| |
|
Organizational
- Lack of consensus regarding the need for the project. The executive director began the search for a new facility, only to find that the board was unwilling to undertake the work needed, believed that the organization wouldn’t be successful in a capital campaign, or didn’t see the need.
- The desire for a facility was not tied to a strategic need. The idea for a new facility was based more on what the staff and/or board wanted than on what the organization needed. A strategic plan linking the organization's future to the need didn’t exist. For one organization, this meant that decisions about the kind of facility were always up in the air. For another, program expansion was haphazard and created to fit the facility space rather than the audience's needs and wants.
In yet another, it meant that the type of programming done in the past was merely expanded; no market research took place, and opportunities were lost. Ultimately, the organization had to retrofit the brand-new facility to meet the needs of the organization after it reconceived its programming, driving up costs beyond what was originally planned for in the capital campaign.
- New board members brought a new sense of ownership, vision and expectation. To meet the capital campaign needs, a fund-raising board was created. More people laid claim to “ownership” of the organization, due to their financial contributions to the building. This became hard for original staffers who had shaped the organization's vision.
- Staff burned out. Lack of time to manage the organization and direct the facility project led to exhaustion. Also, as changes required by the facility became more fully understood, the staff showed dissatisfaction with the new direction (another example of a lack of consensus).
A new facility is rarely the answer to all of an organization’s problems, as it usually produes a whole new set of pressures and difficulties -- including the need to become more “institutional.” This might be an issue for some staff members. It is not uncommon to find a nearly complete turn-over of staff pre- and post-project.
- The organization was understaffed before the building project, and/or remained understaffed after it. A facility project can take 50% or more of the executive director’s time, and nearly that much of many other staff members. It is difficult to run your typical programming schedule and activities under these conditions. To solve this, some organizations cut back on programming, while others struggled through.
Some organizations let administrative positions necessary to operating and/or plnaning for the new facility remain unfilled, making it more difficult to address program expansions and weakening the organization's infrastructure.
- Current staff's skills did not adequately meet the needs of the organization in the new facility. This was particularly true in three areas: development, marketing, and financial. The new skills needed to manage a building were neither appreciated nor understood.
|
|
|
