• 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

Announcing our new distribution partners: Great Lakes Energy

When Catapult was founded in 2008, our co-founders envisioned making design services accessible to millions of organizations working in impoverished communities worldwide.  We quickly uncovered a limiting factor to the impact of this work, namely the lack of distribution and marketing mechanisms in rural areas, where the vast majority of poor people live.  In 2010, we pledged to address this problem for our clients and by doing so, increase the impact and reach of Catapult’s work.

We’re excited to announce our pilot collaboration with Great Lakes Energy in Kigali, Rwanda, a retail distribution outlet serving 350,000 people in rural Rwanda.  Over the past two years, Great Lake’s has built a network of trained entrepreneurs selling small-scale energy products vetted by Great Lakes’ staff.  Working together, both of our organizations strengthen our offerings in researching needs in rural communities, product field-testing, marketing and promotional strategy, and distribution.

Here are the direct benefits to our clients:

-  Bypass the business costs and timelines associated with building a distribution network from scratch.

-  Leverage the established trust between local entrepreneurs and their customers.

-  Get meaningful feedback on products from both end-users and the entrepreneurs who sell them. What’s needed, what works (and doesn’t) and why?

-  Successful products from other regions can rapidly try their hand in new markets.

Click here to download the brochure on Catapult and GLE’s joint services for companies entering Rwandan markets. Stay tuned as we evaluate similar partnerships with entrepreneurs in Uganda and Kenya!

And check out the fabulous write-up on Great Lakes’ creative promotional strategies by Rob Goodier on Engineering For Change.

Bookmark and Share

Designing for the BOP: 9 pitfalls to avoid when evaluating a project

Engineers and designers interested in social impact work all want to use their skills to do good in the world.  After all, there are billions of people in need and over a million worthy causes to work with. But “doing good” does not necessarily correlate to impact.  You, as an individual or as an organization, could be the best at what you do and spend thousands of hours on the world’s most innovative solution to a problem.  But if that solution is never implemented or implemented poorly, your time and effort are futile.

There are millions socially driven organizations around the world with limited or no access to needed technical and design expertise, yet few have the capacity to effectively use that expertise.  Over the years I’ve witnessed several NGOs, big and small, flub technology and product initiatives due to a lack of product development and implementation knowledge.  So if you’re interested in the BOP design space, consider this:  success isn’t about completing a defined scope or work, it may not even be about sales or revenue, it’s about impact.

After five years I’m just starting to figure out what that means.  Tim Prestero, the Executive Director of Design That Matters, has a four-year head start on me and has it drilled down to a science.  We compared notes recently and distilled our thoughts.  So here it goes – if you’re an individual designer, engineer, or a design firm thinking of taking on client work in the BOP sector, here’s our list of 9 things that will increase the probability of impact:

1. Adopt the mindset of an investor. Vet the project and financial viability thoroughly as well as organizational capacity, impact, and the team behind the organization.  You want to make sure the organization you place your bet on can and will fulfill its objective.  Tim’s rule of thumb:  an organization must have been in business for 10 years and pushed products before.

2. The organization has previously demonstrated innovation capacity.

3. The organization has a solid, trustworthy reputation with their user base.

4.  Put special consideration and extra due diligence when considering working with international clients.  Tim points out that business development costs are significantly higher due to travel, language and cultural differences, and the extra time spent on partnership-building, due diligence, and need-finding.

5. Your lead contact is the CEO.  Meaning, you have access to and support from decision makers.

6.  Avoid pro bono project work.  This is hard, but free labor is often valued as such.  To get the information, time, and skin-in-the-game you need to get the job done, charge a fee or find a way to get your client emotionally committed.  Catapult Design also requires a minimum of 33% of the project budget up front.

7. The end product of your efforts will impact a minimum of 10,000 people, but preferably in the millions.

8.  Before taking on a design thinking or research proposal, develop concrete outcomes. For example, if your research results spare a client from investing time and resources into a misguided idea, how would you show that?

9.  Ensure the design accounts for failure.  If you’re assisting with the development of a water sanitation project within a community, could project failure leave the community in a worse situation?   Failure on part of the design or implementation should not be to the detriment of the end-user.

Of course, we would love to hear from others who have their own pitfalls to contribute to this list.   Drop them in the comments below!

[This blog was co-authored by Heather Fleming of Catapult Design and Tim Prestero of Design that Matters]

Bookmark and Share

FAILFaire: SOCAP 2010 review

“Remember the two benefits of failure.  First, if you do fail, you learn what doesn’t work; and second, the failure gives you the opportunity to try a new approach.”

-  Roger Von Oech

Earlier this month Catapult attended SOCAP2010 and hosted a one-and-a-half hour open forum to discuss what is often a taboo subject in philanthropic and social impact work – failure. Our reason for selecting such an unpopular topic was the simple truth that we often learn more from our failures than we do from our successes. It makes sense, then, that we all have much more to learn when people share their failures openly rather than attempt to keep them under wraps. Furthermore, we believe that by encouraging people and organizations to air their dirty laundry we can ultimately make failure less something we are afraid of and more a tool of learning that will help foster a social impact community that is more open, innovative, and effective.

Taking inspiration from FAILFaire, we modeled the forum after the instructions compiled by MobileActive, the originators of the first FAILFaire in May 2010. Individuals were encouraged to stand before a packed room and share an experience of failure working in the social impact and social entrepreneurship space. Specifically, they were prompted to explore the following:

• What was the project?
• What were you trying to do?
• What was the fail/where did it go wrong?
• What would you do differently next time?
• What lessons can be learned?

Despite the fact we were all at a venue teeming with investors and potential funders, there was no dearth of people willing to stand up and share tales of failure with the rest of the attendees. The stories were insightful, informative, and often humorous and left all of us in awe of the challenges of working in this space and of the resourcefulness our colleagues showed in addressing their failures. Jane Chen, CEO and co-founder of Embrace Global, kicked off the session with her story about her troubles prototyping her company’s low-cost baby-incubator.  Sara Joy Pond, the Executive Director of Tipping Bucket, shared a memorable story regarding the launch of their site for the first time.  (The untested — oops! — code multiplied all donations by a factor of 10!)  And Rachael Chong, CEO of Catchafire, as well as several other attendees highlighted the difficulties of building the right team for their venture.  Some of the other key insights we collected from the discussion were:

• When starting up, keep your options open (vendors, design, partners, etc)…
• Social businesses need to have an actual “business” component to it.
• Embrace humility. Know when to admit the path you’re going down might be the wrong one.
• Find the right people and/or partner to start your business.  Get rid of people who don’t fit and keep searching.
• Paper (a contract) isn’t enough. Protect your assets.
• Co-develop solutions to problems with the people or organizations causing the problem.
• Less is more.
• Do a couple of things really well instead of multiple things poorly.
• If people don’t understand the questions or concepts you’re presenting, you can’t trust their answers.
• Make sure your goals are in-line with your partners’ goals.
• Don’t expect the first launch/trial to be a commercial success.
• Beware the solution in search of a problem.
• Question assumptions.
• Think strategically. Don’t partner for the sake of partnering.
• If you’re a mission-driven organization, make sure everyone is on the same page.
• Listen to the community, your users. Don’t assume you understand the full context of the problem on your own.
• Live up to your commitments. Transparency is key.
• Make sure the technology works.
• When presented with new opportunities (and you will be!), ask yourself if it is something you’ll still be working on in 5 years. If not, don’t do it.

Ultimately, we found the format helpful in promoting a frank and friendly discussion among peers. We left the room feeling that this was an important subject that deserves increased exploration and that future conferences should consider incorporating a FAILFaire into their programs as a means of providing a supportive environment in which we can all learn from each others’ failures.

Happy failing!

Bookmark and Share

Come party with Catapult in NYC!

We’re headed to New York and hosting a networking party on Thursday, October 7th at Lolita from 9-11pm.  We’ll have drink specials, Catapult merch for sale, a short introduction to Catapult’s work, and an introduction by Board member Graham Hill, founder of Treehugger.com.  We’ll have guests from FrontlineSMS:Credit, The Future Well, Pop!Tech, All Day Buffet, Assetmap, and more!

Click here to buy your tickets ($5) via Eventbrite, or drop your donation at the door.

See you all there!

Bookmark and Share

A pushcart for rural Tanzanian farmers

Photo courtesy of Anza Technologies.

In rural Tanzania, as in many developing nations, farmers struggle to move the heavy loads necessary for their work: carrying water from a reliable source to their fields for irrigation is difficult and moving crops from their fields to sell at the market is also a challenge. Consequently, the output of the farmers’ land is often poor and they are frequently unable to make a livable wage from their work. Nearly half of the world’s poor living on less than $1 per day are rural subsistence farmers.

If these farmers were able to more easily transport water (both for irrigation and family consumption) and to carry heavy loads to the market, their ability to generate income for their families would increase and ease their work burden. To this end, Catapult was recently hired by Anza Technologies to assist with the industrial design and in-country pilot testing of their new pushcart. This cart is being designed with the rural Tanzanian farmer in mind and will allow him to carry more than 120 liters of water, or loads of more than 250lbs, for a retail price less than half that of competing products.

Watch our site for more info as this new project unfolds!

Bookmark and Share

The realities of rural poverty and energy in the US

President Obama declared a state of emergency in Arizona this winter after 54 inches of snow fell on the Navajo Nation, leaving many rural families stranded without heat, electricity, or fresh food.  Traditionally a population of sheepherders, a majority of Navajo families live rurally and sometimes completely cut off from the outside world when winter snow and summer rain make the network of reservation dirt roads impassible.  I met Lena and her brother Nelson outside Kinlichee, AZ just before the heavy snow fell earlier this year.  Lena’s modest five foot by ten foot concrete home had two kerosene lanterns for lighting, a cast iron stove for heat, a mattress for sleeping, a basin for bathing, and a propane tank sitting outside the house with a hose snaking through a cracked window to a stovetop.

Wood for heating, and re-used milk jugs for daily water collection

Needless to say, Lena and Nelson, both in their forties, have never had access to electricity or running water.  An outhouse 50 yards from Lena’s home serves as their bathroom; a local stream provides the water they need for cooking, bathing, and cleaning.  Ironically, a high voltage power line buzzes overhead about five-minute from their house.

The Native American population is the most poverty-stricken community in the United States and continually plagued by health and environmental issues, gang activity, and political drama that overshadow efforts to retain and strengthen tribal culture.  After decades of sovereignty, many Native American communities mimic the conditions you would find in developing countries.

I made a second trip to Lena and Nelson’s community a few months after meeting them, long after the snow melted and this time with the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA), the entity responsible for providing Navajo reservation residents with electricity, water and natural gas.  The NTUA is turning to off-grid, renewable solutions for its most remote customers.   We drove one hour to a home just west of Monument Valley with an 880W (not enough for most US homes, but respectable) hybrid wind-solar energy system.  The distance alone makes servicing the system a huge time-commitment and requires a heavy-duty truck to take on the precarious “roads.”

Hybrid wind-solar system near Monument Valley

For Navajo families waiting for electricity, basic math reveals that their chance of receiving a grid connection in their lifetime is slim to none.  The NTUA estimates the cost of a power line at $20,000 per mile.  Even if each of the 18,000 people without electricity lived a mere five miles from the nearest line, that’s an estimated $1.8 billion dollars to electrify all remaining homes.  The NTUA collects approximately $50 per month from each electrified home – at that rate, payback for grid connection is on the order of 1000 years.

The Navajo Reservation has the largest landmass of any tribe at 27,000 square miles and housing roughly 175,000 people.  Urban areas are sparse and the number of people living in them and paying for utilities is not enough to effectively subsidize the infrastructure development for those living remotely, as it did in the rest of the country.  Which means that on the Navajo Nation, off-grid renewable sources of power are less about dependence on oil and more about necessity.  But beyond that, it’s also about alleviating poverty.  De-centralized energy systems hold great potential for rural, impoverished areas worldwide.  The tangible effects of electricity include refrigeration of vaccines, powering of small electronics (radios, cell phones) that create a virtual bridge to the rest of the world, and lighting that doesn’t spew black carbon into the home.  $1.8B is not a trivial amount.  But it prompts the question:  what is the price tag on health and well-being here at home and abroad?

Bookmark and Share

Catapult hosts first SOCAP FAILFaire

“Failure is success if we learn from it.”

-Malcolm S. Forbes

——

Join Catapult Design on Day Two at SOCAP ’10 in San Francisco for the first west coast FAILFaire, a forum for open and honest discussion around failed initiatives within social enterprise.  Moderated by Catapult, all SOCAP attendees are invited to participate by presenting their failures that led to greater understanding or later successes.  Whether it be a failed initiative, a failed business relationship, or a failure in implementation, we will provide a safe venue for discussion, insight, and lessons learned.  The objective of the 90-minute session:  to learn from the mistakes of others, and perhaps contribute to someone else’s success in the process.

The first FAILFaire was organized by MobilActiv, a non-profit connecting people, organizations, and resources using mobile technology for social change, in New York and followed by a DC FAILFaire hosted by the World Bank.  Originally focused on fail stories from ICT and mobile development, the SOCAP FAILFaire opens up the topic to social enterprise and technology.  As an organization focused on the development of transformational technologies for people living in disadvantaged communities, we’ve witnessed firsthand the profusion of abandoned and ignored technologies collecting dust in rural hospitals, schools, and homes.  We’ve also witnessed organizations falling prey to the same mistakes made by previous organizations.  Yet these stories are for the most part hidden, when they could directly benefit the community at large.

So if you’ve been part of a project that didn’t quite work out, join us on October 5th and tell your story!   We want to hear and learn from you.

For those who can’t attend, check back on our blog for the major takeaways from the event!

Bookmark and Share

Pre-paid power and energy usage

I’ve just recently returned from Rwanda where Catapult is conducting an energy audit on a hospital in Gitwe, southwest of Gitarama in the Ruhango District, for a back-up energy system.  When a structure (home, hospital, school) is connected to the grid, it doesn’t necessarily mean that electrical power is acquired in the same way it is for Catapult’s studio in San Francisco.  Below is a quick diagram illustrating how power is purchased for a grid-connected home in rural or urban Rwanda.  Pre-paid energy systems don’t capture energy usage patterns in the same way our electrical bills do, making energy audits a little tricky.  Something to keep in mind if you’re assessing energy needs in grid-connected communities…

Bookmark and Share

CataCAMP Workshop: Achieving clean drinking water

Community based clean water system that can serve 5000 people

The lack of clean drinking water for one billion people around the world, from an engineering perspective, is one of the most baffling problems on the planet.  Consider the vast number of water sanitation organizations and the fact that we’ve known how to effectively sanitize our drinking water for centuries.  Yet somehow diarrheal disease (caused from drinking unsafe water) remains a top killer of children around the world.  In some cases, a simple low-cost filter is all that is necessary to save a life.

Of course, the problem of clean water is not that cut and dry.  Most organizations that ask us about water technologies are not sure what they are looking for, they just know that it’s a problem they should be addressing.  If this is you, we’ve put together a Water Assessment workshop with overall guidelines on the steps you would take to gather the information you need to select a sanitation technology.  In addition to that, here’s the top five things to consider if you’re contemplating a clean water program:

1.  Know what you’re fighting.

There are three main types of water contaminants and no single technology is effective against all of them.  Start by figuring out what is contaminating the water.  To do this, you may need a local university lab on your side to help with the analysis.  Or, you might check to see if a local organization has already conducted water tests in your region.

2.  One more time:  no single technology is effective against all water contaminants.

Checking Manna's gravel-sand water filtration system.

The danger happens when you assume an expensive carbon filter will solve all of your problems in every community you enter.  You may need to combine a natural, low-tech filter (sand) with a higher-tech ultraviolet radiation.  (Check out Manna Energy’s system in Kigali, Rwanda).

3.  Understand how water is used.

And understand that simply surveying the community won’t get you the answer you need.  Spend time observing how people use water.  Observe if they treat drinking water differently than clothes-washing water.  Is water ever reused?  Are there differences in water collection points?  Understanding usage patterns and user values will help you understand where and how clean water needs to enter the picture.

4. Be conscientious about the choice between community-based water systems versus water systems for individual families.

Both have their positives and negatives.  The main drivers: cost, maintenance (who will fix a broken system if no one technically owns it?), and access.

5.  Clean water is pointless without sanitation.

If we pour clean water into a dirty cup, our efforts are for naught.  Clean water programs need to be coupled with sanitation training.  They both need the other to be truly effective.  This is oftentimes a point of failure for water programs – both sanitation and clean water treatment require some semblance of education and behavioral change.  Always a challenge.

It goes without saying that if there were to be a #6, it would be this:  do not reinvent the wheel!  As mentioned in the opening paragraph, countless water organizations and technologies exist.  Leverage and adapt them.

Bookmark and Share

CataCAMP Workshop: Give the People What They Want

Participatory design is a very popular, very fuzzy concept. Popular because who doesn’t like the idea of involving the end-user, the community, the customer in the process. Fuzzy because it means so many different things to different people. For clarity, our workshop breaks it down into concepts of participatory research or assessment (having end-users help with idea generation), participatory design (where end-users come on as full co-designers), and participatory evaluation (where end-users are involved in field testing and prototype assessment).

This was probably the trickiest workshop in terms of activities. For the participatory research section, it’s rather straightforward. But when it came to participatory design, the process was somewhat less simple. Should we run a field exercise with our Navajo hosts? But given the complexity of the setup, would we be able to explain what they should do as co-designers in an imaginary design scenario within the limited time frame? Should we use ourselves as the participants and run a mock exercise to gain clarity around the methods? But then can we separate ourselves from our previous knowledge as full-fledged design professionals enough to really grasp the concept?

Tyler taking part in the workshop

In the end, we ran a mock exercise around redesigning our CataCamp experience, as all of us had direct end-user experience in that case. One of us served as moderator, and the others were participant-designers, which was useful for gaining direct experience with the ideas of participatory design, but a bit unclear in terms of roles and outcomes. Had time been more abundant, we would have loved to try out the process with community members around a more immediate need (i.e. water supply or shepherding). In the end, we cut out that activity from the final workshop, as we haven’t yet perfected either version.

So in the spirit of the workshop, we’d love to hear from you what activities you think might fit in the participatory design section. What’s worked before? What ideas can you come up with for rapidly (say in 30 minutes) involving local communities and creating a positive learning experience? What should the goals and outcomes be? What will teach organizational staff what it’s like to be an end-user thrust into the role of a designer? Looking forward to your ideas!

[Download the Participatory Design Workshop]