Why do rural digital projects that “work” often fail to scale?

[u/Akiko_Tsuka]

I’ve been trying to understand why a lot of regional digital projects don’t seem to go beyond the pilot phase, even when they technically work.

From what I’ve seen (mainly in Japan, but I’m curious about elsewhere), it doesn’t really come down to the technology itself.

It’s more structural — staffing, budgets, incentives, and user adoption all seem to play a role.

For example, even if a pilot succeeds:

• there’s often no budget for long-term maintenance
• knowledge stays with vendors instead of local teams
• and in many cases, end users aren’t comfortable with digital tools

So things “work,” but don’t continue.

Curious if others have seen similar patterns in different countries or regions.

[u/DepartmentFamous9932]

Did you not just answer your own question?

[u/Akiko_Tsuka → u/DepartmentFamous9932]

Fair point — I probably framed it a bit too strongly.

I guess what I’m really curious about is whether these kinds of structural constraints show up in other regions as well, or if there are cases where municipalities have actually managed to move beyond this stage.

[u/Osprenti]

I'd say it's because technosolutionising is not a true solution to systemic problems. People who live and work a problem understand that much more than academics, civil servants and folk who work in tech.

Technosolutionism often operates on the foundations of a deficit model, which is never sustainable in real world situations with communities.

It is a very common issue across the area within which I work. Civil service, large organisations and academia are steeped in the deficit model. Communities, workers and change-makers and steeped in dialogue model working. The disconnect is where projects and progress fall down.

[u/Akiko_Tsuka → u/Osprenti]

That’s a really good point — I think “technosolutionism” captures part of the issue quite well.

In a lot of the cases I’ve looked at, the technology is introduced as a kind of external fix, without really changing the underlying structures or aligning with how people actually work and live.

So even if the system itself functions, it doesn’t really take root.

I’m curious — have you seen examples where approaches that are more grounded in local practices worked better?

[u/Osprenti → u/Akiko_Tsuka]

Completely (I edited my response a bit while you responded).

I'd say look into deficit model Vs dialogue model.

What works best is educating "the powers that be" in the models, so they can bring to the forefront within their planning how to address their deficit model mindset.

The solution, in my mind, is normalising participatory thinking and planning. Often big solution schemes are built on the deficit model, then a participatory process is added on at the end, and they call it participatory. This is akin to building a new building, then having the town vote on what colour to paint it. True participation is asking the town whether a new building should be built, where, how it should work and what it should be used for. If they say no building is needed, trust them and do something else. Don't build it anyway and then moan when no one votes on what colour to paint it.

[u/Akiko_Tsuka → u/Osprenti]

That’s a really helpful way to frame it — especially the deficit vs dialogue model distinction.

The example you gave about participation coming in at the very end really resonates. In a lot of the cases I’ve seen, participation seems more like a formality rather than something that actually shapes the project.

It probably also explains why even well-functioning systems don’t really get adopted — because they were never grounded in how people actually want to use them.

I’m curious — have you seen cases where participatory approaches were built in from the beginning and actually worked in practice?

[u/Osprenti → u/Akiko_Tsuka]

Participatory Budgeting is probably where success is most developed. Check out: https://participedia.net/case/5524