Human Centered Design and International Development How ... · Human Centered Design and...
Transcript of Human Centered Design and International Development How ... · Human Centered Design and...
Human Centered Design and International Development How Proximity Designs was able to revitalize an entire nation
Case Study by: Cathryn Panganiban Presented to: Dr. Nanette S. Levinson SIS-644-002: Communication, Social and Economic Development April 29, 2013
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction: About Proximity Designs ......................................................................................................... 2
Research Questions ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Literature Review .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Business, Social Entrepreneurship, and Development ............................................................................. 4
Design Thinking and Human Centered Design .......................................................................................... 6
Development Projects on Agriculture and Energy .................................................................................... 8
Literature Review: Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 9
Literature Review: Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 10
Research Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Development Paradigms & Approaches ................................................................................................. 12
Participatory Frameworks ....................................................................................................................... 14
Isomorphism ........................................................................................................................................... 15
Change Champions & Effective Leadership ............................................................................................ 16
Research Conclusions.............................................................................................................................. 17
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 19
Appendix A: Systems Analysis Diagram for Proximity Designs ................................................................... 20
Appendix B: Country Profile for Myanmar ................................................................................................. 21
Appendix C: Proximity Designs Irrigation Products .................................................................................... 22
Appendix D: Proximity Designs Impact and Reach ..................................................................................... 23
Appendix E: Proximity Designs Partners and Investors .............................................................................. 24
1 | P a g e
Executive Summary
This case study will examine the work, successes, and challenges of the Myanmar-based
Proximity Designs. Proximity Designs is a social enterprise specializing in agriculture products
and services for Burmese farmers who have little to no access to power, capital and new
technologies. They utilize Design Thinking and approaches in Human Centered Design to
successfully create and market products specifically for the rural poor, and they have been
largely successful in doing so.
This paper will address the following questions: How has Proximity Designs reached the
Burmese market and impacted the state’s economy? What makes Proximity Designs approach
different from the traditional development paradigms? What can their work teach us about the
role of traditional business and marketing models in international development?
There are a number of studies relevant to the understanding of this case. I have divided
these studies in the literature review under the following categories:
Social Entrepreneurship
Design Thinking and Human Centered Design
Development Projects on Agriculture and Energy
While these studies provide us the framework and methodologies behind Proximity’s
work, they provide little information about how social enterprises can promote development.
Furthermore, not much research has yet been done about the work of NGOs in Myanmar. This
case study will address these issues and more.
The research findings are further divided into the following sections:
Development Paradigms and Approaches
Participatory Frameworks
Isomorphism
Change Champions and Leadership
There are some challenges that are preventing Proximity from reaching the scale it hopes
to achieve. Some of the problems include a limited talent pool and the Burmese government’s
slow response to the growing demands and needs of power and mobile infrastructures. Further
research is needed to assess the impact of Proximity’s work in the long-term as well as whether
this model can be successfully replicated in other rural communities of the developing world.
2 | P a g e
Introduction: About Proximity Designs
In 2004, Jim and Debbie Aung Din Taylor, both alumni of Harvard University’s Kennedy
School of Government, relocated to Yangon on a mission. Debbie, who had previously been
working with the World Bank and the United Nations Development Program on projects
involving human and food security in Myanmar, noticed a need for products and services that
would “improve [people’s] lives on a daily basis and help them to be more productive and earn
better incomes.”1 This is especially true among the rural poor who rely on the fertility of their
lands to earn decent wages, but lack the technology and essential know-how to meet the demands
of a growing population. 2 Despite the Burmese government’s policies to install vast irrigation
systems around the country, the limited institutions in place rendered such efforts as
counterproductive.3 Proximity Designs was founded to address such challenges impeding
Myanmar’s economic and social development.
Proximity Designs began as an outpost of International Development Enterprises (iDE)
before morphing into an independent design factory, manufacturing plant, and distribution center
all in one. They offer a wide array of irrigation products4 that help farmers grow their crops more
efficiently to produce higher yields. Their products also help reduce the health and safety risks
largely associated with working long hours in underdeveloped fields. All the tools were designed
with the local context in mind, with a heavy focus on the end user’s lifestyles, village culture,
needs, and desires. Because of this, Proximity’s products has been largely popular, with about
80% of Myanmar’s rural population purchasing and actively using the tools in their farms.5
These products have revolutionized Myanmar’s agriculture industry due to their affordability and
ease of use.
Although Proximity Designs’ work is largely based in Myanmar—with most of its
employees being ethnically Burmese or local—Proximity has made a number of strategic
partnerships that play a large role in its everyday functions. In fact, Proximity works with various
private, government, and non-profit institutions from all over the world.6 A couple of these key
1 This is taken from a video interview with Debbie Aung Din entitled “Human Centered Design for Rural Myanmar.” 2 See Appendix B for Myanmar’s Country Profile. 3 Matsuno, Horino, and Hatcho, “On-farm irrigation development and management in lower Myanmar: factors for sustainable rice production and collective action.” 4 See Appendix C for a profile of Proximity Designs’ irrigation products. 5 See Appendix D for statistics on Proximity Designs’ impact and reach. 6 See Appendix E for a detailed list of Proximity Designs’ partnerships.
3 | P a g e
partnerships involve academic institutions. For example, the Institute of Design at Stanford
University (d.school) is responsible for much of the innovation behind Proximity’s products. The
d.school offers a special course called Design for Extreme Affordability7, where Stanford
graduate students have the opportunity to collaborate with Proximity in creating new agricultural
products to drive Myanmar’s economic potential.
Proximity’s relationship with the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation
at the Kennedy School is much more academic in nature. Together, they are able to produce
research papers on economics and development pertaining to Myanmar.8 The results of their
studies have proved useful to the Burmese government; the state has even been known to request
such reports.
Since its beginnings, Proximity has grown to be a rather sizeable apolitical social
enterprise in Myanmar, with over 350 employees and a number of products and services added to
its repertoire. Some of its more recent offerings include microfinance loans, agronomic
consulting services, and solar energy solutions. All of this would not be possible without
Proximity’s central focus on the rural poor—treating them as consumers rather than mere aid
recipients—and its human centered design approach. In this case study I will analyze Proximity’s
social business model to explain what makes their organization not only successful but
sustainable.
Research Questions
The purpose of this case study is to analyze how an independent social enterprise has
made significant progress in the social and economic development of one of the most
underdeveloped and isolated nations in the world. I will attempt to answer the following
questions:
How has Proximity Designs, as a social enterprise, penetrated the Burmese market and
made an impact on the state’s economy?
What makes Proximity Designs’ approach different from the more traditional
development paradigms?
7 More information about this course can be found in their website (http://extreme.stanford.edu/what-extreme). 8 Recent publications can be found in their website (http://www.ash.harvard.edu/Home/Programs/Institute-for-Asia/Myanmar-Program).
4 | P a g e
What can Proximity Designs’ work teach us about the role of traditional business and
marketing models in the field of international development?
At a time when the development world is oversaturated with NGOs, non-profits, and
individuals competing for the same limited resources, organizations who have almost exclusively
relied on funding from governments, corporations and other donors must seek creative solutions
to further its social missions. Thus, the answers to these questions will shed significant light on
what it means to practice development competitively in the 21st century.
Literature Review
There are a number of innovative frameworks and ideas that lay the foundations for
Proximity Design’s work. In this section I will review literature explaining these underlying
concepts and why they are increasingly important to the development field. These include Social
Entrepreneurship and Human Centered Design. I will then go over some research work involving
similar international development projects focused on agriculture and energy.
Business, Social Entrepreneurship, and Development
When people think of big business, the first thing that comes to mind is profit. The idea
of profit being completely opposite of social good may be a widely shared opinion; however,
there is a growing movement toward the use of economic incentives to not only grow companies
but drive social and economic changes.
Business professors C.K. Prahalad and Stuart Hart advocate for a bigger role of
multinational corporations in promoting international development in an article written for
Strategy+Business. They state, “For companies with the resources and persistence to compete at
the bottom of the world economic pyramid, the prospective rewards include growth, profits, and
incalculable contributions to humankind.”9 Prahalad and Hart make their case by dividing this
“economic pyramid” into four tiers. At the top of the tier (Tier 1) are about 75 to 100 million of
the world’s population with an annual per capita income of $20,000 or more. At the very bottom
of the pyramid (Tier 4) are the people who make less than $1,500 per capita, but make up four
billion of the world’s population. This poses an “invisible opportunity,” which companies
9 Prahalad and Hart, “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid.”
5 | P a g e
should strive to reach. Those who could manage to successfully tap into that market, selling their
products and services, would be given a competitive advantage. At the same time, their goods
could actually help build the technology and infrastructures needed for the developing world to
modernize. Prahalad and Hart also caution about marketing goods intended for Tier 1 to the Tier
4 population, asserting that not only are the needs different but the cultural context and
environment should be taken into consideration as well.
While Prahalad and Hart focus on the role of multinational corporations, several NGOs,
nonprofits, and startups have taken on similar roles, using sustainable business practices to
promote development initiatives. In an online report for Fast Company, Whitney Pastorek
profiles a startup that aims to supply solar power in rural Guatemala.10 Two former corporate
managers, Juan Rodriguez and Manuel Aguilar, wanted to work on more pressing issues that
would add “value to the world,” such as the lack of electricity in poor rural communities. They
noticed that many of the communities have already been using solar power through donated kits
received from NGOs, but there were no follow-up services to support or fix the systems once
they broke. They founded Quetsol11 with the idea of using the free market to deliver more
effective solar energy solutions. By visiting the communities, observing their environment and
lifestyles, and building trust, they were able to design products that catered to their specific
needs—and at a cheaper price. They also noticed that a “pay-as-you-go” model worked best for
many people who could not afford to pay a monthly energy bill. Because Rodriguez and Aguilar
made it a priority to really listen to the communities’ voices—rather than employing a top-down
approach—they have built an impressive and thriving social enterprise that is not only generating
income but developing the energy infrastructure in rural Guatemala.
Although Social Entrepreneurship models seem promising in both the business and
development arenas, many are questioning the definition and even motives of social enterprises.
Business professors Chantal Hervieux, Eric Gedajlovic, and Marie-France Turcotte, explore the
legitimization of Social Entrepreneurship as a field in a research paper on the subject. From their
analysis of various literatures on Social Entrepreneurship, they have found that scholars
generally characterize the field with eight concepts: social mission, socio-economic organization,
10 Pastorek, “Bringing Solar to Impoverished Towns, with a Model Straight from the Corporate World.” 11 More information about Quetsol can be found in their website (http://www.quetsol.com).
6 | P a g e
innovation, sustainability, social change, opportunities, autonomy, and risk.12 A common driver
among all social enterprises, and as highlighted in the report on Questol, is the creation of social
value over personal and shareholder wealth. Despite the “dual logic” of Social
Entrepreneurship—dual because they operate to generate profit but also put that profit back into
poor communities—Hervieux et al. note that the field has been growing commonly accepted by
many professionals as a means to promote development in impoverished areas.
Design Thinking and Human Centered Design
It is easy to mistake terms such as Design Thinking and Human Centered Design as
concerns exclusive to artists; however, they are concepts that are highly valued in today’s big
tech companies, and have since been promoted by corporations and MBA schools as effective
strategies to boost productivity and increase sales. Venessa Wong profiles this trend in her web
article for Bloomberg Businessweek, stating that companies have seen a revenue increase of as
much as 40% since implementing regular activities to encourage design thinking practices.13
Many companies have even started hiring Chief Design Officers to help manage such exercises
and create a culture of innovation in the workplace.
Design Thinking may help improve market share, but at its very core are values rooted in
empathy, participation, and collaboration. The concept is not entirely new; its origins can be
traced back to the 1970s when a similar movement—known as Participatory Design—explored
the role of designers in creating “Things” of social value as opposed to consumer goods.14 Indeed,
proponents of Design Thinking are more concerned over how to solve society’s social and
economic problems, which often involve multiple players and are generally complex by nature.
Bjögvinsson, Ehn, and Hillgren define Design Thinking as an “infrastructuring”
process—one in which everyone (from senior management to consumer/beneficiary) is
considered a designer, and multistakeholder participation is key to the project’s success.15
Oftentimes the stages from design to implementation are linear, with input from the community
(or whom the product will serve) taken into consideration only at the very beginning. Instead,
12 Hervieux, Gedajlovic, and Turcotte, “The legitimization of social entrepreneurship,” 56. 13 Wong, “How Business is Adopting Design Thinking.” 14 Bjögvinsson et al. make a distinction between “things” and “Things” (with a capital T), where the latter is more concerned about developing socioeconomic solutions rather than consumer products (“Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges,” 103). 15 Ibid., 107-110.
7 | P a g e
Bjögvinsson et al. propose that social innovators and designers create infrastructuring processes
that are open-ended and multi-linear—with participation during all stages—to allow for the
flexibility needed to draw creative solutions.
Tim Brown has taken the concept of Design Thinking and expanded its definition further
to serve a more “human-centered” and global purpose. In his article for the Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Brown makes a call for designers to put people first, stating,
“innovation has become nothing less than a survival strategy.”16 To stay innovative (and
ultimately competitive), businesses should not forget about the opportunities that exist working
with “extreme users” in developing countries. Like C.K. Prahalad, Brown realizes the
importance of designing products for those in need, as doing so would not only help contribute to
the social good, but increase their market in areas most organizations fail to reach.
As CEO of IDEO17, Brown places this concept of Human Centered Design at the
forefront of its mission. In a report written for the World Bank Institute, he outlines the various
stages IDEO implements for each of its projects.18 He identifies them as the three “I’s”:
Inspiration, Ideation, and Implementation. At the center of the Inspiration Stage is the brief—a
working blueprint that lists the benchmarks and objectives of the project. A needs assessment is
then made to better understand the market. IDEO believes in conducting this needs assessment
through direct observation (rather than surveys) and relationship building with local communities.
The observations gained from the assessment are then translated into insights during the Ideation
Stage, where various ideas are generated, tested, and revised. The third stage, Implementation,
allows these ideas to transform into actual products and services. Following these steps with the
flexibility and an understanding that every project comes with a different set of challenges is
what allows IDEO opportunities to “bring design and innovation to sectors that have not
traditionally incorporated these approaches.”19 IDEO’s bet is that such approaches would
ultimately allow products and services to reach those living under extreme conditions.
Although the concepts of Design Thinking and Human Centered Design have been touted
as effective ways to drive innovation in organizations and to solve pressing problems, they are
16 Brown and Katz, “Change by Design.” 17 IDEO is a Silicon Valley-based consulting firm that focuses on design to solve issues in product development and innovation for companies and organizations across all sectors. 18 Brown and Wyatt, “Design Thinking for Social Innovation.” 19 This is taken from an interview with Jocelyn Wyatt, head of IDEO’s social innovation design division (“The Power of Design in Global Development”).
8 | P a g e
not immune to critics. In a web opinion piece for Fast Company, Bruce Nussbaum writes,
“Design Thinking has given the design profession and society at large all the benefits it has to
offer and is beginning to ossify and actually do harm.”20 He argues for organizations to shift
away from the framework and opt for one that focuses on “Creative Intelligence” instead. The
differentiating factor between Creative Intelligence and Design Thinking is that the former
focuses on creative literacy—abilities to learn from practice (rather than thinking), frame
complex problems in an environment filled with uncertainty, and build new solutions. He further
argues that Design Thinking is not as approachable to all as it should be. Creative Intelligence
would meet this gap by allowing for broader participation.
Development Projects on Agriculture and Energy
In many areas of extreme poverty, the key to economic development lies in agriculture
and energy. In fact, much of the work that has been done by NGOs and other organizations
around the globe focus on promoting sustainable farming and energy practices while upgrading
the primitive infrastructures oftentimes set in place by state governments. There are many studies
involving organizations who work in this area. The following is a brief overview of a few
relevant ones.
Jessica Vivian has observed the important role NGOs play in Zimbabwe. In her paper on
sustainable development in the nation, she highlights many of Zimbabwe’s environmental
problems, such as soil erosion, deforestation, and dwindling water supply.21 Before
implementing any project, she argues that NGOs should first fully understand the causes of these
problems, whether they are the result of state policies or poor resource management, instead of
over-generalizing using cases seen elsewhere. Vivian also finds that although community
(grassroots) reach is a major strength of NGOs, it is limited by the lack of self-sustainability due
to complete reliance of their donors, which may prevent them from taking certain risks. To
address this concern, she recommends that donors support NGO failures, as experimentation
only contributes to a “deeper understanding of development problems and their solutions.”22
20 Nussbaum, “Design Thinking is a Failed Experiment. So What’s Next?” 21 Vivian, “NGOs and Sustainable Development in Zimbabwe,” 171-174. 22 Ibid., 191.
9 | P a g e
Similarly, Sean Neill and David Lee have documented sustainable agriculture practices in
Honduras.23 In Honduras’ case, the lack of land management has caused immense degradation
and limited supplies, especially as farmers move from place to place, planting crops and then
burning them once the land becomes unproductive. Doing so is considered cheaper than paying
for new tools or fertilizer. Neill and Lee propose the reintegration of a traditional farming
methods used by earlier Hondurans to keep the land fertile in between seasons. This method is
composed of alternating between growing corn and legumes. Although it is not too clear from
their research why this traditional practice had been discontinued by the locals, the issue of how
to train farmers to readopt this method is an area yet to be explored by development and
sustainable agriculture experts.
In a more recent case study based in another region of the world, scholars Biswas, Bryce,
and Diesendorf write about energy problems in Bangladesh.24 Bangladesh is similar to Myanmar
in that much of the economy relies on its agriculture sector, yet its rural population is isolated,
poor, and far from the services of the national power grid. Biswas et al. make a call for
promoting renewable energy technologies (RETs)25 to help these communities gain access to
electricity. They present a model for community empowerment that involves assisting villages to
form cooperatives facilitated by outside organizations (such as NGOs and universities). These
village organizations would receive funding help from banks as well as microfinance loans for
their operations. They would then provide electricity to their communities for farming and
selling biogas plants, education, and other purposes. Such a model, they conclude, would make
Bangladesh’s rural communities self-sustainable and able to generate income.
Literature Review: Conclusions
In this section, I have listed the various concepts and research that contribute to a better
understanding of the growing convergence of business and socioeconomic development. The
legitimization and thriving practice of Social Entrepreneurship as a sustainable and effective
means for an organization to reach the rural poor has transformed the way practitioners view
development. In addition, approaches in Human Centered Design and Design Thinking provide a
23 Neill and Lee, “Explaining the Adoption and Disadoption of Sustainable Agriculture: The Case of Cover Crops in Northern Honduras.” 24 Biswas, Bryce, and Diesendorf, “Model for empowering rural poor through renewable energy technologies in Bangladesh.” 25 Ibid., 335. They define RETs as energy sourced from sunlight, wind, wood, agricultural waste, and animal power.
10 | P a g e
model in which organizations who work toward the social good can stay innovative and
successfully create, market, and distribute products and services to meet the needs of the
developing nations.
There are many studies in the areas involving agriculture, energy, and development. I
have reviewed a few of particular relevance. Each of these studies are similar in that the rural
communities of Zimbabwe, Honduras, and Bangladesh all lack capital, infrastructure, and
technology. While these studies have provided their own solutions to the problems impeding
development, there seems to be a lack of focus on the actual people—the rural poor—and their
role in the development of their own communities. Furthermore, there is limited literature on
market-based models for development in practice. Even less are studies involving locally based
organizations in Myanmar and their contribution to the state’s development.
Proximity Designs is unique in that it actively practices design thinking and utilizes the
framework promoted by IDEO to deliver powerful tools and services to the poor, agricultural
communities of Myanmar. In my analysis of this social enterprise, I will explore their bottom-up
approach and how they are able to leave their mark in what was until recently an extremely
isolated market. This study would contribute to a better understanding of social enterprises that
use design and market strategies to empower the global poor and further development initiatives.
Literature Review: Bibliography
Biswas, Wahidul K., Paul Bryce, and Mark Diesendorf. “Model for empowering rural poor
through renewable energy technologies in Bangladesh.” Environmental Science & Policy 4
(2001): 333-344.
Bjögvinsson, Erling, Pelle Ehn, and Per-Anders Hillgren. “Design Things and Design Thinking:
Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges.” DesignIssues 28, no. 3 (Summer 2012):
101-116.
Brown, Tim and Barry Katz. “Change by Design.” Journal of Product Innovation Management
28 (2011): 381-383.
Brown, Tim and Jocelyn Wyatt. “Design Thinking for Social Innovation.” Development
Outreach 12, no. 1 (July 2010): 29-31, 43.
11 | P a g e
Hervieux, Chantal, Eric Gedajlovic, and Marie-France B. Turcotte. “The legitimization of social
entrepreneurship.” Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global
Economy 4, no. 1 (2010): 37-67.
Neill, Sean P. and David R. Lee. “Explaining the Adoption and Disadoption of Sustainable
Agriculture: The Case of Cover Crops in Northern Honduras.” Economic Development and
Cultural Change 49, no. 4 (July 2001): 793-820.
Nussbaum, Bruce. “Design Thinking is a Failed Experiment. So What’s Next?” Fast Company
(April 5, 2011): accessed April 21, 2014. http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663558/design-
thinking-is-a-failed-experiment-so-whats-next.
Pastorek, Whitney. “Bringing Solar to Impoverished Towns, with a Model Straight from the
Corporate World.” Fast Company (August 2013): accessed March 13 2014.
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3016109/change-generation/bringing-solar-to-impoverished-
towns-with-a-model-straight-from-the-corpor.
Prahalad, C.K. and Stuart L. Hart. “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid.”
Strategy+Business, no. 26 (2002): 1-14.
“The Power of Design in Global Development.” International Trade Forum (2009): 11-12.
Vivian, Jessica. “NGOs and Sustainable Development in Zimbabwe: No Magic Bullets.”
Development and Change 25 (1994): 167-193.
Wong, Venessa. “How Business is Adopting Design Thinking.” Bloomberg Businessweek
(November 03, 2009): accessed April 21, 2014. http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2009-
11-03/how-business-is-adopting-design-thinkingbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-
and-financial-advice.
Research Findings
Proximity Designs’ model for agriculture and sustainable development is special in that it
actively engages with the community and creates opportunities for those within the organization
and out. Proximity also builds strategic partnerships, specifically with various organizations
based in Silicon Valley and prestigious academic institutions in the US. The following sections
will analyze Proximity Designs’ structure and the impact of its work in Myanmar.
12 | P a g e
Development Paradigms & Approaches
Development and questions regarding the best approaches in the field have historically
been heavily debated subjects. When it comes to today’s organizations employing innovative
ways to mobilize the economy through the use of technology and partnerships, the question over
which paradigm works or does not work is even more relevant. Proximity Design’s development
work is especially unique because it is completely self-sustaining and locally operated. In fact, it
would be difficult to apply the more traditional paradigms of development to Proximity Designs
as well as to other social enterprises.
In her lecture on the many definitions of development, Professor Levinson describes the
characteristics of each traditional paradigm.26 Modernization Theory advocates for the rapid
urbanization and widespread exposure to largely Western values and ideals. The mass media is
heavily involved in this linear process, providing such information and ideas to the people of
developing nations. On the other hand, the Dependency Paradigm, as promoted by scholars
Amin, Cardoso, and Faletto, challenged the Modernization Approach by arguing that
development problems could only be solved by the state itself and should not be handled by
outside forces (especially the West).27 Both major paradigms may have opposing views, but they
are similar in that they focus primarily on the state’s role in promoting development. Proximity
Designs is neither controlled by the state nor is it operated by an outside entity (although, it does
have close relationships with Western organizations). As such, the two traditional models may
not be the best ones to apply to Proximity’s work.
Of all the development theories, the Network Paradigm and Interorganizational Approach
would best describe the organizational structure and processes behind Proximity Designs’ work,
especially since its successes are due in large part to its collaborations with outside institutions.28
Networks encompass state and non-state actors, each acting as interconnected nodes with the
power to diffuse ideas that affect the environment and vice-versa. Becker further promotes this
concept by stating that the connections are stronger when a common interest or goal exists
between them.29 As mentioned in the introduction, Proximity works with its partners at Stanford
University as well as other notable Silicon Valley organizations such as IDEO and Mortar to
26 Levinson, “Definition of Development,” Session 2 Lecture. 27 Levinson, “Technology and Development in International Communication,” 6933. 28 See Appendix A for a detailed Systems Analysis Chart. 29 Becker, “Organizational Ecology and Knowledge Networks,” 45.
13 | P a g e
design and market products for Myanmar’s farmers. Similarly, Proximity partners with Harvard
University to produce literature in agriculture, sustainability, and economics as Myanmar
transitions to a more open state. What binds all these organizations together are their common
interests in promoting innovation for social and economic development as well as in
understanding the underlying factors stunting Myanmar’s growth.
Another key concept in the Network Paradigm is the idea of structural holes (as defined
by Ronald Burt), in which a “tertius gaudens” is needed to bridge a gap between networks.30 A
great example of this is in Stanford’s University’s role as the tertius gauden, connecting
Proximity to Sam Goldman, graduate of the d.school and now CEO of the startup d.light. One
may think that such a partnership is unlikely, but when one considers the number of Myanmar’s
rural poor living without power, it all suddenly makes perfect sense. Proximity collaborates with
d.light, distributing their low-cost solar powered lamps to much of the region’s powerless
communities.
The environment also plays a key role in the relationships between networks and
knowledge transfer. Since Proximity Designs is based in Yangon, there are many factors to
consider that may benefit or jeopardize their work. A key issue is political uncertainty, especially
with much anticipated elections in 2015. The Burmese government, after a long military rule, has
been making efforts to modernize and clean up its image in recent years. All this could change if
the elections end with much opposition, which could in turn cause some problems in allowing
Proximity to reach its projected annual growth.
A catastrophic event that had almost ruined Proximity’s mission was Cyclone Nargis in
2008. In its aftermath, Proximity offered their headquarters as a home base for many who had
lost their homes. They also distributed aid and helped in the rebuilding efforts before outside
relief organizations came in. This allowed them to build closer relationships with its surrounding
community and develop the trust needed to ultimately build their brand and increase sales.
Lastly, Proximity works under an environment where there are virtually no competitors
in the agricultural tools and services industry. One could say that they have largely created the
market in Burma themselves. This has no doubt contributed further to their success, as they are
the only ones with the capacity to sell such effective tools, and at a price the people are willing to
pay.
30 Levinson, “Networks,” Session 3 Lecture.
14 | P a g e
Proximity is able to penetrate the market due to its active engagement with its consumers,
creating a sort of two-way communication flow between the farmers and their operations. In the
next section, I will outline how this applies to Participatory Frameworks, specifically Lennie and
Tacchi and Heek’s approaches to development.
Participatory Frameworks
Lennie and Tacchi’s framework is almost synonymous with Human Centered Design
approaches in that there is a heavy emphasis on grassroots participation and a strong
understanding of the local culture. In this section, I will apply a few relevant concepts from their
evaluation framework to Proximity Designs’ development work.
Lennie and Tacchi list seven particular elements to consider when evaluating
development programs. They include Participatory, Holistic, Critical, Realistic, Learning-Based,
Emergent, and Complex.31 The Participatory element is concerned over the involvement of
stakeholders and the importance of knowledge transfer between them. Proximity meets this
element this by actively involving its stakeholders at all stages. This is best exemplified through
its constant interactions and direct observations with its consumer base. By designing its
products and services around what the individual farmers actually need, Proximity is better
positioned to not only make sales, but get farmers willing and excited to utilize them.
The Holistic component calls for an understanding of the wider cultural context as well as
organizational and institutional systems in which the organization operates. A good example of
this is through the names of Proximity’s products, which are given names to resemble common
animals such as “Baby Buffalo” and “Red Rhino.” In addition, Proximity’s logo displayed in all
their products is written in the local language. This ensures approachability of their products as
well as the development of a brand that the community could uniquely call their own.
Similarly, the Realistic component to Lenni and Tacchi’s framework promotes simple
and practical solutions that keep in consideration local context. Proximity’s products have been
designed to be simple, almost intuitive to use.32 They’ve also taken consideration of the lack of
energy to power the more modern tools used in US farms. The pumps require manual labor on
the user’s part for this reason, but this again ensures ease of use as it requires limited
31 Lennie and Tacchi, 21-24. 32 See Appendix C for a detailed description of Proximity’s products.
15 | P a g e
technological know-how to operate. Some have even remarked at how enjoyable it is to step on
the pumps.
Finally, the Learning-Based component ensures that the organization creates a culture of
learning to promote continuous understanding and collaboration. Proximity offers its employees,
the majority of whom are local Burmese, regular trainings through its “Proximity School.” Taken
place annually (during Monsoon season), all team members return to headquarters for workshops
on all aspects of operational and business management. Such topics include data analysis,
marketing, leadership, and photography. To further encourage a culture of innovation, these
workshops are designed to allow employees to express their creativity, work in teams, and
brainstorm ideas, which they would then take back with them as they work in the field.
Heeks’ makes a similar call for a more inclusive and flexible approach to development,
but his work also highlights the importance of collecting data to analyze the impact of a
development initiative.33 The work of Proximity Designs is very data driven (thanks in part to the
business background of Jim Taylor), and they seem to be obsessed with collecting figures to
assess their overall impact. In fact, their quarterly fiscal reports are available on their website for
the public to view.34 This not only allows Proximity to set target goals, but attracts outside
investors such as Visa and Caterpillar, and other organizations (public, private, or non-profit)
with social missions.
Isomorphism
As mentioned in the previous sections, and depicted in the Systems Diagram, Proximity
Designs has a close connection to the Silicon Valley tech circle, resulting in some interesting
implications on Proximity’s overall philosophy and work culture. Because of the regular
knowledge transfer, it is no surprise that Proximity has adopted some of the habits that have
helped Silicon Valley’s startups thrive.
Isomorphism, according to Zucker, “helps us understand how organizations adopt
patterns that are externally defined as appropriate to their environment and that are reinforced in
interactions with other organizations.”35 There are three types of this sort of organizational
copying. The most appropriate one to categorize Proximity’s adoption of Silicon Valley’s
33 Heeks, “Do Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) Contribute to Development?” 630. 34 These reports are available via their Reports page (http://proximitydesigns.org/about/reports-and-financials). 35 Levinson, “Institutional Change,” Session 6 Lecture.
16 | P a g e
techniques is mimetic, which is pure copying from a role model-like figure as a result of resource
exchanges and the network connections that exist.
Proximity’s collaborations with its tech partners have most likely influenced the way it
works. This is pretty evident in its main website, which contains high-definition images, social
media links, and interactive testimonials of their live customers. We can also see this in
Proximity’s logo, which is clean-cut and minimal, yet distinguishable—fairly similar to the
famous logos of Twitter, Vimeo, and the like. Their workplace environment also promotes
working in teams and exploring creative solutions with their open spaces (as opposed to
cubicles) and usage of colorful post-it notes. This quote solidifies this point further: “We’re
designers too and we’ve made an organization that reflects this mentality—open, creative and
design focused.”36
Their direct mimicking of Silicon Valley’s tech companies has successfully created a
workplace culture unlike how other companies and/or organizations in Myanmar are set up. I do
wonder if this is unlike how the Burmese people naturally interact with each other, and whether
such open collaboration took some adjustment. Whatever the case, Proximity may have slowly
affected the changes to existing institutions. If any of their team members move on to build their
own organizations, it would be interesting to see how much of the new structures are a result of
Proximity’s influence.
Change Champions & Effective Leadership
Proximity Designs would not be where it is today if it were not for the active leadership
of Debbie Aung Din and Jim Taylor. As Levinson mentions her lecture on change, strong leaders
are needed to carry out large-scale missions.37
When we consider the factors for organizational change it is easy to overlook the roles
leaders in guiding it every step of the way. Professors Fernandez and Rainey find a number of
factors that promote institutional changes at the government level, all of which require the
initiative and guidance of a smart leader.38 These factors include understanding and
communicating the need for change, providing a plan to implement change, building support at
all levels to overcome resistance to change, providing resources, and finally institutionalizing
36 Proximity Designs on their work environment: http://proximitydesigns.org/about/our-culture. 37 Levinson, “Frameworks for Understanding Change, Transformation, and Ethical Leadership,” Session 7 Lecture. 38 Fernandez and Rainey, “Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector.”
17 | P a g e
change. Despite them writing about government, these factors are appropriate for any
organization working toward improving society.
The Taylors both saw a need for better irrigation tools and agricultural assistance in
Myanmar and, since the government did not pay much attention to the struggles of the farmers,
they decided to do something about it. They entered the country with previous knowledge of the
culture (due to Debbie’s heritage), and their skills gained from their previous experiences and
education in international development and business. They were so driven by their mission that
they were able enlist the help of powerful institutions and gain the right resources to make their
Proximity fully functional. And, despite some initial resistance from the farmers, they were soon
able to build a strong customer base by designing products that were made especially for them.
Similar case studies looking at organizations such as Kiva and the Digital Opportunity
Trust have also been built up by such champions of change. Indeed, as the number of social
entrepreneurships and initiatives to promote global social innovation within established
corporations and other organizations grows, effective leaders with new ideas and a sense of
optimism would become more commonplace. As society begins to tackle the world’s largest and
complex problems, and initiate efforts to bridge the increasing poverty gap, more of these change
masters would be needed.
Research Conclusions
Proximity Designs’ market-based and Human Centered Design approaches are effective
because they involve an understanding of the local culture and regional context, while
prioritizing participation from the rural poor in the development of its products and services. Its
work toward the social and economic development of Myanmar as an independently run social
enterprise reflects a shift in the dominating development models from being largely state-centric
to one that is dominated by civil society. Instead, the Network Paradigm would best explain
Proximity’s network and its relationship with its partners as keys drivers to its operational
success.
Proximity’s strong network also allows it to exchange ideas with other organizations. It is
known to be inspired by the famous tech companies of Silicon Valley, and aspires to use their
models to promote innovation within its own organization. All this was made possible due to the
18 | P a g e
dedication and strong leadership of its founders, institutionalizing much needed changes to
Myanmar’s agricultural sector.
This is not to say that Proximity Designs have found the ideal and perfect model for
international development. In fact, there are a few challenges to solve that may put Proximity in
a disadvantaged position. Despite the popularity of their products and services increasing, the
talent pool in Myanmar is stunted by limited access to education and skilled training. For
example, a growing number of farmers have requested consultation services to learn more about
effective ways to free their plants of pests; however, Proximity has only but a few skilled
agronomists who understand the village cultures and situation to service the entire country.39
Proximity would have to figure out a way to meet their customer demands without resorting to
outsourcing the work elsewhere.
Another issue of concern is the reach of Proximity’s efforts once demand has reached its
peak yet infrastructure and resources are still underdeveloped due to the slowness of
governments to respond. Proximity has, with local help, handled infrastructure projects
(especially after 2008’s cyclone). For it to reach a larger scale, however, it would need the help
of the Burmese government to develop roads, mobile technology, and sources of energy.
This case study has provided an overview of how one social enterprise has managed
mobilize an economy, building livelihoods and hope for the future in the rural poor. More
research is needed to determine the long-term effects of Proximity’s efforts in Myanmar’s
agricultural sector, and whether or not such an approach to development can be applied in other
countries. In addition, it would be interesting to see how Proximity’s work affects (either
indirectly or directly) the state government. Scholars may use Proximity as an example to call to
question the role and legitimacy of state in development efforts, and promote the idea of civil
society as actual rulers of change.
39 “Sowing Seeds” – a profile on Myanmar’s Proximity Designs.
19 | P a g e
Bibliography
Becker, Franklin. “Organizational Ecology and Knowledge Networks.” California Management
Review 49, no. 2 (Winter 2007): 42-61.
Fernandez, Sergio and Hal G. Rainey. “Managing Successful Organizational Change in the
Public Sector.” Public Administration Review (March-April 2006): 168-176.
Heeks, Richard. “Do Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) Contribute to
Development?” Journal of International Development 22 (2010): 625-640.
Lennie, June and Jo Tacchi. Evaluating Communication for Development: A Framework for
Social Change. : New York, NY: Routledge, 2013.
Levinson, Nanette. “Technology and Development in International Communication.” The
International Studies Encyclopedia. Edited by Robert A. Denemark. West Sussex, UK:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2010.
Levinson, Nanette. “Frameworks for Understanding Change, Transformation, and Ethical
Leadership.” Session 7 Lecture (April 8, 2014).
Levinson, Nanette. “Definition of Development.” Session 2 Lecture (January 21, 2014).
Levinson, Nanette. “Institutional Change.” Session 6 Lecture (February 17, 2014).
Levinson, Nanette. “Networks.” Session 3 Lecture (January 27, 2014).
“Sowing Seeds.” Harvard Magazine (January-February 2014): accessed February 11, 2014.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2014/01/sowing-seeds.
21 | P a g e
Appendix B: Country Profile for Myanmar
Name: Myanmar (Burma)
Capital: Nay Pyi Taw
Government: Parliament, formerly under
military junta until 2011
President: Thein Sein (former general)
Population: 55,746,253 (2014 est.)
GDP per capita: $1, 700 (2013 est.)
GDP composition:
Agriculture – 38%
Industry – 20%
Services – 41.7% (2013 est.)
Natural Disaster: In 2008, Myanmar was
hit by Cyclone Nargis, killing over
138,000 people and displacing thousands
more.
Statistics from The World Factbook and the Central Intelligence Agency
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html)
22 | P a g e
Appendix C: Proximity Designs Irrigation Products
THE ORIGINAL PUMP Launched: 2006 Price: 39,000 Kyat (US $40) Total Units Sold: 9,596 Suction Depth: 20 feet Flow Rate: 580Gal/Hour
WATER TANK STORAGE Launched: 2012 Price: 22,000 Kyat (US $23) Total Units Sold: 11,083
BABY BUFFALO Launched: 2012 Price: 33,500 Kyat (US $34) Total Units Sold: 1,065 Suction Depth: 25 feet Flow Rate: 900Gal/Hour
BABY ELEPHANT Launched: 2010
Price: 15,000 Kyat (US $16) Total Units Sold: 21,356
Suction Depth: 25 feet Flow rate: 850Gal/Hour
GRAVITY-FED DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEMS Launched: 2009 Price: 35,000 Kyat (US $36) Total Units Sold: 8,138
List of products and services can be found here:
http://proximitydesigns.org/products-services
23 | P a g e
Appendix D: Proximity Designs Impact and Reach
Figures Source: http://proximitydesigns.org/impact/numbers
From Q1 of Fiscal Year 2013 Report:
Agricultural Loans Distributed: $26,000
Solar Light Units Sold: 1,590
New Farm Advisory Services Administered: 936
Tools Manufactured: 2,500
Source: http://proximitydesigns.org/images/uploads/Proximity_Q1_FY2013_Report.pdf
24 | P a g e
Appendix E: Proximity Designs Partners and Investors
Investors & Funding Sources:
The Mulago Foundation – www.mulagofoundation.org
The Skoll Foundation – www.skollfoundation.org
Oxfam Novib – www.oxfamnovib.nl
Stromme Foundation – www.strommestiftelsen.no/english
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs – www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud.html?id=833
USAID – www.usaid.gov
Visa – www.visa.com
Lift – www.lift-fund.net
Jasmine Social Investments – www.jasmine.org.nz
Planet Wheeler – www.planetwheeler.org
Peery Foundation – www.peeryfoundation.com
Bartol Foundation – www.bartol.org
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship – www.schwabfound.org
CHF International - http://cfhfoundation.grantsmanagement08.com/
Caterpillar – www.caterpillar.com
David C. Weekley Family Foundation
Herman P. & Sofia Taubman Foundation
Matt Berry & Patty Lyons Family
Active Partners:
Tomorrow
IDEO
Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation
Institute of Design at Stanford University
Mortar
Curry Stone Design Prize