This is in continuation of the series that has been consolidated here.
This post will argue that, in addressing complex development challenges, comprehensive design and end-to-end planning (both in the realm of technical expertise) are, while logically appealing, far less important than starting simple, improvising, and expanding gradually. Complexity emerges from simplicity.
For example, the implementation of any program with a significant non-logistical (or quality or behaviour change-focused) aspect would necessarily require starting with a basic and simple version of the program and then continuously iterating and adapting to address the problems and issues that invariably emerge in the course of implementation.
Similarly, a monitoring Dashboard of a large program in any sector cannot emerge suddenly from a one-time planning and software development exercise. There are too many emerging scenarios that must be captured as implementation progresses. Accordingly, it must arise from continuous iterative improvement on the basic version over an extended period of use by its stakeholders.
On the same lines, a high-performance school (or hospital) system in a district or state emerges from one that performs its basic functions well and then builds on them. Alternatively, it’s almost impossible for a bad school (or hospital) system to be transformed into a good one using technology and innovations without first getting its basic functions right.
Or, a city’s urban planning system must be grounded on a simple set of basic planning rules that can be effectively enforced by it. On this, gradually, elements of complexity can be introduced, like high floor area ratios, land value capture instruments, transit-oriented development, etc. Poor planning rules cannot be offset by innovation and ideas.
This is the same in the private sector, too. Most famously, Amazon did not emerge into its current complex behemoth form by starting with a comprehensive design and plan. It began as a simple online bookstore and has improvised and evolved to expand its business opportunistically. Much the same can be said about any large company of today.
A common thread in all these cases is that a mature, sophisticated and complex system (which in turn is effective in generating outcomes) in development must necessarily start from that which is basic and simple and must emerge through a process (that is generally long drawn).
The point about starting with the basic and the simple is a universal truth.
A sportsman perfects his skills through continuous and long practice. A good writer starts with certain basic skills and then hones them over time. A good design is essential before you start building anything. You cannot make a good curry without getting its ingredients right. You cannot start developing software without an algorithm.
Similarly, successful development interventions must start with a simple basic design. It’s the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) which then undergoes iteration to become more complex.
The point about progression is also critical.
EL Doctrow famously said, “Writing is like driving at night in the fog. You can only see as far as your headlights, but you can make the whole trip that way.”
The progression from a basic and simple system to a mature and complex one takes time, follows a messy process, involves constant improvisation, is driven by opportunism and entrepreneurial spirit, and requires certain capabilities and attributes.
Unfortunately, the mainstream discourse on development glosses over the point about starting simple and the centrality of gradual progress through improvisation and opportunism.
In fact, one of the most deeply entrenched beliefs in development discourse is that a system can be transformed by supplanting new ideas, innovations, technologies, process reengineering, and so on, and by following a well planned process. The boring process of getting its basic functions right and the struggles of the transformation are mostly overlooked.
No comments:
Post a Comment