Comments on: The Innovation Fallacy, Part 4

By: The Innovation Fallacy, Part 5 | humanitarian.info

The Innovation Fallacy, Part 5 | humanitarian.info — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:47:40 +0000

[...] the last post in this series, many moons ago, I listed five practitioner-based approaches to successful innovation – but are [...]

By: Silva

Silva — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:11:18 +0000

Can I add a point 6?
It is engage with people (affected by emergency and disasters). Based on my practitioner experience this point should be point 1!
For a start, more engagement with people would be an innovation in its own merit: the humanitarian sector has been quite insular, and less keen to work out a course of actions and check out results with “beneficiaries” than other sectors. Of course there are many exceptions to this sweeping statement, and there are positive steps in this direction, like “the good enough guide”, pushing for better accountability. But even this guide shows an idea of accountability that is little more than consultation, and not the strong engagement which could really challenge practice. The debate “affected people should be seen as powerful agents and not as victims” has been going on for ages, but the reality is that much assistance is still designed to be delivered to passive recipients.
There is an untapped source of innovation that lies in better engagement with people, and in rethinking the role and relationship that humanitarian organization have with the people they work with.

By: Paul Currion

Paul Currion — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:36:17 +0000

Jeff – you need to read the whole series

However I would say the following:

1) We don’t always know what we need to do – for example, there is very little literature or expertise in responding to urban disasters in developing countries (from the point of view of the “traditional” humanitarian community).
2) Where we do know what we need to do, we don’t always know how to do it effectively. The list of things that you give at the end are good examples – we know what to do, but not how to do it.
3) Where we do know what we need to do, and do know how to do it effectively, we need to make sure that everybody knows – not just a few sectoral experts or key organisations. Kevin talked about “open sourcing” organisational knowledge, which is critical.

Here’s a concrete example. We know how to reduce maternal mortality: increase access to ante-natal care. So the question becomes: “what innovative community mobilization techniques will get pregnant mothers to come in for ANC?”

I think we agree. I’m not arguing that innovation is inherently good – in fact I’ve argued that it can be a negative influence – and I’m not arguing that we need innovation solely in technology – but organisational methods that improve delivery..

By: Jeff R. Allen

Jeff R. Allen — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:47:44 +0000

I know I should go back and read everything before posting, but I can’t help myself…

Innovation is not the answer.

We know what we need to do. We need to GO DO IT.

Discipline is the answer. (I will allow that it might take innovation to figure out how to achieve discipline.)

The difference is important — we don’t need new whizzy technology and techniques. We need new whizzy ways to get people to concentrate all of their energy on doing the OLD whizzy things that we already KNOW work.

-jeff

PS: Here are some other things we KNOW work, that we already DON’T DO enough of:
* to reduce poverty, reduce the birthrate
* to reduce the birthrate, increase women’s access to education
* to reduce under 5 mortality, increase access to clean drinking water
* to mitigate the impact of measles, get your child vaccinated (this means YOU, G20 mothers: http://blog.nella.org/?p=323)
* to reduce the impact of malaria, use bed nets, reduce breeding sites, and ensure access to ACT
* to reduce corruption, increase transparency (this means YOU, G20: http://bailoutsleuth.com/)

By: J A Ginsburg

J A Ginsburg — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:35:49 +0000

…when will I learn never ever ever to hit the send button until *after* I’ve had my morning cup of coffee? Forgive the typos above… – janet

By: J A Ginsburg

J A Ginsburg — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:11:27 +0000

Great string, Paul. I want to include in a Innovation story cluster on TrackerNews.net next week. Would it be possible to drop in links to all the previous posts at the bottom of this post so that anyone making the jump to read post can easily go back to reach the entire discussion? thanks. – janet