There are several theories that are designed to provide developers and researchers with methodologies for user-focused projects.
Some of these work particularly well within environments that provide particular challenges, such as sub-Saharan Africa with its social, political, economic and cultural limitations.
This article is going to overview a few of these methodologies to consider how these fit into development processes, what they are designed to do, and what advantages they give to developers and researchers.
The theories to be discussed are Socio-Technical Evaluation Matrices (pdf), Hofstead’s Cultural Dimensions Theory and Asset-Based Community Development.
Socio-Technical Evaluation Matrices
In a paper by Ian Somerville, the concept of a socio-technical evaluation matrix is put forward, stemming from research into developing systems for the elderly and disabled. These systems required easy to use and reliable interfaces, which would not adversely affect the users.
‘The overall goal of our research was to investigate approaches to HS system design that lead to more ‘dependable’ systems. That is, systems that met some real needs of users and that they could trust to support these needs.’ (source (pdf) 2006:439)
The emphasis of the idea is on the environment within which the technical system fits, something that is crucial for all development projects, but especially for challenging ones such as the target market of Somerville’s work, and the target market within sub-Saharan Africa. Somerville wanted to create an approach that would allow for the environmental issues to be considered within the technical development process that already existed.
‘Our view of dependability is socio-technical rather than technical. Dependability is not just about the hardware and software operating to specification but is also a reflection of how well the technical system fits into the environment where it is used.’ (source (pdf) 2006:439)
The model that Somerville created – his ‘dependability model and method’, allowed for just this. The model includes four key areas:
a) Acceptability – does the user accept it into their life?
b) Trustworthiness – does the user believe it will do what they want it to and not go wrong?
c) Adaptability – can it evolve with the user, and cater for their changing needs over time?
d) Fitness for purpose – does it meet the actual user needs?
Within these four categories are seventeen subcategories, all of which were identified as variables within socio-technical aspects of systems. These categories are considered flexible, not all may apply to every project, and it may be that different uses of the model other than systems for the elderly and disabled required additional subcategories. However, the basic framework remains consistent, and is designed for provide the developer with a method to work within to define all the issues in need of consideration for their particular project.
‘…We do not suggest that all of these attributes are significant for every …system. There are overlaps between these attributes but the broad categorization provides a useful basis for describing the dependability model. Not all attributes are relevant for all users and all systems and… a designer has to choose which are the most important attributes in each particular case…’ (source (pdf) 2006:443)
(source (pdf) 2006:451)
The paper suggests a matrices style of layout for allowing discussion of all the necessary socio-technical aspects of the project, as seen below.
(source (pdf) 2006:442)
In summary of this model, it does seem that it successfully allows for consideration of both technical and non-technical issues within a project. It seems to be designed to be the first step in a project’s pre-development stage, where discussion and thought is key, before any implementation or documentation is considered. It is a simple system, and one that would be easy to adopt and work with. It is extremely flexible and would provide a strong framework without tying developers into processes that they feel they do not control. The mix of both technical and non-technical issues within one process is potentially effective, as it would allow a discussion to build up amongst technical and non-technical members of the project. This is something that is often difficult, as the two sides can find that their difference of priorities leads to misunderstandings and inefficiency. Using the approach of socio-technical evaluation matrices however, would seemingly integrate the two approaches to allow the issues to be identified and discussed in a way that would demonstrate the equal importance of both angles.
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory
Geert Hofstede’s theory, introduced in 1993, relates to the theory of management, and came about due to his research into the differences between what ‘management’ actually is in different countries. As Hofstede describes, in the past and still today, the US (and other countries – although Hofstede talks only about the US) has often assumed that the process through which their enterprises are run and managed is the same all over the world. In Hofstede’s paper, he demonstrates that this is not the case, through a series of example countries, for each of which he overviews the managerial processes in each.
‘In other parts of the world not only the practices but the entire concept of management may differ, and the theories needed to understand it, may deviate considerably from what is considered normal and desirable in the USA.’ (source 1993)
The theory that is laid out in the Hofstede’s paper ‘Cultural constraints in management theories’ is designed to allow analysis of the five areas that are defined by Hofstede as the key cultural differences applicable to management. This theory relates to development itself, because the way that a project is managed is one notable element that can affect the developers, and therefore the end product. It is also one area that is possibly most often disregarded when development takes place between more than one culture, for example when the World Bank works with frontier market countries.
The five dimensions are:
a) Power Distance – how much inequality between the people of a country is considered normal by that population
b) Individualism – how much people in a country consider themselves part of a group (for example family) and how much they act as part of a group or individually. Collectivism is low individualism
c) Masculinity – how much values such as performance, competitiveness and success are valued compared to more feminine qualities such as personal relationships and collaboration.
d) Uncertainty Avoidance – how much people are risk-adverse, whether they see new ideas as risky, or a challenge. Structured versus unstructured work, nervous tension versus easy-going, rigid versus flexible
e) Long-term orientation versus short-term orientation – whether people’s focus is on long-term benefits, such as saving money and persistence, or on the short-term, such as abiding by social obligations and traditions
(source)
In terms of these factors, Hofstede’s paper demonstrates that all the countries he examined differed in some way from the others within one or more of the dimensions. This demonstrated the necessity for local knowledge and understanding, something that Hofstede refers to in relation to the World Bank and Africa.
To summarise this theory, the cultural issues that application or consideration of the five dimensions allows would seemingly provide any development team with insight into how crucial local knowledge is. Examining properly the five areas that this theory puts forward would necessitate an understanding of the environment for which a project is being developed, and would therefore likely be an effective process to undertake at the initial stages, perhaps even before other more specific development processes such as socio-technical evaluation matrices. This theory is very different to the evaluation matrix previously discussed, as it concentrates solely on the social side, but would possibly be of great value even if only used as a guide for research into cultural awareness. It differs also from the matrices as it has nothing to do with a specific project, and would in fact be something perhaps undertaken only once (or maybe updated every few years) for any number of projects developed within one society.
Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD)
ABCD is an approach to development that is based on the concept of Asset Mapping, created in 1993 by Kretzmann and McKnight. The approach is targeted specifically at rural or small communities and is used in many different societies around the world, from sub-Saharan Africa to Canada.
Asset mapping can be defined as ‘a disciplined, structured process of listing key community features in spreadsheet format designed to discover unique and unknown assets…’ (source (word doc))
ABCD itself is not so much a methodology, but more a guideline of principles that should be followed. There are many interpretations of the concept, some more specific than others. However, the concept remains the same, which is community-led development, focussing on what the community has rather than what it doesn’t have, and is considered the opposite of needs-based development.
‘It is an approach to community-based development, based on the principles of appreciating and mobilising individual and community talents, skills and assets (rather than focusing on problems and needs) [and] community-driven development rather than development driven by external agencies’ (source 2002)
Whilst ABCD is not defined specifically in most cases, there are five main areas that are the focus of the ABCD approach. These are:
a) Appreciative Enquiry – Looking at the past and examining past success to strengthen community self-believe, and learn from the past
b) Social Capital – The idea that social networks are a key asset, both between members of community, and the community and external parties
c) Participatory Approaches to Development – Where the end users are an integral part of the development process, to encourage empowerment and a feeling of ownership/empathy with the project
d) Community Economic Development – Emphasis on collaboration within development projects, to encourage economic development based on the resources already available in the community
e) Civil Society – Focus on including community members as citizens instead of clients in the development process, as well as trying to make governments more effective
Overall, the process encourages the community to drive development, by building on existing foundations, opposed to a needs-based approach that encourages leadership and acquisition of new resources.
There are suggestions for methods of applying these five aspects of ABCD. These include ideas such as collecting stories (to build confidence), asset and capacity mapping and building a community plan.
In summary, ABCD seems to be an interesting guideline for how to approach development. It does appear to be a valid and important point that the concept makes – that development should build upon existing situations, rather than trying to leapfrog a community into a new situation, which would risk alienation of the end users and misunderstanding of end users by the developers. It is perhaps more of a fundamental approach than a practical one, unlike as the previous two examples of evaluation matrices and cultural dimensions theory, but is nonetheless perhaps just as important. Having said that, the methods suggested are clearly practical, however they are more suggestions of other processes that could be undertaken to support the ABCD approach, rather than practical structured process to be followed, as can be seen by the multitude of adaptations of ABCD undertaken largely by NGO’s.
ABCD builds on the growing school of thought that development must come from within, rather than being driven by external forces. Hofstede and Somerville do highlight the importance of the end users, but where their angle is much more a matter of understanding the internal issues and including the end users in the process, ABCD puts the end users much more in the driving seat of development concepts.
(Some other sources for ABCD information can be found here and here.)
In conclusion of these theories, they are all designed to fit into development processes in different ways. Somerville’s matrix is designed to bring together social and technical considerations in discussions between the parties involved, before structured pre-development starts. Hofstede’s theory is designed to provide a structure for research before any development ideas are even conceived, it is not specific to development, rather it is designed to provide insight into a culture which could be used for multiple projects. ABCD is more of a guideline on how to develop, and what to prioritise when attempts are being made to come up with development ideas. The three methods are by no means mutually exclusive, in fact they could be used themselves as part of a bigger process. For example, Hofstede’s theory could be applied first to allow consideration of the culture, followed by ABCD, which would bring ideas to the table, followed by Somerville’s, which would begin to bring all the concepts and issues together for discussion.
There is however one real similarity between all three methods, which is where the broader advantages of using these methods would be found for development teams. This similarity is the consistency with which all three place social, cultural and human issues as at least equal priority to technical ones.
