In uncertain and volatile contexts, where the path to a desired outcome is not known up-front, a linear plan-and-execute approach is unlikely to work. This is especially the case with transformative change in complex systems. However, when faced with complexity and disruption, it is tempting to hold onto what we know, reducing problems to fit the tools we have. Adaptive approaches help by providing rhythms and processes for listening, learning, reflecting, making decisions and acting. These approaches have arisen in several sectors, for example in software development (agile), product and service design (human-centred design (HCD) and technology startups (lean startup, lean impact). In international development they take the form of adaptive management, thinking and working politically (TWP) and problem-driven iterative adaptation (PDIA).

Adaptive approaches help practitioners grapple with uncertainty and complexity. Using adaptive approaches can help counteract misplaced certainty in how problems are thought about and tackled. By talking to potential users, understanding institutions, interests and ideas and investigating the root causes of a problem, practitioners using these approaches help to illuminate the underlying nature of the problem and the context. These approaches help us to understand the system in which we are working, and to continue to reflect on that throughout an intervention.

Rather than building a whole solution straight away, these approaches encourage us to start small in order to learn and adapt more quickly (and cheaply). They commonly use structured cycles of testing and learning, with opportunities to gather and reflect together. HCD elevates human experience and creativity, encouraging a wide set of potential solutions and iterative prototyping to test options with users before committing in full. Lean startup provides a robust framing for learning and experimenting quickly where we know least. Teams test assumptions proactively with prototypes, to identify whether users value a product or service, whether there is a route to scale and (when applied to social problems in the form of lean impact) whether a product or service is helping people. Taken a step further, these experiments could be embedded in a portfolio of initiatives which could together create the conditions for systemic change. TWP remains important throughout, to understand the changing context and make politically-informed decisions.

For those working in international development, having a diversity of approaches to draw on, including those from outside the development sphere, is a good thing. Indeed, development practice has begun to learn from these methods, to open up more and earlier and build in more diverse user feedback.

The case of PDIA, which is itself a fusion of some of the other approaches, shows that these approaches can be fruitfully combined. However, while all of these approaches are valuable when used in the right context, practitioners may be perplexed by the multiplicity of methods and jargon. This blogseries aims to address some of this confusion by mapping where these approaches have come from and showing how they can be applied across the adaptive programme cycle. Armed with this knowledge, practitioners might experiment with different combinations and sequences of adaptive approaches according to the kind of problem and context faced. In turn, this may help us move beyond a siloed view of approaches linked to innovation, adaptive management or more politically smart ways of working.

The basic principles of the test-and-learn approach apply in almost any situation where people are trying to solve problems in dynamic, uncertain conditions (Berger, 2014: 122).

This blogseries is about how to how to learn and adapt in conditions of uncertainty. The approaches that it describes originate in different sectors but have a number of shared principles. They are all used when one cannot determine the ‘correct’ course of action ahead of time. They all reject linear planning and execution, whether that is ‘waterfall’ project management in the software world or blueprints copied from one country to another in the development sector without considering whether they meet local needs. They all work in cycles of testing, learning and adaptation, and often aim to engage with users early on. They are all responses to uncertainty and complexity. Lessons from one approach might be applied in another context, and approaches may be combined.

This blogseries will compare compares six of the most prominent adaptive approaches to emerge over the past two decades. Three come from the world of innovation, largely in the private sector:

• Agile

• Lean startup

• Human centred design

  
  and three from the global development sector:

• Thinking and working politically

• Adaptive management

• Problem driven interative adaptation

Mostly applied at the project or product level, they are used by software developers, startup founders, designers, civil servants, programme managers and development entrepreneurs.

Comparing adaptive approaches can be like comparing apples and oranges. Some refer to particular methods and tools, while others embody more conceptual approaches that can be interpreted in many ways. In the development sector, approaches often overlap. Some have fed off each other, sometimes indirectly and sometimes explicitly, such as lean impact growing out of lean startup. The next article will aim to help make sense of some of the similarities and differences across and between these approaches.

Disrupt Development helps organisations achieve systems change by drawing on succesful adaptive approaches - agile, lean impact, human centred design, adapative management, thinking and working politically and problem-driven iterative adaptation.

Contact us if you are interested to work with us or if you would like to have a free consult