Innovative Energy and the Militar

An article that discussed the US military’s search for viable renewable (particularly solar) energy really caught my eye this week. The article explains that many of the companies present are not big name tech or electricity companies, but rather new start-ups that are trying to break into the market by being particularly innovative. Certainly, the money gained from a contract with any branch of the US military could turn many of these small operations into well known, far reaching organizations, even for civilians. However, with military having arguably the best untapped technologies, it makes me think that they could gain total control of distribution, preventing it from being used by other militaries but also society as a whole. We have had many great innovations and experimentations that have started in the military (such as penicillin, the Internet, and atomic energy) and it is very plausible that the solar technology gained by the military will eventually be able to help alleviate the rest of the nation’s energy issues. In any case, even if these technologies are kept and protected by the military, they will still have the potential to help the rest of the nation. As seen in additional articles, much time, money, and human life are consumed by the military due its high energy consumption. . Hopefully, the military’s use of renewable and sustainable energy will benefit the country overall (even if the military’s enemies may at some point suffer at the hands of it). In summary, I think it is beneficially that the U.S. military is looking to further support sustainable and renewable energy, but I hope that this technology may also be used for the greater good rather than for potential harm. Other links of interest: http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/17/technology/military_energy/index.htm?iid=EAL http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/technology/1108/gallery.military_energy/?iid=EAL http://money.cnn.com/technology/storysupplement/cost_military_oil_addiction/?iid=EL

HCD: always good?

Human centered design has become the key to successfully designed products or services. Numerous books and articles are nowadays devoted to describing this design process and highlighting its advantages. Designers and researchers have been seduced by the effectiveness of involving people in the design process. Given all the focus about the positive advantage of HCD, a question that is worth asking is: can human centered design lead to negative results? Is focusing on tailoring solutions to specific people based on their needs, desires and contexts always a good thing? Should we be concerned about HCD after all?

One concern is that satisfying a group of people 100% might improve things for them but will often harm or make the situation worse for another group. This might not necessarily mean direct harm but could mean that what works for some will or might not work for others. The implication is that by using HCD we find ourselves tailoring solutions to likes, dislikes and needs of different target groups instead of trying to look for common traits that could lead to a generic solution. Generic solutions, although not perfect, tend to save time and allow room for more creations to take place.

Another concern over human centered design is that it might lead to good products while impeding creativity and stepping out of the box. Products will be designed to function properly for people. They could be well designed to fit some constraints and adapted to the norms and traits of groups of people. The question is: aren’t we putting boundaries on design? Great design has been known to emerge from rule breaking and accepted practices. The product might not be liked initially or during the design process but it might be accepted and used at the end. Involving people in the design process might stop us from seeing what something could have become, the end result.

There is a great debate on whether human centered design fosters or impedes creativity. There might not be a right or wrong answer to the question but it is definitely worth looking at and investigating.

Hanae T.

cheap food can be expensive

The article "What Happens Next?" lays out "5 crucibles of innovation that will shape the coming decade." Crucible 2 is what the authors refer to as the "productivity imperative" and it basically spells out the need for everyone and every country to become much more productive in the coming decades. A dwindling future workforce and an increase in future demand spells out a real challenge for markets to maintain the level of productivity and profit that they have become used to. The evidence presented in the article is compelling, but I feel like throughout the article the authors fail to mention problems that are even more basic. Specifically, the way food is produced and consumed in this country, and increasingly around the world, is precarious and troubling. The Green Revolution, which began in the 1940's and peaked in the 1960's, sought to tackle the same "productivity imperative" discussed in this article, with a focus on food production. The ideas behind this development were well-intentioned and hoped to benefit all people by finding new technology to help increase food production and decrease cost-- exactly the same effect current leaders will be striving to attain in relation to the production talked about by the authors. However, the Green Revolution, for all its good intentions, has become more of a curse than a blessing. The shift in food production away from small organic farming to large-scale factory farming has completely changed the way America eats, and I would argue not for the better. The innovation drivers discussed here are valid and important, but for all their good intentions, some innovation just doesn't improve quality of life, even if its meant to. I would be interested to see how these crucibles would be applied to issues surrounding our modern food system. Food security and sustainability are hot button issues these days, but I'm not sure where those issues fit in this discussion. Even when sustainability is mentioned in the article it seems to bypass this current issue surrounding our food supply. Sometimes focusing so much on this "productivity imperative" steers us in a direction that fails to take more important things into account. Is more food good? Yes. But what is the cost of that increased production?

Thinking Backwards: Fostering Innovation, Re-inventing the Work Experience

McKinsey&Company's "What happens next? Five crucibles of innovation that will shape the coming decade" shook, tossed, and twisted my perceptions of social innovation and sparked some thoughts on what happens before a social innovation idea emerges, much less, how and when the idea is successfully implemented.

The report highlights how companies such as Cisco and IBM have developed social networks and video conferencing applications to encourage employee collaboration and exchange of knowledge. I agree that these initiatives are effective and truly "tear down silos." I'd like to take this point "backwards" to highlight that the actual design of the workplace is crucial in fostering a creative environment with thoughtful interactions.

Two weeks ago, I toured the Google's Pittsburgh Office at Bakery Square. The tour was conducted by a Facilities manager who pointed the office space design. Interestingly, the penthouse style office was once a Nabisco (biscuit company) site. While Google has preserved the feel, it has truly "google-ized" it to make the workplace not somewhere you need to go, but somewhere you want to go. Googlers aren't separated by walls, they change their desks every few months to promote a fresh perspective, their break room is more of a game room to tickle the senses, and their dedication to be conscientously green and global is evident through recycled countertops and fair trade products. The Pittsburgh inspired penthouse, equipped with an entertainment room, beach patio, antique library, and circus net -- is homely, provides different conveniences, and sparks creativity.

Images below from: http://www.home-designing.com/2011/02/google-pittsburgh-office

Thinking about this reading coupled with the Google tour makes me believe that the process behind social innovation is just as important as the innovation itself. It's about the people, but moreso, about the interactions and relationships they form with eachother that drives an understanding of needs and ideas.

limitations of "frugal design"

The "frugal design" concept is highly appealing, even inspiring, but seems incomplete. It could even be disingenuous for IDEO and Booz to tout frugal design to most established, mature-market companies. GE is exceptional as a conglomerate that routinely buys innovative startups and unloads mature businesses. Also, my understanding is that companies like GE and Walmart treat their corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives as a marketing expense.

Despite the exciting array of untapped opportunities, there probably is not an ingenious, profitable solution for every emerging-market need. Health care comes to mind as a universal need that sometimes must be provided at a loss. At some point, other interests besides the profit motive must still prevail. High-margin activities charitably subsidize low- or negative-margin activities. To pretend otherwise is to paint an excessively rosy picture of "doing well by doing good."

Moreover, given the extremely narrow profit margins at stake, the temptation to cut corners in terms of sustainable sourcing, manufacturing, distribution, and disposal could be fierce. Working with whatever suppliers are available means not asking too many questions about upstream activities. Of course, cost-cutting measures that degrade the environment's productive capacity are in no one's long-term interest; resource optimization and dematerialization are theoretically win-win pursuits.

However, the extended producer responsibility (EPR) principle is not yet reinforced by policy in many emerging economies. The vast majority of electronic waste still ends up in developing countries where, in the absence of strict health or environmental protection, it can be recycled at a profit. Businesses cannot be expected to police themselves when environmental safeguards could tip the balance between profit and loss - or, continuing to serve the bottom of the pyramid vs. exiting the market.

The bottom line is that "value" doesn't correspond very exactly with willingness to pay. For social innovations, the intended benefits often substantially exceed direct beneficiaries' willingness (or ability) to pay. Value creation is for society rather than individual customers, yet someone must pay for it.

It's interesting that other blog posts this week have discussed the performing arts. Music and theater especially exemplify the problem of abstract, ineffable value (a "priceless" experience) that apparently cannot be sustained by customers' willingness to pay. The potential solutions I’ve heard about generally build in new revenue streams to subsidize artistic production. Likewise, cross-subsidization and internationally consistent, supportive policy are necessary additions to frugal design.

One Laptop Per Child

While I was reading through the articles for this week, I couldn't help but think about and appreciate One Laptop Per Child (OLPC). You might have heard of them before, but in my eyes, they are a pretty big deal.

Essentially, OLPC aims at providing each child a laptop to provide access to information out on the Interwebs and supplement his/her learnings within the classroom. But these are no ordinary laptops, these laptops are sold for about $200 each and a champion of frugal engineering.

OLPC takes out the fat that normal laptops have and stick with a basic Linux-OS. They have found a way to engineer a cheap display that swivels (easier to share with your classmate!). Not only did they make the product cost effective, they have made the laptop durable, light, mobile, adjust in the sunlight, able to connect online and also create their own LAN.

One takeaway I had from the IDEO reading was the importance of implementation and distribution channels. Today, OLPC markets to governments and directly distributes the laptops similarly to textbooks. While OLPC's mission and laptops have benefited 42 countries, it makes me wonder if there is a better way for schools to get access to these laptops. If governments are unwilling to partner directly, even if local schools plea for it, OLPC has a policy that governments must want it first. I feel like this places a huge constraint on OLPC's impact-especially in areas where governments are unlikely to want better education for children in their nations. Is there a better way, perhaps involving schools and non-profits, NGOs, etc. to distribute these laptops? Or is government buy-in critical in OLPC's operations?

Their site and videos are worth checking out: http://one.laptop.org/about/mission

Punk Innovation

Do we need design or organizational consultants to bring about social innovation? Do we need to send people to areas like outside Hyderabad, India to observe all the problems associated with transporting potable water? Or can we take steps towards expressing a global culture of punk problem-solving? Empower citizens in all areas of the world to shake up their own status quo, use the tools at their disposal - improvised or otherwise - to solve their own problems. In reading the article by Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt, espousing the doctrine of IDEO's success, I was inspired to learn more about their methods and I came across another article written by IDEO-er Kara Johnson. "Punk Manufacturing" talks about the rise in consumer co-creation in mass produced goods - like designing your messenger bag or customizing your laptop - and how this is shifting our mindset from the belief that we need corporations to make things for us, to solve our problems.

As Johnson points out in the article, the "punk" movement isn't by any means new but more and more it's making an appearance in areas of life we think of as traditionally resistant to subversion. It may be a naive conceit to think that citizens in developing nations could take a punk approach to solving crises of base need but I think it's worth a thought. Throughout the 20th century, we made huge moves toward a global culture of institutionalization which imposed fearsome hierarchical structures and that seem impossible to challenge. What we may solved in supply chain management, we left undone in combating world hunger.

Johnson talks about the role organizations can play in creating a platform for punk manufacturing to take place and maybe that's the role NGOs and not-for-profits can take in their approach in underdeveloped countries. Former DJ and journalist Matt Mason explored the modern punk movement in his book The Pirate's Dilemma: How Youth Culture Reinvented Capitalism and it's an excellent read for anyone interested in the punk influence on art, media and the economy.

Design Thinking and Frugal Engineering: The Rickshaw Bank in India

Design thinking involves coming up with creative, innovative and functional solutions to human problems. Frugal engineering is a way to provide new goods and services to the population at the 'bottom of the pyramid'. At the heart of both these processes is understanding the needs of the customer (referred to as the step of inspiration in Design thinking for innovation by Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt). The rickshaw bank in India can be considered to be a good example of both these processes.

The problem: Rickshaw pullers in India who are unable to get rid of their debt by paying off the high rental fees for the rickshaw. Consequently they are never able to own their own rickshaw and get out of the cycle of poverty.

The solution: An innovative design of the rickshaw leading to a bigger yet lighter and safer rickshaw. The space at the back is lent out to corporations as advertising space (a mode of revenue generation).The rickshaw pullers can now afford to have their own rickshaw and also enjoy social benefits such as accident insurance and health care.

As Dr. Pradip Sarmah mentions in the video, there were three aspects to this problem: the technical, the financial and the social aspects. Can’t we all (highly gifted students at one of the world’s leading universities) think of ways of solving social problems around us in similar ways?

Links to the story: http://www.viewchange.org/videos/india-the-rickshaw-bank http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7eYRJszDW0

The Crucible for the Arts (and no, not the play you read in High School)

In the McKinsey & Company article, five crucibles of innovation are discussed that will shape the way in which the world will function in the coming decade. However, as these crucibles change the landscape of the markets, some industries are having a difficult time adjusting to the new realities of the economy. One specifically, is the arts.

The non-profit arts sector is dealing with rising costs for survival, as most of the sources of life-blood begin to unfortunately, die off-literally. The market is shifting towards more people who demand a greater say in what the cost of their artistic consumption is across the global grid-whether its through a $0.99 download, to free video streaming, to online gallery viewings. Technological innovations have opened the door to incredible alterations in consumer behavior, and have allowed widespread access to artistic works around the world. This has understandably changed the way in which people view artistic commodities. For someone not used to frequenting the symphony, it is hard to sell them on why they should pay $90 for a ticket in Row Q when they could pull up the same piece of music by an orchestra from half way around the world for free on their phone. While this proliferation of art is wonderful, it desperately requires innovation within the industry in order to make it sustainable. Some arts orgs have had to indulge in massive price swings just to keep people coming in the door. But how many free/discounted tickets can you give out while your government grants are drying up and expect to have enough money at the end of the night to keep the lights on? Sometimes it simply costs more money to produce the art that is obtained for free around the globe. An unfortunate reality, without a clear solution.

The arts also suffer from a productivity paradox. While other industries in the economy are benefiting from productivity improvements, such as the telecom and financial services sectors, the arts do not have that flexibility. An orchestra is not an orchestra if there are only 7 people in it. You cannot put on a production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream with 3 actors. You cannot outsource a dance troupe to another country to save on costs. No matter how you slice it, the ability to streamline production and jobs for the changing economy and still maintain a certain quality or experience, is just not possible in some areas of the arts. Is it an element to the sector that is impervious to productivity innovation? If organizations within the non-profit arts sector are unable to innovate certain areas, will they, like their donors, die off too?

Design Thinking Parallels in Arts Organizations

The idea of 'design thinking' and it's use to improve the lives of people all around the planet is inspiring and  thought-provoking.  There are many facets of design thinking, or at least the ones spelled out in the article by Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt, and while many of them are being applied to non-profits focusing on social innovation in emerging economies, they contain huge potential for arts-based non-profits.

Arts organizations, especially those providing a 'classical' art to the public, can benefit from designing not only their product but also their infrastructure on their audience's needs.  In a time of headlines filled with bankruptcy and struggling economies, arts organizations can no longer afford to present their product and then try and figure out how to attract people to it.  Their internal structure but adapt to meet the needs of the external wishes of their audience.  One instance is the hiring of consultants by a symphony to adapt marketing strategies to try and determine what the audience is looking for in their product.  This process is often used after the season is already finalized and the marketing team are trying to find ways to attractively package it to their usual audience base but also to attract new audience members.  As the article mentions, looking at this process in hindsight often shows the obvious issues with this process.

Another example of how arts organizations can benefit from design thinking and positive deviance is by studying other arts initiatives, or any initiatives, that are doing well.  One common mistake is to label many aspects of successful ventures as 'not art' or 'selling out'.  The issue with this line of thinking is that it prohibits many valuable lessons that can be learned from organizations and businesses, like the record industry, the movie industry, and the sports industry.  All of these realms have valuable research, ideas, infrastructure and products that could be used to help the arts gain new audience members.

The design thinking spaces of inspiration, ideation, and implementation lend themselves well to arts non-profits.  Inspiration is easy to find in the arts; it is what all arts are created from.  However, organizations would do well to focus time and energy on ideation and implementation.  Ideation also requires multidisciplinary people, which are fairly hard to come by in a non-profit outside of the board (and effective board use is a whole other issue).  While all groups of people can benefit from multidisciplinary members, arts organizations traditionally tend to attract only people who have experience in one field.  Places like CMU with the MAM degree are helping to change that.  The third space, implementation, is crucial.  An important aspect is the acceptance that the process will need to be tested, iterated, and defined.  Feedback is important, and the attitude of 'always improving' is critical.

While arts organizations traditionally don't fit in the social innovation definition, they also have an important role to play in communities.  In order to also be successful, sustainable, and meaningful to society, they can also benefit from these lessons and ideologies gleaned from other non- and for-profit innovators.

Design Thinking is Needed in the Education Reform Movement

I believe the design thinking approach could make a great impact on the education reform movement. Education reforms have a terrible track record of success. Some of the brightest people create the most advanced, well thought-out plans for improvement that ultimately fall short in implementation. Why? According to educator and author Charles Payne in his book So Much Reform So Little Change; The Persistence of Failure in Urban Schools, most reform programs fail to take social barriers into consideration, i.e. the people. Reformers get entirely too caught-up using the traditional problem-solving model; analyzing test scores alone to identify problems. Design teams would gain great insight from going into the schools to observe and study how they function.

Implementation of this model won't be easy though. The reading spoke about how the prototyping phase exposes unforeseen challenges, but what if those problems require greater reform? Would it be cost effective to continue with the product implementation? In the education system, gangs, teachers unions, ineffective administrations, and low expectations (amongst other things) hinder the success of education reforms. In order to effect lasting change, these issues must be addressed. A private company intending to sell a product and make a profit may abandon the product idea because it is not cost-effective to tackle these problems. The government can’t do that.

Is the education department capable of implementing this model? Considering the government's tendency to lag in adopting new approaches and the increasing pressure to see results of reforms instantly, it will be a formidable task. However, the design-thinking approach is fundamentally optimistic and, at least, deserves attention by education reformers. It is an innovative approach to change and has the potential to lead to a more comprehensive reform plan that addresses the multi-faceted problems of the public education system.

Aging issue

As the reading document points out, Japan is now facing with a serious aging issue. According to "Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World" (http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf) , by NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL, there will be one senior for every two working-age in Japan by 2025. GDP growth is projected to drop to near zero, and the cost of trying to maintain pensions and health coverage will squeeze out expenditures on other priorities, such as defense. The major approaches to solve this issue are 1.technology, 2. the role of immigration, 3. public health improvements, and 4. laws encouraging greater female participation in the economy. Since aging issue is also a big problem in EU, and it will definitely be a big problem in China and other nations, the measures to solve this issue in Japan will be good guideline to help all other countries as well. One of the good approach which came up in my mind is that increasing the usage of Robot technology for other than manufacturing industry to improve productivity.

Frugal Engineering: The Wave of the Future

Many years ago when President Kennedy went to deliver his famous Berlin speech he said:

Two thousand years ago -- Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was "civis Romanus sum."¹ Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein Berliner." Fifty years down the line if President Kennedy were to be contributing to the carbon dioxide built up in the world I think he would have said that: Today, in the world, the proudest boast is Frugal engineering'.

The world is changing hands and history is re-balancing. For those who lived in darkness have seen the light. People whom conventional market isolated them are now finding themselves doing well in the emerging markets in Asia, Africa and Latin America. These areas now constitutes the chunk of the people in the world whose purchasing power is increasing and are enjoying or tasting gadgets for the first time.

If any firm wants to see going concern for its businesses then it find an economical ways and means to engineer goods which the teeming people in the emerging market can afford without they having to forgo basic or secondary necessity. That is when frugal engineering is come into play.

British Telecom company called Millicom Ghana was the first mobile phone operator in Ghana. Millicom targeted the elite in the society to the extent the use of mobile phone became the exclusive preserve of the rich. After some years of monopoly then came a new entrant called: Scancom. Scancom decided to target the middle and low class. This became part of their frugal engineering to the extent the latter came to control about 60% of the market just after five years of operation.

In conlcusion, those who will hold the large share of the market will be those who engineer frugally.

Design Thinking has a Place in the Education System

When I was in high school I never had the same class at the same time on two days. I would have Algebra during first period on Mondays, fourth period on Tuesdays, sixth period on Wednesdays, second period on Thursday and fifth period on Friday. It was the same for all of courses. I had a completely different experience than my friends in other schools. It was one form of innovation in the education system. Design Thinking gives schools the opportunity to explore solutions above and beyond the current expected system.

It isn’t only about scheduling and tailoring education to a person’s natural abilities. Professor Laura Lee discusses the introduction of design thinking into the classroom by integrating several courses and outside work to engage students in a new and exciting way.

Universities have the opportunity to integrate Professor Lee’s ideas with surrounding organizations and businesses whether that is through volunteering or consulting. This benefits the students as well as the organization. If the education system can begin to integrate design thinking into classrooms at a younger age, there is no predicting what the generations may discover.

Food for thought

One idea from this week’s readings that deserves reflection is “the productivity imperative”, one of the five crucibles that were discussed in the article “What happens next?”. The authors made a number of suggestions for boosting our productivity, but there is one suggestion that I feel should be added to the conversation – improving the overall health of our population by ensuring that everyone has access to affordable, healthy food and understands how their diet impacts their health.

Hunger and diet-related disease decrease people’s physical and cognitive abilities. Hunger remains a key problem in the US, and one that disproportionately affects poor and minority populations. Just today, the USDA released the results of a 2010 study on household food security. The study found that in 2010, 14.5% of US households were food insecure (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Features/HouseholdFoodSecurity2010). In children, poor nutrition can have long-term impacts on their growth and brain development, affecting their productivity as adults. Poor nutrition also negatively affects the productivity of adults in workforces all around the world, as talked about in a 2005 ILO report (http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/press-and-media-centre/news/WCMS_005175/lang--en/index.htm). Diet-related disease has an enormous impact on the productivity of our workforce (no pun intended). According to the CDC, about 34% of adults and 17% of children in the US are obese. Diet-related diseases are among the leading causes of death in our country. There are countless ways that diet and nutrition affect the health of our citizens and their ability to be productive members of society. This issue should be an important part of the “productivity imperative” conversation.

What does value mean for you?

Human- centered design thinking makes sense, as the human (your target population) should be at the center of the social innovation that is being designed for them. "The Importance of Frugal Engineering" and IDEO's "Human Centered Design Toolkit" both point out the need for a deep understanding of how people live and will ultimately use a product for the design- process to be successful. Obviously people living in different parts of the world from different economic and social backgrounds have different routines, preferences, and needs. But as a consumer, don't we all benefit from "frugal engineering"? I certainly want products that were designed to maximize customer value while they minimize nonessential costs. This isn't just the desire of the "bottom of the pyramid", but of all consumers. Why isn't frugal engineering more popular among the middle and top of the pyramid as well? Perhaps the tenets and products of frugal engineering will capture the hearts of consumers in developed economies as well. Or is value perceived in a fundamentally different way between the "developing" and the "developed" consumer? Is a radio (or an IPOD dock rather) worth more to the relatively- affluent consumer than extra storage space, thereby affecting each party's value calculations? Finally, is a company like Tata really engaged in social innovation when it designs the Nano? I think the product is certainly socially innovative and fits our class definition of social innovation, but Tata's main motivation is to create a product that's profitable. Is frugal engineering about social innovation, or is it just a necessary step in doing business in the developing world?

Frugal Engineering: Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down

In my effort to synthesize concepts from all the different readings for this week, one concept that I find especially striking is the idea of "frugal engineering" from the Seghal et. al article. This idea, not limited to literal cost management, but which extends to making things specifically for the purpose of meeting the needs of emerging, presents the challenge of balancing"top-down commitment" with "bottom-up innovation." By design, frugal engineering attempts to tap into "bottom of the pyramid" with needs unique to the developing world, but where does the main responsibility lie? The article does a great job highlighting how often the first solution (especially by private-sector entrepreneurs) in product design for emerging markets is to merely re-introduce mature-market products with limited functionality. It is fairly nonsensical, but it prevails because many from the "top" view this as the most cost-effective solution. However, as Seghal (el al.) points out, those in emerging markets do not always part with their money that easily, and many if not most know when they are not being given the best product at the best price. So does this mean that most top-down commitment to developing emerging markets is off base? Perhaps, since in many cases the heads of organizations or corporations would rather dictate what the market wants rather than let the market do it itself. Does that put more pressure on bottom-up innovation from those within the market to utilize the basic frugal engineering concept of avoid needless costs? I think so, as often an insider's perspective is the solution to greater market penetration. But ideally, there is a balance between a quasi-hegemonic force from above and an almost revolutionary response from below. (Or in less dramatic terms, "outsider" producers work with both "internal producers" and the greater populace of the emerging markets to make the best possible products.) I think that bottom-up innovation is universal: it's definitely not unique to the emerging world. What I think is crucial in emerging BoP markets that the authors of this frugal engineering article drive home is the idea that top-down commitment, with the "right" direction, is absolutely necessary in order to continue to develop the emerging markets. As the Tata Motors example shows, there has to be a willingness to match one's own frugal engineering endeavors specifically to the cost constraints of one's consumers beyond simply removing features from existing mature-market products. In others news, it is incredibly ironic to be finishing this post just minutes after the press conference concerning the Dietrich fund. I suppose I am now an alumnus of the Marianna Brown Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences.

What Role Will Government Intervention Play in the Development of Social Enterprise?