If a product is going to succeed, it needs to be made.  That seems obvious, and it is.  However, I would argue that for a product to succeed in any social impact sense it also needs to be M.A.D.E.

What do I mean by that?  Simply put, if a product or services is going to help people significantly impact the problem it is meant to address it needs to have the four following attributes:

Meaningful:

The product fits into the lives of the people who will use it and helps them meet a need they currently have, in a significant way.

Example: I don’t have any lighting built into my home but I still need a way to light my living space after dark.  A solar-powered, portable lamp that could light my home would be meaningful – it has a utility I can easily understand and apply to my life.

Accessible:

People can afford, purchase, understand, maintain/repair, and use the product.

Example: If that lamp was priced so that I could afford it; if it was available in my local shop; if I could intuitively grasp how to both charge it and turn it on/off; if I could buy replacement bulbs when the originals burnt out; and, if I was able to consistently light my home, then the lamp would be accessible – I am able to get my hands on one and make use of it.

Desirable:

People want the product and are willing to go out of their way, and make sacrifices, to get one.

Example: I really like that lamp.  It’s size/shape/color/utility really appeal to me.   In my community it would certainly not be an embarrassment to own one and it might even be a status symbol.   That lamp is desirable – I want one.

Effective:

The product does what it was intended to do.

Example: My lamp works great.  It fills my home with light, recharges with the solar panel provided, lasts as long as I expected on a charge, and generally solves my lighting problem.  This product is effective – it helps me meet my needs and I am happy.

While this perspective might be a bit simplistic, it can still be immensely helpful when we are thinking about developing a product for social impact.  So keep this in mind: before you proceed too far down the path of introducing a product into the world, make certain it very clearly and positively meet these requirements – otherwise it will never get M.A.D.E.

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.

Our badge for this year’s event (and the theme of the evening) is GROWTH.  We’ll share what this means during a break at 8pm with some photos and video!  Plus, we’ve got some big ideas for the rotating DJ booth, state-of-the-art sound system and wall of monitors.  And we’ll also have our brand new Cata-Tees available for purchase in the Catapult Store.

So bring a friend or two who’ve never heard of us (the more the merrier!) and help us strengthen the design for social change community!  

Pre-order your tickets here ($15) and we’ll see you there!

————-

Schedule:
6pm:  doors open!
8pm:  slide show of our latest design work in India, Tanzania, and the Philippines
10pm:  private venue becomes public
Donations accepted throughout the night via Square.

There are a number of reasons people want to make their product using locally available skills and materials. Many of these reasons are very compelling, particularly to a person motivated by positive social impact:

• Producing products locally allows one to employ local artisans, providing employment opportunities, building skills, and contributing to the regional economy.
• Local fabrication enables one to avoid excessive import taxes and cumbersome customs, lowering the price of the product.
• Sourcing components locally allows one to support the local economy while ensuring that the end product can be easily repaired and serviced using available skills and materials.
• Operating locally frees one from the necessity of managing complicated and costly supply chains that span the globe, decreasing the size, complexity, and cost of the organization, and decreasing the cost of the product.

Unfortunately, the reality awaiting these organizations in-country will inevitably lead them to reconsider their initial intention. Why? One basic fact: most developing countries around the world simply do not have the manufacturing capacity required to make products of any complexity.

image by chinadigitaltimes.net

In contrast, factories in China can, and already do, make everything. From iPods to wheelbarrows, the Chinese mega-factories can make virtually anything. With their currently operating factories, contract manufacturers in China already have all the required tools, infrastructure, and experience in-place and ready to make products. Alternatively, if an organization wants to make a product in a developing country, they need the expertise and capital required to build factories, infrastructure, and supply chains all their own – a costly, difficult, and time-consuming proposition.

This is not to say that enhancing the local economy, avoiding import taxes, ensuring ease of maintenance, and simplifying the complexity of an organization are not excellent goals; it simply means that a more nuanced understanding of the global economy, and what is currently possible, is required. Organizations working to develop a product need to think deeply about how to best leverage the manufacturing juggernaut that is China while also looking at local opportunities for innovation.

This is why, when organizations tell me that they want to make their product locally, my inclination is to tell them to come back to me once they’ve realized that they will be making their product in China – at least to start.

image by practicalaction.org

Now clearly this isn’t an absolute rule: if you are intending to train people to make clay stoves or mud bricks – then I’m totally wrong. Or, if making plastic buckets or other less complex products is your aim, then you could possibly build a factory or hire an existing one in-country (or the on the same continent) to make your product. Alternatively, and most promising, you could import all the components from China and assemble them in-country. But if you have a product of any complexity, if it requires specialized manufacturing procedures or advanced assembly, and you don’t have the capital to build your own factory – you will have to start in China and go from there.

To explore this further, the following are what China has and developing countries struggle with – if an organization wants to make its own products in-country it has to develop and manage all these various, complex pieces themselves instead of conveniently hiring a Chinese manufacturer that will take care of all of it on their own (a very appealing proposition, especially to a small start-up).

Infrastructure

Efficiently producing a product requires reliable infrastructure: electricity, water, roads, rail, etc.

Raw Materials

Many raw materials are processed in China, meaning that steel, copper, plastics, etc. cost less in China than anywhere else in the world due to import tariffs and transportation.

Supply Chains

Raw materials and components are required to make products and they must arrive at the factory efficiently, timely, and reliably.

Factories

Factories, or advanced workshops, are required to efficiently make products in large volumes. They manage inventories, quality control, tools, personnel and all the thousand-and-one things it takes to make a product.

Built Space

Assembling products require built space (i.e. big buildings) to maintain inventories, set up tools, assemble and test products, and package items for shipping.

Inventories

Managing inventories can be complex, requiring logistics expertise, efficient communications, and timely delivery of components.

Tools & Assembly Lines

Products require tools, machines, reliable power, replacement parts, and efficient assembly lines if they are to manufacture products in large volumes at a reasonable cost.

Trained Personnel

Parts fabrication, product assembly, assembly line planning, inventory logistics, quality control, and equipment maintenance all depend on having trained personnel, with the necessary skills, on-hand.

Quality Control

Testing products to ensure quality requires specialized equipment, optimized testing plans and procedures, and trained personnel.

Clearly the manufacture of products is an elaborate undertaking and organizations attempting to start from scratch in-country can easily be overwhelmed by the effort of setting up their own fabrication infrastructure.

As in most aspects of our life, building local capacity will be an incremental process but if our aim as impact-driven organizations is to help people improve their lives, then simply assuming that everything will always be made in China, and shipped abroad, is a bit fatalistic. Instead, embracing the manufacturing powerhouse that is China while looking to intelligently build local capabilities is the surest way to ensure that a product succeeds and social-impact is maximized.

Nevertheless, this begs the question: how? I don’t have any easy answers, but I suspect it begins with the following:

• Train local maintenance and repair service people to build local skills.
• Incorporate simple, locally fabricated components or add-ons wherever possible to support existing industry.
• Build in-country assembly and packaging warehouses (for simpler products) in order to expand local infrastructure.
• Design products so that they can be customized locally by trained technicians, provide skilled local jobs.

I look forward to the day when factories in less developed countries churn out the products their citizens need, but in the mean time, I am eager to hear your ideas for how to build local capacity while acknowledging the fact that virtually everything I own, here in the US, was also made in China…

The importance of considering product branding and experience has found its way into the BoP design space as an increasing number of social ventures recognize the significance and opportunity it presents in building a customer base. A recent survey on on-line shopping indicated that 70% of surveyed consumers would turn to a competitor after a negative on-line experience.  Moreover, results also suggest that customers are more likely to share a negative experience with their friends and family. In the BoP product and service industry, where marketing strategy depends on positive word-of-mouth between potential customers, building a reliable brand and experience is critical.

This week Catapult launches its first project with EcoZoom, a product manufacturing and sales company focused on making mass distribution of cookstoves possible.  The EcoZoom management team has a long-standing relationship with Approvecho Research Center and StoveTec and within the past 12 months has already sold thousands of products to entrepreneurs, social ventures, aid organizations, and governments around the world.  Catapult’s task:  to strengthen the product brand by marrying the EcoZoom product family as a recognizable, desirable, rugged and affordable line.

Stay tuned to see the results of this collaboration!

Living Goods are offering an integrated solution to improve the access to & diffusion of simple but essential products. With a synchronized door-to-door delivery service, they have established a network of hundreds of agents all over Uganda. The agents sell a broad range of products at affordable prices within their own communities, making for a trustworthy ‘on demand’ source of  life-saving and life-changing products. With this distribution model and their range (from malaria medication to sanitary pads, LED lighting and even stoves) they have created an avenue into a market hungry for health products with integrity and honest pricing (see here for the full list) . Their product areas virtually make up a mantra for their mission; Prevention, Treatment, Personal Hygiene, Save Money-Make Money, covering what isn’t relayed by an already indicative name.

Living Goods have been framing themselves as an ‘Avon-like’ service but with a focus on health, but I think their impact potentials could earn them much greater analogies. I’m sure they will have to create canned responses for big pharma, maybe even get a restraining order on Amazon, and hire a room full of staff just to deal with all of the interest from potential providers and partners. Their sales data alone will be a well sought after contribution to addressing the implementation gremlins rife in health interventions, but don’t be surprised if their model also attracts some healthy competition (pun unfortunately intended) from fresh similar organizations convinced of its potential.  So stay tuned…there will be plenty more to come from Living Goods as they step up into the thousands of agents, and millions of customers…

photo: Living Goods