I recently learned about two very interesting projects – both of which have been implemented, successfully, in the past 2-5 years – when reading the book “Design Revolution: 100 Products that Empower People” by Emily Pilloton and Allan Chochinov.

The two products, which were designed for educational (classroom, recess) environments, are 1) the “Max” chair and 2) the Playground Fence. Both products exist to solve a problem, and in doing so, fill a need. Neither of the products are present in developing countries, but both products were created within a similar ethnographic framework that is human-centered (that focuses on the end user) and that uses participant observation – watching closely in the classroom, paying attention to how students sit in or tilt their chairs; and engaging on the playground, paying attention to how students treat – and interact (or don’t) with – barriers to their playspace.

The “Max” chair was a project thought up by Tom Wates, a British math and physical education instructor. The chair’s purpose? To get kids to stop clowning around in class! Wates designed a chair that is physically impossible to tip over backwards (trying hard, one can only tilt it a few centimeters!).

In a 2008 interview, Wates told Reuters, “The reason I went into it was because of the irritation of children leaning back…You would get into the flow of the lesson, the kid would fall off the chair, everyone would laugh and you would have to start again.” At Wates’ school, and in many schools in Britain, students would tip traditional chairs back so far they would often tumble over, causing injury to that student (each year, as many as 7,000 British children go to the hospital for injuries related to this type of fall) and a major disruption to the flow of classroom lessons and activities.

The chair is designed primarily for safety, but along with that comes additional benefits. By changing the design of the chair itself, Wates was able to diminish the frequency of reprimands. The most recent version of the chair – black in color – is made out of recycled plastic, so it is increasingly durable and offers a low carbon footprint (the chair also comes in five other colors). The chair is ergonomically designed for safety and comfort (it provides lower back support, encouraging good posture), and in four different sizes, any student – young or old – can find it useful and beneficial. [The chair costs about $30 USD].

The “Playground Fence” was designed by Dutch designers Tejo Remy and Rene Veenhuizen. In 2004, they were commissioned to re-design and transform the playground at De Noorderlicht primary school in the Netherlands. In taking on this project, Remy and Rene had their sights set on something that would “add” to the space without adding any new materials. The addition they hoped to make was one that would be inspiring, would encourage collaboration and interaction, and that would be useful.

Minimalist but effective in their solution, they took note of the pieces in the existing playground – the play structures, the floor, and the fence that enclosed the playspace. The fence particularly captured their attention. What was initially built as a “barrier” (two-dimensional: inside vs. outside), could be reinterpreted as a “gateway” or “portal” and become an interactive form, facilitating the coming together of people and ideas (three-dimensional: inside vs. outside vs. within). They re-designed the fence to have nooks, crannies, seats, benches, playspaces, and more. The fence went from being entrapping to being inviting. The re-vamped fence design encouraged exploration and new experiences. It became a part – in fact an integral piece – of the playspace and playground, not simply the structure that enclosed it. Intrigued students can use such spaces to continue conversations, to play make-believe, to interact with parents or individuals outside of the fence (safely). The playground is an important learning environment for students, and increased opportunity for interaction and exploration can be a beneficial addition to the standard subjects taught in school.

What you can see from these two products is that with some participation, some observation, some research and a bit of imagination, you can recreate critical educational environments, furthering the opportunity for better, safer, more engaging learning and playing experiences.

One very important – perhaps the most important – part of the ethnographic design process is understanding environmental constraints. By environmental constraints I mean environment, yes, but also the social, cultural and economic realities of life on the ground. I’m talking about the whole ecosystem, and the inner workings of each element. Examples of environmental constraints can include, among others: financial, environmental, linguistic, social, cultural, and educational. Through participant-observation, designers and ethnographers are able to observe activity on the ground. They are able to see how people behave and what resources are available to make (and repair) a product.

A product has a better chance of success (implementation and adaption) if it is designed with a holistic understanding of the actual conditions in which someone will use this product, as well as a forecasting of how this product might be adapted to suit changing environments.

To highlight the importance of understanding – and acting upon – environmental constraints, I have chosen to explore two products designed for the developing world. Both products – and project experiences – highlight why understanding a product – and the end user’s – environment is a critical piece to the implementation and adaptation of a new product. Both design teams, having researched and prototyped heavily, were realistic about their product design.

We will first explore a product that tackles the problem of access to clean water. Created by the E-Team at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, OsmoPure is a low-cost water purification device for developing countries. The device is an organic-based, low cost product made from asymmetric membrane. It is able to purify – completely – 20 liters of water per day. The membrane’s lifespan is one month, but can be replaced for just $1. The device requires no energy input besides the manual placement of the filter on a (soda) bottle and the occasional shaking of the bottle to clean the filter.

The environmental constraints and challenges they faced with this product:
1. Product must be relatively inexpensive
2. Product should be easily understood and easy to use, even for an illiterate population
3. Product must withstand muddy or murky water

While there are a number of water filtration devices currently on the market, many of them have serious drawbacks because environmental constraints were either not fully understood or were not tackled appropriately. Often, water purification products can be too expensive, too taxing (require too much energy input or maintenance), too confusing (many instructions, not accessible to illiterate populations), too unpredictable (could clog in murky water), too incomplete (doesn’t remove all of the contaminants).

The team behind OsmoPure not only explored and understood human behavior and environmental conditions on the ground, they researched the shortcomings of other products currently on the market. OsmoPure successfully tackles each of the three environmental constraints they were faced with: it can be manufactured for less than a dollar; it is easy to use and requires no energy input; it will not clog in murky or muddy water. Additionally, the product removes all necessary contaminants, it is self-cleaning, it is compact and lightweight, and it can be manufactured locally as the materials are prevalent (it attaches to any standard soda bottle). I think maybe the coolest thing about OsmoPure’s promo video (seen here) is that the founder, Dave Perry, tries out the product himself – showing not only how easy to use it is, but also that it functions properly and is safe to use. On camera, he fills a bottle with dirty water, attaches the filter, squeezes out the water, and drinks it! What better way to “prove” the product than to use it yourself.

The second product we will explore is one that tackles the challenges faced by mobility-challenged individuals living in – and needing to operate on -  unpredictable terrain in the developing world. Quick fact: A whopping 20 million people in developing countries require wheelchairs and it is believed that 70 percent of those individuals reside in rural areas where traditional wheelchairs simply do not function (not stable, no gear system, not adaptable). The Leveraged Freedom Chair, a project designed and carried out by a team at the MIT Mobility Lab, is a mobility aid designed specifically for developing countries, where the diverse, unpredictable and often changing terrains (often unpredictable and ever-changing) render traditional wheelchairs at best insufficient and at worst not functional. In settings where traditional wheelchairs – if even available – are rendered useless and other options do not exist, individuals with mobility handicaps are left to either be carried by others or to remain immobile at home.

The environmental constraints and challenges they faced with this product:
1. Product must be able to operate on diverse terrain: dirt roads, rocky surfaces, muddy pathways
2. Product must be easy to repair, with locally-available materials
3. Product must be easily understood and relatively easy to use (intuitive, and easily adapted to)

The LFC is able to function in diverse terrain because it is made up of a gear system – similar to that of a bike. With increased gear options, users are able to power through terrain that a traditional wheelchair would not be able to navigate. The wheelchair is relatively easy to use, with gears being switched by modifying the position of user’s hands on the levers. It is a push-pull system. Besides a simple gear system, the LFC has a small third wheel in the front, which further stabilizes the device (similar to a tricycle, which is very difficult to tip over). Tested and successfully implemented in East Africa, the Leveraged Freedom Chair successfully tackles each of the three environmental constraints they were faced with: it is able to successfully navigate diverse terrain (thanks to the gear system and the third, stabilizing wheel); it is easy to repair by locally-available materials (the majority of the parts are those used to make bicycles, which are prevalent in most developing countries); and it is recognizably a mobility device, as it looks like a hybrid between a wheelchair and a bicycle (with handles that look ready to be pulled and pushed!). Additionally, the product is affordable (made from cheap bicycle parts) and is small enough to use within a home setting (multi-functional). I had the privilege of seeing one of these in person – on display at Autodesk in San Francisco – and while it seemed a bit bulky to me, after seeing it in action (in the video) I’m convinced of its power and its potential! [You can learn more about the LFC by watching their video and reading project updates].

BONUS! Check out our very own Heather Fleming trying out the LFC. Look at her go! (Another bonus: our amazing Advisory Board member Ralf Hotchkiss, founder and designer of Whirlwind Wheelchair, was an advisor for the LFC).

While I’ve given just two examples above, I hope it has been made clear how and why understanding – or not understanding – environmental constraints can “make” or “break” your product. Alternatives to the products mentioned above failed primarily because they did not understand the environmental factors that would inevitably effect the product, and in the process, did not address one or more of the obvious constraints. Observing the actual conditions where someone will use a product, and being realistic about the product’s design, has the potential to lead to a well-implemented and well-received product.

It’s been said before, and I’ll say it again: Ethnography can be used as a tool for better design.

Ethnography was born in the social science sphere (Anthropology, Sociology), but can be – and I think should be – applied to many different contexts. Ethnography is a research method in which the researcher observes people in their natural environment so as to gain insight into the ways in which people inhabit their spaces, use their products and interact with the various physical, social, economic and ecological systems around them. It is a heavily qualitative research method, involving much participant-observation — observing and recording the actions and decision-making processes of individuals and groups in a given environment.

The anthropologist’s – or ethnographer’s – tool-kit is especially relevant (and vital) to the design world, especially the design for the developing world sphere. The ethnographic method is a foundational research framework, but is particularly important for human-centered design innovation and problem-solving. Ethnography provides a more holistic understanding of a certain group’s needs, desires, and their various ways of operating. In studying, questioning and working closely with their end-users, designers are able to make more educated decisions and ultimately produce a product that is accepted by and integrated into an end-user’s daily life. Essentially, if ethnographic methods are used effectively by product designers, there’s a better chance that the product will fill its intended purpose.

There are several different ways in which ethnographic methods can be used in the design world:

• an ethnographer collects data and reports to a designer
• an ethnographer and designer work together and study a certain population
• an ethnographer, designer and end-user collaborate as a team

and so on…

I think, however, that the ultimate combination of individuals and research frameworks is a multidisciplinary team made up of trained ethnographers/social scientists, product designers who understand and employ ethnographic methods, and end-users (who ultimately understand how best this product or system will be used or maintained). Today, many design firms and companies, including Catapult Design, are employing such a team framework. To name just a few in the Bay Area alone: IDEO, Frog Design, fuseproject, Project H and Jump Associates.

There is a unique challenge that ethnography seeks to address. It’s common knowledge that what people say they do, isn’t necessarily what they do. A stark for-example: if someone was being interviewed about their eating habits, where do you think they would answer more truthfully? In an unfamiliar research lab setting, or in their own kitchen (being observed)? Which setting do you think would yield the most accurate, telling information?

When a designer has the goal of understanding – to the best of their ability – how people operate, why they do the things they do, what their daily schedule is like, when they make important decisions, and so on, it pays dividends to experience that information first hand by participating in and observing the end-users patterns.

This post is the first in a series called “The Ethnography of Design” about the relationship between anthropology and design and how the ethnographer’s toolkit can be applied to build more effective world-changing, problem-solving products and systems. Each post in the series will be paired with – and will explore – a video or article that highlights an innovative design solution or product that has taken into account (successfully or unsuccessfully – and why) ethnographic research methods and human-centered design thinking frameworks.

I am always looking for new material to profile. Know of a good product or initiative? of products that were created without a real understanding of the local context that failed? of design solutions that have excelled even years later? Get in touch! Add your suggestion in the comment box below!

In the meantime, learn more about ethnographic methods and how they relate to design, by checking out a great document put together by AIGA and Cheskin. Click to learn more about and download ‘An Ethnography Primer.’