Social Innovation > Learn

In order to complete the requirements for the “Learn” mission of “Social Innovation” one is required to “own” one of the 33 “secrets” of being a social innovator which can be found in a curious post in the Designing Africa blog (http://designinafrica.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/innovation-in-africa-tips/) by David Tait.

Gamers conditioned by straightforward action titles, MMO RPGs where gameplay revolves around doing specific quests with specific people in a specific role, or overly linear RPGs like FFXIII will quickly choose one of the 33 secrets, “own” it, and demonstrate how quickly they can reach the end flag. However, gamers conditioned by open adventures, like Zelda or open RPGs that allow for exploration, like FF6, and even by some open world action titles, like Tomb Raider or GTA 3, will know that additional exploration is good. People conditioned by these games don’t want to experience a story at someone else’s pace – they want to experience the story AND the world at THEIR pace, so long as there is an eventual story to follow.

I am one such gamer, and instead of experiencing the story at someone else’s pace and “owning” one of the secrets, I will look at them critically within the context they are mentioned, and “own” or “discard” them as I see fit. I will, of course, only keep those I think useful for an enhanced global human experience, and discard those I think add to the putrefaction of the human experience.

From Ethan Zuckerman’s post ‘Innovating from constraint:

The first “secret” states that “Innovation (often) comes from constraint (If you’ve got very few resources, you’re forced to be very creative in using and reusing them.)” It’s impossible to disagree. Indeed, when humanity was young and setting out from the African Savannah to populate Europe and Asia, they were nothing more than naked hunched neanderthals. They realized, however, that outside of the relatively warm and comfortable weather that Africa aforded them, winters were cold. Their need for fur robes is what likely spurred the invention of hunting weapons, and these hunting weapons, an innovation, in turn made possible the killing of animals in order to make fur coverings for human skin.

Roughly ten thousand years ago in some middle-eastern region between two rivers some tribe developped farming, likely as a reaction to a need for food, and even now several innovation-driven institutions like the Bill Gates foundation (whatever its real name is) are a response to a need – we need good alternate energy sources, they are focusing on fusion and chemical waste as a resource.

However, this creative energy can also be a harm.

Because the US “needed” to win the arms race, we developed nuclear bombs, because Japan “needed” to become like a western country it lost its culture, and because England “needed” cheap labor it raided Africa for slaves.

Still, a response to need is not the only thing that causes innvation – innovation can stem forth from a reaction to a previous movement. This idea manifests itself over and over throughout history – from the invention of a political system to overthrow a previously existing one to the creation of siege weapons to overpower larger armies walled in castles. Swords, armors, firearms, and bulletproof vests were all innovations that came about as a need, a reaction to previous innovations.

This same principle applies to literature, music, and virtually anything. Just as Romantic poetry was an innovative reaction to the Agustine poetry of the 18^th century and to the French Revolution, and Victorian poetry was an innovative reaction against the Romantic forms – just as science in evolution is a reaction to previous scientific and religious thought.

To summarize, we can safely state that innovation comes from need AND from a response to previous innovation. What does this mean for us as a human race? One of two things – 1) to be trully innovative in various areas, such as energy and climate, we must be at the verge of extinsion, or 2) to be trully innovative in any area there must already be innovation. This means that original, first time innovation does, indeed come from need. As a human race, we need changes, and we need them now – both at local and international levels. This innovation cannot be a half-hearted attempt at innovation where, as Gordon Brown suggested in his “Global Ethics versus National Interests” TED Talk, if the interest of the world is contradictory to that of one powerful nation “we convince the world that the world’s best interests are in the best interests of London”. It must be a true innovation that takes ALL humankind into account, and this innovation, whatever it may be, will likely not come from someone who lacks need – it will come from some poor, undereducated individual in some forgotten exile camp in north-eastern Ghana. Whatever the case, this “secret tip” is not a “secret tip” at all, but a law, and as such it is certainly a keeper.

Another keeper is the second secret, which says “don’t fight culture (If people cook by stirring their stews, they’re not going to use a solar oven, no matter what you do to market it. Make them a better stove instead.)”. Indeed, if you face someone of a different culture telling them that your culture is “better” than theirs is, for whatever reason, will result in negative, and likely violent, confrontations. Examples of this can be seen in the colonizers who went to America with bibles in their pockets and guns unholstered. Cultural bias have caused wars like the Crusades, the second world war, and Vietnam. Because of cultural bias, as the film Great Debators wonderfully states, “in Texas they lynch negroes”. Because of cultural bias there is discrimination and insulting racial terminology that I will not write on this post. In other words, indeed, it is better to accept another’s culture instead of fighting it. Fighting it may lead to mass murder, and even genocide. This law is certainly a keeper.

The third law, however, is not. Although free market, capitalism, and all those economic constructs which keep the US and the world economy going are indeed wonderful economic structures (when properly regulated), there are some instances when “embracing market mechanisms” do not work and should not be used. Can anyone in good conciense really follow the “give a man fish and he’ll ask you for more give him a fishing rod and he’ll learn to fish” philosophy when the starvinv man doesn’t even have the energy to pick up the rod? If a man is starving to the degree where he will beg, not for monoey, but for food, he is certainly not in a state to be trained to fish, or work. First and foremost, one would have to take care of the biological needs of that person – food, health, and so on. Once THAT is taken care of, THEN one can offer them a shelter and begin to train them towards a trade. This is true not only of the millions of Africans living in the outskirts of African megapolises, as portrayed in every World Vision infomercial, but also of the untrained homeless in South America, Europe, North America, and anywhere in the world.

Certainly, if a place has an economy one should follow whatever economy it has. Outside institutions should not come in and dictate how much their currency is worth, or what currency they should use, and if the economy of that place is by item trade, then, by applying the second tip, one would have to follow the item trade structure. I feel this is where, historically, many western countries have failed. They “discover” a place, nevermind the natives who were already there living in sometimes more advanced civilizations than western ones, like some of the Mexican indigineous civilizations, and once the place is “discovered” these nations ravage the land for resources which then they sell back to their natives in exchange for a fake currency that they “earn” by producing what they are buying. A place’s local economy should be as respected as its culture, even if we disagree with it (unless, of course, human rights are being violated, then a strong process of re-education should be enacted).

In the end, while this third “tip” sounds good in theory, we see that it does not apply to universal situations and that the “market concept” is not one defined by outsiders, but by insiders. If one can remember these rules of play, then this “tip” is a keeper. However, given the relentless greed of many individuals and corporations who follow this market principal, it is best that this tip, which has no relevance whatsoever to “innovation”, be left out of the discusion.

The fourth principle, “Innovate on existing platforms (We’ve got bicycles and mobile phones in Africa, plus lots of metal to weld. Innovate using that stuff, rather than bringing in completely new tech.)”, was previously discussed in conjunction to the first principle. Indeed, one can innovate on existing technologies. Making a micro-sized battery that can store unprecedented ammounts of energy, for example, is essential if we are going to eventually live off renewable energy, as are the development of efficient energy-collecting mechanisms. However, one would do well to remember that there are more types of innovation than simply improving on the old. If we had not made new descoveries that were not based on old technologies we would likely still be doing natural / alternative medicine and crude amputations instead of having the sophisticated tools we have, our very lightweight and sturdy metal carriages would still be drawn by horse, and our lightweight armor made of some lightweight material would protect us in wars from enhanced cutting weapons. Certainly, if we had not developped powder based weaponry or discovered uses for fossile fuels modern day war would look like a version of that portayed in the introduction to Lost Oddyssey and the world would look much like it does today with the exception of cars being replaced by cool aerodinamyc “Jaguar” and “Ferrari” brand wagons, we would use trains more, there would be no airplanes, and boats would still sail on wind. I can’t say that this would be a bad thing tho, as it would likely make the planet overall a more echologically safe world.

So, this fourth principle, improve on allready existing technology, is a keeper as long as we don’t forget that initial innovation is essential for our culture to move forward.

The fifth principle, Problems are not always obvious from afar (You really have to live for a while in a society where no one has currency larger than a $1 bill to understand the importance of money via mobile phones.), is an obvious one. Not so much a “secret tip” as a fact of life, one can’t truly understand societal problems unless one has immersed themselves in a said culture. The implicit advice to would-be innovators, then, is to travel to places where you want to solve problems (in my case, for example, Africa), study the problem from within (in my case from within the government) and come up with a solution mixing traditional thought and outside theory while respecting their culture. What I CAN do right now I do because I know both the culture of Puerto Rico and that of the people who attend school as well as the theory from elsewhere. Instead of focusing on what the great education thinkers of the late 19^th century said, I focus on current research, on what has been proven to work, and apply those concepts locally. That is how one begins to innovate on already built systems.

The sixth principle, “What you have matters more than what you lack (If you’ve got a bicycle, consider what you can build based on that, rather than worrying about not having a car, a truck, a metal shop.)”, is, once again, more of a generalized law than a “tip”. Any classroom researcher or teacher who has wanted to have one laptop for each student to engage them in computer assisted language learning, but has had to manage with five desktop computers knows that it is futile to wish for what one does not have. This is true in scientific experimentation (I wish I had more HN2 or whatever other chemical but I don’t so I’ll just go for C6O2 or whatever other chemical), computer software development (I wish I had the latest Visual Basic, but instead I have COBOL 2.0), and every single field of research and innovation, with the exception, perhaps, of those that design on paper – architectures, mathematicians, and so on. As the popular saying goes, “paper can hold anything you write on it”. It’s just more prudent to write on it based on materials you have.

The seventh principle, “Infrastructure can beget infrastructure (By building mobile phone infrastructure, we may be building power infrastructure for Africa.)” is indeed interesting, and my favorite out of the first set. I had never thought of doubling up resources in a single facility, mostly because my very limited training in architecture design (most of it on Starcraft, Tetris, and RPG Maker) and resource management (most of it on Sim City and Tetris) has taught me to make space efficient creations (university schedules where one can fit five or six groups a week in two classrooms, three or four story buildings with appartments and surrounding recreational areas that allow for enough people to conserve space but are few enough to form a bond of community between them instead of a large 9 room mannor with a statue room and 18 h*** golf course for a man and his wife, etc) but never told me that I could, for example, use an oil refinery to also refine crystal.

This has little relevance to my current attempt at innovation in education and academia, but eventually, I would certainly like to try my hand at a facility that works as a solar power plant (preferably using the new battery technology I spoke of in the fourth principle) that doubles up as a water treatment facility. This should not be very hard to accomplish.

The next seven tips, based on Amy Smith’s post on rules for design in the developing world, are indeed tips.

Having read the “tips” shortly over a week ago when I joined Evoke I got curious about the first tip (eigth in the overall list), living on 2$ a day. I thought – is it possible? It is. However, living on 2$ a day in the US is not the same as living on 2$ a day in an underdeveloped African country. Knowing that I had the unfair advantage of water fountains accessible both in my workplace and in the university where I studied I decided to focus my two dollars for Friday 19^th on buying bread. On this first day I had the delicious breakfast of air that I usually have and rushed to work having not eaten anything. This is something that I’ve gotten used to for the last few years. When I lived with my mother she used to have breakfast ready when I woke up. Now that I’m married to a woman who doesn’t eat breakfast I don’t have breakfast cooked for me (and forcing her to cook it just for my sake would be nothing short of servitude, that’s not what a relationship is about), and since I usually wake up five minutes before I’m supposed to go into work, making breakfast is not an option. I went to work, prepared some schedules for next term, and for lunch had two pieces of bread and water from the fountain. I kept working at the schedule until three, then went home. There I watched my daily podcasts and vlogs, read my blogs, read my inbox, and proceeded to work on writing a study of a certain game from an academic perspective. At about 9:00 p.m. I had two additional loaves of bread, had some water, and went to bed.

Saturday and Sunday were a problem. Having an uncooperative wife who likes to be taken to Outback every weekend is not something that would help. On Saturday I had my non-breakfast (meaning I didn’t eat), turned down a delicious smelling Lasagña she made and had my two loaves of bread, and for dinner she wanted me to take her to Longhorns, a place which I absolutely hate, as they always get my order wrong, because she wanted a chocolate stampeed (an excellently awesome dessert). I explained to her that I couldn’t because I only had 2.30$, explained her the rules of the game, and she got angry and kicked me out for the evening. One would think that being an environmentalist she would understand. I went to the supermarked, bought a pack of Chuck Wagon hot dogs (1.02$) and went to my mother’s house. I told her about the situation, she found it funny, and let me make myself two hotdogs. I ate them without bread as I had left it in my house. My wife called me saying she overreacted, I said it was OK, she said she would treat me to anywhere I wanted, and I told her to take me to Morton’s after the 2$ a day week was over. My mother accompanied me on the way back home as I tend to fall asleep when I drive late into the night. I began Sunday with more than half a bag of bread, six hotdogs, and 3.25$ (which include Sunday’s 2$). I took her and our kid to the park where he ran around, played, got on the car and went to a grocery store where I bought a 1.20$ cup of butter (I remember when I was 10 they used to go for 45 cents) and went home. I had a hotdog and a loaf of bread for dinner. Fourth day – Monday. I had some bread, some hotdogs, some butter, and 4.05$. I went to the store, bought a 95 cent pack of Land-O-Lakes ham, and went to work with my lunch bread with butter and an odd pack of ham in my bag. For lunch I had a ham and butter sandwitch, and for dinner I had a loaf of bread with butter and ham and a hotdog. Tuesday and Wednesday were similar to Monday, except that my savings went from 3.10$ to 5.10$ and 7:10$ respectively and my food supply was decreasing. I began today with 9$, a single loaf of bread, no ham, a bit of butter, and no hotdog. I decided to eat the piece of bread at the start of the day. During lunch I went to Burger King and bought two Burger Ring combos (it’s a promotion they have in Puerto Rico, I don’t know if they have them in the other US territories or states, where a burger with an onion ring, fries, and a drink is 2$, the double burger in the same combo is 3$, and the triple burger in the same combo is 4$.) It’s 4:41 right now and I’m starving, I feel like I’m lacking nutrition, and I’m about to go to Burger King to buy another BR combo. I will have 5$ left at the end of this one week experiment.

So, what have I learned? It is possible to scrape through life with 2$ a day per person with AMAZING money administration skills (which I acquired playing RPGs and RTS games) and ONLY if there are accessible sources of fresh water and a healthy, FREE public transportation system. You see, in my 2$ a day I forgot to factor gas money, and 5$ is enough gas for 3 days or for 4 trips through public transportation. This is not at all an ideal state of living for anyone, but to help those who, bcause of the abusive oppression of big companies who pay them 20 cents a day, have to live like this, the best way to begin to help them would be to give them free, accessible fresh water and free public transportaion of good quality. After this I think that an education that allows them to develop their own infrastructures and economy would be ideal. In that way, we are not only giving them an initial infrastructure in water and transportation, but also skills to develop an infrastructure of their own.

Tips number two, three, and four are fairly self explanatory. Indeed, to know the problems that an individual is going through one needs to experience the problem, not just imagine it. Indeed, after this week I am far more empathic towards the homeless than I was before. I still can’t say I feel for the homeless who are so because of choice or drug involvement tho. I also must agree that simple solutions are better than complex ones. The United States was founded and run for a long time on four pages using plain English, while using elevated rhetoric on a 153 page doc**ent the current administration was not able to do very much regarding health insurance. Perhaps, had they looked for simple solutions the result would have been a far more desirable solution than a mandate / bailout to health insurance companies with 153 pages of added text. Likewise, easy to understand technologies are essential to development everywhere. Complex technologies, like complex jargon, only works to alienate the user. These tips are indeed good tips to remember when making innovation.

Tip number 5 is one of the better suggestions. If something is affordable it will be within everyone’s reach, but if something is expensive only a few elite will be able to obtain it. This is true of basic everyday items, of basic foodstuff, and of commodities.

Tip number 6, however, is not one I can agree with. Although the obvious answer to “making something cheaper” is “using less resources”, I have found in my experience as an educator, and now a department director, that if you use less resources to make something cheaper you will get a lower quality product. When you use cheap, thin plastic instead of sturdy plastic to make a console you get fragile PSPs and laptops. When you use inexpensive parts, you get Western Digital hard drives that break after a single 10 centimeter fall, instead of a sturdier drive that will actually protect your data. Likewise, using a smaller investment in hiring an employee with less experience or training will likely result in a bad learning experience for students. In Africa, when building its initial infrastructure, I think no expense should have been spared.

Tip number 7 is one I could get behind depending on the situation. While I do agree that it is of the utmost importance to provide skill, not just finished technologies, I also think that providing finished technologies (and free at first) are a must if one is to expect any RAPID innovative development.

The next 12 tips provided by Paul Polak via Nextbillion are essentially a repetition of the previously stated tips. However, his phrasing makes it seem like he is nothing more than a vulture looking to cash in on the African pie. Go to where the action is is obvious for problem solvers and innovators. If someone does not have a problem then there’s nothing to fix. “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it”. Talk to the people who have the problem and learn everything about the problem have already been discussed in the empathic entry above. See and do the obvious is as obvious as the statement that states it, and the two recommendations on “thinking big” and trying to impact at least a million lives are certainly worth admiring. Certainly, when designing one must design to improve, not reduce, the quality of life and of the product, one should work in practical plans, keep learning about the culture constantly, and stay possitive. What I can’t agree with, once again, is the market principle that essentially states “exploit people who have problems”. If these innovators truly wanted to help people improve their lives they would do it out of the goodness of their hearts and sell their ideas, but not their innovations. However, all this focus on market makes me think that these people just want to cash in on Africa’s problems, and (as far as I have seen from this site) that is NOT what Evoke is about.

Of course, I may be wrong and Evoke is, perhaps, about making a profit on other people’s suffering after all. If so, then maybe the right way to go is, instead of being althuristic and thinking of individual innovation, to make a proposal to some federal program under the guise of job creation, “create” jobs in constructing some sort of clean energy manufacture plant / water treatment plant in some remote region of Africa where a lot of settlements are, offer to employ the natives of the area for extremely low wages, and then sell them the product they are creating in their own land. If they can’t pay for the services rendered, which through backroom deals with their governments you could, no doubt, make into a forced requirement for every household and individual (much like Healthcare in the US), then you confiscate the land. Once you have hat you can build fancy resorts runing on the low wages of the people who used to own the land, and if the laws of the country allows, then turn it into a “sin city”, much like Vegas in the US. Once you own a five star resort runing on a clean energy plant just charge people insane fees to stay there for vacations. From there the options are endless – build an expensive living coplex around it, make universities, you could make your own city, own everything in it, and life comfortably claiming the insane revenues from your venture. This is how you exploit people, and if this is the kind of “innovation” you want, as it comes across in Polka’s tips, then you should have no trouble at all following Cecil John Rhodes’ footsteps.

But then again, Evoke and Polka’s tips seem to be completely unrelated beyond the fact that one links to the other. And the fact that the piece’s seven last tips, the ones posted by the actual author, He states that to truly innovate one must understand the situation, think creatively on how to solve them, increase user acceptance, deliver value, and in doing so increase the local economy (which presuposes that there already is an economy in place and, thus, this piece only applies to places that can already stand on their own to some extent), share the acquired knowledge, and always keep an eye out for other problems to solve.

I think I just have a problem with Polka’s wording, but whatever. I’m starving and can’t think straight, so I’m going to have a burger ring refill in hopes of being more creative.