Hype vs. Reality in Media Representations of Social Innovation

As we investigate the implications of social innovation for the developing world, it is important to keep a skeptical approach. New and intriguing ideas often make compelling news stories, and as the rate of innovation increases we will need to evaluate such news with a critical eye. Many of the innovations highlighted this week speak to my point.

Since most of the articles covered this week were published two or more years ago, we can evaluate the success of such endeavors and determine whether or not they live up to the high expectations set by the all-too-often sensationalistic media. A quick search reveals that most fall short, and a case-by-case comparison reveals a common trend for those that don’t make it: lack of affordability or financial sustainability.

• Brian Silver’s plan to make one billion pairs of adjustable prescription glasses for the developing world has not taken off. Silver began developing his idea in 1985, and although the technological challenges has been handled and surmounted, he has not been able to bring the glasses to enough consumers to make an impact, mostly because they are not affordable for those Silver hopes to serve. Silver’s organization, the Centre for Vision in the Developing World, operates as a nonprofit organization, with most of its funds (around $3 million) coming from silicon technology company Dow Corning in the form of philanthropic donations. Silver’s reliance on donations rather than investment and rigorous R&D mean that he is unable to make the glasses cheaply enough for consumers in developing markets to be willing to buy them.

•  Raspberry Pi, despite seeing remarkable success in the U.S. and U.K., has not lived up to the hopes of the 2013 TechCruch article that praised “the potential of the Pi as a low cost learning-focused computing platform for developing countries.” Again, affordability is the main obstacle, and the vision of millions of students across the African continent using these small computers remains wishful thinking.

•  Of the gadgets featured in “Five Innovative Technologies that Bring Energy to the Developing World,” only one has seen even moderate success. Voto, the biomass-fueled flashlight and charging device, has not taken off. Yanko Design’s window-mounted solar electrical socket remains just a concept that has not yet been sold commercially. Potential Energy, which operates as a nonprofit, has donated a few thousand stoves, but no R&D investments have been made to make the stoves affordable for African consumers. GravityLight has turned to crowdfunding and could see some success in the future, but so far they have not sold any lamps commercially.

These examples carry with them a word of caution – a good idea with a good intention does not guarantee success. Based on this assessment, it would seem that social innovators need to be just as entrepreneurial and profit-driven as they are inventive and socially conscious in order to make a far-reaching, sustainable impact.

IKEA: A Big Business Social Innovator

This week we were tasked with reading about various social innovations to see how an idea can change the world. This is what I noticed.

1. REALLY AWESOME inexpensive PRODUCTS THAT CHANGE LIVES
2. A collection of curious, creative, and geeky individuals bringing seemingly crazy ideas to fruition (world travelers, physics professors, artists, engineers, computer scientists, and industrial designers)

What I found most interesting is that these ideas, products, and innovators seem to be working separate from big businesses in small, start-up, or non-profit business models. The IKEA foundation is the only big exception.

IKEA is the largest furniture distributor in the world. The IKEA foundation is "an independent charitable foundation that overseas IKEA's global philanthropy" [i]. The foundation donates to four causes: improving the lives of refugees, children's rights, emergency response and women and girls empowerment. 

In 2013, the IKEA foundation in partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) debuted a easy to ship and durable refugee shelter that is more practical, safe and sustainable than UN provided fabric refugee shelters, and the structure is expected to cost under $1,000. In addition, the company invested 3.4 million euro into the project from it's inception to 2013 [ii], and IKEA foundation probably invested more in subsequent years, since the newest models include solar panels [iii].

So why did IKEA foundation choose to be apart of this project? 

IKEA has recently been known for their ethical practices. However, no other big businesses made it to our list of readings, which does not make me think IKEA's commitment towards ethical business standards is the only reason why the company decided to participate in the shelter project.

In previous entrepreneurship coursework, my professor drilled the biggest problem with big companies is that they are not innovative, and therefore, they are constantly threatened by the development of new disruptive technologies. In addition, when I google searched "big business and innovation," the first result was a Forbes article entitled "Why Big Companies Fail at Innovative" [iv].  Therefore, IKEA could of participated in the project to reverse this trend and spark innovation and creative thinking within the company. Additionally, political factors could of played a role in the UNHCR and IKEA partnership.

Whatever the reason, I am glad IKEA took on this project and I believe it's role provokes many questions about big businesses and their role in social enterprise. Is it best for new social enterprises to begin as start-up ventures like most of our examples? What would the implications be if other big businesses follow the IKEA model?

Khan Academy's Revolutionary Social Innovation

       The Article entitled, “One Man, One Computer, 10 Million Students: How Klan Academy is Reinventing Education” focuses on the social and technological revolution of how information is transferred to students. The article identifies how Salman Khan has affected the entire world with a video camera, white board, and interactive computer software. Khan transformed the traditional classroom into an more effective virtual domain. He practically redefines the dynamics of a classroom. Many people would argue that a classroom is a specific space and time in which information is transferred, but Khan revolutionizes that notion of a traditional classroom. Now, a classroom can be anywhere, anytime, in any space with mobile computing capabilities.  He is not using comprehensive educational reform or teacher effectiveness models, but simple innovation to combat a massive problem within the education system.

       Khan fits perfectly into this week’s course module, which examines solution and enablers to deliver basic human needs. Khan introduced Khan academy unintentionally as a social innovation. Khan Academy fits directly into our theoretical definition of social innovation. Social innovation is defined as “a novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, or sustainable than existing solutions for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals.”[i] Khan academy is a nonprofit, which receives funds from for-profit ventures. Whenever a non-profit social innovation receives money from for-profit venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, it has to be a good idea. The one thing I particularly like about Salman Khan is his humility. He started Khan academy as a non-profit seeking to offer a “free world class education to anyone, anywhere.”[ii]

        Khan Academy is a shining example of what innovation looks like in education. Most educators today find themselves in a difficult situation. They have multifaceted job, they have to increases test scores while still trying to teach effectively with inefficient resources. Khan academy has the potential to tremendously aid educators in their duty. Khan academy impact is already established with well over 6 million student viewers monthly, actively apart of 20,000 classrooms, and videos translated in 24 languages around world.[iii] I think its safe that Khan Academy has had a global impact.

        The article is interesting to me because education is one of those fields that have lack innovation since its inception. Until the 1990’s when schools started to introduce “virtual” classrooms, education was seen in the traditional form. A teacher in a classroom with students lecturing all day. Now, Khan academy and some many others are pioneering a brave new front in education with technology. The most important is that the education change is coming at a relative low cost.

In conclusion, I would like to end by posing two questions to the reader. Are we doing enough with the given technology and time that we have in terms of cost effectiveness of operating school? Has Salman Khan started a platform or benchmark for innovation in virtual and online education?

---

[i] Adapted from Rediscovering Social innovation , SSRI, Fall 2008

[ii] http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelnoer/2012/11/02/one-man-one-computer-10-million-students-how-khan-academy-is-reinventing-education/

[iii] http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelnoer/2012/11/02/one-man-one-computer-10-million-students-how-khan-academy-is-reinventing-education/

DIY Innovation

Rather than the traditional bigger, better, faster, and pricier mentality of creating new products, social innovators look for ways to make products smaller, more efficient, cheaper, and more responsive to the needs of their customers . Two of this week’s articles showcased the achievements of Joshua Silver and Salman Khan, who greatly embrace this mentality and add a do-it-yourself mentality. This DIY mentality answers to the unmet demand in hard to reach and difficult to manage markets, such as spectacles and education, but at a low-cost, low-maintenance angle. These organizations also take into account the customer’s agency and their desire to keep it.

Joshua Silver’s, recently short-listed for and EU award, self-adjusting glasses are only one example of the changing mentality in the community of social innovators. An estimated one billion people suffering from poor eye sight in the developing world may finally have access to a sustainable, viable solution that does not require constant professional attention. This easy-to-use invention has been tested in rural villages in China as well as inner-city classroom in Boston, showing positive results.

As the largest school in the world, the Khan academy provides online videos, quizzes, and other free learning material. The videos and materials have been translated to over 24 languages and enjoy about 6 million new daily viewers.  Khan’s organization has a token characteristic of all successful organizations, for profit or not: it has utilized the growing use of technology in education, i.e. it has adapted to the changing dynamics in the classroom and in society.

These two services provide more than simple products, but act as an avenue for economic and social advancement. As Silver explains, lacking good eye sight greatly impacts one’s social and economic opportunities. Khan’s academy has proven to work better than online tutoring. While Silver’s self-adjusting glasses cost £15 each to make, Khan has experience a 1000% return and has reached 10 million students.  However, keep in mind that Silver is dedicated to bringing the cost down to a price accessible to his target population.

These types of sustainable solutions are vital in social innovation. These two organizations embody the conversations around human-centered design and frugal engineering. The products are human-centered because of bottom-up design trajectory and show characteristics of frugal engineering through their commitment to low-cost solutions. While working in separate fields (education and health), the two organizations had similar visions about creating a useful product that fills the demand gap in their respective markets.