were operative employees with different roles work shifts to maintain delivery 24/7, around the clock. The Business area Traffic management has approximately 2000 employees. Organizationally, the nationwide department for business development and asset management is responsible for running projects, while it is employees at the traffic control centres in the operational activities that are the recipients of the changes. In specific, the change process that has been explored in this study entails development of working routines and IT system that were implemented at traffic control centres. The purpose of the developed working routines and IT system was to improve the quality of the traffic management delivery (meaning satisfied travellers, road users and businesses that use roads and railways) with existing personnel resources. Operative employees were the staff group that was primarily affected by this change and prior to the change implementation, training was carried out for the operational employees.

A top-down, planned approach to organizational change is adopted at STA. Projects apply the project model, XLPM (Semcon, 2024), that describes project activities, decision points, and, responsibilities to ensure that set goals are achieved. Regarding change management, a framework for change management is used that is based on a change management model developed for public administrations (Ekonomistyrningsverket, 2007). The framework include phases corresponding to the three phases described by Lewin (1947): prepare for the change, implement the change and reinforce the change (Ekonomistyrningsverket, 2007). However, given the challenges of implementing changes in operational activities with shift work, the organization has begun to consider whether the changes should be more adapted to the context.

This context offers a compelling case to study due to the pronounced challenges of adapting change processes to the context of 24/7 operational activities with shift work, together with the enactment of change processes involving both managers and employees.

This study adopts an abductive qualitative approach to increase understanding of how context adaptation is enacted in change processes, including the behavioural implications, in the field of public administration in the empirical context of traffic management. The qualitative approach is motivated by the fact that qualitative research is contextually anchored and allows the researcher to become an interpreter of the people included in the study (Pettigrew, 2013). This is in line with that change within public administration needs to be understood as a contextualized phenomenon using a qualitative approach (Alvehus and Loodin, 2023). The abductive approach include an iterative process of understanding the “parts” in relation to the “whole” in order to capture deeper meanings (Prasad, 2018). In the analysis this is manifested by going back and forth between the empirical data and theory to refine interpretations and engage with theory continuously (Bell et al., 2019; Ketokivi and Choi, 2014). We abductively involved theory on organizational change, context, contingency approach, and context adaptation to analyse and understand the findings an enable theory elaboration (Ketokivi and Choi, 2014).

The empirical data consists of 21 face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Informants were purposefully selected to represent different perspectives of actor groups in the organization in order to enable comparisons of perceptions across ongoing processes (Bell et al., 2019). The top-level management perspective is represented by six top-level managers in the Business area. The employee perspective is represented by six employees who lead projects, six operational employees at traffic control centres and three operational employees at traffic control centres who get an increased opportunity to participate in changes (this role can be temporary as project member or more permanently as instructor or educator), see Table 1. Operational employees’ participation in interviews was requested and approved through their immediate manager meaning that operational employees were provided based on availability. When the informant was invited to the interview, the subject of the interview was introduced, and it was described what the research would be used for. The interviews were conducted during the period August 2022 to August 2023.

To collect information from informants but still be able to be flexible to ask follow-up questions, semi-structured interviews were chosen (Ruslin et al., 2022), see Appendix 1. The research question and the orienting frame of reference formed the basis when the interview guide was developed. The interview guide contained a sequence of questions and, if necessary, follow-up questions were asked during the interviews (Kvale, 2022). Open questions were asked and in each interview the informant had the opportunity to describe their specific context, their role in changes and define change management. As the last question before the interview ended, the interviewer asked if the informant had something further to add that was not recovered during the interview. A pilot study involving four interviews was conducted to test the interview guide. The interviews lasted approximately 45 min and were conducted via Skype. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed in full.

The empirical data was analysed in several steps following the procedures of the hermeneutic circle (Darby et al., 2019). The hermeneutic circle represents an iterative process of understanding the “parts” in relation to the “whole” in order to capture deeper meanings (Prasad, 2018). The contingency approach encompasses a variety of units of analysis (Turkulainen, 2022). In this study, the chosen unit of analysis is top-level managers and employees, and their perceived challenges of context adaptation when the change process is enacted. In the first step, intratextual analysis was used to interpret each informant. Directly after each interview, short summaries were written to capture initial interpretations. Each informant’s experience was then summarized, including identified contextual/contingency aspects and activities of adaptation to the context of change. Secondly, intertextual analysis was carried out to find differences and similarities in the different informants’ perceptions of context adaptation. The analysis was conducted by using descriptive coding on the intratextual summaries with priori codes (contextual factors, contingency variables, current adaptations, challenges, phase of change) but also letting codes emerge from the data were used to categorize similar pieces of data (Miles et al., 2014). Thirdly, the codes were used to group data to find differences and similarities across informants, forming the basis for identifying overarching themes in the empirical material (Miles et al., 2020; Ryan and Bernard, 2003). The NVivo software was used for coding and identifying themes. Since all priori codes in regards of contextual factors were not identified by the informants they are not included in the analysis. However, we identified two contradictory behavioural patterns that is discussed in section 4.5. During the analysis of the empirical material, tables and figures were used to organize the data but also to display the data and visualize similarities and differences between the actors’ perceptions (Miles et al., 2020). Several quality-enhancing activities to ensure trustworthiness was conducted during the analysis of the empirical data. One such activity was a reference group (7 people at manager and employee level, 3-4 meetings per year) at the studied organization where key people were given the opportunity to discuss the preliminary results and provide feedback on interpretations.(Grant and Lincoln, 2021; Pettigrew, 1990; Rodham et al., 2015).

In the phase of development of change strategy, it is apparent that in STA this is an activity mostly involving a top-down perspective, meaning only top-level managers are involved. The foundation of this phase is guided by top-down methods to drive change within the organization. Both the STA´s project model and their change management framework are based on a planned, top-down, approach to change. Top-level managers are involved in development of change strategies mainly in the role of sponsor or as a participant in the steering group for projects. Toplevel managers contribute to the decision of change strategy with perspectives mainly related to planning the implementation, for example: managing dependencies between projects to ensure that implementations do not collide, that there are plans for information and training those affected by the change, that the plan for implementation include pilots to test changed working methods and systems on a smaller scale before full-scale implementation and to balance the need for change with availability of necessary resources. Although the organization is guided by this top-down perspective, it is not always clear to the top-level managers themselves what their role includes in change processes. This is illustrated by top-level managers below:

This shows that top-level managers identify that the contextual factor organizational structures influence the development of change strategy, see Table 3. The overall structures in the project model and framework for change management are not perceived to be adaptable (and therefore contingency variables) to the specific change process (meaning that the structures offered by the models and frameworks are mandatory), nor is the fact that the operational activities are conducted through shift work. To have access to the necessary resources in the long term, initiatives are underway in the organization to create stable staffing. However, for the specific change this is a factor that cannot be influenced and is thus a contingency variable. The behavioural implications highlight current context adaptation and challenges. What is adapted is that steering groups can be staffed with relevant participants, that change processes are adapted to the operational activities by planning phased implementations, scheduling between projects and to balance the need for change with availability of necessary resources, operational staff. Remaining challenges that top-level managers perceive are clarity regarding roles and responsibilities in steering groups and manage shortage of operational staff.

During the first phase of the change process, prepare, focus is on communication and dealing with potential concerns about the change to create change readiness. Top-level managers acknowledge that it is important to be aware of the potential concerns of operational employees at this stage. Furthermore, it is perceived as a challenge that it is not possible to gather the entire staff at the same time to inform about changes, due to operational activities that take place around the clock. Although there is a focus on communication, the top managers do not seem to have the solution for how it can be adapted based on the operational activities as they perceive communication as challenging. This is illustrated by a top-level manager below:

Employees who lead projects identify that it is important to communicate about the upcoming change to create a shared vision of what is to be achieved and thereby set expectations among the operative employees. Furthermore, planning of the implementation starts by clarifying who is responsible for what and which activities need to be done. These plans become increasingly detailed over time. The employees who lead projects also acknowledge the operational employees at traffic control centres as recipients of the change, which has its basis in the distribution of responsibilities in the project model and change management framework used for change initiatives. Employees who lead projects have responsibility up to a certain stage and then hands over to recipients which are traffic control centres and asset management. Even if employees who lead projects focus on communication, the purpose of communication seems to be about clarifying boundaries and expectations rather than creating involvement. This is illustrated by three employees who lead projects below:

Operational employees with increased opportunity to participate in changes (OE+) observe that changes are decided and driven top-down, which can be perceived as the need for change not stemming from the operational activities. During the prepare phase, it is perceived as important by OE+ that they are given the opportunity and conditions to train their colleagues before the change implementation. These employees participate in risk analyses carried out by the employees who lead projects. Although communication and involvement are important in this phase, employees with increased opportunities to participate in changes perceive that their involvement is not sufficient and that they often need to request additional information. This is illustrated by three OE+ below:

Operational employees identify that communication and participation are important in this phase, however, communication is often in the form of information and the lack of availability of personnel resources makes it difficult for operational employees to be involved. Although communication is important, operative employees feel that they only receive information at this stage. This is illustrated by an operational employee below:

Table 4 summarizes the prepare phase. Top-level managers identify organizational structures and values and needs of individuals as contextual factors that influence at this phase. The mission of the organization is providing traffic management, meaning the operational activities with shift work is a structure that top-level managers cannot change hence it is a contingency variable. The current adaptation consists of communication and leadership to respond to concerns of operative employees. The perceived challenges consist of the issue that it is not possible to gather, and inform, all operative personnel at the same time. Employees who lead change identify the context factors communication and plan for implementation and monitoring of change to influence at this stage. Like top-level managers, employees who lead projects cannot alter the fact that the operation is an operational activity with shift work. At this stage, employees who lead projects perceive goals, and vision for the project and “rules of the game” regarding structures in the organization are not adaptable. What is adapted, however, is communication about goals and vision to manage expectations of the change, and that employees who lead projects also work actively to clarify roles and responsibilities in the change work. Perceived difficulties for employees who lead projects are finding ways to communicate and involve operational employees. Employees with OE+ identify that the contextual factors communication and involvement influence at this stage. When it comes to goals and vision for projects, they are perceived as fixed by these employees. OE+ are responsible for training their colleagues and at this stage they request information and training materials to understand the impact on roles, working methods and IT systems. Furthermore, these employees participate in risk analyses. The perceived challenges are about the opportunity to participate in change and contribute with own expertise. Operational employees identify that the contextual factors availability of necessary resources and communication influence at this stage. The availability of operational personnel is identified as a factor that cannot be influenced; hence it is contingency variable. Operational employees do not perceive that they can influence the communication about changes. Information is mostly received by e-mail. Like OE+ in changes, operational employees experience challenges related to the involvement.

During the second phase, implement, tensions arise between maintaining operational delivery and having available personnel resources to implement changes. The top-level managers acknowledge that their role is to strengthen and support the change in this phase without being involved in the actual implementation. Perceived challenges are, among other things, that planning is required, and it takes a long time to train operative employees before the implementation because they work in shifts and the training needs to fit into their schedule while the operative work needs to continue undisturbed. This is illustrated by top-level managers below:

In this phase, employees who lead projects work further to clarify who is responsible for what, carry out tests of new IT systems and working routines, and then implementation of the change. There is an awareness that unexpected issues can arise and that the better prepared you are for this in the change project, the easier it is to handle these situations. In the implement-phase, when the project result is to be implemented, an interface appears where the employees who lead projects hands over to the first line managers of the traffic control centres to implement the change. This is illustrated by employees who lead projects below:

OE+ feels, despite their increased opportunity to participate, that this involvement is not sufficient to make use of their expertise on operational activities that is available. Although the change affects the operational employees, their operational knowledge is perceived not to be used to a sufficient extent in changes projects. This is illustrated by an OE+ below:

Since operative employees in the initial phase mostly received information via e-mail, and were not further involved, they feel that the change now coming is fixed and that they cannot influence developed IT systems and working routines. This is illustrated by operative employees below:

Table 5 summarizes the implement phase. The top-level managers identify contextual factors communication, leadership and organizational structures to be influential in this phase. The fact that the business is operational, and that operational delivery must be maintained during this phase are seen as contingency variables that are not adaptable. Current adaptations are mainly consisting of planning (for which the project is responsible) to ensure training for operative employees before implementation. Perceived challenges include human aspects of change, and that the implementation of changes takes place in the operational activities that must be sustained. Employees who lead projects identify the contextual factors plan for implementation and monitoring of change and organizational structures to be influential at this stage. Even in this phase, organizational structures for the areas of responsibility of organizational parts and actors are perceived as not adaptable. Current adaptation consists of clarifying the responsibilities of organizational parts and actors and comprehensive planning for implementation of change. Challenges experienced include managing issues that arise during the implementation and handovers between organizational units, to the operational activities in this phase. OE+ identify that the contextual factors involvement and plan for implementation and monitoring of change to influence at this phase. Furthermore, they perceive they cannot influence how they are involved; it is managed by the project. Adaptations made at this phase is implementation of training for colleagues as well as participation in risk analyses and risk mitigation. Perceived challenges consist of the difficulty of anticipating the impact of changes on operational activities before the change has been tested in real life environment. Operative employees identifies that the contextual factors involvement and knowledge, experience, and learning influence at this phase. How operational employees are involved, and the development of IT systems is perceived as not adaptable. In this phase, operative employees participate in training before implementing the change.

In the phase of institutionalization (called reinforce by STA) there seems to be a shift in who is most active in the change, as the operational employees at this stage provide feedback while the employees leading changes plan for the end of the project and the handover to asset management. Top-level managers acknowledge that their role is to support the change in this phase and follow up if adjustments need to be made to achieve the expected benefits of the change. This is illustrated by top-level managers below:

Employees who lead projects perceive at this phase that their assignment is nearing the end and that it is time to hand over to the asset management where their task is to manage the new IT system (or the new way of working) and thus take care of the backlog from the project and continue with continuous improvements. Although this is a phase to institutionalize the change, the focus for employees who lead change is to identify remaining activities to manage and finish the project. This is illustrated by employees who lead projects below:

OE+ recognize that how much effort is needed in this phase depends on previous phases of the change process. These employees are often a channel for conveying feedback regarding the change implementation. This is illustrated by an OE+ below:

Operational employees acknowledge that they are involved in this phase as they provide feedback on the implemented change. The operative employees’ expectation is that their feedback will lead to adjustments and further development, but this is perceived to happen too slowly. This is illustrated by an Operational employee below:

Table 6 summarizes the reinforce phase. Top-level managers identify the contextual factors leadership and motive and extent of the change to influence institutionalization. Current adaptation consists of following up: partly to see if adjustments are needed but also to see that expected benefits are achieved. Employees who lead projects identify the contextual factors plan for implementation and monitoring of change and organizational structures to be influential at this phase. Organizational structures for the areas of responsibility of organizational parts and actors are identified as not adaptable since the mandate to decide on changes to these structures is at a higher organizational level. Current adaptation consists of monitoring the change implementation and the process of handing over the project to asset management. These handovers between organizational units, at this phase to asset management, are experienced as challenging. OE+ identify the contextual factors involvement and team relationships to be influential at this phase. How follow-up of the implementation is organized by the project is perceived to be not adaptable. The current adaptation consists of conducting additional training if needed and being the channel to provide feedback to the project on the implemented change to draw attention to whether adjustments need to be made. A perceived challenge is where feedback should be addressed when projects end, and asset management takes over the further development. Operational employees identify the contextual factor involvement to be influential at this phase. Operational employees perceive that how the follow-up of the implementation is organized by the project is not adaptable. The current adaptation consists of giving feedback on the implemented change. This is often done within the immediate team and conveyed to the project via OE+. A challenge is when the given feedback is not perceived to be handled within a short time.

In this section, behavioural implications such as identified challenges and two identified contradictory behavioural patterns will be presented. When summarizing the context adaptation challenges during the change phases (see Table 7), it becomes clear that implementation of changes in operational activities that must be sustained is a challenge. Even if it is only top-level managers who point this out as a challenge, it is still clear that employees see this as a natural part of their context, so obvious that it is not pointed out.

The first contradictory behavioural pattern consists of managers and employees agreeing on the important contingency variable that sufficient available necessary resources (operational staff) are lacking (see Table 3 and Table 4). Top-level managers further emphasize the difficulty of balancing the need for change with availability of necessary resources (operational staff) (see Table 7). This contradictory behavioural pattern can be equated with what one of the top managers perceives as a ‘catch 22’ - change is needed, yet the resources to implement it are insufficient. Despite this dilemma, the perceived urgency of change appears to outweigh concerns about resource limitations when decisions regarding change are made.

The second contradictory behavioural pattern concerns communication and involvement (including participation and contribute with expertise) (see Table 7), which is considered as challenging by all actors. The contradictory behavioural pattern, see Figure 4, is based on the double-sided request on involvement and participation, counter-acted by structural restrictions and lack of resources. Employees that lead projects have identified that new ways of creating involvement of operational staff are needed, which can be interpreted as current organizational structures and working methods (such as STA’s project model and framework for change management) are not being sufficiently adapted to the context of operational activities. Since organizational structures are perceived as uninfluenceable by top-level managers and employees that lead projects, no contextual adaptation actions are not taken, which results in a lack of involvement of operational employees.