• SUBSCRIBE

    Sign-up for our e-newsletter to keep current on project opportunities, news, and events.

  • CONTACT

    info [at] catapultdesign [dot] org
    972 Mission Street Suite 500
    San Francisco, CA 94103

Bookmark and Share

Heather Fleming named a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader

On March 3rd, the World Economic Forum announced its 2010 Young Global Leaders. Among them, our very own Heather Fleming, CEO and co-founder of Catapult Design.

Each year, the World Economic Forum identifies 200-300 exceptional individuals – all young leaders – from all regions of the world and from nearly every sector. The World Economic Forum’s hope is that these individuals will dramatically impact the global future through their socially progressive work in their respective companies, organizations, governments and universities.

Heather joins an amazing group of 196 other Young Global Leaders, which include, among others: Evan Williams, CEO of Twitter (USA), Wyclef Jean, Singer and Founder of Yélé Haiti Foundation (Haiti), and Jacob Lief, Co-Founder and President Ubuntu Education Fund (South Africa). Learn more about the program and see the full list of Leaders here.

The Forum’s choice in Heather and Catapult Design, a non-profit design firm, indicates a growing acceptance of the important role design and design thinking has to play in unleashing the capacity of the developing world and ending the plight of global poverty.

Bookmark and Share

The Ethnography of Design: Understanding environmental constraints

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.

Bookmark and Share

The skinny on online donations

Catapult Design is in the midst of searching for the best (most affordable, accessible, streamlined, easily-integrated) online donations processor. Since we’ve collected a bunch of information on the subject, we thought we’d make it available to others searching for similar solutions. Our research can now be your research!

This blog post retains much of its original style – written as an email to the Cata Team – so read it as such and glean what you will. It is by no means a comprehensive list; it is just what we stumbled upon in our research stint. It was written several months ago – so exact numbers may have since slightly changed, as well as Catapult’s own opinion on what might work best for us. Looks like we may stick with PayPal and have our amazing web developer create code that connects our PayPal account (which will have a live link on our website) with our Salesforce account. We’ll see if this is possible!

If you have any advice – or additional information that you’d like to make known – by all means, comment below. This blog post can be an open source platform for the sharing of best systems and practices. Enjoy!

ONLINE DONATIONS RESEARCH

“Looking into the way that nonprofits process donations online, I’ve gotten more convinced that the complication of payment gateways and merchant accounts are far more complex than is necessary for a small nonprofit like Catapult, and that the costs are not significantly lower anyway. What Catapult needs is a simple system, optimized for nonprofit payment processing, with a reasonable fee, the right basic features (particularly recurring payments and the ability to automatically request that people tack on the transaction fee), and no headaches. In terms of live-event payment processing, the simplest and most effective strategy is going to be to just take credit cards and enter them into an interface. This is what more and more stores are even doing now anyway.

Network for Good has some great options, specifically their “DonateNow” service. The cost is $30/mo + 3% payment processing fee, which is pretty standard. The overarching reason is that they are 1) by far, the nonprofit field leader for online donation processing, 2) because of that, they have both trust with donors and a reputation to uphold and 3) the trends are for them to add more/better features and to decrease the price. Specific bonus features are the ability to customize payment forms to look just like your website, recurring payments, and the ability to request people to add on the 3% transaction fee, etc. The downside is the $200 one time setup + $30/mo. Learn more about how they work with nonprofits here

The three next best options are the biggies of automatic payment processing: PayPal, Google Checkout, and Amazon Payments. None of these are particularly focused on nonprofits, but all of them have nonprofit capabilities + public trust.

PayPal has its own set of issues and capabilities. It can be confusing for newbies since it’s a little unclear whether or not you have to create a new account when you want to make a donation. (This can turn people off). It is, however, highly recognized and vastly used. It’s a common, well-known name and many people are used to paying through this system/platform. It may also be one of the least expensive processor options. Just for reference, here is their data: 2.2% + .30 cents per transaction. Learn about PayPal and nonprofits from their website here.

Google Checkout has no setup fee and no monthly fees. It charges 2.9% + .30 cents per transaction for under $3000 a month and then goes down for there. What it doesn’t have are any of the recurring monthly features or things like that. Still, if you want absolutely bare bones, it’s hard to beat. For more details visit their site for FAQs here and here.

Amazon Payments is another decent option. Has the benefit of people being able to use their existing Amazon accounts but the downside is it requires a Amazon payment to work. Has features like monthly recurring and is definitely thinking about how to serve nonprofits. Here’s the basic info and here are their FAQs. Total cost is the same as Google – 2.9% + .30 per transaction.

In terms of the iPhone application (iPhone app for credit cards!) we looked at, it is an option, but it’s ONLY good for mobile processing – it doesn’t do anything for your online interface/Catapult website. The cost is $50 for the application, plus $15/mo, plus 2.09-3.09% per transaction. This is a fine option, but doesn’t have any of the features that make something like Network for Good appealing, and is really about the convenience of mobile. It wouldn’t answer your day-to-day internet based giving needs. It would also involve signing up with Authorize.net, which is a merchant account/payment gateway system, which can be complicated and which would include use fees, a monthly fee, then we would have to pay for the iPhone app itself which would only go on one phone…I think. I think this service/feature is best suited for individual merchants who are always on the go and always in different places.

Finally, there is one random wildcard option, which is to sign up for a site like UniversalGiving, which handles the back end for you. The cost is the same as Paypal – they just use PayPal processing – and they don’t add an additional fee. (They’re able to make their money from consulting with corporations so they don’t need to charge for this). The downside is then you have to do everything through their website, which may not be the most desirable.

Finally, just for reference, here is an article about this. Some of the information is out of date but it’s still a pretty nice overview.

In terms of hosting events (fundraisers, etc.) and having a payment processor there, the best bet is just taking information and manually entering it into online credit card forms, or even just taking it with pen. The biggest conclusion is just that merchant account stuff is just way more complicated than necessary right now. In the long run, as the volume of donations and transactions increases, it may make sense, but right now my feeling is that it’s a lot of headache and complication for not a lot of benefit.

Other options we have come across include GlobalGiving, JustGive, and Kickstarter.”

On a final note, we recently acquired Salesforce at Catapult, and are now looking to integrate a payment processor with Salesforce – if possible. We want to keep our records straight. Regarding those SalesForce applications that exist to enable online donations, the following are the ones that we have found:

  • eGiving by Mobile Metrics
  • PaymentConnect by Linvio
  • Chargent by Rogue IT
  • Trio by Click and Pledge
Bookmark and Share

The Ethnography of Design: A Series

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.’

Bookmark and Share

Welcoming Catapult’s first Board members

Announcing the first two members of Catapult’s Board of Directors: Rob Anderson of Fenton Communications and Graham Hill of Discovery Communications and Treehugger.com.

Rob Anderson is the Managing Director of Fenton Communications NY and has a 20-year professional history passionately devoted to one ideal: to leave the world a better place than he found it. A nationally known expert on social marketing and one of the chief strategists behind the highly successful “truth” anti-smoking campaign, Anderson was previously the executive vice president for GolinHarris.  At GolinHarris he directed Change, the name of the company’s corporate citizenship, social marketing and cause branding practice, addressing some of society’s toughest challenges. In the public sector, Rob has worked with nonprofit and government agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, American Legacy Foundation, Home Safety Council, Special Olympics, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Ad Council, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.

Graham Hill rose to fame as the founder of Treehugger.com, a leading media outlet dedicated to driving sustainability mainstream.  An advocate of social entrepreneurship, Graham is described as a serial entrepreneur himself, do-gooder and designer. Graham and the TreeHugger.com team joined the Discovery Communications family of networks as part of its Planet Green multi-platform, global environmental initiative. He also owns a product business that sells a New York souvenir he designed a few years ago, available in 175 stores including MOMA.

Rob and Graham are prominent members of their respective fields with reputations as industry leaders.  The entire Catapult team is excited to work closely with them on the next phase of Catapult’s growth.

Bookmark and Share

Design session with Project Healthy Children, Stanford University

PHCCatapult kicked off 2010 with a new design session with Project Healthy Children (PHC).  PHC works with governments and private industry to establish food fortification and supplementation programs that improve the health of women and children around the world.  Catapult, PHC and Stanford University hosted a joint design session to review two promising technologies developed by student teams in Stanford’s Design for Extreme Affordability: a water pump attachment that doses out micro-nutrient during water collection and an attachment for milling machines that doses out micro-nutrient while grains are processed.  From PHC’s website on the new initiative:

In the developing world, a significant portion of the population is rural. Villagers tend to grow their own cereal grains, such as maize or sorghum and mill the raw grains in small community mills. These community mills are typically powered by water or diesel/electricity and the cereal flour produced is consumed as a staple food. Community mills therefore present an excellent opportunity to extend the delivery of micronutrients to a large number of rural people through the small scale fortification (SSF) of cereal flour during grain processing.

In conjunction with our partners, The Micronutrient Initiative, Stanford University and with funding from the Ansara Family Fund, PHC is undertaking groundbreaking work in designing a program to broadly implement small scale fortification. Small scale fortification promises to be one of the most significant break-through technologies in reaching the rural populations where the need is greatest. The promise so far is unmet due to the health community’s inability to solve the social and economic questions associated with rolling out a broader program.

Bookmark and Share

5 lies we tell ourselves (and funders) when developing new tech for people in need

Like any service-based organization, Catapult Bikesreceives requests from a variety of organizations and individuals.  Some come to us with little more than an idea, others have had their idea in the market for over a decade.  Some are based within the small community they’re trying to affect and others have never traveled to a developing country.  Regardless of the above, many organizations make similar statements regarding their idea. Over the years we’ve developed a healthy amount of skepticism for some of these statements.  In particular, we are always a bit wary when we hear these five most common claims:

Statement 1:  People in the developing world need more “time”

When people say their technology enables more “time” for income generating activity, social needs, education, etc. it’s okay to question that need.  Time is a very Western value not shared with many parts of the world.  When it comes to selling your technology in-country, keep in mind that there are other values your technology could provide that may be more provocative than “time savings.”

Statement 2:  The technology must scale in order to be effective or worthy of investment

There are many technologies designed to meet the needs of a specific population that have value, but will never reach production volumes in the millions. Our world is not homogenized; one size doesn’t necessarily fit all.  While it’s great if your idea translates globally, realize that many do not.

JikoOn a related note, a business plan that outlines first year sales greater than 250k I put in the naïve category.  While the number of people in our world who lack basic needs is on the order of 2 billion, the lack of effective marketing and distribution infrastructure in many countries is a roadblock for promising technologies. Establishing and implementing a marketing and distribution plan is achievable, but is often a task more complex and time-intensive than the design development.

Statement 3:  This technology is so clever; everyone will want one!

Beware the solution in search of problem!  Is the technology addressing a real need?  And can you articulate it through a business plan – a business plan that includes research of prior art, your market size, impact number, and implementation strategy? It may sound kinda mean, but it’s common for smart, well-meaning folks to be motivated by a problem highlighted in an article, a documentary, a trip, and to act on it without considering the challenges surrounding new technology development.  “Business” and “humanitarianism” are not contradictory terms.

Statement 4:  I designed a brand new solar cooker

No you didn’t. I don’t deny that there’s a small possibility you did, but it’s highly likely you did not. Hate to break it to you.  Reinvention of the wheel is one of the plagues of the development world. New websites intended to promote collaboration and shared knowledge are attempting to alleviate that problem. Please, please, please do a google search of your idea. Check Engineering for Change, Appropedia, Kopernik, the proceedings of ETHOS, etc. And everyone developing technologies, please document and publish your learnings on one of these sites.

Statement 5:  The development work will be done for free by volunteers

Take it from a crew of folks who spent three years volunteering their professional services – volunteerism is great for the volunteer, but often proves little benefit for the end-user of your technology.  As the saying goes, you get what you pay for.  The many drawbacks of a volunteer workforce is what drove us to start an organization to cater to the needs of promising organizations and ideas with tight financial capacity.  Check out D-Rev, Catapult, Design that Matters, etc.  All are specialized resources for developing humanitarian technology that employ staff with international development experience, design experience, field experience, and connections on the ground to get your project up and running.  When billions of people lives are at stake, it’s worth the investment to work with professionals.

Bookmark and Share

Change Engineering to the rescue

pic1How do people and communities change their behavior?  We can do all the inventing we want, but if we don’t anticipate how people receive new ideas then we are probably doomed to failure.  As soon as we leave, the innovations we brought with us to a community are out the door as well.   Aid organizations and engineers working on problems have limited resources – both money and time are scarce – but the problems are innumerable so we don’t have the patience to work on things that don’t work.  If we want more successes we have to develop better implementation plans, taking into account everything we can learn about what makes people tick.

For lack of a better term I call this thought process “change engineering”, or designing and implementing new products andpic2 innovations very deliberately so that they stick when applied to a new community or market. This requires equal parts anthropology and social engineering, as well as the harder sciences to address the technology (and some things we have to make up as we go along)?  Too often our teams going to the field are made up of traditional engineers only – people trained to appreciate new products for the sake of newness only, forgetting that not everyone is like us.  But what if others value innovation differently than we do?  Our (first world) culture is famous for innovation.  I find this to be a defining characteristic of life in these modern times, but it’s different in more traditional cultures.  Imagine our distant forefathers eeking out an existence on the savannah; do we really think the serial risk taker was the one who got the most genes in the pool at the end of the day?  The more I travel I find that it is more likely that they were the ones written off as a menace to the community well being – a crackpot with the least desirable habits.

pic3Perhaps we need to try and correlate risk averse behavior with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.   Maslow speculates that people strive to meet basic needs, like feeding their families, before they move on to tackle more complex ones (like saving the environment).  The ability to tolerate risk is correlated with security – represented by higher levels on the pyramid – which is distributed differently around the world.  What if people with little disposable income don’t approach risk the same way we do?   In our case we will borrow to the hilt on credit cards for consumer electronics we don’t need, then still take out a for-the-rest-of-our-life 30-year mortgage on a house. However in most other countries, borrowing is from families and spending beyond means is not taken to the extreme lengths that we see in the US.  It is widely known that people save money differently around the world, with poorer people tending to save more, but what does that mean?  Financial literature speculates that saving money is a virtuous activity and theorizes “risk averse consumers set resources aside as a precaution against possible adverse changes in income”; meanwhile our culture incorrectly assumes that our present level of income will always be there.

People may be unwilling to spend their savings on the things we think are valuable assets for them pic4because purchasing such unfamiliar goods represents an unacceptable risk.  We have to consider the implications of this mentality when we want to introduce “new things” like an improved cooking stove (perhaps saving them time and money, and improving health) that compete with the status quo – often just a simple ground stove fueled with free biomass.  The “new thing” is sometimes just too strange.  If you factor in the differences in the way people value their time – free time may not be such a luxury in much of the world– we find that even giving away useful goods for free is problematic!   Of course the key to engineering change better is in more observation.  Become an expert in your community’s problems and live life in their shoes.  Collect some firewood, start a fire with wet wood, cook a meal over a traditional three stone fire… and definitely listen.

Bookmark and Share

Catapult at TEDxSoMa on January 22

Join us or watch TEDxSoMa live for Catapult’s presentation on:

“The Human Factor – The designers approach to societal change”
TEDxSoMA
Parisoma
1436 Howard Street
San Francisco, California

TEDxSoMa brings the TED experience to a local level, bringing together innovative ideas and concepts through TEDtalks and inspiring speakers. TEDxSoMa was developed by members of the PariSoMa Coworking Space whose core beliefs are community, collaboration, innovation, openness, and sustainability.

Current confirmed speakers include Heather Fleming of Catapult Design, Kevin Danaher of Global Exchange, Marina Gorbis of The Institute for the Future, and David Sibbet of The Grove, with several more very exciting speakers days from being announced. TEDxSoMa will feature 10 — 12 speakers and 2 — 4 musical/artistic performances. The event will be streamed live and featured on Justin.tv, with production from VidSF.

For more information and to register:
http://www.tedxsoma.com

Bookmark and Share

The Power of Donations

wishlist2In the course of our Startup Campaign, many people have asked us what we will do with the money we raise. The easy answer is, “pay the rent ($500/month)”. A similar answer is, “pay ourselves” – we’d like to start receiving a living stipend starting in the New Year. But both of these responses give an incomplete picture of the situation and to what ends the funds we raise will be used. Because we charge a fee for our services and because a substantial amount of our time and energy is spent on project work, much of our future salaries and operating expenses will be paid for by earned income. That portion of our operating expenses not paid for by earned income is covered by donations and grants – the more donations we receive the less we need to charge for our services. However, to say that donations received will simply go to pay our operating expenses is to oversimplify the value and importance that this money plays. In essence, donations are the leverage by which we increase our ability to bring life-changing products and technologies to those in need – the more donations we receive the wider the array of promising projects on which we may work. Allow me to explain:

If we were to work only on those projects that could pay for program costs and operating expenses our hands would be tied with regard to project selection. We would be unable, as an organization, to consider those promising and worthwhile projects that were not well-funded enough to pay our rates as set by our hard costs. But, with the addition of a second revenue stream, charitable donations, we have more latitude in our ability to select mission-critical project work and to increase the likelihood that promising products come to fruition.

For example, for the last few years we have been working on a small-scale, open-sourced, wind turbine with the San Francisco Professionals chapter of Engineers Without Borders – USA (EWB). The goal of the project is to develop a low-cost turbine that could be used to bring a modest, if meaningful, amount of electricity to a substantial number of the 1.6 billion people living without regular access to electricity.

Currently this project is unfunded beyond prototyping costs, which are covered by EWB. All work that happens on the turbine is performed by EWB volunteers and Catapult personnel operating at a loss. As a result, the project, though promising, moves ahead slowly and uncertainly. If Catapult were able to dedicate a full-time engineer and design fellow to the project for three months we would be able to drive the design to completion, build and test a functional prototype, and travel to Guatemala to install a turbine for field-testing. The cost of this three-month program is only $25,000 but stands to benefit tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. If that’s not leverage, I don’t know what is.

Another potential project we could work on is also energy-focused. The client, a small renewable energy generation company that uses agricultural waste products to power generators, would like to increase their operations from the 3,000 individuals they currently serve to the 50,000 potential customers they have identified. Part of their efforts to scale-up their operation involves finding a way to monetize the waste byproducts produced in the process of generating electricity. For $12,000 Catapult could conduct the material and technology research they need to evaluate this sustainable and environmentally friendly opportunity. While our potential client is able to afford $7,500, they cannot afford the rate we must charge. With a relatively small contribution from donations, Catapult would be able to leverage the limited resources of our potential client and to help them dramatically increase the scope of their operations.

While the type of products on which we work ranges from energy generation to medical devices and water sanitation, all are focused on the effort to realize the promise and opportunity that technology offers to dramatically and positively transform lives. With the addition of money we collect from donations, such as we have been raising during our Startup Campaign, we are able to work with idea-rich but resource-poor organizations to leverage the resources they do have to do an amazingly disproportionate amount of good. So the long answer to the question of, “What does my donation buy?” is the simple response of, “leverage”.