discussion points

Table of Contents What did everyone notice? What communities were paid attention to? How were resources distributed? As a dataset matches reality, it seems like things are getting worse. How could this workflow be even more improved?

What did everyone notice?

Always lead with space for people to make their own discoveries. Call on one individual from each role, and have other participants in different roles respond to those discoveries.

Only if the following things are not brought up independently by participants should you ask.

What communities were paid attention to?

Did the engineers talk much to the community representatives? How does this match or differ from current reality? Did the engineers speak to the Ministry of Water like they were "supposed to"? Why or why not?

Often, there will be a remote community which no one makes it to. Have a human-based discussion about what it feels like to be left out. Why didn't anyone make it over there? It has nothing to do with bad intentions, and everything to do with convenience of what is close and what you can see. Ask about ways to be sure those remote communities are also visited.

How were resources distributed?

The Ministry of Water disperses resources based on their database, which is out of date. That means some groups getting resources already have functional water points, and others with broken points aren't receiving support to fix them. Again, this isn't an issue of malice, it's an issue of old data.

Ask about how people would make use of resources if they've already got working water points. Of course they'd make good use of it -- maybe installing additional water points, or even other aspects of infrastructure (schools, roads, etc), but would they be willing to give that up to be sure the folk without working points had needed resources?

As a dataset matches reality, it seems like things are getting worse.

Because the dataset was created shortly after many water points were installed, they're registered as functional, even though they've long since broken down. That means that, while perhaps 60% are indicated as working, in actuality it is closer to 30%. Without expecting the dip in points logged as broken, it might seem like the initiative to report water points is actually causing point status to worsen. Is it more important to know the actuality, so as to act appropriately, or to pretend that things are better, even if it means those with broken points aren't getting the resources they need?

How could this workflow be even more improved?

Not all solutions are technical. What does the community see for itself in these exercises?