Market systems development: reclaiming principles from the tools

We built MSD to be adaptive, but somewhere along the way we started designing for control.

When I first encountered MSD over a decade ago, it felt radically different. Here was an approach grounded not in control, but in humility: listening, co-creating, working through others rather than on their behalf. MSD promised more than better results; it offered a different way of getting there. Anchored in principles, not prescriptions.

But years later, after working across countries, sectors and teams, I can’t help but feel that we’ve lost something essential or perhaps never fully grasped it in the first place.

Despite its original intent, MSD often ends up resembling the very aid models it aimed to replace. The rhetoric of systems thinking remains, but the reality is increasingly shaped by frameworks and internal processes. What was meant to be an adaptive approach has hardened into a compliance machine: slow, rigid, and self-referential. The irony is sharp. The tools meant to support thinking have begun to replace it.

Thinking beyond the tool kit

MSD programmes often begin with rigorous analysis. But too often, tools designed to support adaptive thinking become rigid templates. Rather than enabling action, they start constraining it.

In Strongim Bisnis, a programme funded by the Australian Government, early analysis rightly identified a lack of cocoa value addition in the Solomon Islands. This led to investments in businesses aiming to move up the value chain. But over time, the programme became anchored to this pathway, missing opportunities in bulk cocoa markets, where over ninety-nine percent of trade occurred. Results measurement focused narrowly on those initial investments, reinforcing assumptions rather than revisiting them. The programme’s direction became fixed, even as market signals changed.

When analysis is treated as static truth rather than a working hypothesis, we lock ourselves into paths that may no longer be relevant. Tools intended to support learning become mechanisms of inertia.

It’s a pattern many of us fall into. The lesson is to treat the tools as living guides, not static roadmaps, and to have processes that support reflection and course correction, not just accountability.

The focus on tools has created an 'MSD expert' identity rooted in framework fluency over field effectiveness. But MSD isn’t about tool mastery; it’s about responsiveness, humility and facilitation. The idea of an 'MSD expert' is almost an oxymoron: true expertise lies in letting go of control. Yet those fluent in jargon often become authorities, even in systems they’ve barely engaged.

This technocratic drift reinforces a top-down mindset. One where programmes, not markets, define what success looks like.

What gets lost

MSD was meant to be dynamic, iterative and humble. Yet many programmes now mirror the rigidity they were designed to challenge. These programmes often operate like traditional project delivery units: slow to respond, bound by internal processes, and disconnected from the energy of real market actors.

The deeper issue is that, despite using different language, MSD programmes often end up imposing change on the market instead of enabling the market to define it. This issue is subtle but significant. When change is framed as a prescription, like prioritising export-led value addition, programmes substitute their own vision for that of market actors. The result? Outcomes that look no different from traditional aid.

Take the cocoa sector again. Both MSD and non-MSD programmes ended up supporting the same cocoa value-adding businesses to access export markets. The logic was sound, but the similarity of approach eroded the distinction MSD was supposed to offer. Instead of staying grounded in where the bulk of trade was happening, MSD programming converged with conventional development logic. The adaptive facilitator became another version of the project implementer.

This isn’t just a philosophical issue. It’s operational. Programmes delay investment, waiting for ‘readiness’ that never comes, while real partners wait or walk away. Months of mapping and strategising often precede any real test of market appetite. It’s like designing a bridge without checking if there’s a river to cross. Over-analysis doesn’t reduce risk, it only delays learning.

Ask any long-time practitioner where MSD worked best, they’ll say: when we backed a viable idea early; when we responded to energy in the market; when we let go of control and leaned into trust. MSD works when it follows energy, not frameworks.

Lean systems as a return to principle

This isn’t a call to abandon structure, but to right-size it. Lean delivery doesn’t mean careless delivery - it means building systems that are responsive. Lean systems allow for early testing, rapid decision-making, low-cost experimentation and shared learning.

In Strongim Bisnis, moving to leaner engagement processes without increasing the budget led to over twice as many partnerships in a year. This expanded the programme’s reach into new geographies and market segments, accelerated learning and made the programme more relevant to both private sector and government actors. What changed wasn’t the context, it was the internal drag. Reducing friction unlocked momentum.

If MSD is about enabling local ownership, then expertise can’t be defined by framework fluency. True expertise lies in judgement:  reading subtle signals, sensing timing, knowing when to act – or not. It lies in having sat with a trader, listened between the lines and supported ideas that weren’t ours to begin with.

We need lean systems that allow early, broad testing. A principle-led MSD programme requires an entrepreneurial mindset, one that changes course decisively, recognises sunk costs early and responds in real time. That’s how we discover viable models and generate real insight.

Of course, the heavy emphasis on tools in training isn’t accidental. Structured content is easier to deliver. But what’s easiest to teach isn’t what’s most important to learn. Filling a results chain is teachable. Listening well is not. But that’s the essence of MSD. If we want practitioners who think beyond tools, we must train them in principles. That means case-based learning, coaching in adaptive decision-making, and a culture that values judgement over jargon.

The promise of MSD was never in the tools. It was in the mindset. Let’s stop designing for control and start designing for discovery.

This reflection draws on personal experiences while working on MSD programmes. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent the official position of the programmes or their funders.