Timor-Leste: A different approach to solving problems

Small incidents that we may sometimes take for granted can have wider meanings and implications, writes Dennis Obel in Timor-Leste

A couple of weeks ago, as me and my friend drove for lunch, he told me of how he had been angered by a local Timorese driver who pulled up right on the road and blocked a whole line of traffic.

This incident made him come to the conclusion that development should be multi-faceted; that besides the affluent lifestyles that may result from economic growth, there should be commensurate shifts in people’s mindsets.

Different approaches

While we all agreed on the need for mental transformation, we did not on the approach. Professionally, I tend to see things as interrelated wholes (systemic thinking) while my colleague has a bias for logical reasoning and analytical thinking, all of which are valid ways of making sense of the world.

To date, logical reasoning still dominates development discourse. This view argues that a complex system is nothing but a sum of its constituent parts, which must be isolated and analysed separately if problems are to be effectively solved.

In development management, linear models were imported from the US military in the 1960s and remain popular with many aid agencies and non-governmental organisations.

The most common tool is the logical framework, commonly referred to as the logframe, which assumes problems can be reduced to goals, goals to objectives, and objectives to activities which, when implemented under certain conditions, will resolve the problems.

Training the driver

From our example, if the driver lacked the skills and knowledge to use the road (cause), a series of logical interventions such as training (action) would help solve the problem and bring about a positive change (effect).

Although this sounds quite simple and easy, this approach is out of touch with the modern, messy and networked world.

Complex reality

First, the model assumes human beings can be reduced to cogs in wheels which is not the case. Second, it negates the complex relationship that exists between individual units and the whole.

If these assumptions were true, why then would one man’s action affect a whole lot of people in so short a time? Would isolating this driver and providing the necessary training help solve the problem? Of course not.

Long-term outcomes

An alternative way to understand social problems is to show the relationship between individual units and the whole - an approach called systems thinking. 

Human beings are systems that are intertwined in a complex way with their environment. From birth, people learn behaviours and develop feelings and biases through their interaction with the environment.

To single out and solve a problem in isolation without considering the influence of the whole stands a high risk of long-term failure (like many change interventions have found).

So, are we solving the problems?

This is not about finding faults with rational models, but about using systemic thinking to address problems in rapidly changing and complex environments. As one author put it, to dissolve a problem requires changing the condition that facilitates its survival.

To use a simple metaphor, killing one mosquito at a time will not eliminate all mosquitoes from one’s bedroom. Changing the environment that makes mosquitoes thrive, like clearing bushes and standing water where they breed, will resolve the problem at the source. 

But like my friend said, adopting such an approach may be laborious and difficult to implement! The question is: why should we pretend we are solving problems when we are not in the first place?

Dennis Obel is a former Progressio development worker who lives and works in Timor-Leste

Photo: Traffic jam - one of the main thoroughfares in Dili, the capital of Timor-Leste (photo © Marcus Perkins/Progressio)