Posted by:
Jeanne Century
Posted on: May 16, 2001 at 12:35 PM
Message:
When our research team set out to look at "sustained" programs, we have talked much about the question you raised - Which is more important: longevity of the project's vision and goals, or working to have the project survive in any fashion? We simply had to ask *what* is being sustained?We are finding that the answer is not either longevity or survival; rather it depends on where the project is in its evolution - is it really in its infancy (say, at 5 years) or has it reached maturity (say, at 25 years)? At first, it seems essential to focus on the original goals, otherwise, the initial work is left without guidance and consistency. But, in order for a program to endure, there must be evolution - while some parts of the goals might remain intact, others must change and adapt with the ever-changing contexts and conditions. There may be times in the life of a program where the original project that was its seed will all but disappear along with its goals. But, that doesn't mean that it won't ultimately contribute to sustainability. A project which grows and then wanes can establish a foundation, (perhaps it is subtle or latent) that, when the time comes will move a rejunivated effort much father along than it would have been had it needed to start from scratch. Is this still considered sustainability? Some would say no, but there is no denying the place of early programs in the ability of new leaders to build stronger efforts in the present and perhaps into the future. Other thoughts??
|
