I spent forty years in an engineering business and after retirement spent three years volunteering at Como. During my final year of volunteering, together with Tim Bain, I spent over 150 hours developing the engineering needed to build an historically accurate recreation of the water tank behind the round house. I left the group after one person discarded all this work in favor of paying someone else to design a tank that is based on something from a Bachman HO set. Obviously my feelings were/are affected by this and similar experiences volunteering at Como. So take that into consideration when reading the following. Also consider that my experiences at Como are several years dated.
First of all I want to state that I found that most of the people involved with the Como project are very well intentioned and very hard working. Many have given an enormous amount of time and money to the project – especially the Branigans. The downside is that being well intentioned does not mean that the skills were/are present to provide the best progress at Como.
For example, I don’t think the people who have led the efforts in Como really understand what a plan is from a business perspective. As far as what I have seen, I would refer to their previous “plans” more along the lines of a mission statement du jour. I fully realize that the Como Project is NOT a “for-profit” business but that doesn’t mean one should ignore both the long and short term details of objectives and the resources required to meet those objectives. And yes, plans can and should be annually updated to reflect the realities associated with previous progress and the availability of funding.
Also, it seemed during my work at Como that the project’s management structure was very confusing and split between the South Park Rail Society, the DSP&P Historical Society, and
most frequently the loudest voice in the room. IMO, productive projects are led by an experienced leader that builds consensus within the management team and effectively communicates that information to the workers. I’m not sure what the situation is with the Como Project’s leadership is at the moment but from this NGDF thread it still seems lacking.
I very much wish the people involved with the work at Como good luck. But I think a more business-like management team that understands business-like planning and with better communication would be timely improvement at the Como Project.