How can we use design to positively impact society?

That’s the question we’ll answer at Catapult Labs this Saturday, May 19th in San Francisco.  Over the years we’ve assembled a compelling network of designers, technologists, and entrepreneurs using design tools and methods to drive positive social change.  We’ve selected NINE of them to lead 90-minute hands-on labs covering topics such as:

• Game mechanics and behavioral change
• Creating and sustaining a movement
• Integrating impact evaluation into the design process
• Visualizing data to communicate your message

Our esteemed Lab Leaders are joining us from Google, Autodesk, Stamen Design, See Change, MooreDesign, Gargani + Co., and Designers Accord and includes:

• Valerie Casey, founder of the Designers Accord movement and TIME Magazine’s “Hero of the Environment”
• Nadya Direkova, Senior UX Designer at Google and prominent speaker on game mechanics for web applications
• Dawn Danby, Senior Sustainable Design Program Manager at Autodesk and one of Fast Company’s “100 Most Creative People in Business”

In addition to learning, Catapult Labs will allow you to engage with other professionals and students interested in social impact as well as three amazing social ventures in search of design assistance who will be pitching the audience on their missions.

We have only 125 seats at Catapult Labs — buy your ticket today and reserve your spot!

Thank You to our event sponsors:
Autodesk, California College of the Arts, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Bay Area Green Printing, Speck Design, and TechShop

1. Review the Peace Corp’s existing training materials in Costa Rica;

2. Develop and conduct a three-day workshop in Costa Rica around financing models for a host of renewable energy technologies (e.g cookstoves, flashlights, solar home systems, biodigesters);

3. Develop and deliver two online training courses focused on photovoltaic and hydroelectric solutions appropriate to Peace Corps communities.

For more information on the Peace Corps, go to www.peacecorps.gov.

Last week the World Bank launched a new approach to fostering green innovation called the Indonesia Green Innovation Pilot Program. Its aim is to learn how open innovation principles can foster the generation of market-based solutions to clean energy.  A core team of designers (Catapult and Inotek) will work  with rural communities, the public and private sectors to design clean energy solutions that can be adopted by the market.  Keeping in line with open innovation, its first activity is to identify challenges or “problems” that will be addressed by the program through a crowdsourcing approach. So if you are in any way familiar with rural communities and energy issues in Indonesia, the program invites you to submit a challenge here until March 17.

But, if you think coming up with the kind of technology required to tackle climate change will require something akin to a Manhattan Project, rest assured, you’re not alone. Googling “climate change” and “manhattan project” returns a whopping 1,540,000 results. But what does creating a “Manhattan Project” really mean? Besides uncomfortable thoughts of human-inflicted destruction, sheer scale is the first thing that comes to my mind. At its peak, during World War II, the US government employed 130,000 people in the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb. The project’s size together with several other features made it a classic case of what I would call “brute-force innovation”: it was centrally-planned, closed, and science-driven. Even though the project included research teams across different universities, public research labs and companies across the United States, nothing was leaked in or out and each team had a very specific assigned task and plan. Through the Manhattan Project the government spearheaded the research, developed, testing and deployment of a revolutionary technology from start to finish over a span of four years. And there were no startups, spin-offs, royalty incentives, public-private-partnerships, venture capitalists, crowdsourcing, first-mover advantage, standard-setting or IPOs. Basically none of the buzzwords we associate with disruptive innovation in the 21st Century.

So the question is, can we just revert to classic World War II state-led innovation to tackle climate change? The answer needs to be nuanced. A key feature of the Manhattan Project was that commercial viability was not an issue. The market consisted of a single producer – the government – and a single buyer  – again the government. The project’s objective was clear and well defined. In that sense, climate change presents a very different challenge. Not only do we not know what mix of technologies will be the most effective in the future to help the world tackle climate change, but many aspects of climate change (e.g. energy efficiency or transportation) entail diffusing technologies across a huge number of private and public entities around the world. Hence, the challenge is not only technological.  Many superior technologies often never make it to the market because they lack an effective business model. In that sense, putting the private sector in the driver’s seat is likely to be more effective for taking new green technologies to the market, than a centrally-planned approach.

But there is also an important fundamental difference between the way new technologies were in the mid 20th Century and the way they are developed now. The closed, centralized and internalized R&D of the Manhattan Project reflected the logic of the times where the most transformational innovations, such as the transistor and the copy machine, came from the large corporate labs of the likes of AT&T and Xerox. The work of Henry Chesbrough and of his school of “open innovation” tells us that sticking to the “closed innovation” paradigm is no longer possible in the 21st Century. The increased availability and mobility of skilled labor, the rise in information and communication technologies, the rise of venture capital, shortening product life cycles, more sophisticated external suppliers and the rise in funding of public research have two implications. First any knowledge developed in-house will easily find its way to other firms and be exploited by new and better business models. Second, the pace of change and amount of knowledge contained outside a single organization is now so great and so accessible that anything developed in a closed environment is bound to lead to inferior results. In sum, creating incentives for the private sector through financing and regulation is likely to yield more results than a Manhattan Project-like approach for many green innovations.

That said, for research that is still at its early stages, massive amounts of government financing for green technology are required. And here we don’t just need one Manhattan Project but many. In 2008 dollars the Manhattan Project cost about $22 billion, or a mere $5.5 billion per year . Estimates for increased investments in energy R&D call for $100 to 700 billion per year.

In the past two years we’ve worked with some amazing organizations worldwide — Villgro Innovations, The Unreasonable Institute, StepOne Ventures, Nuru International, Peace Corps, and more — to develop training and learning material centered around design and how it impacts development.

Based on the success of these sessions, we’re announcing a new line up of Learning Labs for 2012 that tackle common challenges organizations face in each phase of development.  We’ve grouped Labs into the Learn/Explore, Play/Experiment, Implement/Evolve phases and incorporated hands-on activity that support both product and service design methodology.  Each Lab runs 90-min in length and is facilitated by a design team member.

We looked to twitter, Open Studios, and individual emails to single out topics that are relevant to designers interested in social impact as well as companies implementing designed solutions in marginalized communities.

‘Empathy + Immersion’ allows you to spend 60-min in the shoes of another…

‘Participatory Design Intro’  showcases successful case studies in participatory design around the world…

‘Designing a Customer Experience’ is an exercise in viewing your business from the viewpoint of new customers…

For a full description of each lab, download our Learning Lab Guide (415kb, PDF).

Ready to try a Lab?  Visit our Learning Labs page and submit a request.  We look forward to hearing from you!

Last week Cooper-Hewitt and the National Endowment for the Arts hosted a “Social Impact Design Roundtable” with the gracious support of several foundations.  The premise for the day was defined by the three questions:

1.  Where are the gaps in socially responsible design?  What are the biggest challenges?
2.  What are organizational models of successful and sustainable ways of working in socially responsible design?
3.  How can we effectively prepare future generations of designers for this growing area of design?

So what were some of the outputs from the roundtable?  Expect a whitepaper synopsis by Julie Lasky available on the web in the next few months.  But in case your expectations are high, there wasn’t any particularly new information revealed at the session.  In the past four convening I’ve attended, we’ve identified more or less the same challenges:

• the struggle to communicate the “value” of design to funders, to risk-averse clients, to aid/development agencies.
• the difficulty in effectively engaging constituents and participants in other parts of the world.
• the notion of design imperialism and the fact that most design-speak is top-level, intangible, and inconsistent.
• and so on, and so on.

Has the industry made progress in the past four years?  I really couldn’t say.  We still struggle with just the name – social impact design vs. public benefit design vs. design for social innovation vs. BoP design – much less a common language.

We’re still missing the voice of the constituents. The summit is one of the few I’ve attended that actually included international representation with what appeared to be 3 out of 40 representatives from actual developing nations.  Progress, but still well below what’s necessary.

We have a growing number of opportunities for junior and volunteer designers who want to work in this space, but almost zero opportunities for senior, experienced designers – is an inexperienced workforce really a benefit to the industry?  Or a benefit to the communities being served?

And we still have very few firms who know a thing or two about implementation of solutions.  Multiple voices at the table said, “Design is the easy part,” throughout the event.  Implementation is the hard part, and perhaps the ripest area for intervention.  There are maybe one or two firms I can think of that focus purely on implementation – neither was represented at the event.

Also notably missing from the table was (I think) the largest award-winning firm devoted social impact, Proximity Designs in Myanmar, as well as the innovative approach of Participle in the UK.  And students!  One of our questions was devoted entirely to students but other than one recent grad in the room, none were represented. (Design for America anyone?)

Cooper-Hewitt invites your answers to the three questions on their blog and is making an earnest effort to document the trials and successes from the industry.  (Check out their “Design for the other 90%“ and “Design With the other 90%”).  Check back in a few months for the more thorough notes from the session and hopefully some good starting points for action.

Despite my grumblings, I’m glad the conversations are happening and that funders are willing to facilitate them.  But now that we have years of general consensus around the challenges, how can we start the process of improving the industry?

We’re excited to announce that Catapult’s design team will assist INOTEK as they initially select target communities for the pilot program and issue a “call for challenges” to local organizations and individuals in order to find unique clean energy opportunities. Catapult will then work with partners on-the-ground to conduct field research exploring user needs and opportunities and to define and generate potential solutions. Selected concepts will be prototyped with market partners with at least two designs further refined into viable market solutions.

“We are going into the pilot completely technology agnostic and allowing the development process to focus on the needs of the people who will use the final solutions. That’s the benefit of a multi-partner project with increased capacity,“ says Heather Fleming, CEO of Catapult Design.

Catapult will provide counsel to the project partners throughout the 2012-13 pilot and incorporate design methodology and consideration into the program.

Click here to download the official press release. [PDF]

In January, Catapult kicks off a new design project with Wello in Rajasthan, India to explore the challenge of reliable water access. More than one billion people in the world lack regular access to safe water, and many more that haul water and other liquids such as milk or diesel fuel on a daily basis for their livelihood or business.

Building upon existing research such as IDEO and Acumen Fund’s Ripple Effect  project, Catapult and Wello will spend the next few months prototyping, observing, and testing ideas and new features with partners, with users, business owners, and local manufacturers in Rajasthan. Our goal? “ To create reliable tools which enable people to efficiently access and distribute water,” says Lead Designer, Noel Wilson.

This isn’t the first time Catapult and Wello have joined collaborative forces. In 2009, Catapult did a brief feasibility study around incorporating water sanitation technologies into Wello’s famous WaterWheel. (Check out the results here.) Needless to say, we’re excited to kickoff another design project with this amazing organization! Watch our twitter feed and newsletters to see how it goes –

CONTACT:
Noel Wilson, Lead Designer, noel@catapultdesign.org   @noelgaelwilson

In September we kicked off our 2011 fundraising campaign to raise $50,000 towards 2012′s new projects and initiatives.  Historically, 50% of Catapult’s annual budget is funded by donors.  Meaning our donors are equal contributors to our partners’ stories and endeavors to develop innovative tools and services to combat poverty.

This week the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) committed a $10K contribution to our 2011 campaign.  Help us match the ASME grant!  By doing so we can continue to deliver considerate professional design services to projects that effect the lives of the many people living in underserved communities, both at home and abroad.

All contributors to our 2011 fundraising goal receive a Catapult gift or a complimentary ticket to our Spring design event. Want to know what you’re contributing to? Check out this 90-second video of how Catapult is impacting lives through design.

Next week join us at Net Impact 2011 National Conference in Portland!  Heather Fleming and Noel Wilson will be leading a 2hr prototyping workshop on “Prototyping Innovative Solutions for the BoP” on Saturday.  Space is limited t0 30 participants so reserve your spot soon!

I read every question, many of which are pretty similar.  They resonate with the most popular discussion topics and inquiries in our Open Studio hours.  Based on this, I feel there are a few myths that need to be debunked in order for this industry to continue to grow and prosper.  Here are five of them:

MYTH #1:  “’Design for the BoP’ (is a specific sector).” 

The vast majority of the emails we receive simply state:  “How do I ‘design for the BoP’?”  It seems that by simply labeling our work with “social impact” or “BoP”, we are communicating that the processes and methods we use to design for people who are poor are different.  They’re not.  Before Catapult, I worked in the corporate design world for close to six years. One of my clients was a power tool company and I spent time “in the field” with construction workers, specifically drywall installers, on a re-design effort of drywalling tools.  I observed the installers’ technique, training of new crew members, the language they use for tools and processes, and even had a go at installing drywall myself (with the tool to the left).  After weeks of immersing myself within their world, I achieved some clarity in how the drywall installers sub-culture fit within the larger culture of construction workers, both of which I knew little to nothing about.  Approaching different cultures and sub-cultures around the globe is not much different – as outsiders they are worlds we know little to nothing about.

As a general rule, a good designer never assumes and always employs good methodology, whether your customer is a drywall installer from Mexico or a mother of five in Rwanda.  So to address myth #1:  there are no secret design methods you need to learn in order to work in social innovation.

MYTH #2.  “Designing for needs warrants success.”

One of the core product design courses taught at Stanford is “needfinding”, a description of the process used to identify design opportunities.  As designers, we’re trained to base our work on a defined need statement and user group.  There’s a good chance you’ve seen at least one headline this year about a solar cookstove or a group of students’ installation of a water purifier in a community.  I read most of these articles with a healthy dose of skepticism because this industry is inundated with hero stories. What’s rarely reported on are the follow-up stories on these projects.  Most of them fail, even those based on a compelling need statement.  They fail because many of them have not thought about the ‘walk away’ test, meaning that after implementing a program and leaving a community, the program continues to grow and thrive.  The misconception is that handing off a well-designed solution is enough.  It’s not.  User-adoption, distribution, and maintenance (or continued use) of these solutions require a long-term sustainability strategy.

Good design or a strong need statement is not a guarantee of success; it’s also about how well you’ve anticipated what happens once the project is out of your hands.

MYTH#3:  “We impart Western knowledge to communities to better their lives.”

There is a tendency to view this work as humanitarian and philanthropic because we can’t help but think that any work in developing countries is anything but.  The assumption is that we’re there to implement systems based on Western schemas and knowledge.  Not true. In fact, many countries are completely leapfrogging the West in spaces like green innovation. With cell phones and mobile banking, they’re bypassing telephone pole infrastructure and paper-based monetary systems.  While we struggle to get our fellow Americans to separate paper and plastic, the concepts of “re-use” and “recycling” have been ingrained in most non-American cultures for decades. India and Nicaragua are pioneering innovative pay-as-you-go finance models for home-scale renewable energies.  Guatemala and Tanzania have Netflix-like services for household items like batteries.  We’re using our iPhones to tweet about our amazing ham sandwich and the rest of the world uses their dumb phones to make money transfers, purchase goods at the store, check market prices in a neighboring country, and also, apparently, to topple regimes.

So to debunk this misconception, there is equal opportunity in all cultures to cross-pollinate the best ideas that create a more sustainable world.

MYTH#4:  “The objective is clean water/better healthcare/etc.”

We love stories about how a community in India living in darkness now has access to LED lights. We love stories of how a simple clean water device made a sickly community healthy.  It’s easy to assume that our objective is that immediate change. But it’s the tip of a bigger objective, the ultimate objective of development:  to build capacity.  There’s a good quote about creating social change by Ezio Manzini that says: “You don’t ask what you can do to make people behave differently.  You ask what you do to recognize people’s capabilities and help use those to solve the problems they face.”  He goes on to say that the term for designers who are ultimately looking to create change should be “design for capabilities” or “design for empowerment.”  This really does change your outlook of a problem statement.  Enabling people to meet their potential, whether they are rich or poor, is what creates social change.

MYTH#5:  “As a designer, I’m not as valuable as _________________.”

I meet a lot of people who know they have something to contribute, but they are just not sure how their skills translate to development.  As a designer, here are five strengths you bring to this industry:

1. You’re a systems thinker.  The problems that plague our world are complex systems problems.  As a designer, you’re expertise is problem solving through a combination of analytical and creative thinking.  It takes both sides of the brain to generate solutions to social challenges.

2. You’re a creative thinker armed with design process and principles.  Einstein said, “We can’t solve the world’s problems by using the same type of thinking when we created them.”  Many of the social issues we’re fighting today have existed for decades.  We are long overdue for fresh thinking.

3. You have an iterative process. We make a lot of mistakes in development – mistakes that sometimes negatively impact people with everything to lose, mistakes that could potentially be avoided if our industry fostered a culture of prototyping and refining ideas instead of throwing millions of dollars into doomed ideas.

4. You’re user driven.  Many decisions made today that affect the poor are made by people completely removed from their issues.  Your viewpoint, driven by your understanding of the needs of people/end-users, is completely unique and lacking within the industry.

5. You create capacity.  By building things – products, services, a website – you are intrinsically building the capacity of those who make, distribute, sell, or use what you created.  That’s what economic development is all about and we need more people doing that in a sustainable way.

Why it’s important to debunk myths

If “Design for Social Innovation” or “Design for the BoP” is going to move beyond a trend into a standard, then we need to quash this idea that only a few “specialized” designers engage in this kind of work.  Because in reality, as a society every day we create the social challenges of tomorrow with the buildings and objects we design, with the systems we put in place.  Poverty, homelessness, unemployment – they’re all a testament to those failed systems.  Now more than ever we need creative thinkers, people like designers working within the social sector, to unravel the complexities and re-think how we approach these challenges.