Humanitarian Technology Development

The terms product development for developing markets and humanitarian technology development (HTD)can be viewed as very similar in their methods but with a difference in the underlying rationale. Product development suggests commercial interest in designing products, which not only address issues faced by communities but also provide profit to the organisation involved. While the exact definition of HTD is the subject of much recent discussion, the present researcher believes it removes this underlying commercial interest, as defined by Schirr et al. (2013), and instead approaches ethically driven international development activities through focusing on technological development. The term HTD could also be replaced with humanitarian engineering or engineering for social good. However, the present researcher has aligned with the term HTD as it clearly defines the focus of the research, to design technology for humanitarian purposes. Schneider et al. (2008) summarize this sentiment well stating “humanitarian engineering is design under constraints to directly improve the wellbeing

of underserved populations” (Schneider et al., 2008, p. 312). The exact beginning of this paradigm is difficult to determine as many technology-focused development activities occurred under different names. Mazzurco (2016) provides a detailed review of the conception of humanitarian engineering using 1992 as a starting date, because the first Engineers Without Borders (EWB) chapter was founded in this year. EWB are a network of NGOs specializing in humanitarian engineering.

Several HTD design processes have been developed. One of these is the Co-Design and Implementation Process (Murcott, 2007). This focuses on the relationship with community and the relational, knowledge-sharing, learning process. This model presents four main themes of egalitarian partnerships between experts and communities, utilization of local resources, real-world testing and open source innovation and dissemination. This model, developed through action research in Nepal, improves upon commercial product development models as it gives detailed guidance for a practitioner while also explicitly highlighting the importance of community consultation throughout the design process. However, the research suggests there are still challenges related to the promotion of products and dissemination of key benefits.

Figure 4 - Co-Design and Implementation Process (Murcott, 2007)

The Appropriate Technology Design Methodology (Sianipar et al., 2013) shares similar values with Murcott (2007) and stresses the importance of resource localisation and onsite development and testing, as opposed to cross-country problem-solving. Both processes champion the idea of designing products with community members and not for them, a theme expanded upon later in this section.

Figure 5 - Appropriate Technology Design Methodology (Sianipar et al., 2013)

The Human Centred Design Toolkit (IDEO, 2015) also states the importance of user-centred projects involving in-community development and testing. The process highlights the benefits of community member involvement as a way of ensuring buy-in and trust in a product. The process uses the more abstract terms empathize, define, ideate, prototype and test to define the steps the designer should transition through while always verifying decisions with the community. Chandra and Neelankavil (2008), who examined a range of HTD projects, further this point, stating that a company will be successful by either utilizing technology-driven product development or a “thorough understanding of the customer needs” (Chandra & Neelankavil, 2008, p. 1023).

Another study of HTD projects in India (Viswanathan & Sridharan, 2012) supports a focus on understanding the community. The authors state a number of key factors for success including meeting critical basic needs, aspirational needs, customization of product offering and the leveraging of existing infrastructure. These factors all centre on identifying the community member’s needs, whether functional or psychological, and the importance of empathy in the design process. This study states “the environment for market-based products in subsistence marketplaces is significantly shaped by constraints imposed by physical/social infrastructure in communities and economic/psychological factors at the household level” (Viswanathan & Sridharan, 2012, p. 53). This differs from Western product markets, as described by Burgess and Steenkamp (2006), and again shows the need for processes specific to developing contexts.

When discussing the various design processes, it is helpful to categorize them in terms the collaborative relationship between the designer and the community. Many researchers have discussed this collaborative relationship in terms of three different formats; design for, design with

and design by (Kaulio, 1998; Wang & Oygur, 2010; Smith, 2017). While most of the processes explored in this section utilize a design for collaboration, there are other, more participatory approaches, which align with design with and design by collaboration. These will be discussed in the following section. Table 1 provides an overview of the three approaches and examples of design processes that align with each approach.

Table 1 - Design paradigm summary Collaborative

Relationship Characteristics Example Processes

Design for A process led by professional designers who research user requirements, design solutions and verify their designs with community members

− Stage-Gate process − Human Centred Design

Design with

A collaborative process in which professional designers and representative community

members work together to design, prototype and testing potential solutions.

− Co-design and Implementation Process − Appropriate Technology Design Methodology − Participatory Design (Initial stages) Design by

The process in which representative community members are empowered to design solutions for their own problems and utilize professional designers as supporting actors for technical development.

− Participatory Design (Final stages)