While I stand as the lone foreigner staring down into a well that appears broken, a man about my age looks on and chuckles. “Go ahead and fix it,” he says, “then go back to your country just like all the others.” I am somehow offended, yet only bothered because I know that what he says is true. “Don’t worry if it breaks,” he taunts playfully, “someone else will come after you to build a new one.”
FAILURE. FAILURE! FAIIILLLURE!!!! Okay, I just had to get that out of the way…
Working in the water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) sector, failure is a reality that must be faced. In all areas of life, understanding and learning from failure is integral to achieving the equally memorable moments of success. Yet where are all the publications talking about failure? Why does every NGO seem to be single-handedly revolutionizing the historically problematic development field, taking a new approach that actually works?!
In academia and in the workplace we are compelled to highlight our successes in order to build-up our reputations and to encourage others to put faith in us. Feeling successful inspires us to be more ambitious, more open to reaching out to others and more motivated to continue with our work. While it is classic wisdom to learn from our mistakes, in the development sector (and others) this is easier said than done. Most projects rely on soliciting funding from donors who must have confidence that their contributions will lead to discernable change. In academia we often rely on external funding that is awarded to those who
demonstrate evidence of past successes with the assumption that these individuals and groups are the most likely to succeed again in the future. We avoid taking risks because we are afraid to fail.
While it is fair to celebrate success, the ‘fail forward’ movement is gaining momentum as people come to accept the notion that “the only ‘bad’ failure is one that’s repeated” (admittingfailure.com). If we keep quiet about our failures, not only do we miss the chance to study and learn from them ourselves, but also we miss the opportunity to learn from others’. As a somewhat unabashed person myself, I find that most times I publicly share a story of failure it seems to foster an unassuming space where others then feel comfortable sharing their mistakes and challenges. Too often I find that more than one of us has had similar experiences that could have been avoided with proper communication about them from the beginning. As Albert Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.”
FAILURE. FAILURE! FAIIILLLURE!!!! Okay, I just had to get that out of the way…
Working in the water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) sector, failure is a reality that must be faced. In all areas of life, understanding and learning from failure is integral to achieving the equally memorable moments of success. Yet where are all the publications talking about failure? Why does every NGO seem to be single-handedly revolutionizing the historically problematic development field, taking a new approach that actually works?!
In academia and in the workplace we are compelled to highlight our successes in order to build-up our reputations and to encourage others to put faith in us. Feeling successful inspires us to be more ambitious, more open to reaching out to others and more motivated to continue with our work. While it is classic wisdom to learn from our mistakes, in the development sector (and others) this is easier said than done. Most projects rely on soliciting funding from donors who must have confidence that their contributions will lead to discernable change. In academia we often rely on external funding that is awarded to those who
demonstrate evidence of past successes with the assumption that these individuals and groups are the most likely to succeed again in the future. We avoid taking risks because we are afraid to fail.
While it is fair to celebrate success, the ‘fail forward’ movement is gaining momentum as people come to accept the notion that “the only ‘bad’ failure is one that’s repeated” (admittingfailure.com). If we keep quiet about our failures, not only do we miss the chance to study and learn from them ourselves, but also we miss the opportunity to learn from others’. As a somewhat unabashed person myself, I find that most times I publicly share a story of failure it seems to foster an unassuming space where others then feel comfortable sharing their mistakes and challenges. Too often I find that more than one of us has had similar experiences that could have been avoided with proper communication about them from the beginning. As Albert Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.”
The Sustainability enigma
One challenge in the water and WASH sectors is this word sustainability. While the concept is written into thousands of legal statutes, masters’ theses, and Twitter feeds worldwide, there is not one single consensus definition. It insinuates that something can be maintained or upheld for a certain period of time, yet I ask who is it that determines how long something must be ‘sustained’ in order to be truly ‘sustainable’? In the context of sustainable development, the word implies three pillars of longevity: environmental, social, and economical (sometimes a forth– cultural vitality). Yet how can we complete a two-year project and claim it is going to be sustainable? In the WASH arena, it seems that it is not uncommon to see a project mention a brief follow-up study or site-visit tacked onto the end of an implementation project as a means to ‘tick the sustainability box’. So does this mean that if a project appears to be functioning on the day that the inspector goes to look at it somewhere between six-months and two years after completion, that the project is a sustainability success? What about in the rainy season? What about five years after? Or fifty? Let’s call a spade a spade and recognize that it’s impossible to claim a project is sustainable when we are operating at most on a five-year project funding timeline and usually from across the globe.
One challenge in the water and WASH sectors is this word sustainability. While the concept is written into thousands of legal statutes, masters’ theses, and Twitter feeds worldwide, there is not one single consensus definition. It insinuates that something can be maintained or upheld for a certain period of time, yet I ask who is it that determines how long something must be ‘sustained’ in order to be truly ‘sustainable’? In the context of sustainable development, the word implies three pillars of longevity: environmental, social, and economical (sometimes a forth– cultural vitality). Yet how can we complete a two-year project and claim it is going to be sustainable? In the WASH arena, it seems that it is not uncommon to see a project mention a brief follow-up study or site-visit tacked onto the end of an implementation project as a means to ‘tick the sustainability box’. So does this mean that if a project appears to be functioning on the day that the inspector goes to look at it somewhere between six-months and two years after completion, that the project is a sustainability success? What about in the rainy season? What about five years after? Or fifty? Let’s call a spade a spade and recognize that it’s impossible to claim a project is sustainable when we are operating at most on a five-year project funding timeline and usually from across the globe.
Functionality of water points in 4 African countries over time. From Ticani et al., 2015 as cited by Improve International. Available at https://improveinternational.wordpress.com/handy-resources/sad-stats/. A recent survey by Improve International asked 40 US-based WASH NGOs about their contracts with their financial donors with the aim of identifying some reasons for the WASH sectors high failure rates (link follows article). They found that 74% of donors request that project is measured in terms of ‘number of water points, toilets, or number of direct beneficiaries’, meanwhile 63% of donors do not provide funding for long-term post-project monitoring. What does that suggest? WASH implementers are essentially encouraged to build as many toilets as possible in developing nations with no system in place or liability set for long-term monitoring of the new infrastructure. Then we ask ourselves “Why do people still lack long-lasting access to drinking water and sanitation facilities?”
Common answers point to internal problems in the aid-receiving country (corruption, instability, resistance to change) yet rarely do we consider the implications of rapid rate project-cycling and the restrictions imposed by donors (Moriarity, 2015). As radical as it sounds, it appears that FAILURE might have something to do with OUR APPROACH. Short-funding cycles trap even the best-intentioned individuals and organizations into repeating the same failures over and over again. No brilliantly designed toilet alone can overcome the systemic problem of get-in-get-out WASH projects. As Improve International says, ‘Let’s measure success not by dollars spent on projects but on how many people have water and sanitation services over time.’
Common answers point to internal problems in the aid-receiving country (corruption, instability, resistance to change) yet rarely do we consider the implications of rapid rate project-cycling and the restrictions imposed by donors (Moriarity, 2015). As radical as it sounds, it appears that FAILURE might have something to do with OUR APPROACH. Short-funding cycles trap even the best-intentioned individuals and organizations into repeating the same failures over and over again. No brilliantly designed toilet alone can overcome the systemic problem of get-in-get-out WASH projects. As Improve International says, ‘Let’s measure success not by dollars spent on projects but on how many people have water and sanitation services over time.’
Angela congratulates three Chiefs who proudly unveil a catchment project that they collectively funded and implemented to serve their communities in Limbe, Cameroon. Photographer unknown. I can tell you from first-hand experience that it is not uncommon in rural Africa to see one or two abandoned wells for every one well that is functioning (if one is functioning). I know of a town that has an entire network of water distribution pipes in the ground that are not connected to any water source and not even the elders in the town have an idea as to who put them there. Each well cost thousands of dollars and was drilled by a donor-based organization that arrived on the scene with a prerogative to build X number of wells to provide drinking water to Y number of people—then left. Perhaps no local engineer or mechanic was involved in the construction and therefore had no idea how to troubleshoot the problems that inevitably came up. Perhaps the hardware that was used is not locally available and spare parts were impossible to come by. Perhaps no local group was given ownership of the well so the local community was not able to decide on who should pay to repair it and it was allowed to deteriorate over time. As an engineer I understand the concept of design life, but these projects fail not because of age but because of shortcomings on the ‘soft’ aspects of design.
We are so quick to install as many wells as possible that we do not take the time to connect with the community, to ask their needs and to invite them to take ownership of the project to ensure that it is preserved for a lifetime. We do not invest in training or financial empowerment initiatives that might help communities to be prepared to solve their own needs in the future. Why give a man a fish when you can instead teach him how to catch his own? In a short funding cycle it is easier to demonstrate how many fish he has eaten since you showed up than it is to express that he’s still learning to be a better fisherman and continues to go hungry some nights in the process.
While I have no doubt that infrastructure-donation organizations are well intentioned, I do wonder why each of us thinks that we are going to be able to do it so much better than the one who came before us. What do we expect to happen if world charity ceases to continue, or do we not want to plan for that day?
We are so quick to install as many wells as possible that we do not take the time to connect with the community, to ask their needs and to invite them to take ownership of the project to ensure that it is preserved for a lifetime. We do not invest in training or financial empowerment initiatives that might help communities to be prepared to solve their own needs in the future. Why give a man a fish when you can instead teach him how to catch his own? In a short funding cycle it is easier to demonstrate how many fish he has eaten since you showed up than it is to express that he’s still learning to be a better fisherman and continues to go hungry some nights in the process.
While I have no doubt that infrastructure-donation organizations are well intentioned, I do wonder why each of us thinks that we are going to be able to do it so much better than the one who came before us. What do we expect to happen if world charity ceases to continue, or do we not want to plan for that day?
This primary school girl exclaims, “Look how strong I am, I can hold two friends.” No Problems, only Solutions. Nothing Good Comes Easily--Coming back to Failure
We are in that failure trap. We are ashamed of mistakes, we hide them (or shroud them in excuses that are outside of our control), and we repeat them. We embrace risk-aversion techniques and get stuck in status quo solutions that make it easy to ‘succeed.’ Money spent – check. Progress measured (in number of taps and people served)—check. Start applying for the next grant—check.
WatIF we were not afraid to fail? Would we engage in the underexplored and uncertain process of initiating transformative shifts in the way that the system functions? WatIF we worked to educate a generation so that they demand WASH facilities from their governments and societies, instead of coming in from the outside and insisting that people need what we want to give? WatIF we took the risk to promote business-skills training for aspiring water engineers, knowing that some will not go onto to serve their communities but that others might go on to do extraordinary things? WatIF we dared to make aid-assisted WASH development obsolete, by risking to improving billions of lives in a slow and messy way instead of settling on improving thousands of lives in a way that is quick and temporary?
When we are driven by purpose—not competition—we can embrace inter-personal and inter-organizational learning to better advancing our shared goals. When we stop treating failure as the elephant in the room we can foster innovation to discover paths to the systemic changes needed to overcome the statues quo. WatIF?
Sources of Inspiration and Information:
1. Engineers Without Borders. (2016). Admitting Failure. Retrieved February 01, 2016, from https://www.admittingfailure.org/
2. Improve International. (2015, December 12). Do donor restrictions affect sustainability of water and sanitation interventions? Results from a Pilot Survey. Retrieved from https://improveinternational.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/pilot-study-donor-restrictions-wash-sustainability-12-21-15.pdf
3. Moriarity, P. (2015, October 15). Paying the Piper- 3 Things Donors Can Do To Drive Real Change. Retrieved February 6, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-moriarty/paying-the-piper-3-things-donors-can-do-to-drive-real-change_b_8303668.html
We are in that failure trap. We are ashamed of mistakes, we hide them (or shroud them in excuses that are outside of our control), and we repeat them. We embrace risk-aversion techniques and get stuck in status quo solutions that make it easy to ‘succeed.’ Money spent – check. Progress measured (in number of taps and people served)—check. Start applying for the next grant—check.
WatIF we were not afraid to fail? Would we engage in the underexplored and uncertain process of initiating transformative shifts in the way that the system functions? WatIF we worked to educate a generation so that they demand WASH facilities from their governments and societies, instead of coming in from the outside and insisting that people need what we want to give? WatIF we took the risk to promote business-skills training for aspiring water engineers, knowing that some will not go onto to serve their communities but that others might go on to do extraordinary things? WatIF we dared to make aid-assisted WASH development obsolete, by risking to improving billions of lives in a slow and messy way instead of settling on improving thousands of lives in a way that is quick and temporary?
When we are driven by purpose—not competition—we can embrace inter-personal and inter-organizational learning to better advancing our shared goals. When we stop treating failure as the elephant in the room we can foster innovation to discover paths to the systemic changes needed to overcome the statues quo. WatIF?
Sources of Inspiration and Information:
1. Engineers Without Borders. (2016). Admitting Failure. Retrieved February 01, 2016, from https://www.admittingfailure.org/
2. Improve International. (2015, December 12). Do donor restrictions affect sustainability of water and sanitation interventions? Results from a Pilot Survey. Retrieved from https://improveinternational.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/pilot-study-donor-restrictions-wash-sustainability-12-21-15.pdf
3. Moriarity, P. (2015, October 15). Paying the Piper- 3 Things Donors Can Do To Drive Real Change. Retrieved February 6, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-moriarty/paying-the-piper-3-things-donors-can-do-to-drive-real-change_b_8303668.html
Author the Author
Angela Huston is a PhD Candidate in Civil Engineering at McGill University. Her interdisciplinary research mixes participatory social science methods with traditional engineering tools to develop a holistic understanding of water, sanitation, and hygiene issues in Buea, Cameroon. She has worked with Engineers Without Borders Canada’s Global Engineering Initiative and Waterlution’s Transformative Leaders for the Future Program.
Twitter: AngelaMHuston
Twitter: AngelaMHuston
RSS Feed
