We audited a session on entrepreneurial design for extreme affordability with Krista Donaldson, a leader in design thinking. With the assertion that "without manufacturing there is no (development) sustainability" her lecture examined what makes manufacturing different in developing societies: the characteristics of product design; the notion of recycling and reuse; the difficulty of maintaining quality and safeguard standards, etc. She made some conclusions: poor infrastructure hinders efficiency; socio-economic/cultural/political factors impact everything. And the ultimate questions: who are the end-users? what are their needs?
Entrepreneurial design for extreme affordability is for the base of the pyramid - the same category of citizens who constitute the primary target in the Bank's development endeavors. After extensive work in some of the world's poorest countries, the D-School team came to identify a process that goes from "deep empathy" to prototyping to testing. Professor James Patell: "We do not start from the technology; we start with the consumer..... It would be crazy for us to go into a country and say 'we are from Stanford and we are here to help you'!" Hmmmm!
My first set of questions: Are there any lessons for us here? How client-centric is the Bank in its project design? Will understanding the needs and circumstances of the client significantly disrupt time-tested processes and raise project preparation costs beyond acceptable limits? Does empathy - the preliminary needs assessments and ethnographic work in d-school thinking - have a place in the conceptualization of our development programs?
We participated in Heather Fleming's course on Design for Sustainability on projects in health, education and small-scale manufacturing in Kenya, Rwanda and a US Indian reservation. I retained a suggestion from David Lehr of Mercy Corps, one of the speakers, to "blend methods and ideas from the worlds of business, government and civil society to create social value that is sustainable." [LJ team member Craig Hammer was our designated lead and made a great presentation about the Bank and its approach to development.] I pursued a discussion with Lucky, another speaker, who felt that development could be a more rational science and the Bank could contribute significantly to this by producing micro-data on issues such as population growth.
My second set of questions: have we been focusing too much on the macro environment and not enough on the micro? How would a focus on outcomes data at the sub-national level impact trends in development practice? With scientific evolution advancing in the direction of micro and nanotechnologies, is it inappropriate (too expensive) for development work to evolve toward micro solutions? Should the Bank not have a permanent presence and participate fully in the ongoing conversations in Silicon Valley on how and which technologies are changing the lives of many in the bottom billion?
1 comment:
Eric
Thanks for sharing. This is insightful -- good stuff. I like your sets of questions. How client-centric is the Bank in its project design? I would just add 'and implementation', as I consider that unlike finished products, development is a process that requires continuos engagement with the client, which means we should be client-centric throughout.
More broadly, I think that the crisis facing the development industry nowadays with dead-aid-mania, is still not being taken seriously by the development industry. It's high time we understand that the institution-centered model of development assistance is not effective. I truly believe and embrace the call for a greater integration of the kind of preliminary assessments preached at the d-school, which, in my view, reduce project risks pertaining to the local circumstances often not taken into consideration. Well-tested instruments for such diagnostic abound, including particularly in the field of communication. Moreover, the benefits for the client and for the WB in institutionalizing and making those a requirement and a prerequisite in project preparation outweighs the cost. I mean, good diagnostics lead to better project design and ultimately greater development outcomes. What can best sell the World Bank's work than its development outcomes/results?
Your examples from the manufacture are insightful. They made me think why the development industry is so slow and reluctant to catch up. And I concluded the following : while in the manufacture context, people shift products based on their performance/result, in the development assistance, the limited number of development assistance institutions limits government choices. On the other hand, the weak competition among the few existing development assistance institution leads to a slow learning process for the big ones, and hence the reluctance to integrate new ways of delivering development products.
Finally, I think the move for a client-centric model is a battle of all and particularly of communications professionals within development organizations. Many of us are undertaking here and there the kind of diagnostic that allow for better risk identification and mitigation in project design and implementation. However, that communication work and contribution is not understood because not institutionalized as part of project risk identification and mitigation. I think one important element to make this successful is by re-branding it. Forget the development-communication-assessment, communication-based-assessment that do not resonate to anyone but us (communications) -- we need to re-brand it in such as way that it be felt as integral part of risk assessment and project management.
Cheers,
Rafael Saute
Post a Comment