Prioritizing the Poor’s Preferences and Needs in Technology Design
Within the last decade, technological and material advances across a variety of sectors have made it possible to create more efficient, and in many cases, more cost-effective products and technologies for those living at the base of the pyramid (BoP) than was ever possible before. Indeed, it seems that everywhere you look these days – from the daily news to academic competitions to social start-ups – that new inventions or twists on existing technologies are popping up, each promising ever more effective, affordable, and durable technological solutions.
Striving to make products and technologies “better” is important in the ongoing effort to supply BoP populations with goods and services that will improve their quality of life and, ultimately, help to reduce poverty. However, as development practitioners, we must not lose sight of the fact that the “technology-side” of product and technology development is only half of the challenge. Producing technologies that push efficiency “limits” to new levels while simultaneously reducing production costs and extending the longevity of the technologies is often not enough to ensure real impact and progress. Why? Because culture, personal preferences, ingrained habits, etc. influence how people react to technologies, what they want from technologies, and how they will use (or not use) technologies – regardless of whether they are wealthy or poor. In other words, the “people-side” of development needs to be better incorporated into the product and technology design process.
We all want technologies that we can afford, are user-friendly, have obvious advantages (time-savings or otherwise) and meet our aspirational goals. Simple enough, but figuring out the nuances of this statement and what exactly people want, expect, and need from any given product or technology is less straightforward. Why? Because we often fail to even ask the poor what they need and want.
Even we do make an effort to understand the poor’s needs and wants, we often think that we can design around the exacting expectations and requirements of BoP consumers and create a product that they did not even know that they wanted. Or, we simply fail to dig deeply enough to understand that, just because the poor say they want more a more efficient cookstove, it does not mean that they will ultimately buy the more efficient model if the less efficient model better meets their desire for a pleasing aesthetic design, or is easier to use, for example.
Daniel Sobol, a design strategist at Continuum, published an article yesterday titled “Far-Fetched Ideas Are Fun. But Innovation Usually Starts Small” in which he reminds us that:
“Innovation is about solving people’s problems in a way that’s meaningful to them in the context of their lives. It’s about finding ways to design services, products, and experiences that help people achieve their goals. It’s about making life better for people, on people’s terms, however they define what ‘better’ means.”
The bottom line is that the most-efficient, cost-effective, easy-to-maintain, life-improving technology will be rendered useless if the technology does not prioritize and effectively incorporate the poor’s preferences and needs into the product design. BoP consumers tend to be less willing to take chances on unfamiliar technologies given their limited disposable income and are also less willing to adopt new technologies if switching only brings marginal benefit, regardless of whether the marginal benefit is real or perceived. With exacting requirements and less willingness to gamble on less than “ideal” technologies (by their definition), the poor must be listened to and their preferences and needs must be prioritized. We cannot simply assume that what we think is best is what they will think is best and what we prioritize is what they will prioritize.
To do this and to ultimately affect real change in the lives of those living at the BoP, we need to give the “people-side” of development just as much attention as the “technology-side” and realize that the poor will not settle for products and technologies that we want them to want. Our efforts may not always result in the most efficient cookstove that is technologically feasible or the portable solar lantern with the longest possible battery-life BUT these efforts and the resulting products and technologies may actually be used. And, what could be better than (to use Mr. Sobol’s words) “…making life better for people, on people’s terms, however they define what ‘better’ means.”
