|There is a fringe but powerful scheme in engineering called 'recursive failure analysis' a personal favorite, that sounds like it is something that is applicable only after the fact(like, by the NTSB after a plane crash), but nothing could be farther from the truth.|
It is most useful right from the start of any development project, from the blank paper stage.
It is not all about focus on failure on negativity; it is about focusing on what is necessary in the universe, as it is, to achieve positive outcomes.
For those positive outcomes that fall from the sky, un-abetted, no such focus is necessary; we simply enjoy them.
For all other constructed outcomes, focus and navigation around the rules must be applied as well as calibration of our informed guesses after the fact of our informed guesses.
It is applicable to anything that man constructs, and as well, it illustrates the fallacy of man constructing everything. There are some things -- like 'economies' -- that are inherently not subject to this kind of constructivist design, precisely because the constructivist process is uncalibratable at the level of detail required.
It is a simple and recursive method.
Suppose you want to construct a 'foo.'
Why do you want to construct a 'foo?'
Because a 'foo' has this/these positive outcomes or effects or external attributes:
In order to achieve those outcomes or effects or external attributes, a 'foo' must have what inputs, characteristics, or internal attributes?
What subsystems that provide those inputs, characteristics, or internal attributes must exist?
What events or circumstances can cause a failure to provide those required inputs, characteristics, or attributes?
Prioritize those events and circumstances, and then ask the question, 'what design actions can be taken to minimize the existence of those failure causing events and circumstances, and bring about instead the positive realization of those required inputs, characteristics, or attributes?
Having defined the required subsystems, the external characteristics of which are the above required inputs, characteristics, and attributes, repeat the above analysis on each of the subsystems.
Lather, rinse, repeat, until you have reached an acceptable level of solid enough(based on your time/$ budget)foundation for reliable subsystem building blocks(each of which has the necessary likelihood of successfully delivering its required effect characteristic as an input to a higher level abstraction system, all the way to the 'foo.'
This process, properly scaled to time and budget, and with prioritization at each level, can focus your efforts only on what you -need- to achieve the highest level outcome you are aiming for.
It is not focusing on the negative, even though it is referred to as 'recursive failure analysis.' It should really be called 'recursive avoidance of failure analysis.' It is focus on what you need to succeed to realize a 'foo.'
When coupled with 'get off of paper as fast as possible, and start the recursive discovery of reality', and when balanced against the reality that it is not possible to predict every mode of failure on paper, so that it is not reasonable to let this recursion run to the hundredth possible imagined cause of failure, it can be a very effective scheme for marshaling the focus of a design team tasked with creating a 'foo.'
But it is itself just the start of an iterative process. It must get off of paper, and the sooner the better. And the reason for that is calibration and confirmation at the earliest possible stage.
And...that is the issue with applying such constructivist concepts to fundamentally uncalibratable concepts, like 'economies.' It's great for building 'foos' unless the 'foos' are inherently uncalibratable.
And yet, that doesn't stop us. So we take on the appearance of constructing economies. We pull strings and push levers...and we never calibrate or confirm our actions.
Instead, we mud wrestle after the fact, and can not only NOT predict what is going to happen if we push a button or pull a string or move a lever, but we can't even reach consensus on what either just happened or even, long ago already happened when we once did. It is as if we believe, when it comes to economic constructivist design theory, that as soon as our pencil leaves the paper after that first constructivist sprint, we have defined reality, and all that is left is for us to sow up with our theories and convince each other that we did all the math right, so don't believe our lying eyes when we are all standing in these smoking constructivist ruins.
Only social engineers believe that, because they must. They have no choice, because their science is inherently uncalibratable at the level of detail necessary to be called a science.
Prosperity as a function of social construct evolves, and sometimes, into a cul de sac.
The long term evidence is in; time to back it up. Our blind social constructivism has led us astray of prosperity.