James Wallace at the Kentucky Historical Society asks: Does your
institution have a process in place for systematically
reviewing ideas/proposals for new initiatives and for examinging
existing programs and services?
Alhough this is not based on any practical experience, I'd just like to
throw this out on the off chance that someone thinks it might work and try
it.
The Grantsmanship Center's training on program planning and proposal writing
is very useful, I think, and not just for writing competitive grant
applications. I believe that it could be used within an institution (I
thought this up in relation to the U.S. government programs)to plan and
evaluate programs, even on an ongoing basis.
First, in order for a new program to be adopted by the institution, the
staff proposing it would have to go through the planning process outlined by
the Grantsmanship Center. This would include answering basic questions like
who the audience for the program would be, how the institution knows that
the program (or its results) are needed, what the costs would be, how the
program would continue in the absence of financial support, and how the
program would be evaluated. This is all upfront planning that should be
done in any case, but I think there is value in getting it down on paper and
on to readers who are not intimately involved in planning it.
If the program is adopted, then each year the person running the program
would be required to report on how the program is doing, whether it is doing
what the proposal said it would, whether or not it could become
self-supporting, and the crux of the matter: should the program continue
for the next year? If it is not working, but could possibly be fixed, then
I would expect the program leader to propose how fixing the program would be
accomplished.
The institution could grant the program a certain limited run (2-5 years, or
somewhere in that neighborhood). If at the end of that time, the annual
reporting indicates that either the goal was accomplished and the program
was not longer needed, or that the need is ongoing, and the program needs to
continue. If the goal of the program is accomplished, then it ends. If the
need is ongoing, then the program leader writes a new "grant proposal."
It is certainly true that this would take a great deal of time, however, I
am convinced that good thinking about needs and goals, as well as
implementation and evaluation at the front-end, would keep the number of
barnacles accumulating on any slow-moving institution to a minimum.
Does this even sound feasible? [We already do it for grant projects,
usually. . .]
Claudia Nicholson
Claudia J. Nicholson
Curator
Museum Collections Department
Minnesota Historical Society
345 Kellogg Blvd. W.
St. Paul, MN 55102-1906
Phone: 651/297-7442
FAX: 651/297-2967
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
