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.

20 | P a g e

Appendix A: Systems Analysis Diagram for Proximity Designs

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