Technological Solution for a Social Problem

Like many developing nations, India faces extreme issues of economic and social inequality. However, despite the challenges that India’s poorest face, its population also provides enormous potential to drive the nation’s growth and provide entrepreneurial solutions.

The National Innovation Council of India (NInC) began with a vision driven by Sam Pitroda, a highly-regarded entrepreneur who was behind the Indian telecom revolution. The NInC’s vision was to reorganize the Indian model of innovation from a culture of ad hoc innovation, or “Jugaad”, driven by scarce resources and customers’ needs, to a system based on strategic approaches that incorporate sustainability, durability, affordability, quality, global competitiveness and local needs.The NInC does not disregard the innovations of India’s poorest to meet their day-to-day challenges but focuses on building structures and policies that enable the government to identify, organize, support and scale these innovations.

India has an estimated 6,000 small and medium-sized enterprise industry associations (known as clusters) across the country; these associations are crucial to job creation for India’s poorest. However, they have largely remained unorganized as independent worker-based support networks, and businesses remain dependent on cheap labour, often providing inhospitable working conditions that cause serious health and environmental hazards. The NInC identified a huge potential for social and economic impact by providing these associations with support to innovate and stay relevant in today’s globalized world. To provide this support, the NInC created Cluster Innovation Centres (CICs), modelled on a public-private partnership that connects the industry associations to research and development organizations, industry experts, government programmes and financing institutions.

Moradabad (also known as Brass City) is a town in the state of Uttar Pradesh and home to one of the oldest brassware industry associations (known as a cluster) in India. Traditionally, production is based out of artisans’ homes and requires coal-based furnaces and cyanide-based solutions to melt brass and finish the products. These techniques generate harmful air pollutants that lead to increased respiratory diseases and cancer among the artisans and their families. Despite taking on these health risks, artisans in the cluster make very little profit. In Moradabad, the brassware industry has faced serious challenges from global competition, experiencing a drop of over 80% in export orders in the past decade.

The NInC intervened to remedy this situation, creating a CIC in the form of a physical hub in Moradabad to foster innovation in the brassware industry. The Cluster Innovation Centre builds the community ownership of ideas and reduces bottlenecks in both production and service delivery by pooling resources for research and development. These efforts have resulted in three vital innovations for the brassware artisans – improved coal-based furnaces, ready-to-use lacquer and cyanide-free solutions. These innovations increased daily incomes per furnace by 80% and improved the quality of products and working conditions for the artisans in Moradabad.

Human Centered Design and making innovation possible

I take this blog as a summary of what I've learned and thought through the mini session. What we've discussed so far can be summed up as:

What is a good social innovation? How can we make it possible? 

Based on what we've learned, a successful social innovation is a HCD(human-centered design). IDEO illustrated the HCD process in this article:

http://www.hcdconnect.org/toolkit/en

Human-centered design process helps people hear the needs of the people and communities they’re designing for, create innovative approaches to meet these needs, and deliver solutions that work in specific cultural and economic contexts.

The keywords are hear, create, deliver.

IDEO has development online course to help you develop a sense of HCD, which makes this seem a lot easier for everybody to participate as a part of the social change.

http://plusacumen.org/courses/hcd-for-social-innovation/

How can we make a social innovation come to life? Here is an article about how to make successful innovations:

"How to Make Innovation Less Risky"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2012/12/09/how-to-make-innovation-less-risky/

Corporations' time in the sun has passed. Sims believes another path forward is through a mashup of “entrepreneurship, social change, and art” (which he’s pursuing with two new projects, the social venture Fuse Corps and the for-profit B corporationthe BLKSHP (think “black sheep”). The shift to a new way of doing business, says Sims, is a return to our entrepreneurial heritage: “It's a healthy cleanse for capitalism.”

Not only has B-corp work great for social entrepreneurs,  corporations are considering joining B-corp as a way to continue their glamor. It's great in a way that more and more people are directed to the path of innovation. Wisdom from different industries are combined, which is great news for SI&E.

There's another take-away from this article: get your hands dirty. Things will never follow what you've planned. Get used to it and learn from it. Here is a cute article with vivid illustration that you can directly take to make a presentation about how to make ideas happen:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/10/22/how-to-make-innovative-ideas-happen/

Here is an article about "Continued Federal Support for Social Innovation Fund Looks Shaky"
http://philanthropy.com/article/Social-Innovation-Fund-Faces-a/134998/
The future of SI&E, combining what said and what I have in mind, is that the participation and transition of traditional corporations could be a new and prosperous direction to expect that generates good ideas and sustainable development plans rather than the government/NPO direction.

How much time is too much time invested?

So here's a pretty incredible story about a man in Peru who, more than thirty years ago, had a vision for improving the future of his small town:

http://dowser.org/money-does-grow-on-trees-in-one-peruvian-town/

He basically foresaw that forestry could help take them out of poverty, and also provide the fuel necessary to improve their lifestyle. Even though he knew it would take years- 20 years for the trees to grow to the point where they could be used- and others thought he was crazy, he pursued his project. Now, thanks to his project, education, healthcare, and the everyday lives of the people have all improved.

What's shocking to me about this story is that this is a social project that had to be kept alive for such a long period of time before it became beneficial, and that Don Alejandro Quispe Chilón knew the years he would have to invest, and still pushed forward. I think that a lot of the mentality today, both in general and regarding social innovations, is to get and outcome as soon as possible. But what about cases like this one in which as soon as possible is still just not soon? I'm inclined to say that in these cases, most people would give up, or look for other projects to pursue. Because if people can spend their time finding outcomes and benefits for the immediate future, why would they instead spend their time investing in the long-term future?

Of course this is a generalization, and maybe this isn't even a fair assessment of today's mentality. It's clear that social projects take years to go from conception to fruition. Yet it seems to me that in the other cases we've seen for this class, the time frame is dependent more on the perfection of an invention or the creation of a sustainable business. This means that there are may variables that contribute to the overall time frame in which a project can be completed, and therefore there is not a set future date when benefits can start to be reaped. So when there is a 20-year future date, would most people still be willing to invest? And nowadays, do we really have that much time to invest?

Project Loon

For Google to build solar powered Internet balloons, makes me realize the never ending reward to creativity. “Project Loon” is a great way for people in countries that have little infrastructure to actually get access to information. The benefits to access to the internet will allow kids to learn from internet sites and be able to communicate with other people besides the ones they are surrounded by. If Kenya, does receive the one laptop per child, it would boost the amount of information each child has access to. The kids could do what kids and people do on the Internet. Simple things like how to, the news, and videos will allow kids an opportunity to learn things they never did before.

If Google can control the balloons, meaning if Google can makes sure the balloons do not get caught in any thing (ie. a tree, animal, power line, lake) then perhaps then Project Loon will be successful. Furthermore, if the balloons need any kind of repair if they tear or fall out of the sky, Google should be able to respond immediately.

Is “Project Loom” an idea that can catch on in Kenya? Is there a better technology that can give the kids that receive a laptop access to information? Should the people of Kenya be the ones to actually be taking care of their own infrastructure, and Google should just stay out of the country?

The Future of Social Innovation and Intrapreneurs

This week’s social innovation topic is “The Future of Social Innovation and Enterprise.” With the Fastcompany article titled “Forget GDP: The Social Progress Index Measures National Well-Being”[1], we learn how the nonprofit Social Progress Imperative is putting forth an index that measures more than economic output, but the well-being of a society by observing a number of social and environmental factors.

As many social scientists would argue, GDP may simply be too one-dimensional, whereas the SPI may provide both social scientists and economists with a more complete measure of a nation’s progress. Given that strong economic growth does not necessarily translate into a nation’s overall well-being, the governments of the BRIC countries as well as those emerging from the Arab Spring could potentially benefit from adopting the SPI. With the adoption of a more intuitive measure, governments and innovators may be able to better understand where societal issues are originating and where collaboration to fight societal problems can occur.

With Megha Bahree’s article “GE Remodels Businesses in India”[2] and Dan Baum’s “Inside The World’s Most Ambitious Eco-City” we see two great examples of how organizations and governments are presenting sustainable future innovations. In the case of GE, the global organization has adopted a perspective that is specific to the needs and expectations of a society. GE has been in Indian for a number of years, but only recently have they fully begun to understand how they could become more of a societal force than providing healthcare supplies.

The future of social innovation presents a number of exciting opportunities, models, and new individual roles. The role of a social intrapreneur, for example, or an individual with an organization that find creative ways to become change agents that pursue social agendas is particularly interesting to me. While these individuals may historically be seen as troublemakers within the corporate hierarchy, major changes in the corporate landscape are encouraging the emergence of intrapreneurs. Corporate organizational structures, for instance, are becoming more transparent, while organizations are also placing more emphasis on corporate social responsibility, leadership programs for young associates and middle managers, and continuing education. This changing ecosystem are encouraging intrapreneurs to break through the corporate politics and pitch their environmentally-conscious and social impact ideas directly to the customer.

            This new individual role within an organization aligns well with more general shifts in how the millennial generation views the workplace. More than ever, today’s workers tie their personal values, passions, and ambitions more closely to their work than previous generations, providing a unique opportunity for employers. As large U.S. corporations and multinational organizations have a larger role in shaping corporate diplomacy and understand the needs of new consumer markets, do you think intrapreneurs are becoming an important asset to these organizations? Do you think intrapreneurs can have as great a social impact within an organization and social entrepreneurs have working on their own or with non-profits? What kind of person becomes an intrapreneur? In many ways, I feel the Heinz College prepares us for exactly this role.

---

[1] http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681830/forget-gdp-the-social-progress-index-measures-national-well-being

[2] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704547804576261151497799750

The Future of Social Innovation: What's next?

Week 7: The Future of Social Innovation and Enterprise

How do we anticipate the future of Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship? We must first examine the relationship between social innovation and trends in society.

There is a cyclical relationship between social trends and social innovation—they are bound to each other: when one shifts, so will the other. As society changes, so too the innovations will adapt to these changes. Innovations will emerge, reinventing existing technology in ways that have a significant social impact in a particular context. The impact will drive shifts in society, and at a certain point, will shift trends in society.  The cycle begins again, as social innovation builds on and adapts to the changes in society.

Social trends and social innovation exist in a particular context—a time, space, and social environment with a given set of resources. External components, such as technology, will factor into the resources for this social context and changes in technology will shift the baseline of what innovations that are possible.

What drives social trends? Arguably, it’s driven by society’s needs and wants. The status quo doesn’t answer particular social questions, and change agents seek feasible solutions through innovative alternatives. For instance, as it is now, many current social innovations trends are responding to an increasing demand for customization or are attempting to remediate social challenges. The current culture of mass production provides a mass produced item, such as a prosthetic limb. But we’ve entered into a time where everything is becoming consistently more personalized—down to the ads we receive on social media websites. Why not provide a customized, more personally useful version of a preexisting model, such as a prosthetic?  It meets a demand and answers a social trend.

With the examples we’ve seen in this class, the future of social innovation will be answering global questions. The Internet is creating a social component of globalization—we’re not limited to trade and markets. We have access to data on the tremendous limitations in current social structures. If social innovations will seek to answer a global list of social needs and wants—I believe that the future of social innovation could very well be disruptive to existing structures of poverty, unsustainable environmental practices, food insecurity, and many more social ills.  We’ve learned again and again that the four billion people in the bottom of the economic pyramid have tremendous collective spending power—so even if innovation doesn’t seek to disrupt these existing issues, there is possibility for market demand to meet these needs.

But I wonder, what are the next major shifts in social trends? Where will them stem from? Will it be another technology wave, like the internet? Or will it be primarily social in nature—perhaps the redefining of a set of social values and norms?

As an idealist, I can’t help but wonder, how do we construct social trends to create opportunities for more positive impact? How can we use the next wave of innovations to promote global dialogue? And will social trends meet global social needs? Or will they be specific to the smaller locations, like specific cultures and contexts?

I guess even with all these ideas, I know it will depend on what shifts first. I’m still left wondering, what’s next?

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/city-light

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/516186/african-entrepreneurs-deflate-googles-internet-balloon-idea/

www.fastcoexist.com/1681830/forget-gdp-the-social-progress- index-measures-national-well-being

www.fastcodesign.com/1672572/the-next-frontier-for-3-d-printing-helping-the- disabled#1

Who gets to decide the definition of "well-being"?

I took issue with one of the readings for this week: "Forget the GDP the social progress index measures national well-being."  Mainly because it is derived mainly by one gentleman, and later a team of eight (participants and board members) who get to decide what factors are important when evaluating a country and which of the fifty-two criteria are more relevant than another.

Wanting to have a better understanding of who else was involved in the project, I looked up the team of people and noticed there was a lack of diversity of the team. There was no one on the team from Africa or India. While the metrics used to evaluate the countries seemed to be clear, perhaps the order in which they evaluated would shift leaving another country to be present in the top five countries. For example, one measure of health and wellbeing in their study is longevity. Depending on culture and personal preference not everyone wants to experience the affects of old age. One of the commenters on the article also poignantly pointed out that (although a vague concept to measure) culture was not considered as a means to evaluate the country. For some countries education / work opportunity might not be rank as high but their cultural landscape adds a great deal to their overall "wellbeing" and happiness.

Which leads to me to wonder, how would this index change if the people involved in the study had diverse backgrounds that more accurately depict the world population?




Sources:
http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/blog/posts/meet-the-social-progress-imperative-team-michael-green-executive-director

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681830/forget-gdp-the-social-progress-index-measures-national-well-being

http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi/methodology

Printing The Future

Can 3D printing save lives?  I say YES!  With the ability to custom build bone structures, skin tissues and even teeth in a pre-operative state, only provides more insight for the surgeons and less operation time with efficiency in place.

This is the future of social innovation and enterprise at its best!  After perusing the article; The Next Frontier For 3-D Printing: Helping The Disabled (Fast Company, May 20, 2013), my interest sparked and I began to wonder is there a way to do this for someone who had severe facial damage, or need for surgical reconstruction.  3D printing helping the disabled is a beautiful concept; the ability to create items to match your own personal needs makes this an exceptional vehicle to move forward in.  Not only does this limit to actual prosthetic limbs but allows the freedom to add to one’s lifestyle.  This kind of freedom in a constrained world enables those who are disadvantaged to have a fair advantage.

I always knew of 3D printing improving lives, existing states of lives, but to save lives?  Emotionally it was understood with the article cited above, lives are being saved and quality of life is improved ten folds, but how can this save lives? 

http://greenandgold.uaa.alaska.edu/blog/16484/uaa-rapid-prototype-lab-and-professor-jeff-hoffman-assist-local-surgeon-in-dramatic-face-reconstruction/

Everyone loves a plan, having a full proof plan of what to do next, step by step.  I remember in 1995 when I had my entire face reconstructed after an accident, the surgeons would discuss options, look at old pictures of me and say “we will have you back together in no time” in 1995 the use of lasers was the innovation, but how do you piece back a face that has been so severely damaged without a tangible prototype to work with?  Nevertheless, my doctors completed my surgery, 4 surgeries, 5-7 hours each.  My life was saved, but prolonged periods of time on an operating table leaves room for infections to set in, and takes away from actual surgical time.  This is one of the ways 3D printing can save lives.  Lesser time on the operating table, a solid plan and preparation to ensure multiple surgeries will not be necessary.  It will create efficiency of procedure in the end.  I often wonder, my nose is still half a mm off mark, not too noticeable, but if my doctors at the time would have had the history of my bone structure would my nose still have missed the mark? 

Granted this is a minor afterthought and in the end my life was saved.  But if a 3D printer can reconstruct faces then the possibilities can prove endless!  For acid attack victims it can restore their lost skin tissues, for people who may have lost eyes, ears and noses, this can provide a whole new meaning to their lives and the want to keep moving forward.

These topics had me very excited because I have lived it, and believe that this is the future of social innovation and enterprises at its best!