The examples in this newsletter are drawn from real partnership experiences. Names and identifying details have been altered to protect privacy.
Who's This For
You're approaching the end of Year 1 - or maybe you're already there. The first annual report is written (or about to be). You've had successes worth celebrating and challenges worth examining. Partners have learned each other's working styles. The initial excitement has evolved into something more textured.
Now comes the question that most funded projects avoid until it's too late: Is this partnership working the way we thought it would? And should Year 2 look like what we planned, or something different?
This newsletter is for PIs, project coordinators, and partnership professionals navigating mid-project transitions. It's for anyone who has reached that point where you know enough to assess what's happening - but face the choice between honest recalibration and comfortable continuation.
It's also for anyone who has pushed through a second year doing exactly what the proposal promised, even when everyone involved quietly knew it wasn't working.
Mid-project recalibration is uncomfortable. But the partnerships that emerge strongest are the ones that face the discomfort rather than deferring it.
The Partnership Moment
Picture this: You're in a Year 1 wrap-up meeting with your primary partner. The conversation is pleasant. You're both talking about successes. The annual report language is upbeat.
But underneath the pleasant summary, something's bothering you. The community engagement component never really worked the way you envisioned. Partner staff turnover meant the person who signed the letter of support is gone, and their replacement has different priorities. The timeline that seemed reasonable in the proposal feels increasingly disconnected from operational reality.
Your partner seems fine. They're not complaining. But you can't shake the sense that you're both performing satisfaction rather than feeling it.
The proposal says Year 2 will expand Year 1 activities. More students, more sites, more outcomes. But you're not sure Year 1 activities are worth expanding. You're not sure they should continue at all - at least not in their current form.
Now you face a choice.
Option A: Stick to the plan. What you proposed is what you should deliver. Make the activities work better this time. Push through.
Option B: Have the conversation you've been avoiding. Acknowledge that Year 1 revealed things the proposal couldn't anticipate. Discuss what actually makes sense for Year 2, even if it's different from what you promised.
Option A feels safer. Option B feels risky. But Option A is how partnerships slowly die while appearing to survive. Option B is how partnerships discover what they're actually capable of becoming.
Under the Surface
Here's what's really happening at the end of Year 1: you've accumulated information that the proposal couldn't have.
When you wrote the proposal, you made educated guesses. You projected timelines based on similar projects. You described partnerships based on preliminary conversations. You proposed activities based on what seemed reasonable.
Now you have actual data. You know what works and what doesn't. You know which partners are fully engaged and which are going through the motions. You know where the proposal was accurate and where it was optimistic.
This information is valuable. But it creates a tension: the information you've gathered might contradict what the proposal promised.
The traditional response is to hide the contradiction. To write annual reports that emphasize successes and minimize challenges. To continue activities that aren't working because stopping them would mean admitting the proposal was wrong.
But here's what experienced evaluators and funders know: projects that never report challenges aren't demonstrating perfection. They're demonstrating avoidance.
The partnership shift at this stage is moving from performance to honesty. Not brutal honesty that destroys relationships, but collaborative honesty that says: "Here's what we've learned. Here's what we think should change. What do you see?"
