We're moving very fast, and either I've lost the plot, or it's left me behind...
Why were we in Rio in the first place?Edit: Six months of power failures, riots over oil in the favelas; thanks Cian!
I grant you, it's a great laboratory for some of our more innovative solutions.
Is that what Evoke is about? Finding communities in crisis
to test our methods?
Were we called into Rio, or did we go on our own?
We didn't fix the Favelas. Maybe we couldn't--we certainly aren't the first to have tried.Edit: We may have stabilized power consumption, and put some exciting pilot technologies out into the field
In Tokyo, we answered the government's Evoke, and averted imminent hunger riots.Was there an imminent crisis in Rio?
Can Evoke be effective without the pressure of a looming catastrophe?
Did we learn enough to justify the time and energy and money spent there?
Did we risk too much exposure?
Did we do enough for the local community to justify using them as our laboratory/workspace/testing ground?
My own (somewhat overlapping) set of answers to Alchemy's question, Did we fail?:Whether we failed in Rio depends on why we were there.By the standards of the Tokyo intervention...-We did demonstrate a new, promising and creative solutions to the existing problems-We have not institutionalized those solutions-We have not distributed the knowledge to put those solutions to work (yet)-We have not acted under the radar--in fact our best success was very high profile-We did not avert the crisis...Seems like a failure, but I have to ask... were we trying to pull off another Tokyo? Who called us to Rio in the first place? Were we responding to an external Evoke? Cruising on our own success/hubris?Or going out into the field for more experience?From the field-testing perspective, we gained new insight, new allies, and the exposure doesn't hurt us if it's not undermining the self-empowerment of the local government/community...So if our goal was a socially beneficial learning opportunity for our network, we succeeded, even if our interventions don't take root.The question in the end, Alchemy, is how much time do we have to learn from trial and error? And does an appearance of fallibility harm us in other ways as well?