Multi-sided Coordination Problem
Some failures persist because several groups must change together. Each side may support the new outcome yet rationally refuse to move while the others remain uncertain.
Changing every doctor’s behavior would still not solve the problem. The patients must change too—and the shift has to reach all the doctors and all the patients at the same time.
E1Nobody can safely go first
A two-sided bargain is already difficult; a multi-sided problem adds interlocking dependencies. The value or safety of one group’s move depends on several other groups making compatible moves. Partial adoption therefore may not merely underperform—it may leave early movers exposed while the old system continues around them.
That makes hesitation individually defensible. Doctors can say patient behavior must change first; patients can say changing is pointless unless doctors do likewise. Neither claim has to be dishonest. The failure sits in the missing mechanism for making everyone’s commitments credible and sufficiently simultaneous—a broader version of Coordination Lock-in.
E1Not every stalemate is coordination
This model does not fit when one actor can produce the outcome alone, when the groups fundamentally want different outcomes, or when the supposed dependency is merely an excuse. Coordination solves uncertainty about compatible action; it cannot erase genuine conflicts of interest.
Map the minimum coalition
Before asking one group to change, write down every group whose unchanged behavior would make that move fail. Then replace isolated appeals with a commitment that specifies what each group will do and what evidence will show the others are moving too.
Episodes that teach this
-
The World Isn't Broken, Our Coordination Is - Future IQ
· explained at 7:22
5,340 views
It requires coordination not just of both sides but all the doctors at the same time and all the patients at the same time.