There are now two concurrent tracks of activity. The first scurry of activity is related to a resolution of power dynamics which are affecting and hampering progress, and the second is related to program development which continues throughout the resolution of the power dynamics. The weaker of the two main players needs and wants the program to go forward; certain layers within the stronger player don't want it to go forward.
In effect, the forces that collided a few weeks ago (change agents and resisters/potential usurpers) have now been exposed to each other, and there is now an attempt to move forward with and despite each other. Ie., the power dynamics have not been resolved but the work on the program itself must continue because of other timelines. Subversive activities have started in an attempt to try and get the work done despite the dynamics. The hope is that the power dynamics will be resolved before the program needs to be marketed. Can this go well? Instead of finding a compromise, it's becoming a fight.
The problems arose in part because the timelines of secondary activities (publication deadlines of annual materials) necessitated decisions which seemed reasonable at the time, not knowing that the power dynamics would arise. A judgement call was made on how to honestly advertise an as-yet unapproved program. The risk was that NOT including it would limit marketing exposure.
Resistance became evident in the editing done to the information submitted for the promotional materials. The resistance was extremely confusing, as it seemed disconnected from the purpose of the project and because it came from a department that had nothing to do with the program (or so we thought). In retrospect, the resistance seems like it was an attempt to steer the power over the project towards a particular smaller player. It's unclear at this point whether this would have been a "push" to get something away from one department or a "pull" to get it towards the smaller player to make that player bigger. If the changes to the promotional text hadn't been discovered, it would have looked to the public as if the programming already belonged to the smaller player. Yup, just like in a sandbox.
It seems that one person is ultimately behind both the wiley change to the promotional materials and the other blockages to progress. This person has formal power equivalent to the person formally in charge of this project, but he ... the "power-hungry interloper" from the last entry ... comes from a very particular, closed, traditionally academic mind-set that has in fact stymied all sorts of program development throughout the one institution. His mind-set , however, contradicts his boss's, and it is his boss who has set the overall direction for the project. In other words, the interloper is refusing to do what his boss has said needs to happen, despite the fact that his boss is The Big Boss. The difficulty lies in the Big Boss not being respected by the Interloper, who is in charge of all the people who run various kinds of programs, and so THAT power struggle is being played out (probably among other things) on this new program. In the past, small programs simply died on his desk. This time, because an external stakeholder is involved, the Interloper cannot control the program development in the same way.
The difficulty comes from the fact that someone who supports the Interloper is on the advisory committee for this particular project. Ie., an insider actually supports "the other side". A sub committee has now been formed without the problematic Spy to figure out how to strengthen access to the Big Boss to allow the project to move forward. In the meantime, the Interloper and the Spy have requested a meeting with the Smaller Player - likely to see if THEY can swing some kind of side deal that excludes the other equally-powered smaller boss who is carrying out the wishes of the Big Boss. Got that?
The program development steps seem downright boring in comparison, don't they? Stay tuned ...
