Let's talk about focusing on the design of a solution. The Russians nailed it when they used pencils in space - my first lesson in focusing on the solution instead of the problem. However, in designing solutions to problems, a third option tends to add to the confusion - the problem, the solution and the 'cleanup'. In the context of Russian space research,
- Not being able to record data in zero-gravity space is analogous to the problem.
- The pencil is analogous to the solution.
- NASA trying to invent techniques to somehow make sense out of bad data recorded with an earthy pen!
Well that in all its absurdity is analogous to the cleanup and it tends to creep into most designs. The cleanup solution, as usual, has its attractive instant gratification but neither does it solve the actual problem of 'not being able to record data' nor does it stop the bad data from coming in. The mess persists forever!
In a community initiative, if an NGO invests more on tending to its subjects (say poor/abused/sick) than on reducing the possibility of more subjects being generated, then it has fallen into the cleanup trap of solution designing. Time to realign its focus!
Two good questions to ask for validating a design D:
Does D help me get what I want (space research data/welfare of subjects)?
Will D take me closer to ending what I am trying to fight (bad data/poverty/crime)?
Success if both affirmative!
Though I loved the thought, but I still do not agree with it. In almost all developing economies the NGOs are so much short of funds that it is rather impossible for them to invest in future of the country(reduce the number of people falling into poverty trap). Think it like a dilemma faced by a pregnant mother with a 5 year old kid. If she has limited fund, to whom she should tend?
ReplyDelete