Long ago, a thought crossed my mind: if there were even a single particle of eternal matter — completely unchanged, immovable, and untouched by time — its very existence would interrupt the endless movement and transformation of matter and energy. It would introduce a point of absolute permanence into a universe defined by change. In that sense, such a particle could not exist. Just a thought — but perhaps a useful one.
In development processes, we often talk about sustainability. More recently, we also talk more and more about resilience. Sustainability is usually understood as the continuous and lasting existence of an achieved outcome. But is this always the right goal?
Today, in a world marked by rapid change in almost every area of life, it is increasingly visible that almost nothing is sustainable in an unchanged form. Technologies change. Markets change. Institutions change. Skills become outdated. Even solutions that once represented progress can eventually become obstacles to further progress.
Change is always present. It is often even promoted as desirable, because it reflects dissatisfaction with the current situation and the hope for something better. So, perhaps the sustainability of a specific form, outcome, or structure should not be seen as the ultimate goal. The real goal should be sustainable improvement.
An improvement that becomes obsolete should be replaced by a new solution. What was once expected to be sustainable may, over time, become a limitation. We should therefore strive not for sustainable structures, but for sustainable progress. Sooner or later, every structure risks becoming outdated and restrictive.
This leads us to resilience.
Resilience can be understood as the capacity to recover from difficulties, adapt to adversity, and continue functioning effectively despite challenges or setbacks. It applies to people, enterprises, systems, and communities. It is important to notice that this definition refers to the ability to recover, adapt, and continue functioning. It does not say that things must remain unchanged.
Things do change — both in the environment and within the entity itself. Resilience is therefore not about persisting in the same form. It is about continuing to serve the purpose, even if the form changes.
A person who was once extremely good at analysis but does not adopt new software tools will eventually start falling behind. Imagine an analyst using only a calculator, while others use Excel, SPSS, other statistical tools, or new AI-based systems. The person may still have analytical ability, but without adaptation, their skill quietly loses its edge.
The same applies to companies. If a company relies only on skills and equipment it mastered long ago, it may still find a small market niche that values such methods. For example, there may always be demand for hand-sewn dresses or suits. But such a company is unlikely to achieve high production volumes or compete broadly in terms of quality, delivery time, and price.
Many companies that fail to adapt to new knowledge, skills, technologies, and equipment will eventually lose competitiveness. To survive, they must change. And many do. They train workers, buy new equipment, develop new products, and improve processes.
This means that survival does not come from preserving the old structure unchanged. It comes from adapting while continuing to serve the purpose.
Sticking to sustainability as permanence can therefore be dangerous. It can turn yesterday’s improvement into today’s obstacle. Developing the capacity for resilience seems to be the better choice.
The desire for sustainability is not wrong. But sustainability should not mean freezing success in place. It should mean sustaining the ability to improve, adapt, and continue creating value.