Let me give an example around rural water points in Malawi, 40% of which are not functioning. Typical project proposals we’ve seen place great emphasis on getting wells drilled or piping laid, with some explicit operational plans around setting up maintenance committees, involving local water offices, etc. The plans are operationally specific, but they end up with results that are substandard. So the question is why?

At a project-specific level, it’s clearly a question of incentives, government resources, technical skills, parts, etc.

But more than that, what we’ve seen is that projects, and the people/institutions involved with them don’t have the “ability” to adapt, learn or change direction. By “ability” I mean both the capabilities of staff to adapt and learn, and also an environment that supports this type of flexibility. This is about organizational culture and behaviour, the policy environment, and the approach and relationship of donors, among other factors.

Iteration is simply not happening, and as anyone who has started any new organization or project can tell you, the plans you create on Day 1 generally have little resemblance to what you are operationally doing in Year 5. So it’s all about the capacity to iterate.

Without this culture of iteration, we should be very cautious about promoting operational planning for development projects. At worst it will result in greater operational rigidity. At best it will distract us from the real issue which is around a true “searching” environment.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by alanna_shaikh: And that would be why I love working for Abt Associates http://bit.ly/vrn7k...

Quibble: It isn’t Easterly that has given planning a bad name. He’s just one person pointing out the emperor has no clothes. It’s the decades upon decades of “plans” that were called such that have given Prof. E so much material to work with.

Disagreement: Even if governments planned properly, would ‘development’ occur? One of E’s points is that there is far too much out of gov’s control even if there were a proper plan. Saying these aren’t proper plans doesn’t actually change his diagnosis – in a way it strengthens it.

1) As Dave mentioned above, entrepreneurs rarely wait to have plans in place and their success is often a product of adjustments more than following a plan.

2) In my own experience in both business and development work, plans only serve as a starting point for fleshing out ideas. Once you get into belly of the beast, almost all assumptions you made are wrong or change frequently enough to make any planning useless. Development “experts” would be wise to be honest in what they can actually accomplish and encourage donors to be flexible if they actually want to make a difference and not just mark off tick boxes on some plan.

3) Top down planning can play a role, as Easterly mentioned, but downplayed for rhetorical purposes in his last article. Specifically, planners should focus on creating a hospitable environment for “searchers”. That is, reducing barriers to getting things done.

As a founder of three venture-backed start-ups, I always began implementing the plans before financing, staff and equipment were in place. I understand the point you’re trying to make, but there’s nothing like “bootstrapping” and spending your own resources to keep you focused on the plan while you secure the much-needed financing, staff and equipment. It’s critical that a “searcher” is all in and firmly believes that the idea is great and can scale to experience success.

However, it’s very important to realize that success is typically not a result of the plan, but a result of the adjustments and changes you make based on your experience and learning. All of the business models for the businesses I launched changed significantly as a result of continued/continuous “searching,”