Charles and Armstrong travelled to Cambodia as PhD students to look into the high instance (44%) of anemia in Cambodia. Anemia, caused by an iron deficiency, can cause significant health complications, including exhaustion and birth complications. One of the main reasons for the high rate of anemia in Cambodia is the high rate of poverty, which makes it difficult for citizens to purchase red meat or dietary supplements necessary for a healthy intake of iron. Seeing this problem, Charles and Armstrong introduced the idea of cooking meals with a piece of iron thrown into the pot. By cooking with a piece of iron, the food's iron content by nearly 92%. Charles and Armstrong did find one flaw with their idea-the people of Cambodia did not want to toss a chunk of iron into their food. So by going in to the community and learning more about Cambodian society they learned that the fish is a symbol of good luck. With this information, they designed fish-shaped iron, which the people of Cambodia accepted as a supplement to their cooking. The fish-redesign has greatly increased the frequency with which iron is used when cooking, and has decreased the instance of anemia in Cambodia.
This profile provides to very valuable lessons for our class. First, it shows the simplicity of social innovation. A piece of iron is cheap to acquire, and has incredible health benefits for those who use it, as it has made great strides in eradicating anemia in Cambodia. Instead of needing a dietary supplement or more red meat each household needs only to acquire an iron fish. Doing so is an affordable and easy way to improve the health of the country. This solution is interesting because it approaches the problem in a less-traditional way, for instead of looking at something that could be consumed, it looked at something that could add to any and all food. the second lesson of the iron fish is the importance of understanding the culture in which you are working. In a more utilitarian society, placing a piece of iron of any shape may have been accepted, but in Cambodia, to do so was frowned upon. Only after the shape was standardized to resemble the fish of good fortune did the people of Cambodia incorporate the innovation into their daily life. Bearing this in mind, could there be other examples of innovations that failed to take hold not because of their function but because of unappealing design? Are we setting ourselves up for failure by not paying enough attention to cultural norms? I believe this is an area that could be of significant importance as smaller scale social innovators continue to work around the globe.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.