failure to learn: the repercussions of design interventions in developing countries considered...

FAILURE TO LEARNTHE REPERCUSSIONS OF DESIGN INTERVENTIONS IN

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES CONSIDERED THROUGH THE FAILURES OF SOCIAL INNOVATION

N . Z I Q Q / 2 0 1 6

B I N 1 3 4 0 4 5 6 8

UN

IVER

SIT

Y O

F T

HE

AR

TS

LON

DO

NBA

(HO

NS) IN

TER

AC

TIO

N D

ESIGN

AR

TS

Failure to Learn: The Repercussions of Design Interventions In Developing Countries Considered Through The Failures of Social Innovation.

N.ZIQQ / 2016BIN13404568www.ziqqsayshello.com

BA (Hons) Interaction Design ArtsUniversity of the Arts LondonLondon College of Communication

Failure to Learn

Contents

Contents

List Of Illustrations

Preface

IntroductionWicked ProblemsRise Of Social InnovationEra Of Sustainism

Backlash Of Design Intervention

One Laptop Per Child

* Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism?

PlayPumps

* The Ugly Side of Humanitarian Efforts: Ego Gratification & Greed

TOMS Shoes

* Design For The First World

For Better Or Worse?

References

Bibliography

00

01

02

02/01

02/02

02/03

03

04

05

List of Illustrations

Cover Image. Original Photo: See Image 04. Edited Photo: Ziqq, N. (2016) This Is Sooooo Not Useful!

Image 01. Valle, E. (2012) Portrait of Jon Kolko [Online Image] Available at: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/cedimnews/7412641960> [Accessed 15 December 2015]

Image 02. OLPC. (2007) Madagascar: Starting With the Youngest. [Online Image] Available at: <http://one.laptop.org/stories/madagascar-starting-youngest> [Accessed 1 November 2015]

Image 03. OLPC. (2012) Gaza and Ramallah: Learning as a Community [Online Image] Available at: <http://one.laptop.org/stories/gaza-and-ramallah-learning-community> [Accessed 1 November 2015] Edited Photo: Ziqq, N. (2016) Laptops Failed Us In Learning

Image 04. OLPC. (2012) Nicaragua: A Community Learning Together [Online Image] Available at: <http://one.laptop.org/stories/nicaragua-community-learning-together> [Accessed 1 November 2015]

Image 05. OLPC. (2011) Rwanda: Transforming Society Through Education [Online Image] Available at: <http://one.laptop.org/stories/rwanda-transforming-society-through-education> [Accessed 1 November 2015]

Image 06. OLPC. (2008) Nepal: Children Down Every Path [Online Image] Available at: <http://one.laptop.org/stories/nepal-children-down-every-path> [Accessed 1 November 2015]

Image 07. Roundabout Water Solutions. (2010) Children Playing PlayPumps [Online Image] Available at: <http://www.playpumps.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Copy-of-Kids-at-play-original-900x500.jpg> [Accessed 17 November 2015]

Image 08. Kain, A. (2009) Child Drinking Water from the PlayPumps [Online Image] Available at: <http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/playpump2.JPG> [Accessed 13 November 2015]

Image 09. MediaMolecule (2010) Children Playing PlayPumps with Water Tank in the Backdrop [Online Image] Available at: <http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/PlayPump-1000.jpg> [Accessed 11 November 2015] Edited Photo: Ziqq, N. (2016) PlayPumps Gives Us Zero Water

Image 10. On The Up (2011) Trevor Field stands proudly infront of his PlayPumps. [Online Image] Available at: <http://www.ontheup.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/IMG_33623.jpg> [Accessed 11 November 2015]

Image 16. Cavalcante, L. (2010) Winning entry ‘Real Time Chat’ by Layla Cavalcante. Design for the First World Competition. [Online Image] Available at: <http://www.layloca.com/Design-For-The-First-World> [Accessed 21 November 2015]

Image 17. Brinson, K. (2016) Portrait of Blake Mycoskie [Online Image] Available at: <http://kendrickbrinson.com/blakemycoskie/> [Accessed 10 January 2016]

Image 18. Kai, G. (2009) Portrait of Nicholas Negroponte [Online Image] Available at: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NNegoponte_USNA_20090415.jpg> [Accessed 3 November 2015]

Image 19. Shamengo (2013) Portrait of Trevor Field [Online Image] Available at: <http://www.shamengo.com/media/images/conf_widel/3089.jpg> [Accessed 17 November 2015]

Image 20. Design Says Hello (2014) Instagram Collage [Online Image] Available at: <https://www.instagram.com/designsayshello/> [Accessed 27 November 2015]

Image 11. TOMS (2010) Blake Mycoskie fits an Argentinian child with his company’s 1 millionth pair of donated shoes [Online Image] Available at: <http://wrcb.images.worldnow.com/images/24954713_BG1.jpg> [Accessed 17 November 2015]

Image 12. Lane, D. (2010) Child with a pair of TOMS [Online Image] Available at: <https://www.flickr.com/photos lanedavis/5015732752/> [Accessed 11 November 2015]

Image 13. The Telegraph (2015) TOMS gives away shoes in 60 countries and works with 100 NGOs to distribute donations [Online Image] Available at: <http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03012/Toms_Shoes_3012950b.jpg> [Accessed 11 November 2015] Edited Photo: Ziqq, N. (2016) Start Something That Works!

Image 14. TOMS Shoes (2011-2015) A pair of red stripe TOMS Shoes [Online Image] Available at: < http://www.toms.co.uk/men/red-stripe-mens-university-classics> [Accessed 27 December 2015]

Image 15. Vallejo, C. (2010) Design for the First World [Online Image] Available at: <https://ksr-ugc.imgix.net/projects/3736/photo-original.jpg?v=1397754558&w=1536&h=1152&fit=crop&auto=format&q=92&s=7e9790c2442ae1ae307fc2d76bfdf092> [Accessed 21 November 2015]

List of Illustrations

“When things fail we automatically look at ways in which we can improve what we are doing. The key to innovation or an innovative approach lies in the speedy recognition of failure and developing systems to report it, manage it and learn from it.” - Martin Murphy, Failure Consulting. (Floyd D., 2013)

00 PREFACE

00 Preface

00

‘Design Says Hello’ (DSH), is an initiative that provides an educational and inspirational platform for fellow creative in Singapore founded in 2010. Over the years it has evolved into a community of people who believes and strongly advocates Humanitarian and Social Design with the aim to bring a new perspective on Design in Singapore. (Aziz A., 2013)

As the founder of DSH, I was invited to speak at User Experience Singapore (UXSG) Conference held at Microsoft in early 2014 where I had the opportunity to share with the audience about a potential humanitarian design project in Cambodia. I received a roaring response from the audience and a pat on the back from many of the white-collars present, which then resulted in an unexpected backing of a proposed quarter-million dollars came DSH’s way.

I was thrilled and could not wait to make an impact in people’s lives. My dream of changing the world was soon becoming a reality. I assembled a team of architects and designers who shared the same dream of using design as a catalyst for change and eventually flew over to Cambodia.

Over the course of a week, we connected with two well-established local organisations; ‘Friends International’ and ‘Caring for Cambodia’ and learnt that the situation on the ground was much more complex and complicated than we could ever imagined. The traumatic history of the Khmer Rouge, the government, the overpopulated presence of external non-profit organisations, the child exploitation, poverty, infrastructure etc. were all interlinked in a web of highly wicked problems.

But at the same time, we saw first hand how the two local organisations were equipping and empowering impoverished women with life skills. Helping them to integrate back into society as a valuable member of the community. There were many other amazing works by the local organisations that were tackling real and complex problems - such as children being used as a tourist attraction, amongst other things.

More importantly through the many conversations with the locals and organisations, I learnt that the country is beginning to take ownership of solving their own problems. Though the money was enticing, I eventually turned down the offer. Many felt I should have taken the money and worry later, and to some, I was deemed a failure.

Which leads me to this thesis. In many aspects, it is a manifestation of my explanation to why I chose to walk away from the project. More specifically, this thesis aims to take an in-depth look at past failures, such as project ‘One Laptop Per Child’ (OLPC), ‘PlayPumps’ and ‘TOMS Shoes’ as means of discerning the techniques and tactics in the field of humanitarian design and social innovation in the developing world. It will also question what one must take into account in order to cater to the needs of its target community.

Successes can easily become a model for more of the same, whereas failure offers a platform for discussion and debate about what went wrong and what could have been avoided. In addition, this thesis aims to use the lessons from past failures to propose actions for the future.

01 INTRODUCTION

“A wicked problem is a social or cultural problem that is difficult or impossible to solve for as many as four reasons: incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large economic burden, and the interconnected nature of

these problems with other problems.”– (Kolko J., 2012, p.10)

Image 01. Portrait of Jon Kolko (Valle E., 2012)

01 Introduction

02

Wicked Problems

PROBLEMS - the world is filled with so many of them that its status has been elevated to a highly wicked one. (Kolko J., 2012) Humanity is coming to grips with the limits of the planet and with the rise of global issues such as climate change, is pulling countries together (e.g. signing a new climate agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions by 2030) to address these issues and to become more responsible for the future of our planet. (United Nations Environment Programme, 2015)

At the United Nations (UN) 69th General Assembly Session, UN announced a new set of 17 sustainable goals that seek to address economic, social and environmental issues such as eradicating poverty, achieving gender equality, combating climate change, building resilient infrastructure, promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and fostering innovation – outlined in the UN Sustainable Development Agenda (UN, 2015, p.14). These goals set out by the UN are indicators of the global issues humanity faces today and the hope we maintain for achieving a better tomorrow.

Rise of Social Innovation

“2015 is the Time for Global Action” (UN, 2015) and as world leaders come together in an attempt to address global and complex issues from the top-down, a new generation of social actors (Manzini E. 2015, p.1) is on the rise, addressing their daily struggles from the bottom-up. Such examples of these social actors are the farmers in Liuzhou, Guangxi province (China) setting up Ainonghui a farmers’ association that produce and deliver organic food to their communities which introduces a sustainable lifestyle in the city. (Manzini E. 2015, p.10) This is one of the many examples of initiatives started from the bottom-up, where communities devise their own solutions through collaboration, promoting a new, big wave of social innovation. (Manzini E. 2015, p4)

Social innovation defined as “new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs and create new social relationships and collaborations. In other words they are innovations that are both good for society and enhance society’s capacity to act.” (Murray R., Caulier-Grice J., Mulgan G., 2010, p.3)

The rise of the Internet and a digital, globally connected workforce dramatically increases the potential for ordinary citizens to make a difference - rides alongside the big wave of social innovation.

Examples are the likes of social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other online avenues which are helping these social good movements to “go viral” by helping to spread the word through the net. (Mashable UK, 2015)

“Design for social innovation is on the rise. Design was never divorced from its social uses and impacts, but it is now moving into a fundamentally new stage. After a long period in which design was predominantly focused on functionality, form and aesthetics, we now witness a growing interest in applying design to creating social value” – (Schwarz M. & Krabbendam D., 2013, p.12)

Era of Sustainism

In this new era of sustainism (Schwarz M. & Elffers J., 2010) designers have turned their attention increasingly towards social issues. (Schwarz M. & Krabbendam D., 2013, p.14) Projects such as ‘One Laptop Per Child’ (OLPC) brought technology to enhance education and the learning experience in the developing world. Project ‘PlayPump’ brought a fun way to bring water to rural communities in South Africa. While ‘TOMS Shoes’ provided shoes for children in need.

These projects also showcased the shift in thinking of designers. Over the recent decade we had the emergence of Design Thinking (Brown T., 2008), Human-Centred Design (IDEO, 2009) and User Experience Design - evidently showcasing how designers have evolved to approach the complexity of the world by placing users at the core of their thinking and resolutions. Moving away from the old traditional approach where it prides on exclusivity (Wærn R. & Wingårdh G., 2015) design is now moving towards a more interdisciplinary, collaborative, participatory and inclusive approach. (Murray R., Caulier-Grice J., Mulgan G., 2010, p.3)

FORWARD - Much has been said about the future, goals, trends, the rise of this, the wave of that, and the glorification of the advancement in technology as humanity takes a step forward in addressing these highly wicked problems – but not much has been said about the past, the fall of this or the crash of that. “Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.” - Albert Einstein. As we “hope for tomorrow” and “live for today”, this thesis aims to learn from yesterday and to continue to question some of the steps humanity is taking towards building a better tomorrow.

02 BACKLASH OF DESIGN INTERVENTION


One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) was a project that was funded and sponsored by MIT Media Lab, Pentagram, Continuum and fuseproject (Nussbaum B., 2010) with an ambitious dream of using technology, in the form of laptops, to enhance education and the learning experience in the developing world.

OLPC is based on constructionist theories of learning pioneered by Professor Seymour Papert, one of the early pioneers of Artificial Intelligence and internationally recognised as the seminal thinker about ways in which computers can change learning. (MIT, 2007)

Constructivist theory is descried as a methodology that promotes the act of “self-motivated, self-directed learning to begin a lifelong quest for new skills and knowledge.” Teachers adapt a new role as a facilitator by engaging and guiding their students in exploration and discovery to move away from the traditional memorisation and repetition drills. (OLPC, 2009)

In January 2005, Nicholas Negroponte, a professor at MIT and the founder of OLPC presented the idea and dreams of the $100 laptop at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. (Lagace M., 2007) The noble cause was well received and was strongly endorsed by UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan later that year at the World Summit on Information Society in Tunisia. (UN Press Release, 2005)

“But perhaps most important is the true meaning of ‘One Laptop Per Child’. This is not just a matter of giving a laptop to each child, as if bestowing on them some magical charm. The magic lies within, within each child, within each scientist, scholar or just-plain-citizen-in-the-making. This initiative is meant to bring it forth into the light of day.” UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan (2005).

Big Dreams

OLPC were ambitious as they set out to produce and distribute over 5-10 million laptops in the first run to large developing countries. With the support of the UN they signed a Memorandum of Understanding in January 2006 with the Head of the UN Development Program Kemal Dervis (UN News Centre, 2006) who said, “We are delighted to be part of this venture, which has the potential to break through the digital divide between rich countries and poor countries.”

For a $100 laptop to exist in 2005 was quite a feat. Negroponte broke down the basics of laptop economics in his TED Talk and how OLPC have managed to keep its cost price at the $100 mark. He summarised that 60% of the cost of every laptop goes to sales, marketing, distribution and profit. OLPC however, has none of that to factor in. They sell it at cost price and “Government distributes it through the school systems like a textbook.” (Negroponte N., 2006, 8 mins.)

Negroponte further explained that part of the laptop economics was also to have it manufactured with high demand, in millions, so that cost for manufacturing can be kept a low due to its huge scale. The plan for that was to get big developing countries such as Brazil, India and China to sign an order agreement for these laptops.

Challenges & Setbacks

However four years after its first inception in 2005, OLPC only managed to scratch the surface with the numbers and only had a tiny presence in those countries. It was reported that the announced agreements with presidents in Argentina, Brazil, Libya, Nigeria and Thailand for one million laptops each in 2006 were all cancelled. Brazil and Libya went with other computing options in smaller increments while Argentina, Nigeria and Thailand distanced themselves from OLPC when their presidents changed. (OLPC, 2009)

“There is something going on in design – something powerful. People have realised a simple truth: design is a legitimate way to change the world.”

– (Blossom E., 2011)

02/01

Imag

e 02.

Mad

agas

car:

Star

ting

with

the Y

oung

est (

OLP

C, 2

007)

02 Backlash of Design Intervention


04

OLPC faced setbacks rolling out millions of these laptops as Ministers of Education from these countries were not convinced that constructivism through the laptops for every child would be more effective than traditional educational models. Countries were also not allowed to test these laptops, which made it even more difficult. (OLPC, 2009)

“This is not something you have to test, the days of pilot projects are over. When people say we would like to test 3-4000 of these in our country to see how it works. Screw you. Go to the back of the line and someone else will do it and then when you figure out this works you can join as well.” (Negroponte N., 2006, 5 mins.)

Failure to Implement, Support and Impact

But even when the laptop did land in the developing countries, OLPC pedagogy was causing its own downfall, as they did not provide ministries with the teacher training resources to move from their current practices to their constructivism model. “Teachers didn’t understand how to use the laptops in their lessons; some resented them. Kids like the laptops, but they don’t actually seem to help them learn.” (Shaikh A., 2009)

There was a huge gap and oversight in thinking about implementation in the countries. There were also no local technological support or maintenance provided. OLPC claimed that, as part of the constructivism model, “the children themselves would intuitively be able to provide national tech support - as the machines will be simple enough that students can train themselves and solve any glitches that arise.” (Stecklow S. & Bandler J., 2007)

In 2012, the first randomised evaluation of the One Laptop Per Child came out as a working paper, using data collected after 15 months of implementation in 319 primary schools in rural Peru. In short, the findings concluded that,

“The intervention generated a substantial increase in computer use both at school and at home. Results indicate limited effects on academic achievement but positive impacts on cognitive skills and competences related to computer use. Cognitive abilities may arise through using the programs included in the laptops, given that they are aimed at improving thinking processes. However, to improve learning in Math and Language, there is a need for high-quality instruction.” (Cristia J., Ibarraran P., S Cueto C., Santiago A., & Severin E., 2012, p.20)

Fast-forward to 2014, OLPC declared themselves dead.

“OLPC is dead. In its place, is the reality that technology is a force in education, and we all need to be vigilant about when, where, and how it’s used” (Vota W., 2014)

Losing Sight of the Big Dream

Apart from all these challenges and setbacks, what many overlook in conversation about the entire OLPC saga is Nicholas Negroponte himself.

“From my point of view, if the world were to have 30 million laptops made by competitors in the hands of children at the end of next year, that to me would be a great success,” said Negroponte in an interview with The Wall Street Journal (2007). However, his reactions to Intel’s version of a low-cost computer ‘Classmate PC’ and Microsoft’s efforts in offering developing countries a $3 software package that includes Windows, a student version of Microsoft Office and educational programs, seems to suggest otherwise.

In an interview with CBS News (2007), Negroponte blamed Intel for trying to drive his non-profit out of business. On another interview with BBC News (2008), he again accused Intel of “underhand sales tactics and trying to block contracts” to buy his machines due to Intel sharing a similar goal of bringing computers to children in the developing world. Eventually Intel joined OLPC in its venture but they soon separated after a clash in philosophical and long-term goal differences. (Fildes J., 2008)

And when Negroponte heard how Microsoft were offering developing countries a $3 software package - he again spoke out that the move was a direct response to his project, though Microsoft denies. (Stecklow S. & James Bandler J., 2007)

Chasing Numbers

At the end of it all, whether it is Intel, Microsoft or OLPC – numbers were what everyone was after. OLPC needed governments to order millions of the laptops tokeep manufacturing costs at a low due to its huge scale, whereas Intel and Microsoft saw an opportunity in the developing world. The only difference, one is non-profit whereas the other is for profit. Though consistently emphasised by OLPC that they see “children as their mission and not a market” the true impact of the laptop however is evident now – that it did not help. If so, proved to be very insignificant.

“Our results suggest that computers by themselves, at least as initially delivered by the OLPC program, do not increase achievement in curricular areas.” (Cristia J., Ibarraran P., S Cueto C., Santiago A., & Severin E., 2012, p.21)

But failing to acknowledge Negroponte’s effort and influence in the industry would be unfair and would out rightly so be a failure on our part to learn too. One Laptop Per Child may not have been successful in distributing their targeted millions of laptops globally nor have impacted education in terms of test scores and results, however, the intervention of OLPC in developing countries completely shook the tech industry, educational systems all over the world and governments, reminding everyone of what matters most; children.


06


Image 03. Original Photo: Gaza and Ramallah: Learning as a Community (OLPC, 2012) Edited Photo: Laptops Failed Us In Learning (Ziqq, N. 2016)

Post-Colonial Eyes

The aftermath of One Laptop Per Child placed many other social innovations in the developing world such as the works from Project H Design, IDEO an the Acumen Fund under a microscope. (Nussbaum B., 2010) Which led to a heated debate kicked off by Bruce Nussbaum, the author of Creative Intelligence 2013 and Professor of Innovation and Design at Parsons The New School of Design. (The Editors, The Design Observer Group, 2010)

Nussbaum pointed out in an article he wrote on Fast Company in July 2010, with its headline of a topic, “Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism? Does Our Desire to Help Do More Harm Than Good?” - that local communities more specifically in the Asia region have resistance with the intervention from the West. He talked about two experiences that echoed this.

The first was when he attended ICSID World Design Congress 2009 in Singapore where he recalls the audience’s reaction to Emily Pilloton of Project H Design’s speech about the power of design to the obligation to do good - a polite applause accompanied with a lot of loud grumbling from the mostly Asian designer audience, “What makes her think she can just come in and solve our problems?”

While the second was a talk held at Parsons School of Design by IDIOM Design, one of India’s top design consultancies. Kishoreji Biyani, an Indian businessman and key investor in IDIOM, groused that there was

“a better, Indian way of solving the problem” when he learnt that Acumen Fund, IDEO & Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were teaming up to design better ways of delivering safe drinking water to Indian villagers. Biyani’s remarks caught Nussbaum and the audience by surprise, leaving Nussbaum to ponder,

“So what’s going on? Did what I see in these two occasions represent something wider and deeper? Is the new humanitarian design coming out of the U.S. and Europe being perceived through post-colonial eyes as colonialism? Are the American and European designers presuming too much in their attempt to do good?” (Nussbaum B., 2010)

Nussbaum further illustrated his point in the article with the example of One Laptop Per Child. He highlighted how the Indian establishment locked OLPC out, as the program did not include those responsible for education in the country (such as parents, teachers to policy-makers) as part of the conversation. As a result of the exclusion, the Indian establishment perceived the effort as “inappropriate technological colonialism”. (Nussbaum B., 2010) Nussbaum claims that OLPC broke the most important design rule of failing to design from the bottom-up, instead adopted a top-down approach. (Nussbaum B., 2007) It was clear that Nussbaum was pointing out the disconnectedness of the designers from the places they were serving, both geographically and culturally. (Pilloton E., 2010)

Image 04. Nicaragua: A Community Learning Together (OLPC, 2012)

*HUMANITARIAN

DESIGN THE NEW IMPERIALISM?

Disconnectedness

But even though the article was seemingly written in the form of a reflection, Bruce Nussbaum’s article made its round through the blogosphere creating a firestorm. (Design Observer Group, 2010)

Jon Kolko founder and director of Austin Centre for Design, amongst many in the field responded that, Nussbaum completely overlooked and seem to have skipped the Heideggerian approach and the work by Dreyfus and Dreyfus – all of whom “cast humanitarian design as a form of value understanding and translation, rather than value application” as suggested with the imperialist ideology. Kolko pointed out as well the work of Jan Chipchase of frog design, who emphasised the importance of immersion-based ethnography as a critical part of the design process - to first understand before designing. (Kolko J., 2010)

Emily Pilloton of Project H Design responds to Nussbaum on Fast Company (2010). Pilloton agrees and acknowledges that there are designers who “swoop in with their capes and ‘design thinking’ to save poor folks.” But argues that Nussbaum’s picture of humanitarian design is skewed and incomplete. Leaving out other players in the field who just like her, are working in their own backyard in rural America tackling problems such as the broken educational system. She claims that Nussbaum “greatly oversimplifies the serendipitous chaos that is humanitarian design.” (Pilloton E., 2010) “It draws a line, mostly defined by the developed and developing worlds, and says ‘if you’re here, and you work there, you’re an imperialist.’ Nothing is so cut and dried, particularly in a corner of the design world that is so new, so misunderstood, and so much still a work in progress, that some days the best we can do is just to keep trucking.” (Pilloton E., 2010)

Cameron Sinclair of Architecture of Humanity weighed in the debate with Nussbaum. Sinclair having had experience working in the field over many years argues that the ‘western intervention’ has now evolved into “a complex global network of multi-disciplinary, multi-cultural and diverse teams” that takes on the bottom-up approach of working collaboratively with communities on the ground. A view that is far different from the view of ‘disconnectedness’ as painted by Nussbaum. (Sinclair C., 2010)

But amidst the debate, perhaps there is some truth in Bruce Nussbaum’s article after all. For it was not too long ago, that a classic example of ‘disconnectedness’ between designers and the end users had dire repercussions on a tiny village in Mozambique, Southern Africa with the introduction of a merry-go-round water pump system; The PlayPumps.


08

Humanitarian Design The New Imperialism?

Image 05. Rwanda: Transforming Society Through Education (OLPC, 2011)

Image 06. Nepal: Children Down Every Path (OLPC, 2008)

PlayPumps

It was reported in 2005 that an estimated five million people did not have access to clean drinking water across the rural villages in South Africa. (Bennnion J., 2005) But a neat solution to the water crisis first emerged in 1994 in the remote Masinga district of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. (Erasmus J., 2008)

British-born, South-African migrant, social entrepreneur and retired advertising executive, Trevor Field, originally came across the PlayPump idea at an agriculture show. He saw great potential in the merry-go-round water pump system and went into business with the inventor, where he further developed it and eventually patented it. (Hayes S., 2014, 3mins.)

The idea was simple. Get children to play and spin the merry-go-round and it will pump water up into a 2,500-litre water storage tank of which links back down to a faucet where one can then have access to clean drinkable water. ( Janine E, 2008)

In Africa, young girls are responsible for collecting water and on average walks five kilometres per day fetching water, making them to turn up late for class and missing valuable school time. (Longwe B., 2014, 1min.) PlayPumps, introduced mainly in schools where children would congregate to play, was to address these problems - save precious time fetching water and making the collection of water a lot easier and more fun.(Field T., 2010, 30secs.)

Shot to Fame

The PlayPumps first drew media attention when then President Nelson Mendala visited a school with a PlayPump system and it later on went on to win a World Bank Development Marketplace Award in 2000. (Erasmus J., 2008)

Reporter Amy Costello first reported the innovative solution as a radio story and went on an assignment to cover the story as a web video for FRONTLINE/World in October 2005. The story was so popular that FRONTLINE/World decided to broadcast the story the following May on PBS. (Costello A., 2005)

That was when the little story of the ingenious invention from South Africa gained massive support from America. In September 2006, First Lady Laura Bush, alongside former President Bill Clinton and philanthropists Jean and Steve Case pledged $16.4 million in funding to expand PlayPumps across sub-Saharan Africa at the annual Clinton Global Initiative Conference. (Costello A., 2006)

In that same month, famous Hip-Hop artist JAY Z further hyped the merry-go-round water system, as he raised funds and awareness on the water crisis. He went on donating $250,000 from concert proceeds to PlayPumps International with the ambition to build 1,000 PlayPumps by the end of his tour. (Bennion J. & Reinhard Cate R., 2010)

Trevor Field began expanding his venture and in December that same year set up PlayPumps International (PPI), but stepped down from the non-profit to avoid conflict of interest as he ran his two for-profit organisations ‘Roundabout Outdoor Pty Ltd’ and ‘Outdoor Fabrication and Steelworks’ – companies that manufacture, install and maintain the PlayPumps. (Bennion J. & Reinhard Cate R., 2010)

The added hype and media coverage paved way to many more streams of donors. With the huge funding and support, PlayPumps International aimed to install 4,000 PlayPumps water systems in schools and communities in 10 countries to bring clean water to up to 10 million people across Sub-Saharan Africa by 2010. (UNICEF, 2007)

02/02

Image 07. Children playing PlayPumps (Roundabout Water Solutions, 2010)

Not So Merry

But as the years went by, problems started to creak in and the “merry-go-round” was no longer merry. Reporter Amy Costello decided to head back to South Africa with a follow up story three years later to investigate of the rumours she heard about the PlayPumps. She soon discovered that things were not as pretty as it used to be. In her follow up story film entitled “Southern Africa: Troubled Water” (2010) Costello shed light on a small village in rural area of Mozambique where she reported a group of women disappointed and frustrated by the sudden intervention of the PlayPumps which replaced their trusty old hand-pumps.

One of the women from the group, Regina Piedade remarked, “No. We had no information. They came here with stone and cement, and built this well, and fixed this tank. The community leader said we should start getting water here”. (Frontline/World, 2010, 10 mins.)

But what was even more alarming was that the PlayPumps had not been working for the past six months and received no response from the repair line

which they had tirelessly called and texted. Regina Piedade and 150 families had to travel to a nearby village 40 minutes walk away to collect water. The repercussions were evident as people swarmed the nearby village’s water pump causing stress and tension amongst villagers. (Costello A., 2010)

“We get very upset when we see people coming from there, because it’s very crowded here. The PlayPumps is not good,” remarked one of the women from the nearby village. (Frontline/World, 2010, 17 mins.)

The PlayPump evolved from a smart home-grown idea to a donor-pleasing, top-down solution that simply did not fit many of the target communities. (Freschi L., 2010) In an evaluation report conducted by UNICEF released in October 2007, the many disadvantages and failures of the PlayPumps are highlighted. Such as embarrassed women needing to spin the merry-go-round for approximately four hours continuously to fill the 2,500-litre tank when children were not available.

The report also demonstrated how the PlayPumps had inadequate community consultation and sensitisation. It was highlighted that in a small number of communities, community members continued to pay the village water committee user fees for the operation and maintenance of the PlayPumps, even though this was no longer necessary. It also pointed out how the implementation strategy “misses out on compliance with national water policy requirements, such as community ownership issues, which are prevalent in the targeted countries.” (UNICEF, 2007)

In summary, the reports outlined the technical and safety issues of PlayPumps, the inadequate community consultation and empowerment, and the lack of transparency demonstrated by PlayPumps International and the private sector partners in South Africa, in regards to the cost of equipment and services as well as the funds raised from advertisements. (UNICEF, 2007, p.14-15) The report concluded that the implementation strategy requires “serious and urgent revisions” as it contravened several Government policy directives and water sector development principles. (UNICEF, 2007, p.14)

10


PlayPumps

Image 08. Child drinking water from the PlayPumps (Kain A., 2009)

Image 09. Original Photo: Children playing PlayPumps with water tank in the backdrop. (MediaMolecule, 2010) Edited Photo: PlayPumps Gives Us Zero Water (Ziqq, N. 2016)

Finger-Pointing

In the face of all these problems and challenges that arose, reporter Amy Costello’s follow-up film documentary “Southern Africa: Troubled Water” (2010) reported how there was a lack of ownership by the stakeholders themselves, as no one wanted to take responsibility of the problems that were on the ground. In the film, Amy Costello came full circle with the man who started it all, Trevor Field, to hear his side of the story.

“The roll out was a bit frustrating because we wanted to try to hit target. We wanted everybody to be extremely happy. Had loads of money coming in, and wanted to get out there and put the $16 million to use and do 4,000 pumps,” grumbled a seemingly tensed Trevor Field. (2010, 18 mins.)

And when confronted with the story of Regina Piedade and the angry mob of women from the village in Mozambique, Trevor Field claims that he had told ‘Save The Children’ that the site for installation would not work and further explained how they had tried countless times fixing the pumps but it just would not work. Field claims that he had reported the issue to PlayPumps International, Save The Children and the PlayPumps office in Washington but received no response from any of them for months with regards to what they should do. (2010, 19 mins.)

“In the meantime there is a community with 150 families who don’t have drinking water for six months. While everybody is busy pointing fingers,” remarked a very displeased Amy Costello. (2010, 20 mins.)

Eventually in March 2010, PlayPumps International shut down and was turned over to non-profit organisation specialising in water provision ‘Water for People’, as part of their “portfolio of technologies from which communities can choose” (Freschi L., 2010)

The PlayPumps story in many ways concluded in a strikingly similar way to that of One Laptop Per Child – both driven by an ambitious dream, both blinded by dollars and numbers, both pressured to please funders and stakeholders, ultimately losing sight of the real situation on the ground leaving the end users in both cases left with either a broken laptop or water pump. And in both instances, the interventions were rendered ineffective and a waste of resources.

But why? Why is the ‘disconnectedness’ as painted by Bruce Nussbaum so evident in both cases? Why do the founders in both cases fail to listen to the cries of the people they are designing for? Is the ‘disconnectedness’ a form of suggest imperialism and also partly the notion of ‘I know better’ and about ‘me the designer’ rather than ‘them the end user’? Is it because humanitarian design is part motivated by ego gratification? (Savio N., 2015)

12


PlayPumps

“It’s an uncomfortable and therefore little-discussed fact of humanitarian design that many of us are in part motivated by ego gratification. We get a thrill from working in extreme conditions, we earn social capital, we feel good about doing good.” (Savio N., 2015)

Big-Ego Design

Ego in design is nothing new. For the past century, designers have always seen themselves as sole incumbents in the field, operating by distancing themselves. (Manzini E., 2015, p.1-2) As described more eloquently as ‘Big-ego Design’ by Ezio Manzini, founder of DESIS, an international network on design for social innovation and sustainability in his book ‘Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation’ - is a “left over from past century’s demiurgic vision, in which design was the act of particularly gifted individuals capable of imprinting their personal stamp on artefacts and environments.” (Manzini E., 2015, p.66)

Manzini acknowledges that it may still mean something in very specific design fields but warns this way of thinking as highly dangerous when it comes to complex social problems. (Manzini E., 2015, p.66) Especially when the design decisions themselves are motivated by designers’ egos blinding them from the real needs and conditions on the ground. (Savio N., 2015)

My Dreams My Solutions

As reflected in the story of One Laptop Per Child, Nicholas Negroponte got very personal and turned sour when he found out Intel and Microsoft had joined in the larger effort of introducing technology as educational tools in developing countries. It was a great step forward in realising Negroponte’s ultimate dream of reaching out to millions of kids; the only twist in the story is that, it will no longer solely be through his machines.

“On the other hand, a socially responsible not-for-profit leader should surely be pleased when the commercial sector is motivated to bring its resources to bear on the problem at hand, and prospectively accelerate the distribution of low-cost personal computers to more people much faster than would have occurred otherwise.” (Lagace M., 2007)

Even if Negroponte had managed to realise his dreams of distributing millions of low-cost computers to children all over the world – it was still only his dreams. Not the kids. As Bruce Nussbaum pointed out, if only Negroponte had spend time in the villages and build from the bottom up, he would have discovered that there was little need for the laptops. Instead, as much research has shown, cell phones were far more popular in the developing world as means to connect to the Internet. (Nussbaum B., 2007)

“OLPC was a high-profile deal of one man evangelising top government officials on how he can save their poor children and, in the end, these politicians abandoned him.” (Nussbaum B., 2007)

*THE UGLY SIDE OF

HUMANITARIAN EFFORTS: EGO

GRATIFICATION& GREED

14


The Ugly Side of Humanitarian Efforts

My Solutions, My Monopoly

Trevor Field on the other hand, having had patented the PlayPumps (Hayes S., 2014) and having ventured on to set up two for-profit companies ‘Roundabout Outdoor Pty Ltd’ and ‘Outdoor Fabrication and Steelworks’ in charge of manufacturing, implementing and maintaining these PlayPumps - had created for what is called a ‘natural monopoly’. A ‘natural monopoly’ as defined by Investopedia.com, “seized to exist when maximum efficiency of production and distribution in an industry is maximized with one supplier.” Since there is no competition for the supplier, this causes the monopolist to overcharge and provide an inferior service. (Investopedia.com)

UNICEF highlighted in the evaluation report on the PlayPumps that the cost of each PlayPumps (at approximately $14,000) had increased over a couple of years from its previous $6,500 as a huge disadvantage, especially when there are several cheaper alternatives to the water crisis. (UNICEF, 2007)

It was also highlighted in the report that the dramatic increase in cost was not explained to clients. “UNICEF had asked PlayPumps International and Roundabout Outdoor to give a breakdown of costs for the implementation bundle but they failed to do so.” (UNICEF, 2007)

“As a final thought, there are 375,000 hand pumps in Africa, but more than 150,000 of these are abandoned due to poor maintenance or poor construction. The solution, therefore, isn’t so much about aid but the correct usage money. The aid industry has become ever more market driven, a trend accelerated by an increasing tendency for the private sector to profit on the back of charity giving. The great tragedy is that by being drawn to easily marketable gimmicks, more appropriate and sustainable projects are in ever greater danger of being neglected.” (Chambers A., The Guardian, 2009)

The question is then, whom are we really helping other than ourselves? No surprise that Humanitarian Design has been questioned on in its true impact in changing the world, and whether it is indeed only “a movement by designers to fulfil their ego” (SDS Admin, 2012) Which leads us to the next story that started a whole entire ‘do-good’ movement with the intervention of a unique Argentinian-inspired shoe; TOMS Shoes.

Image 10. Trevor Field Stands proudly infront of his PlayPumps (On The Up, 2011)

TOMS Shoes

Blake Mycoskie an American entrepreneur came up with a revolutionary buy-one-give-one (BOGO) business model with a dream of providing shoes to children in need. It all started in 2006, when Mycoskie was on vacation in Argentina and first came across the unique Argentinian national shoe: the alpargata, a soft, casual canvas shoe worn by almost everyone in the city to farms. (Mycoskie B., 2011) Through a meeting with an American woman in a café, Mycoskie got to know of her volunteering effort in a shoe drive. He later learnt about the many kids that lacked shoes and it did not take long before the entrepreneur connected two and two together. Eventually TOMS shoes came to being.

“I’m going to start a shoe company that makes a new kind of alpargata. And for every pair I sell, I’m going to give a pair of new shoes to a child in need. There will be no percentages and no formulas.” (Mycoskie B., 2011)

TOMS shoes gained massive popularity through the fashion, lifestyle and entertainment industry when Booth Moore, Los Angeles Times’s fashion critic first wrote about TOMS in May 2006. The brand story was later picked up by Vogue with a feature in its October 2006 issue with Karl Lagerfeld a well-known designer, proclaiming as an early-adopting fan. (Chu J., 2013) Subsequently, TOMS got featured in ‘People’, ‘Elle’, and ‘Teen Vogue’ magazine.

Looking Cool Doing Good

The great combination of a charitable story with a stylish design backed by the fashion, lifestyle and entertainment world, helped the brand further to gain the following of high profile celebrities, to college students and musicians. It connected with a whole spectrum of people who identified with the brand story, people who wanted to be part of a do-good movement. More importantly, people who wanted to display their personal authenticity through the casual footwear. (Poulos J., 2012)

In 2007, TOMS Shoes kicked off a huge event ‘One Day Without Shoes’ that encouraged people to go barefoot for a day to empathise with children around the world who do not have the luxury of a pair of shoes. (Veerasamy V., 2015) The event has been held annually around the world bringing the socially conscious together to raise awareness on the humanitarian issue – they call their movement ‘TOMS Tribe’. (http://www.toms.com/tribe)

TOMS encourages and supports their tribe with resources such as the ‘TOMS Tribe Guidebook’ for event, program, club, project ideas, info on Bulk order, and more. Materials are also provided for the ‘Super Fan’, parents and educators on their website making it easy to be a part of the movement. In 2015, TOMS ‘One Day Without Shoes’ annual event leveraged on social media platform ‘Instagram’ by encouraging people to share a photo of their bare feet. With every photo tagged, TOMS Shoes gave a pair of shoes to a child in need. (TOMS, 2015)

02/03

Image 11. Blake Mycoskie fits an Argentinian child with his company’s 1 millionth pair of donated shoes. (TOMS, 2010)

What Social Problem?

But what exactly is the issue that TOMS Shoes is trying to solve? In the documentary film “For Tomorrow: The TOMS Shoes Story” highlighted that “40% of the world’s people don’t have shoes. A child’s walk to get clean water can be miles. Cuts, infection and hookworm are prevented with shoes.” TOMS justifies its battle against shoeless-ness largely from a public health perspective. (Favini J., 2013)

However, an article written on the second annual ‘One Day Without Shoes’ by Fast Company’s Co.Exist, Cheryl Davenport (2012) thought otherwise. Davenport pointed out two existential flaws about the company:

1. The TOMS buy-one-give-one model does not actually solve a social problem.2. TOMS isn’t designed to build the economies of developing countries. It’s designed to make western consumers feel good.

Davenport argues that the model is only a temporary solution in a sea of complex problems in need of a long-term economic development, health, sanitation and education solutions. While her second point, pointed out how the brand started only because it felt like a good idea for a good cause but did not consult with the villagers or experts about what they needed to lift them out of poverty. (Davenport C., 2012)

Instead Blake Mycoskie consulted his female friends over dinner where he shared about his trip to Argentina, the shoe drive, and the idea of TOMS. “You don’t always need to talk with experts; sometimes the consumer, who just might be a friend or acquaintance, is your best consultant.” (Mycoskie B. 2011)

Undercutting Local Economy

Seemingly oblivious to the real problem on the ground, TOMS goody two shoes, were creating more problems and was labelled as another ‘White Man’s burden’ (Favini J., 2013) The millions of donated shoes were falling in the footsteps of the many donated second-hand clothing projects around the developing world, where countries’ textile industries collapsed due to the large amount of donations. (Wadhams N., 2010) “The goal is not to hurt the economy in these areas but to be an asset and to be a blessing to these people that otherwise wouldn’t have jobs.” remarked Ken Surritte, Founder of WaterIsLife.com. (Wadhams N., 2010)

The repercussions of TOMS interventions were hindering the economic growth and undercutting local producers. ( Joshua Keating J., 2013) It was reported that the donated shoes landed in local markets and were sold as goods instead. Blogger Gwen Mangine recalls her experience purchasing TOMS Shoes for her four kids on resale at her local market. (Mangine G., 2012) Mangine wondered about the ethical responsibility of the person receiving the donated shoes and whether there should be limitations on how the shoes are used. She illustrated her point with an example:

“What if a Haitian family here had 6 kids and so, therefore, received 6 pairs of shoes but all their kids already had shoes and one of them needed medication. Would it be unethical for them to sell the shoes to buy medicine?” (Mangine G., 2012)

16


TOMS Shoes

Image 12. Child with a pair of TOMS. (Lane D., 2010)

Leads us to the never-ending debate in the aid world with regards to ‘Bad Charity’ - unnecessary donations of things a community do not need. Vast body of research shows that foreign aid has had little impact especially in the economic growth in Africa. (Wadhams N., 2010)

A research study evaluating the impact of TOMS Shoes found that its donations had a negative impact on local economies. It was reported that researchers were “unable to find a way in which the shoes had much of a substantive impact on poor kids’ lives. There was no significant improvement in their school attendance or self-esteem.” Instead it was suggested that the shoes potentially made the kids to feel somewhat more reliant on external aid. (Wydick B., 2015)

“The long-term solution is not aid. It may seem cruel that aid should stop, but really it should,” says Rasna Warah, a Kenyan newspaper columnist and editor of the anthology Missionaries, Mercenaries and Misfits, a call to arms against aid. (Wadhams N., 2010)

While others, blames TOMS for being blind-sided and not being able to address the real problem. Scott Gilmore, CEO of the not-for-profit Building Markets, which works to boost local economies in post-conflict countries, says the problem of persistent poverty is “not a lack of shoes, but a lack of opportunity and a lack of jobs.” (Chu J., 2013)

Though Gilmore acknowledges TOMS in helping to

Image 13. Original Photo: TOMS gives away shoes in 60 countries and works with 100 NGOs to distribute donations (The Telegraph, 2015) Edited Photo: Start Something That Works! (Ziqq, N. 2016)

build awareness of poverty, its success however, sadly portrays the power of monetizing white guilt.

“How can we make ourselves feel better?” Gilmore asks. “This is the power of self-congratulatory smugness, of saying, ‘I’m better than you because I’m helping somebody.’ But the people who lose out are ironically the ones they say they’re trying to help.”

Temporary Solution

At the end of it all, TOMS has been criticised mainly for its cost-effectiveness, constantly questioned and challenged about its true impact on children and communities.

Critics argue that there are a number of more effective alternatives. (Favini J., 2013) Zac Mason a former Peace Corps volunteer, suggested donating the money for a pair of TOMS Shoes to a local public health organisation instead. Money donated could possibly eradicate hookworm incidence for decades compared to the couple year’s lifespan of a TOMS Shoe. (Mason Z., 2010)

As the shoes are only a temporary solution that will eventually wear out in a couple years, the children benefitting from TOMS “will be just as susceptible to the health and economic perils associated with bare feet as they were before.” (Davenport C., 2012)

TOMS Shoes may very well be classified as a classic example of Bruce Nussbaum’s ‘disconnectedness’. The arrival to the solution was not driven by an actual need of the community rather, seen as a business opportunity in the eyes of entrepreneur Blake Mycoskie. He writes in his book “Start Something That Matters” that he witnessed pockets of poverty after a few days of travelling from village to village. And for the first time saw “the real effects of being shoeless: the blisters, the sore, the infections.” (Mycoskie B., 2011)The key words to note here are ‘witness’ and ‘a few days’.

It has been said that Western designers see a country’s problem the way they want to see it and not necessarily through the eyes of the locals, the actual people they are designing for. (Kaye L., 2010) While others “feel folks from western countries are often condescending and patronizing; many believe that they have plenty of individuals in their countries who have the talent to address their most festering problems.” (Kaye L., 2010)

Is this a repeat of the grumblings heard by Bruce Nussbaum? “What makes him think that he can just come in and solve our problems?”


18

TOMS Shoes

Image 14. A pair of red TOMS Shoes

Design For The First World

In 2010, Carolina Vallejo a Bogota-born designer and educator from Colombia, launched Design for the First World (Dx1W), a competition in response to an assignment in her design class: to create an object on “Social Design” (Arieff A., 2010)

“Why would anyone assume that you could design something to solve a problem for the so-called Third World—a world you don’t know—in a week?” (Vallejo C., 2010)

In an interview with ‘The Daily Good: A Magazine for the Global Citizen’ (2010) Vallejo talked about the example of the ‘The Red Campaign’ and the ‘One Laptop Per Child’ and describes them as “paternalistic let’s produce unnecessary crap and throw it out projects” (Arieff A., 2010)

She applauds One Laptop Per Child for recognising that there are other needs in communities other than “water and medicine”. And followed up with a harsh criticism, “the whole project is nothing more than a generalised remedy that ignores particularities…who cares if there’s no electricity! Lets give computers to the children! It makes me sick.” (Vallejo C., 2010)

Vallejo described Dx1W as a competition that seeks to draw attention to—and dissolve—the dualistic, ‘Us’ versus ‘Them’ dynamic that persists in the field of Humanitarian Design. It completely flips the role of “the designer” and “users”. This allows both parties to see what works and what did not. Vallejo highlights that the present model of the First World is failing the Third World. She admits as well that the developing world should be more aware of what is going on in the other

*DESIGN FOR THE

FIRST WORLD

The winning entry, ‘Real Time Chat’ by Brazilian designer Layla Cavalcante seeks to address the problem of anti-social behavior created by wearing headphones. She created a magnetic patch that is pasted on headphones. The patch shows the availability chat status of the headphone user in real time. (E.g. Busy, Available, etc.) The project was awarded with USD$1000 cash. (Shelly K., 2011)

The competition raised similar questions as the ones Bruce Nussbaum raised in his debated-article:

“Do designers need to better see themselves through the eyes of the local professional and business classes who believe their countries are rising as the U.S. and Europe fall and wonder who, in the end, has the right answers? Might Indian, Brazilian and African designers have important design lessons to teach Western designers?” (Nussbaum B., 2010)

hemisphere as the problems faced in the First World are “all interlinked and has a direct impact on how life is going to be.”

In addition, Vallejo blames the developing world for “seeming too ready to hand over their fate to others unfamiliar with their reality.” (Arieff A., 2010)

It is our fault, she explains, “for critiquing ‘the system’ as if we (developing world) were not part of it. And this is scalable to planetary magnitudes. It is time that we all take responsibility and agency and become present and aware, and open our hearts and minds.” (Vallejo C., 2010)

The online competition invited fellow creatives with ideas to participate, with only two conditions: participants to be born in and live in a developing country and at least 13 years of age or older. Dx1W reportedly received 30 design submissions and interest from over 150 countries from Bangladesh to Mexico.

20


Design For The First World

Image 15. D

esign for the First World (Vallejo C

., 2010)

Imag

e 16.

Win

ning

entr

y ‘R

eal T

ime C

hat’

by L

ayla

Cav

alcan

te (2

010)

03 FOR BETTER OR WORSE?

“I knew it would be hard. But, yes, it proved even harder.”– Nicholas Negroponte, OLPC (Hatch D., 2009, p.30)

“It might have been a bit ambitious. But hey you got to dream big.”– Trevor Field, PlayPumps (Frontline/World., 2010, 21 mins.)

The hard part? “Giving, man,” Mycoskie says with a shake of his head. “Giving is hard.”- Blake Mycoskie, TOMS(Chu J. 2013)

Imag

e 17.

(Brin

son

K.,

2016

)

Image 18. (K

ai G., 2009)

Imag

e 19.

(Sha

men

go, 2

013)

Doing Good Is Hard. So Do It Right.

Be it providing access to education (One Laptop Per Child), access to clean water (PlayPumps) or providing fashionable healthcare solutions (TOMS Shoes) – all three founders agreed that it is hard to do good. But that should not stop people from continuing to aspire to make the world a better place. The field of Humanitarian Design is after all a growing industry, with loads of room for improvement and that “we should all keep trucking.” (Pilloton E., 2010)

But to “keep trucking” blindly would be regressive. ‘FAILFaire’ and event that celebrates and discussed failed projects in developing countries organised by UNICEF, reminds us that the process of “design is about trying, failing and trying again. It is an iterative process.” It is reported that organisations has a tendency to repeat the same mistakes over again as the culture of talking about failure is not widely accepted. (Bakić I., UNICEF, 2013)

“We talk a lot about not re-inventing the wheel – but maybe we should talk more about not re-doing the failures.” (Bakić I., UNICEF, 2013)

In all three stories, we learnt that we should always listen to the people on the ground. We should never lose sight of their needs, and to always work towards their needs and not ours. They should be our top priority above all things. As Emily Pilloton puts it:

“For all of us who consider ourselves part of the ‘design world,’ the issue is not of geography, but one of commitment.” (Pilloton E., 2010) If one is committed in serving others, his or her motivation will never change - always having a clear conscience of why they are doing what they are doing.

Solve The Correct Problem

On the get go, all three interventions were well received at the beginning – seen as a brilliant innovative solution and a cool idea. But Professor Donald Norman a cognitive scientist, and more famously known for coining the term “user experience” (Gube J., 2010) - reminds us that a seemingly brilliant solution to the wrong problem can be worse than no solution at all. Professor Norman encourages designer to solve the correct problem instead. (Norman D., 2013, p.218)

“Good designers never start by trying to solve the problem given to them: they start by trying to understand what the real issues are.” (Norman, D. 2013, p.218)

To get to the correct problem, Professor Norman suggested a technique called ‘root cause analysis’ where one “investigate an accident until the single underlying cause is found.” (Norman D., 2013, p.164-165) And suggested a line of questioning called the ‘Five Whys’ that slows down the design process and allows designers to reflect, question and be more aware of the problem they are addressing, without jumping the gun. (Norman D., 2013, p.164-165)

Localism

“Localism is the driving principle underpinning the Government’s changes to the policy framework for planning, housing, regeneration and economic growth.” (Royal Institute of British Architects [RIBA], 2013)

Victor Papanek known for “advocating socially, ecologically responsible design” (Wikipedia, 2014) shares in his second edition, completely revised book ‘Design for the Real World’ (1971), his experience of having worked in six developing countries over the span of eight years, >>

22

03 For Better or Worse?

>> “These experiences in Latin America, Africa, and Asia make me realise that the people of the Third World are more capable in solving their own design problems...Problems can now be solved in a better way by local designers and architects whose familiarity with local ways of living yields better and more appropriate solutions, rather than a quick fix leading to eventual disappointments.” (Papanek V., 1971, p.85)

Though written in the 1970s, Papanek views today are still being practiced by the 21st century design organisations such as ‘Architecture for Humanity’. In its surprising rebirth after its filed bankruptcy in 2015 (Ferro S., 2015) ‘Architecture for Humanity’ talked about “work done locally by local designers for their local communities” (Campbell-Dollaghan K., 2016) providing support to locals such as raising money and professional development. The works done by ‘Architecture for Humanity’ has positioned itself as a huge “role as a bastion of community-based architecture on a national level.” (Campbell-Dollaghan K., 2016)

Localism is after all described as a way to empower councils and communities “to have more say in the development process which is critical in driving change at a local level.” (RIBA, 2013)

Change Begins With Me

But for any change to happen be it on the local or global scale, change first and foremost begins with me, the designer. Ezio Manzini describes that in the past century, designer has the tendency of isolating themselves as the sole designer in the field, they now however, find themselves in a world where everybody has the capability to design.

“This change in role calls them to become something different from what they have been until now. This means that in order to adapt to what is required of them, they must redesign themselves and their way of operating.” (Manzini E., 2015, p.2)

As briefly mentioned in the introductory chapter of this thesis, ‘social actors’ is described as the local who takes on his/her daily struggles through innovating a solution to make life better for them and their community. (Manzini E., 2015) This is an opportunity for the expert designers to work collaboratively to further empower these ‘social actors’ to further impact change. The old way of working as the designer who “swoops in with their capes and ‘design thinking’ to save poor folks” (Pilloton E., 2010) is changing, and has got to change.

Image 20. Design Says Hello trip to Cambodia, Instagram Collage (2014)

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the case of One Laptop Per Child, PlayPumps and TOMS Shoes had dire repercussions on the community they were designing for. The repercussions are real and evident. Through the many research, evaluative reports and studies conducted on all three interventions in measuring its impact on the community they were addressing, have shown that it caused more notable harm than good. It did not help student to excel in school (OLPC), it did not make it easier to access clean water (PlayPumps) nor did it actually help solve a healthcare problem (TOMS Shoes).

On a personal level, these are the very reasons why I chose to walk away from that project in Cambodia. I felt like an inexperience doctor ambitiously trying to diagnose a patient. I was not willing to take that risk, to wrongfully diagnose a problem and provide a solution that will eventually not solve anything, but adding on more problems to an existing sea of highly wicked and complex problems. For better or worse, my conscience is clear, for these are real people, with real families and children. Human lives are at stake, and I was not willing to gamble on that.

24

03 For Better or Worse?

04 REFERENCES

One Laptop Per Child:

Blossom, E. (2011) Material Change: Design Thinking and the Social Entrepreneurship Movement. United States: Metropolis Books.

Nussbaum, B. (2010) Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism? Fast Company Co.Design. [Internet] July 6 2010. Available from: <http://www.fastcodesign.com/1661859/is-humanitarian-design-the-new-imperialism>

MIT (2007) Seymour Papert [Internet] March 2007 Available from: <http://web.media.mit.edu/papert/>

OLPC (2009) One Laptop Per Child Overview in 2009. OLPC News. [Internet] March 2009. Available from: <http://www.olpcnews.com/files/One_Laptop_Per_Child_Overview_2009.pdf>

Lagace, M. (2007) One Laptop Per Child [Internet] 10 December 2007. Available from: <http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/one-laptop-per-child>

United Nations (2005) OLPC Initiative Moving Expression of Global Solidarity, Corporate Citizenship, Secretary-General Says at Tunis Media Event. UN Press Release. [Internet] 16 November 2005. Available from: <http://www.un.org/press/en/2005/sgsm10217.doc.htm>

United Nations (2006) UN Supports Project Aimed at Providing Cheap Laptops to Students in Poor Countries. UN News Centre [Internet] 28 January 2006. Available from: <http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=17328#.VoVazzbWZE4>

Negroponte, N. (2006) TEDTalk: Founder of the MIT Media Laboratory, Describes How the One Laptop Per Child Project Will Build and Distribute the $100 laptop. [Internet] February 2006. Available from: <https://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_negroponte_on_one_laptop_per_child?language=en#t-320113>

Keating, J. & Shaikh, A. (2009) Why did One Laptop Per Child Fail? ForeignPolicy. [Internet] 9 September 2009. Available from: <http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/09/09/why-did-one-laptop-per-child-fail/>

Stecklow, S. & Bandler, J. (2007) A Little Laptop With Big Ambitions: How a Computer for the Poor Got Stomped by Tech Giants. Wall Street Journal. [Internet] 24 November 2007. Available from: <http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119586754115002717>

Cristia, J., Ibarraran, P., Cueto S., Santiago A. & Severin E.(2012) Technology and Child Development: Evidence from the One Laptop Per Child Program [Internet] February 2012. IDB Working Paper No. ADB-WP-304. Available from: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032444>

Vota, W. (2014) Goodbye One Laptop per Child. OLPC News. [Internet] 11 March 2014. Available from: <http://www.olpcnews.com/about_olpc_news/goodbye_one_laptop_per_child.html>

Stahl, L. (2007) What If Every Child Had A Laptop? CBS News. [Internet] 20 May 2007. Available from: <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-if-every-child-had-a-laptop/3/>

Preface:

Aziz, A. (2013) Design Says Hello: Design With Humility, Design For Humanity. JUICE Magazine. Singapore. [Internet] November 2013. p.100 Available from: <http://epublishbyus.com/juice_nov_2013/10034878#>

Floyd, D. (2013) Why Failure can be the Best Platform for Innovation [Internet] 30 September 2013. Available from: <http://www.theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network/2013/sep/30/failure-best-platform-for-innovation>

Introduction:

Kolko, J. (2012) Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving, An Introduction to Wicked Problems: A Handbook & A Call to Action. Austin Texas. Austin Centre for Design.

Lykketoft, M. (2015) United Nations General Assembly 69th Session, Sustainable Development Agenda. [Internet] 12 August 2015. Available from: <http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/L.85&Lang=E>

United Nations (2015) 17 Goals to Transform Our World [Internet] Available from: <http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/>

Manzini, E. (2015) Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Introduction, p.1-6. Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England: The MIT Press.

Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. & Mulgan, G. (2010) The Open Book of Social Innovation: Ways to Design, Develop and Grow Social Innovation. Social Innovator Series. [Internet] 3 March 2010. Available from: <http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/open-book-social-innovation>

DBS Mashable UK (2015), A New Era of Corporate Responsibility as Global Organizations Foster Social Entrepreneurship [Internet] 22 October 2015. Available from: <http://mashable.com/2015/10/22/social-entrepreneurship-brandspeak/#ZIppfolFpuql>

Schwarz, M. & Krabbendam, D. (2013) Sustainist Design Guide: How Sharing, Localism, Connectedness and Proportionality Are Creating A New Agenda For Social Design. Amsterdam, Netherlands: BIS Publishers.

Schwarz, M. & Elffers, J. (2010) Sustainism is the New Modernism: A Cultural Manifesto for the Sustainist Era. New York, United States: Distributed Art Publishers.

Brown, T. (2008) Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review. [Internet] June 2008. Available from: <https://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/thoughts/IDEO_HBR_Design_Thinking.pdf>

IDEO (2009) Human Centered Design Toolkit [Internet] Available from: <https://www.ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit/>

Wærn, R. & Wingårdh, G. (2015) Is the Architect an Authoritarian? Arch Daily. [Internet] 28 August 2015. Available from: <http://www.archdaily.com/772586/is-the-architect-an-authoritarian>

26

Fildes, J. (2008) Intel Undermined Laptop Project. BBC News. [Internet] 9 January 2008. Available from: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7178241.stm>

Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism?


The Editors (2010) Humanitarian Design vs Design Imperialism: Debate Summary. Design Observer. [Internet] 16 July 2010. Available from: <http://designobserver.com/feature/humanitarian-design-vs-design-imperialism-debate-summary/14498/>

Nussbaum, B. (2007) It’s Time To Call One Laptop Per Child A Failure [Internet] 24 September 2007. Available from: <http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/09/its_time_to_cal.html>

Pilloton, E. (2010) Are Humanitarian Designers Imperialists? Project H Responds. Fast Company Co. Design. [Internet] 11 July 2010. Available from: <http://www.fastcodesign.com/1661885/are-humanitarian-designers-imperialists-project-h-responds>

Kolko, J. (2010) The Puzzle of Bruce’s Zeitgeist. [Internet] 12 July 2010. Available form: <http://www.ac4d.com/2010/07/the-puzzle-of-bruces-zeitgeist/>

Sinclair, C. (2010) ‘Admiral Ackbar, It’s a Trap!’ How Over-simplification Creates a Distorted Vision of Humanitarian Design. The Department of Small Works. [Internet] 8 July 2010. Available from: <http://designobserver.com/feature/humanitarian-design-vs-design-imperialism-debate-summary/14498/>

PlayPumps:

Bennion, J. (2005) South Africa: The Play Pump: Turning Water Into Child’s Play [Internet] 24 October 2005. Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/10/south_africa_th.html>

Erasmus, J. (2008) Tapping into Ingenuity [Internet] 1 July 2008. Available from: <http://www.mediaclubsouthafrica.com/land-and-people/549-tapping-into-ingenuity010708>

Longwe, B. & Hayes, S. (2014) Play Pumps On ED Part 1 [Internet] Uploaded 9 May 2014. Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wtT5nEmaf0> [Accessed 16 December 2015]

SK52DesignStudio (2010) Interview with Trevor Field: Play Pumps Bring Joy and Access to Clean Drinking Water. [Internet] Uploaded 3 August 2010. Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBEttIM-K8E> [Accessed 16 December 2015]

Costello, A. (2005) South Africa: The Play Pump [Internet] 24 November 2005. Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/watch/player.html?pkg=entrepreneur&seg=13&mod=0> [Accessed 16 December 2015]

Costello, A. (2006) PlayPump Project Receives Major U.S. Funding [Internet] 20 September 2006. Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/blog/2006/09/playpump_projec.html>

Bennion, J. & Cate, R. (2010) The Play Pump Trail [Internet] Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/southernafrica904/timeline_tw.html>

UNICEF (2007) An Evaluation of the PlayPump Water System as an Appropriate Technology for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programmes [Internet] October 2007. Available from: <http://www-tc.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/southernafrica904/flash/pdf/unicef_pp_report.pdf>

Frontline/World (2010) Amy Costello Reports Troubled Water: Story Synopsis [Internet] 29 June 2010. Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/southernafrica904/video_index.html> [Accessed 17 December 2015]

Freschi, L. (2010) Some NGOs Can Adjust to Failure: The PlayPumps Story [Internet] 19 February 2010. Available from: <http://aidwatchers.com/2010/02/some-ngos-can-adjust-to-failure-the-playpumps-story/>

Ugly Side of Humanitarian Efforts

Savio, N. (2015) Making Things That Make Things Better [Internet] 3 June 2015. Available from: <https://medium.com/@nadav/humanitarian-design-f1ee4f2c889#.wpsiduhaz>

Manzini, E. (2015) Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Chapter 3: Design for Social Innovation, p.55-74. Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England: The MIT Press.

Lagace, M. (2007) One Laptop Per Child [Internet] 10 December 2007. Available from: <http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/one-laptop-per-child>



Definition of ‘Natural Monopoly. Investopedia. [Internet] Available from: <http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural_monopoly.asp>

UNICEF (2007) An Evaluation of the PlayPump Water System as an Appropriate Technology for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programmes [Internet] October 2007. Available from: <http://www-tc.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/southernafrica904/flash/pdf/unicef_pp_report.pdf>

Chambers, A. (2009) Africa’s Not-So-Magic Roundabout. The Guardian. [Internet] 24 November 2009. Available from: <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/nov/24/africa-charity-water-pumps-roundabouts>

SDS Admin (2012) How To Survive Humanitarian Design. School of Design Strategies (SDS) at Parsons The New School for Design. [Internet] 9 December 2012. Available from: <http://sds.parsons.edu/transdesign/how-to-survive-humanitarian-design/>

TOMS Shoes

Mycoskie, B. (2011) How I Did It: The TOMS Story [Internet] 20 September 2011. Available from: <http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/220350>

Chu, J. (2013) TOMS Set Out To Sell A Lifestyle, Not Just Shoes. Fast Company. [Internet] 17 June 2013. Available from: <http://www.fastcompany.com/3012568/blake-mycoskie-toms#3>

Poulos, J. (2012) TOMS Shoes: A Doomed Vanity Project? Forbes. [Internet] 11 April 2012. Available from: <http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamespoulos/2012/04/11/toms-shoes-a-doomed-vanity-project/>

Veerasamy, V. (2015) How TOMS Shoes Built A Multi-Million-Dollar Movement With Word-of-Mouth (And Gave Away Millions Of Shoes) [Internet Blog] 25 July 2015. Available from: <http://www.referralcandy.com/blog/how-toms-shoes-built-a-multi-million-dollar-movement-with-word-of-mouth-and-gave-away-millions-of-shoes/> [Accessed 20 December 2015]

TOMS (2016) TOMS Tribe [Internet] Available from: <http://www.toms.com/tribe>

TOMS (2015) One Day Without Shoes [Internet] 21 May 2015. Available from: <http://www.toms.com/one-day-without-shoes>

Favini, J. (2013) Some Bad News About TOMS Shoes [Internet] 18 April 2013. Available from: <http://www.whydev.org/some-bad-news-about-toms-shoes/>

Davenport, C. (2012) The Broken “Buy-One-Give-One” Model: 3 Ways To Save TOMS Shoes. Fast Company. [Internet] 10 April 2012. Available from: <http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679628/the-broken-buy-one-give-one-model-three-ways-to-save-toms-shoes>

Wadhams N. (2010) Bad Charity: All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt. TIME. [Internet] 12 May 2010. Available from: <http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C1987628%2C00.html>

Keating, J. (2013) Is TOMS Shoes Listening To Its Critics? [Internet] 17 October 2013. Available from: <http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/10/17/toms_shoes_to_begin_producing_shoes_in_haiti_will_this_be_a_more_effective.html>

Mangine, G. (2012) One For One? [Internet Blog] 24 February 2012. Available from: <http://www.mangine.org/2012/02/one-for-one.html> [Accessed 27 December 2015]

Wydick, B. (2015) The Impact of TOMS Shoes [Internet] 16 March 2015. Available from: <http://www.acrosstwoworlds.net/?p=292>

Mason, Z. (2010) Do You Cause More Harm Than Good By Giving TOMS Shoes To The Poor? [Internet Blog] 4 October 2010. Available from: <http://zacstravaganza.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/does-toms-cause-more-harm-than-good-by.html> [Accessed 28 December 2015]

Kaye, L. (2010) The Backlash Against Humanitarian Design [Internet] Available from: <http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/07/the-backlash-against-humanitarian-design/>

Design For The First World:

Arieff, A. & Vallejo, C. (2010) Design For The First World: The Rest Saving The West. Interview With Carolina Vallejo. GOOD Magazine. [Internet] 23 June 2010. Available from: <http://magazine.good.is/articles/design-for-the-first-world-the-rest-saving-the-west>

Shelly, K. (2011) Design By The Rest. [Internet] 21 December 2011. Available from: <http://www.cooperhewitt.org/2011/12/21/design-by-the-rest/>

For Better of Worse:


Bakić, I. (2013) FAILFaire – Improving the Lives Of Children By Encouraging Adults To Talk About Their Failures. UNICEF. [Internet] 6 December 2013. Available from: <http://www.unicefstories.org/2013/12/06/failfaire-improving-the-lives-of-children-by-encouraging-adults-to-talk-about-their-failures/>

Norman D. (2013) Design 0f Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Version. Chapter 6, Design Thinking: Solving the Correct Problem. p.218-220. Cambridge Massachusetts. London, England: The MIT Press.

Gube, J. (2010) What Is User Experience Design? Overview, Tools And Resources. Smashing Magazine. [Internet] 5 October 2010. Available from: <https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/10/what-is-user-experience-design-overview-tools-and-resources/>

Papanek, V. [Internet] Available from: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Papanek>

Papanek, V. (1971) Design Tor The Real World: Second Edition/Completely Revised. Chapter 4, Do-it-Yourself Murder: Social & Moral Responsibilities of Design p.79-85. United States of America: Academy Chicago Publishers.

Ferro, S. (2015) What’s Next For Architecture For Humanity? [Internet] 9 January 2015. Available from: <http://www.fastcodesign.com/3041234/whats-next-for-architecture-for-humanity>

Campbell-Dollaghan K., (2016) The Story Behind Architecture For Humanity Surprising Rebirth. [Internet] 21 January 2016. Available from: http://www.fastcodesign.com/3055724/the-story-behind-architecture-for-humanitys-surprising-rebirth

RIBA (2013) Guide To Localism Opportunities For Architects. Part One: Neighborhood Planning. Royal Institute of British Architects. [Internet] Available from: <https://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAHoldings/PolicyAndInternationalRelations/Policy/GuidetoLocalism-Part1NeighbourhoodPlanning.pdf>

28

05 BIBLIOGRAPHY

AArieff, A. & Vallejo, C. (2010) Design For The First World: The Rest Saving The West. Interview With Carolina Vallejo. GOOD Magazine. [Internet] 23 June 2010. Available from: <http://magazine.good.is/articles/design-for-the-first-world-the-rest-saving-the-west>

Aziz, A. (2013) Design Says Hello: Design With Humility, Design For Humanity. JUICE Magazine. Singapore. [Internet] November 2013. p.100 Available from: <http://epublishbyus.com/juice_nov_2013/10034878#>

BBakić, I. (2013) FAILFaire – Improving the Lives Of Children By Encouraging Adults To Talk About Their Failures. UNICEF. [Internet] 6 December 2013. Available from: <http://www.unicefstories.org/2013/12/06/failfaire-improving-the-lives-of-children-by-encouraging-adults-to-talk-about-their-failures/>

Berger, W. (2009) Meet Bruce Mau. He Wants to Redesign the World [Internet] 9 December 2009. Available from: <http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2010/01/features/meet-bruce-mau-he-wants-to-redesign-the-world>

Bennion, J. (2005) South Africa: The Play Pump: Turning Water Into Child’s Play [Internet] 24 October 2005. Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/10/south_africa_th.html>

Bennion, J. & Cate, R. (2010) The Play Pump Trail [Internet] Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/southernafrica904/timeline_tw.html>

Blossom, E. (2011) Material Change: Design Thinking and the Social Entrepreneurship Movement. United States: Metropolis Books.

Brown, T. (2008) Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review. [Internet] June 2008. Available from: <https://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/thoughts/IDEO_HBR_Design_Thinking.pdf>

CCampbell-Dollaghan K., (2016) The Story Behind Architecture For Humanity Surprising Rebirth. [Internet] 21 January 2016. Available from: <http://www.fastcodesign.com/3055724/the-story-behind-architecture-for-humanitys-surprising-rebirth>

Case, J. (2009) Autumn Updates from Jean Case [Internet Blog] 10 September 2009. Available from: <http://casefoundation.org/blog/autumn-updates-jean-case/> [Accessed 13 December 2015]

Chambers, A. (2009) Africa’s Not-So-Magic Roundabout. The Guardian. [Internet] 24 November 2009. Available from: <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/nov/24/africa-charity-water-pumps-roundabouts>

Cheng, M. (2013) 10 Ideas Driving the Future of Social Entrepreneurship [Internet] 25 April 2013. Available from: <http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681921/10-ideas-driving-the-future-of-social-entrepreneurship>

Chu, J. (2013) TOMS Set Out To Sell A Lifestyle, Not Just Shoes. Fast Company. [Internet] 17 June 2013. Available from: <http://www.fastcompany.com/3012568/blake-mycoskie-toms#3>

Costello, A. (2005) South Africa: The Play Pump [Internet] 24 November 2005. Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/watch/player.html?pkg=entrepreneur&seg=13&mod=0> [Accessed 16 December 2015]

Costello, A. (2006) PlayPump Project Receives Major U.S. Funding [Internet] 20 September 2006. Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/blog/2006/09/playpump_projec.html>

Cristia, J., Ibarraran, P., Cueto S., Santiago A. & Severin E.(2012) Technology and Child Development: Evidence from the One Laptop Per Child Program [Internet] February 2012. IDB Working Paper No. ADB-WP-304. Available from: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032444>

DDamberger, D. (2011) TEDx Talk: Learning From Failure [Internet] Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGiHU-agsGY> [Accessed 3 November 2015]

Davenport, C. (2012) The Broken “Buy-One-Give-One” Model: 3 Ways To Save TOMS Shoes. Fast Company. [Internet] 10 April 2012. Available from: <http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679628/the-broken-buy-one-give-one-model-three-ways-to-save-toms-shoes>

DBS Mashable UK (2015), A New Era of Corporate Responsibility as Global Organizations Foster Social Entrepreneurship [Internet] 22 October 2015. Available from: <http://mashable.com/2015/10/22/social-entrepreneurship-brandspeak/#ZIppfolFpuql>

Definition of ‘Natural Monopoly. Investopedia. [Internet] Available from: <http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural_monopoly.asp>

EErasmus, J. (2008) Tapping into Ingenuity [Internet] 1 July 2008. Available from: <http://www.mediaclubsouthafrica.com/land-and-people/549-tapping-into-ingenuity010708>

FFarquhar, S. (2012) The Justness of “Just Giving” [Internet] 15 August 2012. Available from: <http://tedxoxford.co.uk/the-justness-of-just-giving/>

Favini, J. (2013) Some Bad News About TOMS Shoes [Internet] 18 April 2013. Available from: <http://www.whydev.org/some-bad-news-about-toms-shoes/>

Ferro, S. (2015) What’s Next For Architecture For Humanity? [Internet] 9 January 2015. Available from: <http://www.fastcodesign.com/3041234/whats-next-for-architecture-for-humanity>

Fildes, J. (2008) Intel Undermined Laptop Project. BBC News. [Internet] 9 January 2008. Available from: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7178241.stm>

Floyd, D. (2013) Why Failure can be the Best Platform for Innovation [Internet] 30 September 2013. Available from: <http://www.theguardian.com/social-enterprise-network/2013/sep/30/failure-best-platform-for-innovation>

30

Freschi, L. (2010) Some NGOs Can Adjust to Failure: The PlayPumps Story [Internet] 19 February 2010. Available from: <http://aidwatchers.com/2010/02/some-ngos-can-adjust-to-failure-the-playpumps-story/>

Frontline/World (2010) Amy Costello Reports Troubled Water: Story Synopsis [Internet] 29 June 2010. Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/southernafrica904/video_index.html> [Accessed 17 December 2015]

Frontline/World (2009) Troubled Water: Interview with Amy Costello [Internet] Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/southernafrica904/reporter.html>

GGoldberg, M. L. & Negroponte, N. (2009) Founder of One Laptop Per Child Responds. UN Dispatch [Internet] 10 September 2009. Available from: <http://www.undispatch.com/founder-of-one-laptop-per-child-responds/>

Gube, J. (2010) What Is User Experience Design? Overview, Tools And Resources. Smashing Magazine. [Internet] 5 October 2010. Available from: <https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/10/what-is-user-experience-design-overview-tools-and-resources/>

HHatch, D. (2009) Have Laptop, Will Travel [Internet] 11 April 2009. Available from: <http://laptop.org/images/pdf/2009_apr_11_OLPC_National_Journal.pdf>

Hunter, N. (2014) Design Innovation: New Ways of Thinking Can Change The World [Internet] 19 June 2014. Available from: <http://www.theguardian.com/culture-professionals-network/culture-professionals-blog/2014/jun/19/design-innovation-young-people-rsa>

IIDEO (2009) Human Centered Design Toolkit [Internet] Available from: <https://www.ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit/>

JJenvey, N. (2015) The Global Rise of Social Entrepreneurship [Internet] 27 March 2015. Available from: <http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20150324131055167>

KKaye, L. (2010) The Backlash Against Humanitarian Design [Internet] Available from: <http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/07/the-backlash-against-humanitarian-design/>

Keating, J. & Shaikh, A. (2009) Why did One Laptop Per Child Fail? ForeignPolicy. [Internet] 9 September 2009. Available from: <http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/09/09/why-did-one-laptop-per-child-fail/>

Keating, J. (2013) Is TOMS Shoes Listening To Its Critics? [Internet] 17 October 2013. Available from: <http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/10/17/toms_shoes_to_begin_producing_shoes_in_haiti_will_this_be_a_more_effective.html>

Kokin, K. (2008) For Tomorrow: The TOMS Shoes Story [Internet] Available from: <https://vimeo.com/40143777> [Accessed 22 December 2015]

Kessler, S. (2012) Mashable UK: 2.5 Million Laptops Later, One Laptop Per Child Doesn’t Improve Test Scores. (Study) [Internet] 9 April 2012. Available from: <http://mashable.com/2012/04/09/one-laptop-per-child-study/#lEaaQ7Z4faqb>

Kolko, J. (2012) Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving, An Introduction to Wicked Problems: A Handbook & A Call to Action. Austin Texas. Austin Centre for Design.

Kolko, J. (2010) The Puzzle of Bruce’s Zeitgeist. [Internet] 12 July 2010. Available form: <http://www.ac4d.com/2010/07/the-puzzle-of-bruces-zeitgeist/>

LLagace, M. (2007) One Laptop Per Child [Internet] 10 December 2007. Available from: <http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/one-laptop-per-child>

Ling B. (2010) This Huge Humanitarian Design Debate Is A Moot Point. [Internet] 20 July 2010. Available from: <http://designsojourn.com/2010/07/20/this-huge-humanitarian-design-debate-is-a-moot-point/>


Lykketoft, M. (2015) United Nations General Assembly 69th Session, Sustainable Development Agenda. [Internet] 12 August 2015. Available from: <http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/L.85&Lang=E>

MMangine, G. (2012) One For One? [Internet Blog] 24 February 2012. Available from: <http://www.mangine.org/2012/02/one-for-one.html> [Accessed 27 December 2015]

Manzini, E. (2015) Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Introduction, p.1-6. Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England: The MIT Press.

Manzini, E. (2015) Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Chapter 3: Design for Social Innovation, p.55-74. Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England: The MIT Press.

Marie Vandendriessche N. (2012) The Story of PlayPumps: Merry-Go-Rounds, Water, and Failures in Development Aid [Internet] March 22, 2012. Available from: <http://unitedexplanations.org/english/2012/03/22/the-story-of-playpumps-merry-go-rounds-water-and-failures-in-development-aid/>

Mason, Z. (2010) Do You Cause More Harm Than Good By Giving TOMS Shoes To The Poor? [Internet Blog] 4 October 2010. Available from: <http://zacstravaganza.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/does-toms-cause-more-harm-than-good-by.html> [Accessed 28 December 2015]

MIT (2007) Seymour Papert [Internet] March 2007 Available from: <http://web.media.mit.edu/papert/>

Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. & Mulgan, G. (2010) The Open Book of Social Innovation: Ways to Design, Develop and Grow Social Innovation. Social Innovator Series. [Internet] 3 March 2010. Available from: <http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/open-book-social-innovation>

Mycoskie, B. (2011) How I Did It: The TOMS Story [Internet] 20 September 2011. Available from: <http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/220350>

NNational Geographic (2008) PlayPumps International [Internet] 9 January 2008. Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjgcHOWcWGE> [Accessed 22 December 2015]

Negroponte, N. (2006) TEDTalk: Founder of the MIT Media Laboratory, Describes How the One Laptop Per Child Project Will Build and Distribute the $100 laptop. [Internet] February 2006. Available from: <https://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_negroponte_on_one_laptop_per_child?language=en#t-320113>

Norman D. (2013) Design 0f Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Version. Chapter 6, Design Thinking: Solving the Correct Problem. p.218-220. Cambridge Massachusetts. London, England: The MIT Press.



OOLPC (2009) One Laptop Per Child Overview in 2009. OLPC News. [Internet] March 2009. Available from: <http://www.olpcnews.com/files/One_Laptop_Per_Child_Overview_2009.pdf>

PPapanek, V. [Internet] Available from: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Papanek>

Papanek, V. (1971) Design Tor The Real World: Second Edition/Completely Revised. Chapter 4, Do-it-Yourself Murder: Social & Moral Responsibilities of Design p.79-85. United States of America: Academy Chicago Publishers.


Poulos, J. (2012) TOMS Shoes: A Doomed Vanity Project? Forbes. [Internet] 11 April 2012. Available from: <http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamespoulos/2012/04/11/toms-shoes-a-doomed-vanity-project/>

RRIBA (2013) Guide To Localism Opportunities For Architects. Part One: Neighborhood Planning. Royal Institute of British Architects. [Internet] Available from: <https://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAHoldings/PolicyAndInternationalRelations/Policy/GuidetoLocalism-Part1NeighbourhoodPlanning.pdf>

SSavio, N. (2015) Making Things That Make Things Better [Internet] 3 June 2015. Available from: <https://medium.com/@nadav/humanitarian-design-f1ee4f2c889#.wpsiduhaz>

Schwarz, M. & Krabbendam, D. (2013) Sustainist Design Guide: How Sharing, Localism, Connectedness and Proportionality Are Creating A New Agenda For Social Design. Amsterdam, Netherlands: BIS Publishers.

Schwarz, M. & Elffers, J. (2010) Sustainism is the New Modernism: A Cultural Manifesto for the Sustainist Era. New York, United States: Distributed Art Publishers.

SDS Admin (2012) How To Survive Humanitarian Design. School of Design Strategies (SDS) at Parsons The New School for Design. [Internet] 9 December 2012. Available from: <http://sds.parsons.edu/transdesign/how-to-survive-humanitarian-design/>

Shelly, K. (2011) Design By The Rest. [Internet] 21 December 2011. Available from: <http://www.cooperhewitt.org/2011/12/21/design-by-the-rest/>

Sinclair, C. (2010) ‘Admiral Ackbar, It’s a Trap!’ How Over-simplification Creates a Distorted Vision of Humanitarian Design. The Department of Small Works. [Internet] 8 July 2010. Available from: <http://designobserver.com/feature/humanitarian-design-vs-design-imperialism-debate-summary/14498/>

SK52DesignStudio (2010) Interview with Trevor Field: Play Pumps Bring Joy and Access to Clean Drinking Water. [Internet] Uploaded 3 August 2010. Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBEttIM-K8E> [Accessed 16 December 2015]

Stahl, L. (2007) What If Every Child Had A Laptop? CBS News. [Internet] 20 May 2007. Available from: <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-if-every-child-had-a-laptop/3/>

Stecklow, S. & Bandler, J. (2007) A Little Laptop With Big Ambitions: How a Computer for the Poor Got Stomped by Tech Giants. Wall Street Journal. [Internet] 24 November 2007. Available from: <http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119586754115002717>

TTaub A. (2015) Buying TOMS Shoes Is A Terrible Way To Help Poor People [Internet] 23 July 2015. Available from: <http://www.vox.com/2015/7/23/9025975/toms-shoes-poverty-giving>

The Editors (2010) Humanitarian Design vs Design Imperialism: Debate Summary. Design Observer. [Internet] 16 July 2010. Available from: <http://designobserver.com/feature/humanitarian-design-vs-design-imperialism-debate-summary/14498/>

TOMS (2016) TOMS Tribe [Internet] Available from: <http://www.toms.com/tribe>

TOMS (2015) One Day Without Shoes [Internet] 21 May 2015. Available from: <http://www.toms.com/one-day-without-shoes>

TOMS (2013) TOMS Commitment to Haiti [Internet] 19 September 2013. Available from: <http://www.toms.com/stories/giving/toms-commitment-to-haiti>

32

UUNICEF (2007) An Evaluation of the PlayPump Water System as an Appropriate Technology for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programmes [Internet] October 2007. Available from: <http://www-tc.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/southernafrica904/flash/pdf/unicef_pp_report.pdf>

United Nations (2005) OLPC Initiative Moving Expression of Global Solidarity, Corporate Citizenship, Secretary-General Says at Tunis Media Event. UN Press Release. [Internet] 16 November 2005. Available from: <http://www.un.org/press/en/2005/sgsm10217.doc.htm>

United Nations (2006) UN Supports Project Aimed at Providing Cheap Laptops to Students in Poor Countries. UN News Centre [Internet] 28 January 2006. Available from: <http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=17328#.VoVazzbWZE4>

United Nations (2015) 17 Goals to Transform Our World [Internet] Available from: <http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/>

VVeerasamy, V. (2015) How TOMS Shoes Built A Multi-Million-Dollar Movement With Word-of-Mouth (And Gave Away Millions Of Shoes) [Internet Blog] 25 July 2015. Available from: <http://www.referralcandy.com/blog/how-toms-shoes-built-a-multi-million-dollar-movement-with-word-of-mouth-and-gave-away-millions-of-shoes/> [Accessed 20 December 2015]

Vota, W. (2014) Goodbye One Laptop per Child. OLPC News. [Internet] 11 March 2014. Available from: <http://www.olpcnews.com/about_olpc_news/goodbye_one_laptop_per_child.html>

WWadhams N. (2010) Bad Charity: All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt. TIME. [Internet] 12 May 2010. Available from: <http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C1987628%2C00.html>

Wærn, R. & Wingårdh, G. (2015) Is the Architect an Authoritarian? Arch Daily. [Internet] 28 August 2015. Available from: <http://www.archdaily.com/772586/is-the-architect-an-authoritarian>

Watters, A. (2012) The Failure of One Laptop Per Child [Internet] 9 April 2012. Available from: <http://hackeducation.com/2012/04/09/the-failure-of-olpc/>

Wydick, B. (2015) The Impact of TOMS Shoes [Internet] 16 March 2015. Available from: <http://www.acrosstwoworlds.net/?p=292>

34

If you completely missed the hidden messages - use the red/blue filter that came with this book to uncover hidden truths behind the interventions found on selected Images throughout this book.

Sometimes things are not what it seems on the surface.

BA (Hons) Interaction Design ArtsUniversity of the Arts LondonLondon College of Communication

N.ZIQQ / 2016BIN13404568www.ziqqsayshello.com