The Big Why
Problem framing happens in international offices, not where the impacts of the crisis are lived. This results in the humanitarian system frequently using innovation to solve the wrong problems. Misdiagnosis leads to waste, harm, and repeated failure.
What will change?
Humanitarian programmes will start from what matters, not what is assumed. Fewer pilots will fail due to wrong framing. Donors and agencies can align efforts and reduce duplication.
What the idea involves
Problem Framing Workshops: Short, structured collective inquiry sessions, co-led by affected communities and responders (linked with Idea #9).
Triangulated Evidence Packs: A briefing combining community insight, operational observations, available data, and uncertainty statements.
Progressive Verification Checkpoints: A protocol requiring problem statements to be re-validated at 30, 90, and 180 days.
Shared Repository of Verified Problems: Searchable database of context-specific problem definitions that others can reuse instead of reinventing.
Decision Gate Templates: Tools that guide donors and agencies to not fund an intervention unless the problem is verified.
What would it take to deliver it?
Delivery: Toolkits, facilitator training, shared digital repository.
Structure: Hosted by coordination platform or regional hub.
Staffing needs: Facilitation specialists, relational ethnographers, MEL leads.
Partnerships required: HCTs, cluster leads, local networks, donor design teams.
Key capacities: Listening, interpretive synthesis, uncertainty reasoning.
Where it stands and what's next?
Maturity: Concept; high demand; ripe for donor endorsement.
Next step: Form working group, develop tools, select pilot contexts.
Opportunities to get involved
Host pilot workshops, support applied research, adopt verification in fund guidelines.