Guest blog by Kriti Chopra, Kish Greene, Apoorva Murari, Romita Shah, Abeer Al-Zubaidi
On a cold January day, we kicked off the semester with a deep-seated desire to make a difference in the lives of others. By the end of our first class for Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA), we were given a challenge commensurate with that desire. It was a challenge we had little prior experience with and a client we had met just moments earlier. That challenge was addressing homelessness in Philadelphia and the client was a tenant service and advocacy organization known as the Tenant Union Representative Network (TURN).
As our team immersed itself into understanding the problem, we realized that homelessness is complex problem whose causes are multifactorial, ranging from social forces such as financial instability, mental health and substance use disorders and structural forces such as a paucity of affordable housing (among other drivers). As novices to the problem and PDIA process, the scope of the issue was overwhelming and the ambiguity nerve-wracking. However, as we approached the second week, we developed a fishbone framework (see Figure 1) to help us think through the various root causes and break them it into manageable pieces (e.g., causes, sub-causes).
While the professors coached us through the concepts, we regularly spoke to practitioners to broaden and deepen our understanding. These included our authorizer, Dr. Joe N. Savage Jr., and experts across government, academia, medicine, and industry. Through these conversations, we learned about the deeply problematic history of housing in the US and about specific challenges facing those experiencing homelessness. We learned about how mental health, substance use disorders and financial instability often dovetail with homelessness and about how it disproportionately affects communities of color. We realized that to address homelessness, one sweeping solution would not suffice. We needed to chip away at multiple smaller challenges to make a systemic dent in the larger one.
The big question, though, was where should we begin? The Authority-Acceptance-Ability (AAA) framework enabled us to understand potential change spaces for each cause. While the most obvious areas of the framework were to focus on areas with ‘high impact’, we realized that these typically had a ‘small change space’ (i.e., it would take much more time to build authority, acceptance, and ability). Given the time constraints, we proceeded with actions that had a medium to high change space. We also identified entry points that would increase either authority, acceptance, or ability and ultimately towards a solution. The AAA framework also helped us to understand how to navigate roadblocks and challenging pathways.
Ultimately, we realized that many factors contribute to homelessness and, in many instances, addressing one in isolation has only a minimal effect. Given the inter-dependence, all parts of the system likely need to be reformed to see any meaningful impact. However, this does not mean that solutions that are considered ‘low impact’ should not be pursued. In fact, multiple well-thought-out actions can lead to high impact when done in concert. For instance, in conjunction with resolving the shortage of housing supply to ensure that qualified applicants get access to housing, more work needs to be done towards improving the delivery of a variety of social services. These include job placement to ensure that those experiencing homeliness can graduate out of the system in a sustainable way or financial literacy so that families don’t fall victim of predatory practices.
Getting comfortable with the iterative nature of the PDIA process was a journey for the team. For instance, articulating a problem statement took a few revisions. Each week, we were expected to respond to questions we knew very little about. We weren’t certain our responses were accurate or reflective of the complexities we were unearthing. We weren’t even certain we knew everything we needed to answer the questions correctly. As we spoke with experts and reviewed literature, our understanding of the issue became more nuanced, and so did our discussions. We found ourselves becoming comfortable with the ambiguity and uncertainty. Since each week we built on the previous week’s work, if we inadvertently missed a step, it was hard to incorporate it in subsequent iterations. While we recognize that in a truly iterative process, reverting is possible, in a time-strapped world, this remains a challenge.
Reflecting on this six-week journey, several words of wisdom come into sharp relief. They include the understanding that “complex problems are difficult to solve” and that “collaboration with teammates to break the problem down into logical and manageable parts” is essential (Kish), an appreciation for being “being patient, teaming, and staying flexible, engaged, and focused” throughout the process (Abeer), the insight that “curiosity is our biggest ally” (Apoorva), and the importance of “working with uncertainty” and taking “an iterative approach (Romita).”
Our team is set to graduate in ten-weeks. We see ourselves working on complex development issues like education, agriculture, natural resource management
Figure 1: Fishbone Diagram
Figure 2: Team Photo
This is a blog series written by students at the Harvard Kennedy School who completed “PDIA in Action: Development Through Facilitated Emergence” (MLD 103) in March 2023. These are their learning journey stories.