Segmenting Development Reform

“Do we want to include the RLTA module or not?”

I was in an energetic discussion with my boss and our Application Development partner, debating on the modules to include in an information system for public land titling. For lack of a better name we’re calling our system the “Online Adjudication Kit”, as it’s intended to help adjudicators with their work. (Adjudicators are the DENR and local government officials who help lot occupants determine their claim to a land title, and provide advise on how they can apply for one).

A few weeks back we had elicited requirements from users and their officials at the National, Regional, Provincial, CENRO and local government levels. They told what they wanted to see in the system, how they wanted it to use it, how it could help them.  They asked for two things: a module that can be used to record data during field work, and another module to for Rapid Land Tenure Appraisal.

Our key informants come from a Region that is very familiar, comfortable with and capacitated for relatively advanced approaches to titling. I was learning, in my discussion with the Application Developer, that their exposure with these advanced approaches has a significant effect on the App design. 

In most of the Philippines. people come to DENR to apply for titles. This is called “Sporadic Adjudication” because applications (and subsequent adjudication) tend to be few, far between, and in different places.

Our key informants practice a different approach called “Systematic Adjudication”. Instead of waiting for applicants to come to them, they go to the Barangays and systematically evaluates each lot occupant’s potential to get a land title. 

Systematic Adjudication requires preliminary data gathering about lot parcels. These data come from two offices within the DENR - the Regional Office that maintains land survey records, and the CENRO, which tracks the disposition of parcels (i.e., whether the land has been titled, is disputed, etc). Another piece of data, the name of the Tax Declarant, comes from the office of the local government Assessor.  All of these data are put together in a form called the intermediate Rapid Land Tenure Appraisal form.

Of the two modules that the key informants asked for, the RLTA module is more complicated than the module for field data gathering. 

Colleagues with extensive experience with DENR advised us to drop the RLTA module. Reason: many Regions are not practicing Rapid Land Tenure Appraisal. They won’t be interested in, or able to, use the RLTA module.

On the other hand all Regions, whether doing Sporadic or Systematic Adjudication, need to gather data from the field. So the field data collection module would be useful to everyone.

We followed their advice. We dropped the RLTA module and retained the field data collector.

. . .

I realized from this experience that information systems design is in a way similar to development reform. You have to pick and choose which reform elements to push, and which to drop (or at least put on hold). 

One criterion for picking development reform elements is scalability - the probability that the reform can be implemented beyond a pilot area, if possible implemented nationwide.  Can you implement this reform beyond your pilot site? Or, can the information system be used outside of the pilot area?

The more scalable the reform (or information system), the wider its usability.

Designing for scalability in this case is like picking the Least Common Denominator - the most basic functionalities that can be used by most people. I tried to think of it as starting with what is technically sound and then deducting what is politically not feasible. The sum is the list of modules that will go into the system.

It’s a simple and logical idea. Not very easy to accept or implement though, for gadgety ICT-enamored guys like me who are fascinated by lots of bells and whistles.

It also raises the question: should reformists then always go for those elements that are acceptable to the least capable among potential adaptors? 

And if we push only for reform elements (or information system modules) that can be used by the least capable or least motivated, how much of an improvement would that be from the current norm?

And how useful would that be for more advanced users? 

. . .

A few days later, I participated in a stock-taking meeting for another project. In this project we are working with Chambers of Commerce. A Political Economy Analysis of partner Chambers showed that they differed vastly in terms of size, membership, influence, resources, and experience.  Again the question: how can we package our reforms so that they can be implemented nationwide? Should we design a package that can be implemented by the smallest, least organized, least capacitated Chamber? It would be a very scaled-down, diluted version of our existing reform package.

Zen Master Toto Colongon reframed the discussion when he asked, “What are the characteristics of the Chambers that could implement our reform package?”

His question immediately brought two words to my mind - “market segmentation”. 

Chambers can be grouped into “segments”.  One segment will include Chambers that are bigger, richer, more influential.  Chambers that have medium competence, resources and clout belong to another segment.  Much smaller Chambers with little experience working with local governments are in still another segment.

In the same way, we can think of DENR Regions as belonging to different market segments.  One segment includes Regions that are very familiar with Systematic Adjudication and partnerships with local governments. Another segment would be for those that are familiar with Systematic Adjudication but not with local government partnerships. And Regions that do only Sporadic Adjudication would be in still another segment.

This will allow us to pitch different reform packages to suit each “Chamber segment”, or different software to each “DENR segment”.  This way, all segments will still be engaged with our reforms, each moving at its own pace.

Come to think of it, that’s similar to the way software houses offer different versions of their software to different users.

So while there’s no RLTA module in the Online Adjudication Kit, it could be in Online Adjudication Kit Pro.