Staff and Trustees of strategic philanthropies and grant applicants put extraordinary effort into the project plans within grant proposals. The time is well-spent. The insights and skills of the team can reduce risk, develop capacity, and deepen knowledge. That is all good – to a point. Iterations of proposal revision may torque the grantee and polarize the power dynamic of grantmaking. Detailed planning can create a false sense of certainty. The one future that we know will not occur is the multi-year plan and budget of the grant proposal.

Of all the possible futures, the sole scenario that you can eliminate is the initial proposal.

Sharing and understanding that simple fact can be a gateway to learning by the foundation and its grantees and a catalyst to adaptive project management and a candid relationship. By starting with the anticipation of change, you create the space to both over-perform or under-perform and to adapt as a collaborative process of problem-solving. It is certain that that the grantee’s program implementation will depart from their promised budget and proposal.

Over-promising is a hazard of competing for grants and of the optimism inherent to those in the social sector. When you combine the grant applicants’ optimism and over-promising with the funders’ optimism and narrow strategies, the result does not bode well for either performance or for adaptability. I would go so far as to say that if your foundation has funded work that went exactly to plans and budget, you’re likely to have a reporting problem.

Social science research on the accuracy of predictions points to features of successful forecasting that align with Responsive Grantmaking, such as:

  • Working in teams;
  • Asking good questions;
  • Involving domain experts and diverse views;
  • Being willing to change course and revise forecasts;
  • Taking time for deliberation;
  • Consideration of probabilities; and
  • Being open minded.

Explicit recognition that the plan won’t happen lets the donor and the implementer to discuss, “How will we collaboratively reallocate time and grant money and adjust goals to the emergent reality?” And ask, “What other scenarios are possible and what might signal new risks and opportunities?” When both minds and processes are open to the possibility of change, a joint donor and program team can develop a project environment with both guardrails and opportunities for innovation. In that productive context, a precise project plan is neither a forecast nor marching orders but provides the baseline with which to assess when and how to adapt for success.

 

“The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present.”

Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes (1985)