When Technology Flops: 6 Common Pitfalls in Product Design for Social Good

This post contributed by Mindy Zhang.

Timothy Prestero—Lemelson Fellow, Ashoka Affiliate and Co-Founder of Design that Matters—sheds some light on how to and how not to develop technological solutions to social problems.

A successful example.  (Video source: GOOD Magazine)

Social entrepreneurs around the world have shown that technology can solve a lot of problems, from delivering affordable health care to providing access to clean water and electricity. Fortunately, their achievements have inspired new waves of innovation in the social sector. We’ve seen a lot of exciting new products targeting base-of-pyramid customers and original business models for delivering these innovations to communities.

Despite these success stories, technology is not universally effective; technology only solves problems when designed and implemented properly. Why do some technologies fall short of maximizing their impact? And how can entrepreneurs get it right?

I spoke with Timothy Prestero, Lemelson Fellow, Ashoka Affiliate, and Co-Founder of Design That Matters, a non-profit organization that designs breakthrough products for social enterprises. Tim identified 6 common pitfalls in developing technological solutions to social problems.

Pitfall #1: Starting with invention. An invention-centric approach starts by asking: “What kind of product is best suited to solve the problem?” After the product is developed, the entrepreneur finds market segments that demand it – resulting in “pushing” the technology out to consumers. Tim talked about two major problems to this approach. First of all, it’s incredibly risky. What if the market just doesn’t exist? “An analogy is the tailor who makes a closet full of lime-green size 56 swallow-tail tuxedos,” he notes. “When a customer with that preference walks in the door the tailor is going to make a fortune—but what if they never arrive?” Second, developing technologies before understanding the problem leads to imprecise solutions – products that are inconvenient, difficult to use, or just doesn’t fit into people’s lives.

An alternative is the design-centric approach, which begins with specifying the user, context, and need and defining product requirements given the target market’s unique circumstances. This approach – described as “consumer pull” – results in products that meet specific needs.

Pitfall #2: Using technology to solve a culture-based problem. Sometimes, the most fundamental issue isn’t tech-related. For instance, female infant mortality in many countries is largely the result of cultural value systems rather than lack of sufficient healthcare (although the latter is necessary as well). In these cases, well-designed medical devices aren’t going to solve the underlying problem of gender-based discrimination. Other forms of intervention are necessary for changing people’s mindsets.

Pitfall #3: Failing to understand the user context. According to a study conducted by Duke University, up to 98% of donated medical equipment in developing countries is broken within five years. One major culprit? Power surges. Most donated equipment is designed for developed countries, where constant, reliable electricity supply is the norm. But in developing countries (particularly in rural areas), hospitals frequently face blackouts or brownouts, which end up frying their medical devices. While touring Pathan Hospital in Nepal, Tim’s design team discovered a cheap and simple solution; adding surge protectors to medical devices could prevent breakdowns and allow rural hospitals to save money on equipment. From this experience, Tim learned that context is king. Understanding situational nuances (especially in base-of-pyramid markets) allows entrepreneurs to better tailor their products and solve specific problems.

Pitfall #4: Calling users “dumb.” It’s easy to say: “My product’s perfect. It’s the user that’s stupid.” You might’ve designed the latest gadget with all the handiest features – but if we can’t find the “on” button, what impact does it have? Ultimately, there are no dumb users, only dumb products, says Tim. A good designer will adapt his or her product to fit user behavior (rather than expecting users to adapt their behavior to the features).

Pitfall #5: "One size fits all" syndrome. Many inventors approach a global problem and decide to create a single solution, one product with features to address every context. But entrepreneurs must keep in mind that each additional feature makes the product more costly, and ultimately, users end up paying for features they don’t need. As a result, “one size fits all” products prioritize convenience for the inventor – often at the expense of affordability for the end consumer.

Pitfall #6: Clogged supply chain. Creating a great product is only the first (and arguably the easiest) step to solving a social problem. “The challenge is that any one stakeholder in the product supply chain can say ‘no’ and effectively kill the project,” Tim notes. So an entrepreneur must ask him or herself: are distributors incentivized to deliver the product? Are community members knowledgeable enough to operate it? One of the biggest challenges is finding a high-quality, low-cost manufacturer. Often, the target market just isn’t large enough to incentivize most manufacturers. Tim says it’s disappointing to see great social product designs coming out of Stanford and MIT – but ultimately not going to market because the designers can’t find an affordable producer. He sees a lot of opportunity for manufacturers to make an impact – by partnering with designers and social enterprises to bring these solutions to fruition.

For more great insights, catch Tim’s article in the special edition of the MIT Innovations Journal (to be released on February 11).