This week’s readings familiarized us to several innovative
solutions that have been introduced in recent past to tackle issue of provision
of basic human necessities in developing countries. This focus on addressing
fundamental human needs by leveraging technology augurs well for the future of
field of social innovation. However, successful diffusion of many of these
novel solutions will depend on how well these innovative solutions can be
packaged to fulfill needs of communities where they will be introduced. This
leads me to the question: Is human centered design the ultimate enabler for
fulfilling basic human needs?
Khan’s academy [1] model may work for communities where target
audience base is well versed in using internet and computers/mobile phones to
view online lecture videos; however, this model will have limitations for
localities where internet is non-existent. Professor Josh Silver’s revolutionary
self-adjusting glasses [2] is certainly an impressive technological breakthrough
aimed at combating eyesight problems in developing world. However, after around
4 years of its launch, only 40,000 units have been shipped [3] worldwide largely
due to the fact that it is still priced too high for mass adoption. Raspberry
Pi microcomputers [4] are certainly a breakthrough in terms of producing low
cost yet practical computers for developing world. However, one of the many reasons
why Raspberry Pi has failed to take-off in developing countries has been the
fact that manufacturers have been unable to set up support structure of dealers
and service providers in developing countries which would have made it easier
for potential customers to purchase Raspberry Pi.
In my view, E-Choupal [5] in India is an example of social
innovation where human centered design was utilized to deliver internet based
solution to farmers which enabled them to directly communicate with buyer, India
Tobacco Company (ITC) for sale of their agricultural products. This direct
interaction between farmers and ITC through internet has allowed farmers to get
more value for their crops. However, Designers of E-Choupal system understood
that new system will not take-off in the face of opposition from traditional
middle men owing to their social and financial status in the society. Hence,
rather than marginalizing middle men, E-Choupal accommodated these middle men in
new role within the new ecosystem. This helped in securing support for the new
ecosystem among the traditional middle men and was pivotal for uptake of
E-Choupal. A few years later, a similar project in Pakistan was launched under
the name of Agricultural Commodities Trade (ACT) [6]. The major difference
between E-Choupal and ACT was that in ACT project, no role was given to traditional
middle-men in ecosystem; not surprisingly, the ACT project failed to take-off.
This is an instance where a technology failed in the case of
ACT project whereas similar technology is powering E-Choupal today in 40,000
villages across India; differentiating factor between two cases was human
design methodology employed in the case of E-Choupal to recognize role of
middle men.
Technology may enable you to put together an innovative
product but it has to be delivered to the intended users through a human
centered process to ensure its uptake. What are your thoughts on this?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.