OUR JOURNEY
Environment, Value, Advocacy. NOW.
EVA NOW
REDEFINING THE "AVERAGE"
At EVAnow, we do not design for a hypothetical “average” user. In real-world systems—especially in government and public health—designing for the average often means designing for no one at all.
Our work starts with a different premise: outcomes improve when solutions are tailored to the real people they are meant to serve, their environments, and the goals of the mission. When design reflects reality, efficiency increases, resources are used more wisely, and lives are measurably improved.
In the 1950s, U.S. military aviation made rapid technological advances. Yet despite better aircraft, the Air Force saw a troubling pattern: experienced pilots were crashing at unexpectedly high rates.
At first, blame fell on pilot error and training. But further investigation revealed a different truth. Cockpits had been designed around an “average” pilot—based on aggregated measurements that fit almost no one. Even highly skilled pilots were struggling inside systems that were never truly built for them.
The problem was not the people. It was the design.
THE SOLUTION
Rather than chasing a better “average,” the Air Force redesigned cockpits to be adjustable. Seats, controls, and spacing could be customized by each pilot before flight.
The fix was simple, low-cost, and transformative. Crashes dropped dramatically—not because pilots changed, but because the system finally adapted to the people using it.
The lesson: When systems flex to real users, performance and safety follow.
Case Example 1:
When "Average" Desing Fails
Survivorship Bias
During World War II, researchers from the Center for Naval Analyses conducted a study on the damage done to returned aircraft after missions. They then recommended adding armor to the areas that showed the most damage to minimize bomber losses to enemy fire.
However, Abraham Wald suggested differently.
Wald was a Hungarian mathematician and a member of the Statistical Research Group (SRG), where he applied his statistical skills to various wartime problems.
He noted that the study was only conducted on the aircraft that had survived their missions. It didn’t paint a complete picture when the bombers that had been shot down were not presented for the damage assessment.
THE SOLUTION
How not to fall prey to survivorship bias
With that, the holes in the returning aircraft were areas that need no extra armor — since the bombers could take damage and still return safely. On the other hand, the areas where the returning aircraft were unscathed are those areas that, if hit, would cause the plane to crash and be lost.
Wald then proposed that the Navy reinforce areas by adding more armor to them — which was a perfect demonstration of how to not fall prey to the survivorship bias.
Seeing the full picture
Being aware of survivorship bias and knowing how to avoid falling into it comes with massive upsides. On the surface, it helps us see through the incomplete information others provide intentionally.
But ultimately, it saves the government from wasted resources like time and money by helping to reach a good, well-informed decision. If making better decisions is important to your agency and your mission, then Let's Talk.
Our goal is to redefining solutions to meet agency and program objectives and eliminate bureaucratic dysfunction. Objective-oriented solutions that address problems, not just statements of work.
