"How dare you blame me? This is what the system teaches me to do".
"This is what our system is. इधर सब चलता है (everything is acceptable here)".
"It is a good system, designed with good intentions. But what to do? People have ruined it".
Most of us would be familiar with these gloomy statements. Let us explore what, if anything, we can do to lessen this gloom.
Systems Everywhere
Indeed, systems pervade modern societal life. As the volume, variety and complexity of human interactions increase, we would need more and more systems. They help organize, structure and lend predictability and reliability to the business of our lives. Thereby making our lives more efficient, effective, productive and fruitful. They are a huge force for good.
Oh wait! I just forgot the opening lines. That is what "good" systems do. "Bad" systems do just the opposite. While good systems can nurture and build lives, bad systems can kill dreams as well as lives. And make our lives miserable.
What is it that makes a system good or bad?
A crucial and fundamental aspect of a system is its design. How it is designed.
Now, every system will have to be designed based on some facts and some assumptions.
There are multiple failure points here, such as factual errors, ignorance of facts and wrong assumptions. We look at the last one, and how a particular wrong assumption is often nothing less than fatal for many systems.
Assumptions about Human Behaviour
One class of assumptions has to do with how the people involved will act, once the system is deployed. An assumption that designers seemingly make often is:
The people will act in line with the goals of the system.
An example: Departmental Performance Appraisal
Something I have observed firsthand.
A system has been put in place in a large organization, whereby each Department puts in writing, their goals for the coming year. The goals are broken down into objectives, along with quantifiable metrics/standards against which the attainment of those objectives can be objectively measured. So, a (crude) example is:
Construct toilets: 500 (poor), 1000 (fair), 2000 (good), >3000 (excellent).
What I have observed in some cases is this.
- The Department chooses objectives which are superficial and do not really do justice to their mandate.
- On top of this, the Department officials set ultra-conservative, very low targets for these sub-optimal objectives
So that both the kind and the degree of under-performance are condoned, and are passed off as excellent!
Designed for a Perfect World
This is nothing but (moral) corruption. It appears that the designers of this system assumed that the top officials entrusted with this goal-setting exercise would behave as we think they should. Setting targets which marry ambition with reality. Which flow from their commitment to professional excellence, imperative for public service and sense of responsibility as leaders.
The idealism of the designers, flowing from their honest intentions, seems to have led them to assume that everyone else would act with the same intentions. In the larger organizational and societal good.
However, they did not anticipate that many people might find it convenient to rather protect their own personal turf. With minimum effort.
Need for a Different Design Approach
So, what do we do? Here are a few humble suggestions:
- Design the system in-situ, appreciative of existing realities. Not in a vacuum, in an ideal world.
- Actively explore the assumptions we are making, and test them out, to the extent feasible.
- Adopt co-creation in design and operation of systems.
- Make the system itself flexible, and self-learning.
The above call for using insights from behavioural economics, design thinking and systems thinking in making of systems and policies. Please do share, and spread the message, if you find this worthwhile. Thank you.
You may like to read: Public Policy Design and Assumptions about Human Behaviour
No comments:
Post a Comment