Altruism and Ineffiency in Design Thinking

1. Altruism in Inspiration Space

As the motive of social innovation is altruism rather than profit-making (Rediscovering Social Innovation by James A. Phills Jr., Kriss Deiglmeier, and Dale T. Miller, 2008), I think the bottom line of design thinking is also genuine heart toward underprivileged people not financial return. If money was the first and foremost drive of design thinking, I don’t think ‘design thinkers’ could go through inspiration space for a long period.
  
During inspiration space, innovators conduct a lot of close examination to discover what people’s actual needs are. However, it is done by “watching what people do (and do not do) and listen to what they say (and do not say)” (Change by Design by Tim Brown with Barry Katz, 2011), rather than by conventional methods like survey or academic research (Design Thinking for Social Innovation by Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt, 2010). Basically, innovators have to stay with them, live with them, and understand them, because “the only way we [innovators] can get to know them is to seek them out where they live, work, and play for an intensive period of observation” (Change by Design by Tim Brown with Barry Katz, 2011).

In this sense, I think inspiration space necessitates innovators’ humble, compassionate, and altruistic mind in finding right systematic solutions, diffusion methods, and distribution channels. Innovators have to take a close look at the clients’ society, to be more specific, culture, history, religion, governance, and tradition, as we talked in class, by living with them and speaking to them as partners, not as seller-and-buyer relationship. If it were only for finding a niche market or Blue Ocean, they would have not finished inspiration space.
 
2. Any Better Efficient Ways for Ideation Space?

The article titled Design Thinking for Social Innovation mentions that “to have a good idea you must first have lots of ideas”, and it is good to “have a diverse group of people involved in the process”, namely, “multidisciplinary people”(Tim Brown and Jocelyn Wyatt, 2010). However, I also think that there are shortcomings in this - this process will require a lot of time, effort, and energy to communicate with people from different backgrounds and even to understand what exact meaning of all these ideas, because multidisciplinary people would have different norms and terms. Would there be any efficient ways to overcome this possible problem so innovators can reach optimal systematic solutions more effectively and efficiently?
 

Social Innovation based on human centered design thinking

Title: David Kelley: Human-centered design

Social innovation is a solution to social problems related to groups of people or communities. This solution should help people or communities handle their issues. Also, since new technologies and solutions are developed and used by humans, social innovations or solutions should be based on human centered thinking.

People like new solutions or technologies that make their life easier. However, getting a great idea for solutions is difficult and takes a lot of time. For example, Apple's first mouse and iPhone's one touch button look simple. If people had thought the design of those product is simple, why did people not develop one button mouses and phones before Apple? If some people had developed one button mouses and phones before Apple, they would have taken the first mover advantages. The bottom line is that simple designs are not simple. In this blog, I want to share some guides on how to apply human centered design thinking.

According to Fred Dust and Michael Maness, the future relies on changes you make now (Hu, 2013). Compared to the past, we use smartphones to check emails and make payments. We do not need to sit in front of computer monitors and type the keyboard. Instead, we touch screen of phones. In rural areas, we can make changes by setting up a wireless router and providing Wi-Fi phones so that people in remote areas can communicate with one another within LAN. 

In addition, Fred and Michael said, “don’t ask them, observer them.” Spending time with users and observe their behaviors continuously will give a chance to get to know more about them. Based on this observation, social innovators can find ideas to be applicable to communities of the users. This way will work. If I ask my friend what he or she wants, they say what they might want not what they really want. Thus, instead of asking them what they want, observing them is more viable ways to find their needs.

Lastly, human centered design is the answer for all product design. When we develop a new product, we conduct market, user, and product analysis to identify needs of customers and the level of competitiveness of market. Marketing, designs and technical solutions are aimed at individuals, groups, and communities. In other words, new innovations or solutions with human centered design thinking are more likely to be successful and appealing to people because they care about how people react and what they want.

*IDEO partner Fred Dust joined Kinght Foundation Vice President/Journalism and Media Innovation Michael Maness

Works Cited

Hu, Elise. "Knight Foundation."Knight Foundation. Kinght Foundation, 11 Feb. 2013. Web.

03 Sept. 2013. <http://www.knightfoundation.org/blogs/knightblog/2013/2/11/how-human-centered-design-thinking-can-transform-community-media/>.

Sustainable Economic Development

Ernesto Sirolli, founder of the Sirolli Institute, recently gave a Tedx Talk refuting many common methods of providing aid to developing countries. While sustainable development, encompassing ideas such as design thinking and frugal engineering, has been gaining popularity in recent years, charitable donations remain the most common type of aid.

Sirolli emphasizes the importance of building personal relationships within the community to better understand cultural norms and expectations. In essence, he argues that the people with the need will have the best understanding both of the problem at hand and the potential solutions. In his talk, Sirolli makes the point that the person who has the idea for a solution does not need to possess the tools to implement said solution. This gap between first-hand experience and sophisticated knowledge is where collaboration can do the most good. Sending skilled workers to areas in need, not to implement solutions thought up by foreigners thousands of miles away, but to work side-by side with locals to develop unique innovations that can work in a given cultural context is where the most potential for truly sustainable development lies.

My experience as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Ukraine confirms Sirolli's argument. It took nearly a year of cultural integration and intensive Russian language lessons to establish an identity within the community. Until this level of mutual understanding and trust was reached, any project I attempted was either immediately rejected or failed soon after implementation. While this was frustrating, I realized that it was absurd to think that I, a recent college graduate with little practical experience, could come in and tell teachers with over 30 years of experience how to "better" do their jobs. Ultimately, our most successful endeavors came as a result of mutual compromise and cooperation. It is easy to find evidence that the most successful projects include capacity-building, not just donations, as a key component.

One example of this type of project is Eastern Rinok, an online Etsty marketplace where Ukrainian artisans can sell their homemade products both domestically and internationally. Before joining the marketplace, participants take part in trainings to learn how to market their products, as well as how to successfully run a small business. These trainings were initially done by Peace Corps Volunteers, but are now increasingly led by other Ukrainians in the community. As more Ukrainians are trained to both sell their products and to become leaders in program, the project can continue to expand and thrive long after the initial founders are gone. The ultimate goal of any aid organization is to no longer be needed in the community it serves, and this is one example where that goal is being met.

The main issue with Sirolli's vision of sustainable development is the difficulty of implementation. Significant time, labor, and fieldwork are needed to establish the types of on-the-ground partnerships Sirolli advocates. A one-time donation, while unlikely to adequately address the need, requires much less planning and labor capital. The question remains: how can we encourage governments and organizations to move toward sustainable development when it remains so much easier to just throw money at the problem?

Social Innovation: How do we ensure Human-Centered Design wins over capitalism?

While reflecting on the articles we read, I see the growing conversation about Social Innovation for emerging markets and a shift to low-cost Human-Centered Design as a tremendous opportunity for economic empowerment-based community development. However, I have several reservations about the long-term evolution of this previously uncharted territory and the subsequent implications of integrating emerging markets into a capitalist model.

I am only too thrilled to think about the tremendous impact that improving serious problems in developing regions of the world, from transportation to health, security, education, etc. The opportunities for social justice through innovation in these regions are seemingly endless, as there are unintended applications which can build on and inspire new innovations. However, my cynicism catches up with me, and I begin to wonder when, how, and if these markets will be taken over by the ideals of capitalism, and how—if and when that time comes—to ensure that the focus is still on sustainable opportunities for these emerging regions to empower their own livelihood.

I worry about the social costs and implications. While the articles clearly outline that the low-cost designs are build with the involvement of locals and through the observation of routine life in the emerging economy, I am still left wondering how often the locals were invited to brainstorm with the innovation and design team. Human centered design can produce remarkable innovations, and when build from the ground-up they will be affordable—but what about inherent biases of the innovators? What about the social-cultural context that the innovations are being built for? Certainly, the contributions of locals in the design discussion will help balance any unintended westernization or cultural erosion—but how do we secure that in the long term? Once a low-cost innovation exists, surely competitors will come to the market. The articles explained that the consumers in emerging markets are highly discerning, and expect high quality for low cost. How do we ensure that this remains a non-negotiable? I worry about product literacy and truly informed decision-making.  I am left wondering when elements of a competing capitalist economy will negatively impact the cultural standards for trade and commerce. Perhaps I’m jaded, but I fear the day we inadvertently destroy culture and replace it with a false idea of globalization.

Take for instance, the social impact of Television on the women of Fiji --(you can find a number of articles, I just selected the study for the sake of this discussion). Granted--this was not a social innovation; this was the transplant of the Western experience of TV straight into Fiji. However, as we build progress through social innovations, I seriously hope that Human-Centered Design can combat the inherent ethnocentric bias and the unintended influence of a pseudo-Imperialism. There is no Institutional Review Board (used in research to approve a research study as ethical) for social innovation and I am terrified of the day that we move beyond what seems to be a socially-conscious way to empower developing regions of the world.

I suppose my fear is based on the idea that this conversation is seen through the lens of economics. As a self-proclaimed idealist and social justice advocate, it makes me wary to hear that the conversation about social innovation is still build on a consumer model. Think about it—the global citizens that social innovation seeks to empower are reduced to “consumers”;  it will effectively limit the ability to create significant dialogue and social progress to a mere material exchange with no real safeguard for ethical practices.


Source Documents:

Big Data from Cheap Phones (Talbot, D., Technology Review, 2013). <http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/513721/big-data-from-cheap-phones/>

Design Thinking for Social Innovation (Brown, and Wyatt, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2010, pgs. 30-35). <www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/design_thinking_for_social_innovation/>

Eating behaviours and attitudes following prolonged exposure to television among ethnic Fijian adolescent girls. Becker, A., Burwell, R., Herzog, D., Hamburg, P., and Gilman, S. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 2002. <http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/180/6/509.long>

IDEO’s Human Centered Design Toolkit; www.ideo.com/work/item/human- centered-design-toolkit/

Long-Term Global Demographic Trends: Reshaping The Geopolitical Landscape (CIA, July 2001). <www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports- 1/index.html>

The Importance of Frugal Engineering (Sehgal, Dehoff, and Panneer, Strategy+Business, Summer 2010). <www.strategy-business.com/article/10201?gko=24674>

The Next 4 Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy at the Base of the Pyramid (Hammond et al., International Finance Corporation and World Resources Institute, 2007). <www.wri.org/publication/the-next-4-billion>

What Happens Next? Five Crucibles of Innovation That Will Shape The Coming Decade (Bisson et al., McKinsey Special Report, 2010). 

China's aging population are calling for social reforms and innovations

When I read the report of "long-term global demographic trend: reshaping geopolitical landscape",one of the key findings caught my eye,"For China, a large and growing urban population coupled with a looming aging population could mean slower economic growth, increased political instability, and perhaps significant cultural changes."

Aging population is becoming one of the most important problems in China, posing serious challenges to various areas such as economy,health care, social insurance, and even global trade.

Undoubtedly, China's economy is emerging rapidly in recent years, it's becoming the center of the world's attention not only because of its economy share and growth, but also because of its huge population.In fact, China has enjoyed inexpensive labor force for many decades, which enables it to be a competitive outsource supplier in global trade.However, with the looming consequences of one-child policy,the workforce in China is shrinking, and the falling fertility rate and increasing life expectancy have resulted in a rapidly aging population.Just as one of the reporters quoted:"China is getting old before getting rich."

From an internal perspective, aging population in China will give rise to problems in pension provision, health care system,social insurance reform and governmental budget management.Less young adults are shouldering with more economic burdens and responsibilities,and to make the matter worse, large amounts of labor force are flooding into big cities, leaving parents and grandparents alone at home without being taken care of.And the skewed sex ratio is also becoming more and more obvious in society,adding to complexity of the situation of population in China.

From an external perspective,these influences brought by aging population in China will undoubtedly effect international trade and economic development.No one can make indisputable predictions about the future when one of the world's most influential country is becoming old and slow.

However, the road leading to success is always full of setbacks and obstacles. In this moment, brave social reforms should be made and creative innovations based on human need should be carried out.

Personally, I think that health care and social insurance would be very potential areas to develop.Advanced technologies could be creatively applied to old people's special needs,medical and pharmaceutical companies can find a large market in China, government and NPOs and private sectors can join hands together.Of course, things are easier said than done, how to tackle the aging problem in China in a systematical way that can both ensure economic development and social welfare? This really deserves much thought.

Sources:

http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=52309

http://www.wikinvest.com/concept/China's_Aging_Population

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/oct/01/china-elderly-population-pensions-rethink

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/496864/20130805/china-one-child-policy-end-population-ageing.htm

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1250039/unprecedented-study-seeks-assess-challenges-chinas-ageing-population

http://www.helpage.org/blogs/meredith-wyse-19803/shocking-statistics-on-chinas-ageing-population-572/

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/charls0530.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19630110

Share Our Strength and KaBOOM!- Two Successful Social Foundations

While searching on the internet, I ran into an article by Bill Shore (the founder and CEO of Share Our Strength), Darell Hammond (the founder and CEO of KaBOOM!) and Amy Celep (the president and CEO of Community Wealth Partners) in the Stanford Social Innovation Review Magazine which might give an insight on what motivates social foundations, how they work and how they succeed in tackling social problems. (http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/when_good_is_not_good_enough)

The article is about two successful non-profit US organizations that are trying to deal with: hunger and lack of opportunity to play. How their founders were inspired, what they targeted at and what they did better than other similar non-profit organizations are touched upon.

Share Our Strength is tackling with hunger whereas KaBOOM! is struggling with the lack of opportunities to play. Unlike other non-profit foundations, they focused on the underlying set of problems rather than the symptom. They looked beyond short-term achievements and focused on long-term outcomes that will ultimately solve social problems.

Inspired by the news about thousands of Ethiopians expected to die soon from famine that was on the Washington Post, Bill Shore founded Share Our Strength in 1984. Share Our Strength has raised and invested more than $376 million. Much of the focus was on the entrepreneurial ways to generate funds rather than on how it used the funds to advance its mission.

Similarly, KaBOOM! was founded in 1995, when Darell Hammond came into a story about two children who suffocated while playing in a car because they didn’t have anywhere else to play in The Washington Post. They focused on building, improving, and opening playgrounds by mobilizing communities and engaging the corporate sector to fund and volunteer to support the work.

Despite the novelty and satisfaction of the organizational growth, Share Our Strength and KaBOOM!’s efforts were reaching only a fraction of those in need. Later on, they delved deeper into the problems and succeeded in tackling these problems.

Share Our Strength designed and lead a national campaign called “No Kid Hungry”. The campaign suggested that kids are not hungry because of a lack of food or effective programs, but because they lack access to nutrition programs such as school breakfasts and food stamps. So, their focus became helping kids in need access to these programs. Gaining confidence from their stakeholders, they attracted more investment which helped them add children in need to public nutrition programs.

At KaBOOM! the story was similar. Despite its growth, they weren’t solving the problem completely. KaBOOM! initially only built more places for kids to play; but the important thing is how society values and engages in play. Many playgrounds are empty most of the time, active play is disappearing in America, kids are spending more than eight hours a day in front of a screen. Afterwards, what makes KaBOOM! more successful is addressing the complexity of the issue by creating transformational change. They developed new strategies to inspire the importance of play in kids’ live. For example, they are launching a new initiative that will reward individuals taking action to make their communities more playful.

All are based on human needs

Since the early appearance of human on the earth, all of the inventions and innovation have always been stemmed from human needs. Not exceptionally, social innovation is based on our willingness to get more and better resources. Thus, human-centered design thinking is extremely necessary to accomplish a social innovation. 

Today, we are in a changing world. Resources are becoming increasingly scarce, though demand seems not to decrease in the future. Most developed countries will confront the burden of aging, and some developing regions will suffer from youth bulge. The world is rebalancing. 

One of the small things we can do during the reshaping is to maximize every unit of resources. Here comes social innovation. However, social innovation can be effective to solve social problems only when it is human-centered. 

When I went to Australia for the first time, I was amazed by the impeccable accessibility facilities. The entry of every building has slope to let wheelchair pass through safely, and bus drivers will lower the right side every time when boarding. I suppose the disabled person has easier and cheaper access to get the wheelchair, because almost every disabled person has electricity-powered wheelchair. There seem no barriers for disabled person. They go to the market, mall and park just like us. Unfortunately, none of these facilities is applied in China. I could imagine how time-consuming the design process of these accessibility facilities is. To complete the system, designers need consider every aspect of disabled person's needs, such as their behavior, life-style and route on the street, etc. 

When we design a novel solution for social problems, cost is an important factor to put into account. Frugal engineering seems to be a good way out. As predicted by insiders, Apple will develop a cheaper product this year that focus on low-income and rural customers. Yes, engineering should be possible to be cheaper if every component can be more efficiently used. However, cheaper does not mean to sacrifice quality. Instead, designers should understand customers. Again, design thinking should be human-centered. If Apple will focus on low-income market, they need to investigate demands of this group of customers, then decide whether keep Wi-Fi function or not, for example. 

On the road to social innovation, human is always the target. Sometimes, however, if we seek for satisfying human demands to the most extent, cost will be inevitably high. Thus, it is a question to balance the demand and cost to effectively complete a social innovation.  

Sustaining Life, One Kite At A Time

            When accounting for an organization’s triple bottom line, the relevant stakeholders are not just looking at profits, but also considering the overall good and are encouraging for the support and advancement of a social good.  After recently reading one of the class assignments, the one that most caught my attention was focusing on global demographic trends.  In particular, they identified the key findings in dealing with the health aspect with regards to the United States.  For example, there are continuous pressures for the United States to be able to provide assistance on a global level; however, if the main factors affecting the mortality rate are firstly being considered, then there will more people to join the crusade for creating and maintaining a healthy world.

Having a child of my own and being so close to my immediate family it’s very difficult for me to grasp the reality that many people lose their loved ones daily.  There may be many measures in place that could make them live longer, healthier lives, but turn up failing this precious population.  Malaria is an epidemic that kills a child per minute.  It’s heartbreaking and it’s a fact.  This statistic is one that is increasingly growing despite many efforts made in the past with medication, treatment, preventive measures, and ongoing efforts to educate many and protect all.

In the developing world, priorities are emphasized in terms of need, and in these populations, food prevails while malaria is often overlooked.  Children make up a big part of this segment and they have the potential and right to grow and add value to their communities - they are tools for economic development.  Unfortunately, the malaria epidemic is causing a trend of regression that is preventing these children to participate and contribute to their communities, and more importantly experience a quality of life they should have the right to.  

http://www.kitepatch.com/

Three individuals have taken an innovative approach in the past three years to transform millions of villages worldwide into healthier living conditions.  Kite has developed a simple patch that is made up of all natural and biodegradable materials to create a shield and ultimately make a person invisible to mosquitoes.  Kite Patch believes that by reducing any contact between humans and mosquitoes, it will impact the malaria transmission rates.

  

Being socially innovative should not only account for a driver of human centered design thinking, there should also be an element in which roadblocks can be dissolved and lives can be saved.  

Kite Patch identified how to prevent malaria and this organization is trying to be scalable and sustainable for people everywhere.  They have been given a strong identity after Bill and Melinda Gates originally funded the research and study, they continue to be its supportive backbone.  Kite Patch is sustainable because it is showing that it can be a part of daily life in avoiding this plague and scalable because it is being tested in all environments to ensure the product is effective.  This is the type of organization that will work with tripled bottom line and can partner with hospitals and certain governmental groups to not only impact the environment but to sustain our world’s human capital.  

And on the First Day the Social Entrepreneur said “Let There be d.light!

In rural villages and townships in places such as India and Africa there are young children who depend on kerosene lanterns as a light source to complete their homework at night. In these same places there are also people depending on kerosene lanterns as a night light for productivity. While the use of the kerosene lanterns can be seen as a resourceful way to provide a light source, if we take a closer look we see that kerosene emits unhealthy fumes and it often ends up accidentally burning people and or their homes. While kerosene’s hazardous and flammable nature is known by its consumers- who make up the 1.6 billion people around the world without access to regular electricity[i]- it is their only source of light.

Electrical insecurity, as I would like to call it, is a pervasive issue for many communities that make up the “base of the pyramid” (BOP)[ii]. While these communities want sufficient and safe sources of light, the reality is that there are very few options. The lack of options has much to do with few companies attempting to bring the BOP into the formal market structure. However, one of the brave few that have made the effort to service the BOP is d.light design-a company that was founded by graduates of the Stanford Business School and is based in New Delhi, India.

d.light design is a for-profit social enterprise and through its product line is a driver of social innovation and human-centered design thinking. The inspiration for d.light design stems from the co-founder Sam Goldman’s experience in the Peace Corps service in Benin, Africa, where his neighbor’s son was badly burned by an overturned kerosene lamp.[iii]This tragic incident and Goldman’s knowledge of the billions of people in the world without reliable electricity inspired him to participate in the Entrepreneurial Design for Extreme Affordability course at the Standford Design School. This is where he and his co-founder developed their initial prototype solar lantern and an ambitious plan to bring safe, bright, and renewable lighting to people around the globe.[iv]

The company has developed a trio product line, which provides bright and clean light for families living without adequate electricity where conditions are harsh and sunshine is not abundant.[vi] From 2008 to 2013, d.light has made the following impact: 20,935,103 lives empowered, 5,233,776 school-aged children reached with solar lighting, $560,002,954 saved in energy related expenses, 5,697,800,886 productive hours created for working and studying, 1,369,323 tons of CO2 offset, and 23,678,755 kWh generated from renewable energy source. It is very evident that d.light products are raising the welfare, productivity and income of BOP household, which then enables them “to find their own routes out of poverty.”[vii] Much of this companies impact is largely due to a “market-based approach to poverty reduction”[viii] which recognizes that being poor does not eliminate commerce and market processes.[ix]

BOP consumers have responded favorable to the d.light product line and have explained that some of the benefits of using the product range from improved health, safety, performance in school, to the ability to generate more income. Based on these numbers and customer feedback one cannot deny that this company has a strong focus on BOP households as consumers and on solutions to electrical insecurities that plague many rural communities around the world in a sustainable manner.

            d.light is championing  frugal engineering as it addresses the needs of BOP consumers with a “bottom-up approach”[x] through its low-cost product-selling for $15 to$30. This company understands its customers as it produces a built to last product that is tough and weather resistant, along with rechargeable by solar energy. These products also have a dual function as they are capable of charging mobile phones, which have been noted by the World Resources Institute as a growing and substantial product used in BOP populations.[xi]

Overall, d.light design has got it right when it comes to providing a solution to systemic problems such as electrical insecurity. This company is providing low cost, quality products-that functions optimally within the context of the lives of its customers, and is a safe pathway out of poverty. This product line and company highlights that there is a way to provide innovations that are solutions to complex societal issues, earn a profit, and bring the billions of consumers in BOP households into a formal economy.

---

[i] Dolan A. Kerry. Lighting Up Rural India. Forbes. 2008

http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/15/solar-energy-india-tech-science-cz_kad_0616solar.html

[ii] The Next 4 Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy At The Base Of The Pyramid. Executive Summary. World Resource Institute.

[iii] About d.light. d.light design. http://www.dlightdesign.com/who-we-are/

[iv] About d.light. d.light design. http://www.dlightdesign.com/who-we-are/

[v] Social Impact Dashboard (Video). d.light design. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xocWf6qQBvI#t=14

[vi] Products. d.light design. http://www.dlightdesign.com/productline/

[vii] The Next 4 Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy At The Base Of The Pyramid. Executive Summary. World Resource Institute.

[viii] The Next 4 Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy At The Base Of The Pyramid. Executive Summary. World Resource Institute.

[ix] The Next 4 Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy At The Base Of The Pyramid. Executive Summary. World Resource Institute.

[x] The Next 4 Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy At The Base Of The Pyramid. Executive Summary. World Resource Institute.

[xi] The Next 4 Billion: Market Size and Business Strategy At The Base Of The Pyramid. Executive Summary. World Resource Institute.

Design-Thinking, Not Enough

Social innovators and entrepreneurs traditionally focus the bulk of their energy on the design of a new product or idea. Rightfully so, as they are labeled innovators and entrepreneurs because of their ability to offer something different than the status quo. Even do-good organizations or nonprofits engaged with social innovation, place emphasis on design-thinking. But design-thinking isn’t enough in a world where what happens after the conceived idea or manufactured product, is just as important as its prior stages.

Just like marketing a new product, social innovators and social entrepreneurs must also take best practices from marketing as their new idea or product embarks on the diffusion process. One blog I like to follow, which is not exclusive to social innovation, is Seth Godin’s blog. Seth Godin, a popular marketer and author, always shares some interesting thought on entrepreneurship, marketing, advertising, etc.—basically all things on how to get something “out there.” Some blog posts are more seriously structured while others reveal more of his antics than anything else. Either way, it’s a good place to get a pulse for what’s going on in the sphere of marketing and consumer behavior. 

Seth Godin's Blog

When social innovators and entrepreneurs integrate thoughtful marketing practices to understand the consumers of the targeted area, the culture within a niche community, and the distribution channels in which the new idea or product must pass through, outcomes will perhaps be more favorable. 

Design Thinking as a Social Innovation

Design Thinking seems like a natural byproduct of human thinking, except re-purposed and given the “spaces” of inspiration, ideation, and implementation.  As a society, it has been seen through history our stray from human nature.  We have spent time solving problems by attempting to fit unpredictable, multi-faceted problems into systematic and structured methods of thinking.  Design Thinking brings us back to what once would have been natural to us, starting at the root of the problem with the person that it is affecting.

Is Design Thinking a social innovation in itself?  It feels like a deconstruction of the systems that we have put into place over time.  More than a product, Design Thinking provides a new attitude and perspective to the way that we can find effective solutions to pressing social issues.  IDEO, a design and innovation consulting firm, provides the toolkit: Design Thinking for Educators.  This toolkit applies the same type of thinking used to develop social innovations, to education.  It’s interesting that even the basic human interaction of teaching could use the integration of Design Thinking to bring improvements to a classroom.  Design Thinking is reminding the world that human stories are the reason that social innovations are created.

Sources:

http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/design_thinking_for_social_innovation/

http://designthinkingforeducators.com/

A Sustainable Model for Serving the Society

A number of philanthropic endeavors have propped up around the world. These institutions are set up with a sole aim of serving the people in need. The seeds of these are planted by visionaries and innovators. Hence, a number of these revolve around their ideas, thoughts and actions.

But what happens after their tenure ? The future of these innovative foundations hangs in fate. Hence it is highly important to set up, innovative foundations that are sustainable. Methods must be incorporated to ensure that the structure is intact to serve the society. A structural model of management could be implemented. This should not revolve around any person or visionary.
While kick starting a new endeavor, the following saying should be upheld with high esteem :

"For Men may come and men may go..
  But the institution must go on forever"
  

A Model of Design Thinking in Social Innovation

While there exist countless philanthropic organizations that are striving to make the world a better place, it can be a challenge to find institutions that are capable of effecting and sustaining social change. Many charities get bogged down in budgetary problems, or implementation issues, or scope creep that renders their mission unattainable. Although there are many factors that contribute to these difficulties, I think the most central factor is a lack of design thinking. The importance of strategically designing every and all aspects of an aid project or social innovation from the very start is often overshadowed by the philanthropical nature of the endeavor: your motives are charitable, so any work you do is innately good, right?

Wrong. A poorly designed project does no-one any good, and ultimately amounts to little more than a waste of time and resources. It is just as critical to emphasize good design and strategic planning in a social enterprise as it is in a Fortune 500 company. Unfortunately, it seems to get overlooked more often than not.

However, there are some organizations that really understand how important designing projects to fit cultural needs and norms is to achieving social innovation. One such organization is Ashoka, a network of social innovators that supports "changemakers" around the world in their endeavors to bring about social change.  In the book "How to Change the World", David Bornstein paints a detailed
picture of the lengths Ashoka goes to in order to ensure they support projects that are well designed to address the problem they are meant to address. Ashoka's founder, Bill Drayton, and other members of the staff will visit a country to find potential fellows and will talk to dozens, possibly hundreds of people to identify those individuals who have the capacity to achieve greatness. By networking through the population of the country, Ashoka can ensure that they are targeting people who have already made an impact in their community. They can talk to the people who will be directly impacted by an innovation and find out what works and what doesn't, and who in the community understands how to get things done. They use a system of referrals--whenever they speak to someone who mentions a potential changemaker, they record it on an index card as someone to look into--that, in essence, lets them survey the population to determine who the strongest source of innovation may be.

Each potential changemaker is then intensely interviewed and investigated, and their idea for social change is put through the ringer. Ashoka understands that social change is complex and only supports ideas that they truly believe have been strategically designed and planned sufficiently to actually attain success. And their attention to design thinking and reliance on community referrals has enabled them to realize tremendous levels of social change thus far. To date, they are supporting 3,000 social entrepreneurs in over 70 countries around the world, who are improving their society every second.

Ashoka should be looked at as a model for how to affect social change as an organization. Their insistence on intensely vetting all potential projects should be viewed by other social change organizations not just as a best practice, but as the only practice you should undertake when looking to spur social innovation.



See www.ashoka.org for more about the organization

Human-Centered Design is Simple Respect

As students at Heinz it's going to be easy to think and feel as though our admission to such a prestigious institution and the high quality of the faculty and courses (not to mention the, uhhh, "exceptional" cost of attending) means that our ideas and endeavors will also be universally of such high quality. More simply put, we'll be tempted to fall into the thinking that our degree means that our solutions to the world's problems are the best. I mean, what would the point of attending Heinz be if it didn't make us the most qualified to do the job, right?

When framed this way it's pretty easy to dismiss such a mindset as arrogant, out of touch (both true), and most importantly not us. And yet when we look at our society's approach to work and problem-solving, we can see that this mindset is in fact the cultural norm, be it the doctor that prescribes a treatment regimen that would lay up a single, working mother for weeks, the teacher that insists on vocal participation in group projects for an autistic student, or the loan officer that hands out subprime mortgages left and right. In each of these examples, and countless beyond, the "most qualified" assumed they had the best answer, with damaging results for those subject to it.

Human-centered design challenges us to think about our degree, and more broadly our approach to the world's problems, not as experts with the best answers but rather as partners equipped with good questions and the tools to help evaluate the responses.

Consider the Family Independence Initiative. In line with the thinking of the Positive Deviance Initiative, this organization approaches solutions design with the belief that assets and the best answers lie with the individuals and communities at the heart of the problems in question. For example, what's the best way for a particular family to get out of a cycle of poverty? Ask that family...and then partner with them in designing support, capital, and feedback mechanisms to assist in actualizing their answer. As results from the projects of both of the organizations above show, this design approach is more effective, efficient, and sustainable than traditional "expert-centered" solutions.

And more importantly, human-centered design is simple respect. There is a moral dimension to everything we do, and in this area we have the choice of either following the traditional path of problem-solving that typically disempowers the already disadvantaged in favor of short-term fixes OR we can collaborate in a way that prioritizes and respects the dignity, ingenuity, and expertise of people who have the most to gain (and lose) in solving the problems we're targeting.

As the global community becomes increasingly interconnected, resulting in our previously siloed political, economic, cultural, and social systems being probed, challenged, and potentially shaped by increasingly diverse human experiences, we have the opportunity to approach change both effectively AND respectfully. What good would this fancy degree be if we passed on that?

Social Innovation Changes Customers To Brand Advocates

Black Mycoskie started TOMS Shoes in 2006. Since then the company has given away 10,000,000 pairs of shoes and 150,000 pairs of glasses. TOMS is a classic example of a social innovation in a for profit company. Every time one of their customers buys a pair of shoes the company gives a pair away to someone in need. The story of the company is compelling and instantaneously turns customers into advocates.

Storydoing, as Ty Montague of Fast Co. calls it, has changed the nature of the way the company markets. Customers are drawn to social innovation. It softens the image of the cruel capitalist motivated only by money. It makes the entrepreneur seem, at the very least, to be more tempered in their approach to the world around them - more balanced. When the customer is immediately pulled into that space by buying the entrepreneur's product, they are also changing the way others see them. Most often customers know the story of TOMS. They know the One to One tagline and they can recite facts about its origins.

Storydoing is an essential element of why social innovation is profitable. It solidifies a customer's image of themselves and gives them the opportunity to display that image to the world simply by buying a product. Of course, in the meantime, they're shedding light on the company as well. Free marketing. Instantaneous brand advocates.

Market Sizing: Bottom of Pyramid

Wrapping one's head around market sizing within the realm of social innovation can be somewhat of a difficult and convoluted task. On one hand, there is a particular market being under served, yet on the other-hand this market may not be able to afford, or may not even desire the particular product or service offering. So how should one go upon sizing this particular market in order to pitch a business idea when such ambiguity exists?
One way is to first estimate the need for the particular product/service by examining macroeconomic trends.  In many cases of social innovation, the target market exists within the bottom of the pyramid, consisting of $4 Billion low-income individuals throughout the world. Here is an info graphic I found by the World Resource Institute highlighting the where particular needs exists within the BOP.

Out of the $5 trillion market that exists within the BOP, the largest industry is food. However, is this market relatively under served? Utilizing a market approach can be helpful in determining the size of of a market, but it may not be the best indicator of where to focus a social innovative startup in this market. First, let's drill down to examining relative spending habits by two markets within the BOP to get an idea of spending demographics. Next we can examine how to use this information to properly segment the market.

This chart, also taken from the World Resource Institute, compares spending by income segment (USD) within the BOP. This example is provided to show the inverse relative spending amongst residents of India and Mexico. India has a much larger relative percentage of individuals that spend $1000 a year than that of Mexico. But how is this spending allocated amongst the industries highlighted in the first graph? Lets take a look at India's energy sector:

This graph demonstrates that within India's BOP spending on energy, a majority of spending is conducted in rural markets, a phenomena unlike most other countries. Furthermore, spending on energy follows a fairly linear relationship to income. This spending can come in the form of actual electricity or the purchase of kerosene. Regardless, we can see that the rural BOP energy market in India is a market that needs to be addressed.

Using a top down approach to market sizing can be a beneficial way to examine opportunities for social entrepreneurship or how to pivot a current idea to meet a different need. As our social impact bond project progresses throughout the semester, sizing the market by starting large and narrowing down to different target markets will allow for a more comprehensive understanding of how to serve unmet needs.

Origami for pros: The game-changing $9 cardboard bike

Here's a link to a cool project:
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1670753/this-9-cardboard-bike-can-support-riders-up-to-485lbs
Great example of frugal design. Interesting to see if he can get enough funds to make the bikes and see if they get implemented in poor areas to get people quicker from A to B. Perhaps an idea to combine it with the water bike from IDEO..?