जो काम नहीं आया · प्रदर्शन

अप्रभावी कार्यक्रम रोकना ज़िम्मेदार शासन है

यह दिखाता है कि बंद कार्यक्रमों का रजिस्टर कैसे रखा जाएगा: मूल परिकल्पना, लागत, वास्तविक नतीजा, असफलता का कारण, सबूत, सीख और फ़ैसला। नीचे की प्रविष्टियाँ नमूना हैं — इनमें से कोई कार्यक्रम चला नहीं।

EN · अभी अनुवाद नहीं हुआ — अंग्रेज़ी में दिखाया गया

STOPPEDY1 Q2 (sample)स्वास्थ्य

◌ नमूना

SMS reminder for PHC appointments

Original hypothesis: Automated SMS reminders would reduce missed appointments and waiting-time variance.
Expected outcome: Missed appointments down 20% in 25 PHCs.
Intervention: Bulk SMS 24h before scheduled visit in local language.
Cost: ₹0.6 cr
Actual result: Missed appointments fell 3% (not statistically significant). Waiting-time variance unchanged.
Why it failed: Most PHC visits are walk-in; scheduled appointments were a small minority. The intervention targeted a problem that barely existed at the facility level.
Evidence: Facility logs from 25 PHCs, 6 months, compared with 25 control PHCs. प्राथमिक सरकारी डेटा
Labs evaluation memo, peer reviewed. विशेषज्ञ विश्लेषण
Lessons: Validate that the problem exists at the point of intervention before building the fix.
Cheap pilots are valuable precisely because they can fail cheaply.

REDESIGNEDY1 Q2 (sample)शिक्षा

◌ नमूना

Tablet-based learning app, Grade 3 (single-district pilot)

Original hypothesis: Adaptive learning software would raise reading scores faster than teacher-led remediation.
Expected outcome: 0.2 standard deviation gain in reading in one academic year.
Intervention: Tablets and adaptive app in 40 schools; 40 comparison schools received teacher-led remediation.
Cost: ₹2.1 cr
Actual result: No significant difference versus teacher-led remediation; device downtime averaged 30% of school days.
Why it failed: Device maintenance and connectivity were underestimated; teachers used the app as a substitute rather than a supplement.
Evidence: Independent assessment of 3,200 children at baseline and endline. स्वतंत्र अध्ययन
Lessons: Technology pilots must budget for maintenance as a first-class cost.
Compare against the best cheap alternative, not against doing nothing.

REPLACEDY1 Q3 (sample)जलवायु · ऊर्जा · पानी

◌ नमूना

Recharge-structure count as a groundwater KPI

Original hypothesis: Counting recharge structures built would track groundwater improvement.
Expected outcome: Structures built would correlate with water-table recovery.
Intervention: KPI adopted for first two quarters of PS-014.
Cost: ₹0 cr
Actual result: Structure counts rose; water-table readings showed no relationship because most structures were sited without hydrogeological assessment.
Why it failed: Output measured instead of outcome. The KPI incentivised construction, not recharge.
Evidence: Piezometer readings vs. structure inventory across 8 blocks. प्राथमिक सरकारी डेटा
Lessons: Never adopt an output KPI as a proxy for an outcome without evidence of correlation.
Site selection needs hydrogeology, not just budget.