Posts Tagged ‘Best Fit’

Part 2: Enabling development’s paradigm shift from ‘best practice’ to ‘best fit’

Workshop I_end user in sight during evaluation

Programming in International Development jumps directly into the Design phase of the projects. This is the root of the challenge they face now as they seek to change the paradigm away from ‘best practice’ to putting the end users at the center of their strategies, with ‘best fit’. I identified this problem in the Autumn of 2012 whilst delving into the internal project development processes with civil servants at the Netherlands Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Economy during a customized internal workshop.

It should be mentioned at this point that while Robert Chambers has extensively promoted the participatory approach, there were issues in the process that were explored during our work, and can be covered in a separate article. Participatory design is not synonymous with user centered design, and neither approach includes a robust methodology for assessing the landscape of the operating environment in conjuction with solution development for ‘best fit’, particularly in the developing world context.

Before we can jump into the design of a project or programme – whether with or without the participation of the end users/beneficiaries, we need a structured approach to grasping the context of the challenge. Without a map of the landscape of the ‘wicked problem’, one cannot navigate the complexity (1). This so called landscape map of the ecosystem in which the development project will be introduced, should not only include understanding the people and their operating environment, but identify and frame the touchpoints for the design of ‘best fit’ interventions.

That is, there’s a need for framing the problem in a manner such that the outcome narrows down the solution space i.e. delineating the boundaries for ‘best fit’ prior to the inception of the design process. In the field of design, these boundary conditions can be known as design criteria and constraints, along with filters for assessing optimal solutions at the conceptual stage from the plurality available.

UCSD

These first three steps in the process BEFORE jumping into design are collectively known as Design Planning, and their outcome minimizes the wasteful experimentation of ‘suits to try’ for ‘best fit’ as the design phase begins with the ‘measurements’ necessary for a ‘bespoke suit’ tailored to fit, to stretch the analogy. Bespoke tailors do not expect their carefully measured suit to fit their client on the first try, and usually one returns two or three times for the final fitting. Similarly, customized programming may require tweaks and can be considered a working prototype (a pilot program, for instance, prior to scaling) where the kinks are worked out together with the participants.

This will require work upfront at the start of the multi-year programmes. There are no silver bullets to addressing complexity.

 

(1) Part 1: An Interdisciplinary Approach to “Best Fit” for International Development: Process and Tools

An Interdisciplinary Approach to “Best Fit” for International Development: Process and Tools

This post follows on from the previous one which introduced the concept of a ‘best fit’ approach to the ‘wicked problems’ in development. There I posited that consumer facing private enterprises looking at the African market would benefit from considering Development’s thought-leadership in this regard, given their experience in the challenging operating environments of the developing world.

I also noted that while the ‘best fit’ concept was a welcome paradigm shift for addressing complexity, the siloed thinking common to academia left far too many gaps in their approach and process.

In this post, I will begin to explore the seminal thinking (1) at the intersection of business and design  – also known as innovation planning – for methods and tools to address complexity in a holistic way, all the while keeping in mind that we need to ensure the end users (the rural poor, the people, or the beneficiaries) are at the center of the strategy (Chambers 1988).

Where is the gap?

A careful review of the working paper provides evidence that the challenge faced by international development practitioners when considering a ‘best fit’ approach to programme design is the lack of a robust methodology proven to take one from A to B. Here, we can think of point A as their original ‘best practice’ paradigm, and the attendant methods learnt through study and experience. Point B would be a validated process, with an accompanying toolkit, for applying the ‘best fit’ approach. One can confidently say a How To Handbook is missing, and the siloed thinking creates the barrier to developing one within the field.

What is the challenge?

While Ramalingam et al (2014) recognize the need for tools and processes from other disciplines more familiar with complex systems, one can gather a sense that they don’t know where to start. One cannot simply throw various methods and tools at problems, like spaghetti on the wall, to see which sticks. Even in mathematics, formulae are carefully selected based on the variables available, and the answer to be calculated. One doesn’t blindly throw data at all the available equations hoping to discover the one that fits the problem statement.

This challenge is better articulated in Matt Andrew’s blogpost which posits that the ‘best fit’ approach to policy and programme design is akin to choosing a new suit of clothes. The implication is one must try many different suits in order to discover the ‘best fit’. This is wasteful and time consuming.

What can people centred innovation planning offer?

First, the fundamental premise of human centered design firmly focuses the outcome of the processes on the context and needs of the end users. This orientation offers design a headstart in considering Robert Chambers’ emphasis on putting people first. The entire discipline is eminently suited to take on this challenge for international development, in an empathetic and holistic manner.

Second, addressing complex systems designed for human interaction is another key facet of the field of design, particularly the specializations that deal with computer human interaction of all types. This means there is a vast body of work created over decades meant to consider exactly this point.

Third, rather than wasting time and money on “trying on different suits” for ‘best fit’, there are proven approaches developed to minimize the failure rate of innovations introduced in the consumer market, and maximize the adoption rate by the end users. In particular, the areas of design thinking, design planning and design innovation have years of expertise in considering exactly this.

Finally, for development policies, and programmes to provide value for money, and sustainable, beneficial outcomes for their target audience, they must be designed such that they are viable, feasible, and desirable. This requires a holistic approach to solution development integrating elements from more than just one discipline, whether its design or development.

The philosophy of the methodology required to leap from “We must pivot to ‘best fit'” to bridging the gap of knowledge of “How to map the wicked problem and assess the context for programming” will be covered in the next article.

 

(1)

Strategy as a Wicked Problem by John Camillus (HBR 2008)
Living with Complexity by Don Norman (MIT Press 2010) Chapter 1 PDF
A Short Grandiose Theory of Design by Jay Doblin (STA Design Journal 1987)
Wicked Problems in Design Thinking by Richard Buchanan (Design Issues, 1992)

Pivoting from “best practice” to “best fit”: An interdisciplinary perspective

There has been an evolution in thinking about development practice. Buckley and Ward (2015) found a broad consensus for a shift from a ‘best-practice paradigm’ (Chambers 2011) to one of ‘best fit’ — that is, development interventions that are ‘optimally adapted’ to the socioeconomic, political and ecological context at any given moment (Ramalingam et al. 2014: 3).

While the private sector’s approach to consumer marketing and product innovation offers much to improve the success rates of government policy and development programming, there are lessons from development’s thought leadership that offer global brands a strategic advantage when considering the frontier markets on the African continent.

One of these is the pivot away from the ‘best practice paradigm’ – Robert Chambers anticipated the contemporary concept of design thinking in his lifetime’s body of work – to design for ‘best fit‘, an approach to crafting solutions to ‘wicked problems’ embraced recently by the UK’s DFID. Indeed, the UNECA’s recently released Transformative Industrial Policy for Africa explicitly mentions the need for industrial policy designed for ‘best fit’.

Corporate strategy consulting tends to rely on the ‘best practice paradigm’, and this is demonstrated in the slew of analysis and reports by large firms, and boutiques. While the African continent’s markets are still considered nascent, this approach may pass scrutiny, but as the South Africans are discovering to their cost, their own legacy of ‘best practices’ are not always fit for purpose further north of the SADC.

What can we take away from the field of development research?

Ramalingam et al’s abstract for their working paper “From best practice to best fit: understanding and navigating wicked problems in international development” starts with,

The methods of complex systems research are increasingly being used and valued by international development organisations. These approaches enable a shift away from existing tools and business processes that reinforce a focus on static, simple and linear problems. The evidence is that these methods can help development partners better navigate the complex, dynamic realities they face on a day-to-day basis.

However, scanning their references shows gaps that emerge from siloed thinking natural to narrowly focused academic research. Businesses of all stripes daily navigate complex, dynamic realities with greater vulnerability.  An interdisciplinary perspective, as espoused by Aalto University, would thus encourage the consideration of adding a soupçon of Business and Design, to the Engineering, prior to synthesizing the key elements of ‘best fit’ for new market entry strategy, viz.,

Strategy as a Wicked Problem by John Camillus (HBR 2008)
Living with Complexity by Don Norman (MIT Press 2010) Chapter 1 PDF
A Short Grandiose Theory of Design by Jay Doblin (STA Design Journal 1987)
Wicked Problems in Design Thinking by Richard Buchanan (Design Issues, 1992)

As we can see, business, and then design, both have given much thought to this space now being touched upon by development researchers and theorists. This will be the topic of the next post, what lessons my teachers might have to share with the practice of development. For now, we’ll consider the value inherent in their explorations of the subject matter.

Development’s value to the practice of business strategy and innovation (design) planning lies in its deep and decades long experience in developing countries. As Ha-Joon Chang et al state:

Insofar as most African economies look rather similar to each other economically, it is not because they are in the same continent but because all economies – in whichever continent they are – at low levels of development look rather similar to each other, due to the lack of specialisation and diversification in the production structure, which then leads to high degrees of homogeneity in occupational structures, social organisations, and lifestyles.

What the Development industry brings to the table is experience in operating in the challenging operating environments of the erstwhile third world, especially among the lower income segments of the population, and outside of the population dense conurbations. Only a handful of consumer facing global brands have anywhere near this type of experience, and that too from the profit maximization point of view. Emerging market consumer firms, hyper local startups, and others in the distribution chain with such ground level expertise in traditional markets tend to keep their strategies close to their chests and their trusted relationship networks even closer.

Till now, ‘best practice’ as conventionally approached by private sector and social enterprises keen on addressing these untapped opportunities has been to partner logically with local NGOs for local expertise. But the last mile of customer experience has always struggled to translate itself from thinking of satisfying demanding consumers to resonating with established mindsets of passive beneficiaries. This has had its own problems.

So, what does ‘best fit’ mean, then, in this context?

Matt Andrews, at the Harvard Kennedy School, thinks of it as choosing a new suit of clothes. However, this description I’ll hold on to for the next post as it contains the problem statement that our interdisciplinary methods are designed to address.

Ramalingam et al’s original version with authors’ formatting:

‘Best fit’, a concept stemming from governance efforts, describes aid programmes that are optimally adapted to the political, social and economic context. Such programmes can take advantage of a plurality of possible solutions, which can be deployed flexibly. They often work at multiple levels simultaneously – from community to national and even global policy levels – in order to facilitate and bring about change.

Businesses contemplating the African consumer market would do well to take such a holistic approach to their market entry strategies, and the design of products, services, and business models. Adapting to the complexity and challenges inherent in the developing world’s operating environment for ‘best fit’ becomes even more critical for successfully bridging the disparities of context.

This shift in orientation requires questioning the dominant logic of existing corporate best practices, and, instead, a willingness to explore, discover, and experiment with crafting wholly new approaches to sustainable business practice, on multiple levels simultaneously. They have the advantage of proven and robust methods and tools from the disciplines of design and business, requiring only a little tweaking of the lenses. Understanding customer needs should already be in their DNA.

 

 

 

 

NB: Interdisciplinarity involves the combining of two or more academic disciplines into one activity (e.g., a research project). It is about creating something new by crossing boundaries, and thinking across them.