A Shift in the Capitalist Mindset

In the United States, when we think of goods and services designed for low-income and impoverished individuals and communities, we tend to think of stores like Walmart—a prime example of US capitalism. Walmart produces things cheaply and sells them at a low cost and has created a booming business doing so. However, anyone who has shopped at Walmart may know that the goods are almost always of a poor quality. In such a consumption-driven society, we are used to just throwing things away and buying new things when they break. When it comes to designing products for people without money, because these communities are not profitable, there is no attention paid to what their desires and needs are. I believe that this highlights an important mindset that requires changing if we seek to design products, policies, or technologies to help impoverished communities. In “The Importance of Frugal Engineering,” Sehgal, Dehoff, and Panneer discuss how people in poverty have specific needs just like anyone else, and they have necessities and desires that may be different from yours or mine.[i]

Sehgal et al. explain how the very capitalist-style market we have cannot work in creating low-cost—but efficient, effective, and high quality—products for people in poverty in developing markets. Processes and products developed in the US are not necessarily transferable to developing markets, not only because of cost and price, but also because of the needs of the people in those communities. The article describes the Nano created by Tata Motors. Tata Motors was not rooted in an assembly-line kind of production and frame of mind, which allowed them to develop a unique automobile for low-income people. This is in contrast to companies such as Ford that are so ingrained in their processes that they are unable to shift from a top-down to a bottom-up, individualized approach to production.

Frugal engineering is based on the same fundamentals as human-centered design, which requires understanding the environment in which one is working or innovating, understanding the needs, abilities, and resources of the people and businesses there, and building a completely unique process from the ground-up. However, the older businesses and companies become, the more they become set in their ways, which Sehgal et al. mention. Is it possible for existing companies to create goods and services via human-centered design and frugal engineering, or do these theories rely purely on new, young businesses? Ideally, if these innovative approaches to thinking and creating could be adopted by existing companies, governments, and individuals, we could create unique policies and products that are much more effective and useful to the communities and people in question. Are all businesses, policies, and technologies doomed to become hardwired like the Ford Model T?

---

[i] Sehgal, Vikas, Dehoff, Kevin, & Panneer, Ganesh. (2010). The Importance of Frugal Engineering. Strategy + Business. http://www.strategy-business.com/article/10201?gko=24674.