Arnaldo Pellini recently penned a thought-provoking personal blog post reflecting on the Doing Development Differently (DDD) workshop and manifesto. He raises a poignant question: even if we agree with the principles of DDD, how can we enact change within systems that seem inherently resistant to flexibility, uncertainty, and experimentation?

This sentiment resonates with many practitioners across various sectors of development work, from multilateral and bilateral agencies to contractors and beyond. It underscores the challenge of reconciling innovative approaches with entrenched organizational cultures, historical legacies, and traditional practices.

In essence, it’s akin to the paradox depicted in a cartoon where organizations profess a desire to innovate while clinging to the status quo.

I’ve grappled with this issue extensively, particularly since addressing it in a chapter of my book several years ago. At that time, my confidence in the development community’s ability to embrace change was tentative, albeit hopeful.

Since then, I’ve become more optimistic. This optimism stems from encountering numerous individuals within multilateral and bilateral agencies, as well as among contractors, who are already implementing development projects in more adaptable ways. Many of these individuals participated in the DDD Workshop and endorsed the DDD Manifesto, signifying a shared commitment to change.

Moving forward, my aim is to learn from these trailblazers about their strategies for navigating constraints and persuading funders and government officials to embrace innovative approaches. Additionally, I’m conducting research projects that employ Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) in real-time, even within contexts dominated by traditional development mechanisms.

While these endeavors have been challenging, I’ve discovered various tactics for garnering support and fostering flexibility. These include demonstrating the shortcomings of conventional approaches by working in challenging environments with a history of failed attempts and emphasizing quick wins to build momentum for change.

However, success has not been universal, particularly when seeking approval from academic circles, where non-RCT methodologies are often undervalued. Despite this, practitioners and decision-makers have generally been receptive to our efforts.

Arnaldo’s observations highlight a critical constraint within development agencies. Yet, it’s a constraint we must confront head-on if we genuinely believe in the necessity of more adaptable and problem-focused approaches.

To Arnaldo and others grappling with similar concerns, I offer the following suggestions:

  1. Distinguish between discussions about the merits of DDD/PDIA and conversations about how to implement these approaches within organizational contexts. By separating these discussions, we can develop strategies for gradually integrating DDD/PDIA principles into our work.
  2. Acknowledge that the challenge of implementing change within existing structures is not unique to external actors in development organizations. Our counterparts in developing countries face similar hurdles when striving to enact transformative initiatives. If we expect them to navigate these challenges, we must demonstrate our willingness to do the same within our own organizations.

In essence, while the task ahead may be daunting, it’s also immensely worthwhile. If we are committed to achieving impactful development outcomes, we must confront these challenges with resolve and ingenuity.

Best wishes, Arnaldo, for your candor and dedication. Your willingness to share your experiences is invaluable and deeply appreciated within our community.