Failure To Learn: The Repercussions Of Design Interventions In Developing Countries Considered Through The Failures Of Social Innovation

FAILURE TO LEARN
THE REPERCUSSIONS OF DESIGN INTERVENTIONS IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES CONSIDERED THROUGH THE
FAILURES OF SOCIAL INNOVATION
N . Z I Q Q / 2 0 1 6
B I N 1 3 4 0 4 5 6 8
UNIVERSITYOFTHEARTSLONDON
BA(HONS)INTERACTIONDESIGNARTS

Failure to Learn: The Repercussions of Design
Interventions In Developing Countries Considered
Through The Failures of Social Innovation.
N.ZIQQ / 2016
BIN13404568
www.ziqqsayshello.com
BA (Hons) Interaction Design Arts
University of the Arts London
London College of Communication
FailuretoLearn

Contents
Contents
List Of Illustrations
Preface
Introduction
Wicked Problems
Rise Of Social Innovation
Era Of Sustainism
Backlash Of Design Intervention
One Laptop Per Child
* Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism?
PlayPumps
* The Ugly Side of Humanitarian Efforts:
Ego Gratification & Greed
TOMS Shoes
* Design For The First World
For Better Or Worse?
References
Bibliography
00
01
02
02/01
02/02
02/03
03
04
05

List of Illustrations
Cover Image. Original Photo: See Image 04.
Edited Photo: Ziqq, N. (2016) This Is Sooooo Not Useful!
Image 01. Valle, E. (2012) Portrait of Jon Kolko [Online
Image] Available at: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/
cedimnews/7412641960> [Accessed 15 December 2015]
Image 02. OLPC. (2007) Madagascar: Starting With the
Youngest. [Online Image] Available at: <http://one.laptop.org/
stories/madagascar-starting-youngest> [Accessed 1 November
2015]
Image 03. OLPC. (2012) Gaza and Ramallah: Learning as a
Community [Online Image] Available at: <http://one.laptop.
org/stories/gaza-and-ramallah-learning-community> [Accessed
1 November 2015] Edited Photo: Ziqq, N. (2016) Laptops
Failed Us In Learning
Image 04. OLPC. (2012) Nicaragua: A Community Learning
Together [Online Image] Available at: <http://one.laptop.org/
stories/nicaragua-community-learning-together> [Accessed 1
November 2015]
Image 05. OLPC. (2011) Rwanda: Transforming Society
Through Education [Online Image] Available at: <http://one.
laptop.org/stories/rwanda-transforming-society-through-
education> [Accessed 1 November 2015]
Image 06. OLPC. (2008) Nepal: Children Down Every Path
[Online Image] Available at: <http://one.laptop.org/stories/
nepal-children-down-every-path> [Accessed 1 November 2015]
Image 07. Roundabout Water Solutions. (2010) Children
Playing PlayPumps [Online Image] Available at: <http://www.
playpumps.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Copy-of-Kids-
at-play-original-900x500.jpg> [Accessed 17 November 2015]
Image 08. Kain, A. (2009) Child Drinking Water from the
PlayPumps [Online Image] Available at: <http://www.inhabitat.
com/wp-content/uploads/playpump2.JPG> [Accessed 13
November 2015]
Image 09. MediaMolecule (2010) Children Playing PlayPumps
with Water Tank in the Backdrop [Online Image] Available
at: <http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/
uploads/2010/07/PlayPump-1000.jpg> [Accessed 11 November
2015] Edited Photo: Ziqq, N. (2016) PlayPumps Gives Us
Zero Water
Image 10. On The Up (2011) Trevor Field stands proudly
infront of his PlayPumps. [Online Image] Available at:
<http://www.ontheup.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/
IMG_33623.jpg> [Accessed 11 November 2015]
Image 16. Cavalcante, L. (2010) Winning entry ‘Real Time
Chat’ by Layla Cavalcante. Design for the First World
Competition. [Online Image] Available at: <http://www.layloca.
com/Design-For-The-First-World> [Accessed 21 November
2015]
Image 17. Brinson, K. (2016) Portrait of Blake Mycoskie
[Online Image] Available at: <http://kendrickbrinson.com/
blakemycoskie/> [Accessed 10 January 2016]
Image 18. Kai, G. (2009) Portrait of Nicholas Negroponte
[Online Image] Available at: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:NNegoponte_USNA_20090415.jpg> [Accessed 3
November 2015]
Image 19. Shamengo (2013) Portrait of Trevor Field [Online
Image] Available at: <http://www.shamengo.com/media/
images/conf_widel/3089.jpg> [Accessed 17 November 2015]
Image 20. Design Says Hello (2014) Instagram Collage
[Online Image] Available at: <https://www.instagram.com/
designsayshello/> [Accessed 27 November 2015]
Image 11. TOMS (2010) Blake Mycoskie fits an Argentinian
child with his company’s 1 millionth pair of donated shoes
[Online Image] Available at: <http://wrcb.images.worldnow.
com/images/24954713_BG1.jpg> [Accessed 17 November
2015]
Image 12. Lane, D. (2010) Child with a pair of TOMS
[Online Image] Available at: <https://www.flickr.com/photos
lanedavis/5015732752/> [Accessed 11 November 2015]
Image 13. The Telegraph (2015) TOMS gives away shoes
in 60 countries and works with 100 NGOs to distribute
donations [Online Image] Available at: <http://i.telegraph.
co.uk/multimedia/archive/03012/Toms_Shoes_3012950b.jpg>
[Accessed 11 November 2015] Edited Photo: Ziqq, N. (2016)
Start Something That Works!
Image 14. TOMS Shoes (2011-2015) A pair of red stripe
TOMS Shoes [Online Image] Available at: < http://www.toms.
co.uk/men/red-stripe-mens-university-classics> [Accessed 27
December 2015]
Image 15. Vallejo, C. (2010) Design for the First World [Online
Image] Available at: <https://ksr-ugc.imgix.net/projects/3736/
photo-original.jpg?v=1397754558&w=1536&h=1152&fit=crop
&auto=format&q=92&s=7e9790c2442ae1ae307fc2d76bfdf092>
[Accessed 21 November 2015]
ListofIllustrations

“When things fail we
automatically look at ways
in which we can improve
what we are doing.The
key to innovation or an
innovative approach lies
in the speedy recognition
of failure and developing
systems to report it, manage
it and learn from it.”
- Martin Murphy, Failure Consulting. (Floyd D., 2013)
00 PREFACE
00Preface
00
‘Design Says Hello’(DSH), is an initiative that provides
an educational and inspirational platform for fellow
creative in Singapore founded in 2010. Over the years
it has evolved into a community of people who believes
and strongly advocates Humanitarian and Social Design
with the aim to bring a new perspective on Design in
Singapore. (Aziz A., 2013)
As the founder of DSH, I was invited to speak at User
Experience Singapore (UXSG) Conference held at
Microsoft in early 2014 where I had the opportunity to
share with the audience about a potential humanitarian
design project in Cambodia. I received a roaring
response from the audience and a pat on the back from
many of the white-collars present, which then resulted
in an unexpected backing of a proposed quarter-million
dollars came DSH’s way.
I was thrilled and could not wait to make an impact in
people’s lives. My dream of changing the world was soon
becoming a reality. I assembled a team of architects and
designers who shared the same dream of using design
as a catalyst for change and eventually flew over to
Cambodia.
Over the course of a week, we connected with two well-
established local organisations; ‘Friends International’
and ‘Caring for Cambodia’ and learnt that the situation
on the ground was much more complex and complicated
than we could ever imagined. The traumatic history of
the Khmer Rouge, the government, the overpopulated
presence of external non-profit organisations, the
child exploitation, poverty, infrastructure etc. were all
interlinked in a web of highly wicked problems.
But at the same time, we saw first hand how the two
local organisations were equipping and empowering
impoverished women with life skills. Helping them
to integrate back into society as a valuable member of
the community. There were many other amazing works
by the local organisations that were tackling real and
complex problems - such as children being used as a
tourist attraction, amongst other things.
More importantly through the many conversations with
the locals and organisations, I learnt that the country
is beginning to take ownership of solving their own
problems. Though the money was enticing, I eventually
turned down the offer. Many felt I should have taken
the money and worry later, and to some, I was deemed
a failure.
Which leads me to this thesis. In many aspects, it is a
manifestation of my explanation to why I chose to walk
away from the project. More specifically, this thesis aims
to take an in-depth look at past failures, such as project
‘One Laptop Per Child’ (OLPC), ‘PlayPumps’ and
‘TOMS Shoes’ as means of discerning the techniques
and tactics in the field of humanitarian design and social
innovation in the developing world. It will also question
what one must take into account in order to cater to the
needs of its target community.
Successes can easily become a model for more of the
same, whereas failure offers a platform for discussion
and debate about what went wrong and what could
have been avoided. In addition, this thesis aims to use
the lessons from past failures to propose actions for the
future.

01 INTRODUCTION
“A wicked problem is a social or cultural problem that
is difficult or impossible to solve for as many as four
reasons: incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the
number of people and opinions involved, the large
economic burden, and the interconnected nature of
these problems with other problems.”
– (Kolko J., 2012, p.10)
Image 01. Portrait of Jon Kolko (Valle E., 2012)
01Introduction
02
Wicked Problems
PROBLEMS - the world is filled with so many of them
that its status has been elevated to a highly wicked one.
(Kolko J., 2012) Humanity is coming to grips with the
limits of the planet and with the rise of global issues
such as climate change,is pulling countries together (e.g.
signing a new climate agreement to limit greenhouse
gas emissions by 2030) to address these issues and to
become more responsible for the future of our planet.
(United Nations Environment Programme, 2015)
At the United Nations (UN) 69th General Assembly
Session,UN announced a new set of 17 sustainable goals
that seek to address economic, social and environmental
issues such as eradicating poverty, achieving gender
equality, combating climate change, building resilient
infrastructure, promoting inclusive and sustainable
industrialisation and fostering innovation – outlined in
the UN Sustainable Development Agenda (UN, 2015,
p.14). These goals set out by the UN are indicators of
the global issues humanity faces today and the hope we
maintain for achieving a better tomorrow.
Rise of Social Innovation
“2015 is the Time for Global Action” (UN, 2015) and
as world leaders come together in an attempt to address
global and complex issues from the top-down, a new
generation of social actors (Manzini E. 2015, p.1) is
on the rise, addressing their daily struggles from the
bottom-up. Such examples of these social actors are the
farmers in Liuzhou, Guangxi province (China) setting
up Ainonghui a farmers’ association that produce
and deliver organic food to their communities which
introduces a sustainable lifestyle in the city. (Manzini E.
2015,p.10)This is one of the many examples of initiatives
started from the bottom-up, where communities devise
their own solutions through collaboration, promoting a
new, big wave of social innovation. (Manzini E. 2015,
p4)
Social innovation defined as “new ideas (products,
services and models) that simultaneously meet
social needs and create new social relationships and
collaborations. In other words they are innovations that
are both good for society and enhance society’s capacity
to act.” (Murray R., Caulier-Grice J., Mulgan G., 2010,
p.3)
The rise of the Internet and a digital, globally connected
workforce dramatically increases the potential for
ordinary citizens to make a difference - rides alongside
the big wave of social innovation.
Examples are the likes of social media platforms such as
YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other online avenues
which are helping these social good movements to “go
viral” by helping to spread the word through the net.
(Mashable UK, 2015)
“Design for social innovation is on the rise. Design was
never divorced from its social uses and impacts, but it
is now moving into a fundamentally new stage. After a
long period in which design was predominantly focused
on functionality, form and aesthetics, we now witness
a growing interest in applying design to creating social
value” – (Schwarz M. & Krabbendam D., 2013, p.12)
Era of Sustainism
In this new era of sustainism (Schwarz M. & Elffers J.,
2010) designers have turned their attention increasingly
towards social issues. (Schwarz M. & Krabbendam D.,
2013, p.14) Projects such as ‘One Laptop Per Child’
(OLPC) brought technology to enhance education and
the learning experience in the developing world. Project
‘PlayPump’ brought a fun way to bring water to rural
communities in South Africa. While ‘TOMS Shoes’
provided shoes for children in need.
These projects also showcased the shift in thinking of
designers.Over the recent decade we had the emergence
of Design Thinking (Brown T., 2008), Human-Centred
Design (IDEO, 2009) and User Experience Design -
evidently showcasing how designers have evolved to
approach the complexity of the world by placing users
at the core of their thinking and resolutions. Moving
away from the old traditional approach where it prides
on exclusivity (Wærn R. & Wingårdh G., 2015)
design is now moving towards a more interdisciplinary,
collaborative, participatory and inclusive approach.
(Murray R., Caulier-Grice J., Mulgan G., 2010, p.3)
FORWARD - Much has been said about the future,
goals, trends, the rise of this, the wave of that, and the
glorification of the advancement in technology as
humanity takes a step forward in addressing these
highly wicked problems – but not much has been said
about the past, the fall of this or the crash of that. “Learn
from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The
important thing is not to stop questioning.” - Albert
Einstein. As we “hope for tomorrow” and “live for
today”, this thesis aims to learn from yesterday and to
continue to question some of the steps humanity is
taking towards building a better tomorrow.

02 BACKLASH OF
DESIGN INTERVENTION
One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) was a project that was
funded and sponsored by MIT Media Lab, Pentagram,
Continuum and fuseproject (Nussbaum B., 2010) with
an ambitious dream of using technology, in the form
of laptops, to enhance education and the learning
experience in the developing world.
OLPC is based on constructionist theories of learning
pioneered by Professor Seymour Papert, one of the early
pioneers of Artificial Intelligence and internationally
recognised as the seminal thinker about ways in which
computers can change learning. (MIT, 2007)
Constructivist theory is descried as a methodology
that promotes the act of “self-motivated, self-directed
learning to begin a lifelong quest for new skills and
knowledge.” Teachers adapt a new role as a facilitator
by engaging and guiding their students in exploration
and discovery to move away from the traditional
memorisation and repetition drills. (OLPC, 2009)
In January 2005, Nicholas Negroponte, a professor at
MIT and the founder of OLPC presented the idea
and dreams of the $100 laptop at the World Economic
Forum in Davos, Switzerland. (Lagace M., 2007) The
noble cause was well received and was strongly endorsed
by UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan later that year at
the World Summit on Information Society in Tunisia.
(UN Press Release, 2005)
“But perhaps most important is the true meaning of
‘One Laptop Per Child’. This is not just a matter of
giving a laptop to each child, as if bestowing on them
some magical charm. The magic lies within, within
each child, within each scientist, scholar or just-plain-
citizen-in-the-making. This initiative is meant to bring
it forth into the light of day.” UN Secretary General,
Kofi Annan (2005).
Big Dreams
OLPC were ambitious as they set out to produce and
distribute over 5-10 million laptops in the first run to
large developing countries. With the support of the
UN they signed a Memorandum of Understanding in
January 2006 with the Head of the UN Development
Program Kemal Dervis (UN News Centre, 2006) who
said,“We are delighted to be part of this venture, which
has the potential to break through the digital divide
between rich countries and poor countries.”
For a $100 laptop to exist in 2005 was quite a feat.
Negroponte broke down the basics of laptop economics
in his TED Talk and how OLPC have managed to
keep its cost price at the $100 mark. He summarised
that 60% of the cost of every laptop goes to sales,
marketing, distribution and profit. OLPC however, has
none of that to factor in. They sell it at cost price and
“Government distributes it through the school systems
like a textbook.” (Negroponte N., 2006, 8 mins.)
Negroponte further explained that part of the laptop
economics was also to have it manufactured with high
demand, in millions, so that cost for manufacturing can
be kept a low due to its huge scale.The plan for that was
to get big developing countries such as Brazil, India and
China to sign an order agreement for these laptops.
Challenges & Setbacks
However four years after its first inception in 2005,
OLPC only managed to scratch the surface with the
numbers and only had a tiny presence in those countries.
It was reported that the announced agreements with
presidents in Argentina, Brazil, Libya, Nigeria and
Thailand for one million laptops each in 2006 were all
cancelled. Brazil and Libya went with other computing
options in smaller increments while Argentina, Nigeria
and Thailand distanced themselves from OLPC when
their presidents changed. (OLPC, 2009)
“There is something going on in design – something powerful. People have
realised a simple truth: design is a legitimate way to change the world.”
– (Blossom E., 2011)
02/01
Image02.Madagascar:StartingwiththeYoungest(OLPC,2007)
02BacklashofDesignIntervention
04
OLPC faced setbacks rolling out millions of these
laptops as Ministers of Education from these countries
were not convinced that constructivism through the
laptops for every child would be more effective than
traditional educational models. Countries were also not
allowed to test these laptops, which made it even more
difficult. (OLPC, 2009)
“This is not something you have to test, the days of pilot
projects are over. When people say we would like to
test 3-4000 of these in our country to see how it works.
Screw you. Go to the back of the line and someone else
will do it and then when you figure out this works you
can join as well.” (Negroponte N., 2006, 5 mins.)
Failure to Implement, Support and Impact
But even when the laptop did land in the developing
countries, OLPC pedagogy was causing its own
downfall, as they did not provide ministries with the
teacher training resources to move from their current
practices to their constructivism model.“Teachers didn’t
understand how to use the laptops in their lessons; some
resented them. Kids like the laptops, but they don’t
actually seem to help them learn.” (Shaikh A., 2009)
There was a huge gap and oversight in thinking about
implementation in the countries.There were also no local
technological support or maintenance provided. OLPC
claimed that, as part of the constructivism model, “the
children themselves would intuitively be able to provide
national tech support - as the machines will be simple
enough that students can train themselves and solve any
glitches that arise.” (Stecklow S. & Bandler J., 2007)
In 2012, the first randomised evaluation of the One
Laptop Per Child came out as a working paper, using
data collected after 15 months of implementation in
319 primary schools in rural Peru. In short, the findings
concluded that,
“The intervention generated a substantial increase
in computer use both at school and at home. Results
indicate limited effects on academic achievement but
positive impacts on cognitive skills and competences
related to computer use. Cognitive abilities may arise
through using the programs included in the laptops,
given that they are aimed at improving thinking
processes. However, to improve learning in Math and
Language, there is a need for high-quality instruction.”
(Cristia J., Ibarraran P., S Cueto C., Santiago A., &
Severin E., 2012, p.20)

Fast-forward to 2014, OLPC declared themselves dead.
“OLPC is dead.In its place,is the reality that technology
is a force in education, and we all need to be vigilant
about when, where, and how it’s used” (Vota W., 2014)
Losing Sight of the Big Dream
Apart from all these challenges and setbacks,what many
overlook in conversation about the entire OLPC saga is
Nicholas Negroponte himself.
“From my point of view, if the world were to have 30
million laptops made by competitors in the hands of
children at the end of next year, that to me would be
a great success,” said Negroponte in an interview with
The Wall Street Journal (2007). However, his reactions
to Intel’s version of a low-cost computer ‘Classmate PC’
and Microsoft’s efforts in offering developing countries
a $3 software package that includes Windows, a student
version of Microsoft Office and educational programs,
seems to suggest otherwise.
In an interview with CBS News (2007), Negroponte
blamed Intel for trying to drive his non-profit out of
business. On another interview with BBC News (2008),
he again accused Intel of “underhand sales tactics and
trying to block contracts” to buy his machines due to
Intel sharing a similar goal of bringing computers to
children in the developing world.Eventually Intel joined
OLPC in its venture but they soon separated after a
clash in philosophical and long-term goal differences.
(Fildes J., 2008)
And when Negroponte heard how Microsoft were
offering developing countries a $3 software package -
he again spoke out that the move was a direct response
to his project, though Microsoft denies. (Stecklow S. &
James Bandler J., 2007)
Chasing Numbers
At the end of it all, whether it is Intel, Microsoft or
OLPC – numbers were what everyone was after. OLPC
needed governments to order millions of the laptops to
keep manufacturing costs at a low due to its huge scale,
whereas Intel and Microsoft saw an opportunity in the
developing world.The only difference, one is non-profit
whereas the other is for profit. Though consistently
emphasised by OLPC that they see “children as their
mission and not a market”the true impact of the laptop
however is evident now – that it did not help. If so,
proved to be very insignificant.
“Our results suggest that computers by themselves, at
least as initially delivered by the OLPC program, do
not increase achievement in curricular areas.” (Cristia
J., Ibarraran P., S Cueto C., Santiago A., & Severin E.,
2012, p.21)
But failing to acknowledge Negroponte’s effort and
influence in the industry would be unfair and would
out rightly so be a failure on our part to learn too. One
Laptop Per Child may not have been successful in
distributing their targeted millions of laptops globally
nor have impacted education in terms of test scores
and results, however, the intervention of OLPC in
developing countries completely shook the tech industry,
educational systems all over the world and governments,
reminding everyone of what matters most; children.
06
Image 03. Original Photo: Gaza and
Ramallah: Learning as a Community
(OLPC, 2012) Edited Photo: Laptops
Failed Us In Learning (Ziqq, N. 2016)

Post-Colonial Eyes
The aftermath of One Laptop Per Child placed many
other social innovations in the developing world such
as the works from Project H Design, IDEO an the
Acumen Fund under a microscope. (Nussbaum B.,
2010) Which led to a heated debate kicked off by Bruce
Nussbaum,the author of Creative Intelligence 2013 and
Professor of Innovation and Design at Parsons The New
School of Design. (The Editors, The Design Observer
Group, 2010)
Nussbaum pointed out in an article he wrote on Fast
Company in July 2010, with its headline of a topic, “Is
Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism? Does Our
Desire to Help Do More Harm Than Good?” - that
local communities more specifically in the Asia region
have resistance with the intervention from the West. He
talked about two experiences that echoed this.
The first was when he attended ICSID World Design
Congress 2009 in Singapore where he recalls the
audience’s reaction to Emily Pilloton of Project H
Design’s speech about the power of design to the
obligation to do good - a polite applause accompanied
with a lot of loud grumbling from the mostly Asian
designer audience, “What makes her think she can just
come in and solve our problems?”
While the second was a talk held at Parsons School of
Design by IDIOM Design, one of India’s top design
consultancies. Kishoreji Biyani, an Indian businessman
and key investor in IDIOM, groused that there was
“a better, Indian way of solving the problem” when he
learnt that Acumen Fund, IDEO & Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation were teaming up to design better
ways of delivering safe drinking water to Indian villagers.
Biyani’s remarks caught Nussbaum and the audience by
surprise, leaving Nussbaum to ponder,
“So what’s going on? Did what I see in these two
occasions represent something wider and deeper? Is the
new humanitarian design coming out of the U.S. and
Europe being perceived through post-colonial eyes as
colonialism? Are the American and European designers
presuming too much in their attempt to do good?”
(Nussbaum B., 2010)
Nussbaum further illustrated his point in the article with
the example of One Laptop Per Child. He highlighted
how the Indian establishment locked OLPC out, as the
program did not include those responsible for education
in the country (such as parents, teachers to policy-
makers) as part of the conversation. As a result of the
exclusion, the Indian establishment perceived the effort
as“inappropriate technological colonialism”.(Nussbaum
B., 2010) Nussbaum claims that OLPC broke the
most important design rule of failing to design from
the bottom-up, instead adopted a top-down approach.
(Nussbaum B., 2007) It was clear that Nussbaum was
pointing out the disconnectedness of the designers from
the places they were serving, both geographically and
culturally. (Pilloton E., 2010)
Image 04. Nicaragua: A
Community Learning
Together (OLPC, 2012)
*
HUMANITARIAN
DESIGN THE NEW
IMPERIALISM?
Disconnectedness
But even though the article was seemingly written in
the form of a reflection, Bruce Nussbaum’s article made
its round through the blogosphere creating a firestorm.
(Design Observer Group, 2010)
Jon Kolko founder and director of Austin Centre for
Design, amongst many in the field responded that,
Nussbaum completely overlooked and seem to have
skipped the Heideggerian approach and the work by
Dreyfus and Dreyfus – all of whom “cast humanitarian
design as a form of value understanding and translation,
rather than value application” as suggested with the
imperialist ideology. Kolko pointed out as well the
work of Jan Chipchase of frog design, who emphasised
the importance of immersion-based ethnography as a
critical part of the design process - to first understand
before designing. (Kolko J., 2010)
Emily Pilloton of Project H Design responds to
Nussbaum on Fast Company (2010).Pilloton agrees and
acknowledges that there are designers who “swoop in
with their capes and ‘design thinking’to save poor folks.”
But argues that Nussbaum’s picture of humanitarian
design is skewed and incomplete. Leaving out other
players in the field who just like her, are working in
their own backyard in rural America tackling problems
such as the broken educational system. She claims that
Nussbaum “greatly oversimplifies the serendipitous
chaos that is humanitarian design.” (Pilloton E., 2010)
“It draws a line, mostly defined by the developed and
developing worlds, and says ‘if you’re here, and you
work there, you’re an imperialist.’ Nothing is so cut and
dried, particularly in a corner of the design world that
is so new, so misunderstood, and so much still a work
in progress, that some days the best we can do is just to
keep trucking.” (Pilloton E., 2010)
Cameron Sinclair of Architecture of Humanity weighed
in the debate with Nussbaum. Sinclair having had
experience working in the field over many years argues
that the ‘western intervention’ has now evolved into “a
complex global network of multi-disciplinary, multi-
cultural and diverse teams” that takes on the bottom-up
approach of working collaboratively with communities
on the ground. A view that is far different from the view
of ‘disconnectedness’ as painted by Nussbaum. (Sinclair
C., 2010)
But amidst the debate, perhaps there is some truth in
Bruce Nussbaum’s article after all.For it was not too long
ago, that a classic example of ‘disconnectedness’between
designers and the end users had dire repercussions on a
tiny village in Mozambique, Southern Africa with the
introduction of a merry-go-round water pump system;
The PlayPumps.
08
Humanitarian Design The New Imperialism?
Image 05. Rwanda:
Transforming Society
Through Education
(OLPC, 2011)
Image 06. Nepal:
Children Down Every
Path (OLPC, 2008)

PlayPumps
It was reported in 2005 that an estimated five million
people did not have access to clean drinking water across
the rural villages in South Africa. (Bennnion J., 2005)
But a neat solution to the water crisis first emerged in
1994 in the remote Masinga district of KwaZulu-Natal,
South Africa. (Erasmus J., 2008)
British-born, South-African migrant, social
entrepreneur and retired advertising executive, Trevor
Field, originally came across the PlayPump idea at an
agriculture show. He saw great potential in the merry-
go-round water pump system and went into business
with the inventor, where he further developed it and
eventually patented it. (Hayes S., 2014, 3mins.)
The idea was simple. Get children to play and spin
the merry-go-round and it will pump water up into a
2,500-litre water storage tank of which links back down
to a faucet where one can then have access to clean
drinkable water. (Janine E, 2008)
In Africa, young girls are responsible for collecting
water and on average walks five kilometres per day
fetching water, making them to turn up late for class
and missing valuable school time. (Longwe B., 2014,
1min.) PlayPumps, introduced mainly in schools where
children would congregate to play, was to address these
problems - save precious time fetching water and
making the collection of water a lot easier and more fun.
(Field T., 2010, 30secs.)
Shot to Fame
The PlayPumps first drew media attention when
then President Nelson Mendala visited a school with
a PlayPump system and it later on went on to win a
World Bank Development Marketplace Award in 2000.
(Erasmus J., 2008)
Reporter Amy Costello first reported the innovative
solution as a radio story and went on an assignment
to cover the story as a web video for FRONTLINE/
World in October 2005. The story was so popular that
FRONTLINE/World decided to broadcast the story
the following May on PBS. (Costello A., 2005)
That was when the little story of the ingenious
invention from South Africa gained massive support
from America. In September 2006, First Lady Laura
Bush, alongside former President Bill Clinton and
philanthropists Jean and Steve Case pledged $16.4
million in funding to expand PlayPumps across sub-
Saharan Africa at the annual Clinton Global Initiative
Conference. (Costello A., 2006)
In that same month, famous Hip-Hop artist JAY Z
further hyped the merry-go-round water system, as
he raised funds and awareness on the water crisis. He
went on donating $250,000 from concert proceeds to
PlayPumps International with the ambition to build
1,000 PlayPumps by the end of his tour. (Bennion J. &
Reinhard Cate R., 2010)
Trevor Field began expanding his venture and
in December that same year set up PlayPumps
International (PPI), but stepped down from the non-
profit to avoid conflict of interest as he ran his two
for-profit organisations ‘Roundabout Outdoor Pty Ltd’
and ‘Outdoor Fabrication and Steelworks’ – companies
that manufacture, install and maintain the PlayPumps.
(Bennion J. & Reinhard Cate R., 2010)
The added hype and media coverage paved way to many
more streams of donors. With the huge funding and
support,PlayPumps International aimed to install 4,000
PlayPumps water systems in schools and communities
in 10 countries to bring clean water to up to 10 million
people across Sub-Saharan Africa by 2010. (UNICEF,
2007)
02/02
Image 07. Children
playing PlayPumps
(Roundabout Water
Solutions, 2010)
Not So Merry
But as the years went by,problems started to creak in and
the “merry-go-round” was no longer merry. Reporter
Amy Costello decided to head back to South Africa
with a follow up story three years later to investigate of
the rumours she heard about the PlayPumps. She soon
discovered that things were not as pretty as it used to be.
In her follow up story film entitled “Southern Africa:
Troubled Water” (2010) Costello shed light on a small
village in rural area of Mozambique where she reported
a group of women disappointed and frustrated by the
sudden intervention of the PlayPumps which replaced
their trusty old hand-pumps.
One of the women from the group, Regina Piedade
remarked,“No. We had no information.They came here
with stone and cement,and built this well,and fixed this
tank.The community leader said we should start getting
water here”. (Frontline/World, 2010, 10 mins.)
But what was even more alarming was that the
PlayPumps had not been working for the past six
months and received no response from the repair line
which they had tirelessly called and texted. Regina
Piedade and 150 families had to travel to a nearby
village 40 minutes walk away to collect water. The
repercussions were evident as people swarmed the
nearby village’s water pump causing stress and tension
amongst villagers. (Costello A., 2010)
“We get very upset when we see people coming from
there, because it’s very crowded here. The PlayPumps is
not good,”remarked one of the women from the nearby
village. (Frontline/World, 2010, 17 mins.)
The PlayPump evolved from a smart home-grown idea
to a donor-pleasing, top-down solution that simply did
not fit many of the target communities. (Freschi L.,
2010) In an evaluation report conducted by UNICEF
released in October 2007, the many disadvantages
and failures of the PlayPumps are highlighted. Such
as embarrassed women needing to spin the merry-go-
round for approximately four hours continuously to fill
the 2,500-litre tank when children were not available.
The report also demonstrated how the PlayPumps had
inadequate community consultation and sensitisation.It
was highlighted that in a small number of communities,
community members continued to pay the village water
committee user fees for the operation and maintenance
of the PlayPumps, even though this was no longer
necessary. It also pointed out how the implementation
strategy “misses out on compliance with national water
policy requirements, such as community ownership
issues, which are prevalent in the targeted countries.”
(UNICEF, 2007)
In summary, the reports outlined the technical and
safety issues of PlayPumps, the inadequate community
consultation and empowerment, and the lack of
transparency demonstrated by PlayPumps International
and the private sector partners in South Africa, in
regards to the cost of equipment and services as well as
the funds raised from advertisements. (UNICEF, 2007,
p.14-15) The report concluded that the implementation
strategy requires “serious and urgent revisions” as it
contravened several Government policy directives and
water sector development principles. (UNICEF, 2007,
p.14)
10
PlayPumps
Image 08. Child drinking
water from the PlayPumps
(Kain A., 2009)

Image 09. Original Photo: Children playing
PlayPumps with water tank in the backdrop.
(MediaMolecule, 2010)
Edited Photo: PlayPumps Gives Us Zero
Water (Ziqq, N. 2016)
Finger-Pointing
In the face of all these problems and challenges that arose,
reporter Amy Costello’s follow-up film documentary
“Southern Africa: Troubled Water” (2010) reported
how there was a lack of ownership by the stakeholders
themselves, as no one wanted to take responsibility of
the problems that were on the ground. In the film, Amy
Costello came full circle with the man who started it all,
Trevor Field, to hear his side of the story.
“The roll out was a bit frustrating because we wanted to
try to hit target. We wanted everybody to be extremely
happy. Had loads of money coming in, and wanted to
get out there and put the $16 million to use and do
4,000 pumps,” grumbled a seemingly tensed Trevor
Field. (2010, 18 mins.)
And when confronted with the story of Regina Piedade
and the angry mob of women from the village in
Mozambique,Trevor Field claims that he had told ‘Save
The Children’ that the site for installation would not
work and further explained how they had tried countless
times fixing the pumps but it just would not work. Field
claims that he had reported the issue to PlayPumps
International, Save The Children and the PlayPumps
office in Washington but received no response from any
of them for months with regards to what they should do.
(2010, 19 mins.)
“In the meantime there is a community with 150
families who don’t have drinking water for six months.
While everybody is busy pointing fingers,” remarked a
very displeased Amy Costello. (2010, 20 mins.)
Eventually in March 2010, PlayPumps International
shut down and was turned over to non-profit
organisation specialising in water provision ‘Water for
People’, as part of their “portfolio of technologies from
which communities can choose” (Freschi L., 2010)
The PlayPumps story in many ways concluded in a
strikingly similar way to that of One Laptop Per Child
– both driven by an ambitious dream, both blinded by
dollars and numbers, both pressured to please funders
and stakeholders, ultimately losing sight of the real
situation on the ground leaving the end users in both
cases left with either a broken laptop or water pump.
And in both instances, the interventions were rendered
ineffective and a waste of resources.
But why? Why is the ‘disconnectedness’ as painted by
Bruce Nussbaum so evident in both cases? Why do the
founders in both cases fail to listen to the cries of the
people they are designing for? Is the ‘disconnectedness’
a form of suggest imperialism and also partly the notion
of ‘I know better’and about ‘me the designer’rather than
‘them the end user’? Is it because humanitarian design
is part motivated by ego gratification? (Savio N., 2015)
12
PlayPumps

“It’s an uncomfortable and therefore little-discussed
fact of humanitarian design that many of us are in part
motivated by ego gratification. We get a thrill from
working in extreme conditions, we earn social capital,
we feel good about doing good.” (Savio N., 2015)
Big-Ego Design
Ego in design is nothing new. For the past century,
designers have always seen themselves as sole
incumbents in the field, operating by distancing
themselves. (Manzini E., 2015, p.1-2) As described
more eloquently as ‘Big-ego Design’ by Ezio Manzini,
founder of DESIS, an international network on design
for social innovation and sustainability in his book
‘Design,When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to
Design for Social Innovation’ - is a “left over from past
century’s demiurgic vision, in which design was the act
of particularly gifted individuals capable of imprinting
their personal stamp on artefacts and environments.”
(Manzini E., 2015, p.66)
Manzini acknowledges that it may still mean something
in very specific design fields but warns this way of
thinking as highly dangerous when it comes to complex
social problems. (Manzini E., 2015, p.66) Especially
when the design decisions themselves are motivated by
designers’ egos blinding them from the real needs and
conditions on the ground. (Savio N., 2015)
My Dreams My Solutions
As reflected in the story of One Laptop Per Child,
Nicholas Negroponte got very personal and turned sour
when he found out Intel and Microsoft had joined in the
larger effort of introducing technology as educational
tools in developing countries.It was a great step forward
in realising Negroponte’s ultimate dream of reaching
out to millions of kids; the only twist in the story is that,
it will no longer solely be through his machines.
“On the other hand, a socially responsible not-for-profit
leader should surely be pleased when the commercial
sector is motivated to bring its resources to bear on
the problem at hand, and prospectively accelerate
the distribution of low-cost personal computers to
more people much faster than would have occurred
otherwise.” (Lagace M., 2007)
Even if Negroponte had managed to realise his dreams
of distributing millions of low-cost computers to
children all over the world – it was still only his dreams.
Not the kids. As Bruce Nussbaum pointed out, if only
Negroponte had spend time in the villages and build
from the bottom up, he would have discovered that
there was little need for the laptops. Instead, as much
research has shown, cell phones were far more popular
in the developing world as means to connect to the
Internet. (Nussbaum B., 2007)
“OLPC was a high-profile deal of one man evangelising
top government officials on how he can save their poor
children and, in the end, these politicians abandoned
him.” (Nussbaum B., 2007)
*
THE UGLY SIDE OF
HUMANITARIAN
EFFORTS: EGO
GRATIFICATION
& GREED
14
The Ugly Side of Humanitarian Efforts
My Solutions, My Monopoly
Trevor Field on the other hand,having had patented the
PlayPumps (Hayes S., 2014) and having ventured on to
set up two for-profit companies ‘Roundabout Outdoor
Pty Ltd’ and ‘Outdoor Fabrication and Steelworks’
in charge of manufacturing, implementing and
maintaining these PlayPumps - had created for what
is called a ‘natural monopoly’. A ‘natural monopoly’ as
defined by Investopedia.com, “seized to exist when
maximum efficiency of production and distribution
in an industry is maximized with one supplier.” Since
there is no competition for the supplier, this causes
the monopolist to overcharge and provide an inferior
service. (Investopedia.com)
UNICEF highlighted in the evaluation report on
the PlayPumps that the cost of each PlayPumps (at
approximately $14,000) had increased over a couple of
years from its previous $6,500 as a huge disadvantage,
especially when there are several cheaper alternatives to
the water crisis. (UNICEF, 2007)
It was also highlighted in the report that the
dramatic increase in cost was not explained to clients.
“UNICEF had asked PlayPumps International and
Roundabout Outdoor to give a breakdown of costs for
the implementation bundle but they failed to do so.”
(UNICEF, 2007)
“As a final thought, there are 375,000 hand pumps in
Africa, but more than 150,000 of these are abandoned
due to poor maintenance or poor construction. The
solution, therefore, isn’t so much about aid but the
correct usage money. The aid industry has become ever
more market driven,a trend accelerated by an increasing
tendency for the private sector to profit on the back of
charity giving. The great tragedy is that by being drawn
to easily marketable gimmicks, more appropriate and
sustainable projects are in ever greater danger of being
neglected.” (Chambers A.,The Guardian, 2009)
The question is then, whom are we really helping other
than ourselves? No surprise that Humanitarian Design
has been questioned on in its true impact in changing
the world,and whether it is indeed only “a movement by
designers to fulfil their ego”(SDS Admin, 2012) Which
leads us to the next story that started a whole entire
‘do-good’ movement with the intervention of a unique
Argentinian-inspired shoe; TOMS Shoes.
Image 10.Trevor Field
Stands proudly infront of his
PlayPumps (On The Up, 2011)

TOMS Shoes
Blake Mycoskie an American entrepreneur came up
with a revolutionary buy-one-give-one (BOGO)
business model with a dream of providing shoes to
children in need. It all started in 2006, when Mycoskie
was on vacation in Argentina and first came across the
unique Argentinian national shoe: the alpargata, a soft,
casual canvas shoe worn by almost everyone in the city
to farms. (Mycoskie B., 2011) Through a meeting with
an American woman in a café, Mycoskie got to know of
her volunteering effort in a shoe drive. He later learnt
about the many kids that lacked shoes and it did not
take long before the entrepreneur connected two and
two together. Eventually TOMS shoes came to being.
“I’m going to start a shoe company that makes a new
kind of alpargata. And for every pair I sell, I’m going to
give a pair of new shoes to a child in need.There will be
no percentages and no formulas.” (Mycoskie B., 2011)
TOMS shoes gained massive popularity through the
fashion, lifestyle and entertainment industry when
Booth Moore, Los Angeles Times’s fashion critic first
wrote about TOMS in May 2006. The brand story was
later picked up by Vogue with a feature in its October
2006 issue with Karl Lagerfeld a well-known designer,
proclaiming as an early-adopting fan. (Chu J., 2013)
Subsequently,TOMS got featured in ‘People’,‘Elle’,and
‘Teen Vogue’ magazine.
Looking Cool Doing Good
The great combination of a charitable story with a
stylish design backed by the fashion, lifestyle and
entertainment world, helped the brand further to gain
the following of high profile celebrities, to college
students and musicians. It connected with a whole
spectrum of people who identified with the brand story,
people who wanted to be part of a do-good movement.
More importantly, people who wanted to display their
personal authenticity through the casual footwear.
(Poulos J., 2012)
In 2007, TOMS Shoes kicked off a huge event ‘One
Day Without Shoes’ that encouraged people to go
barefoot for a day to empathise with children around
the world who do not have the luxury of a pair of shoes.
(Veerasamy V., 2015) The event has been held annually
around the world bringing the socially conscious
together to raise awareness on the humanitarian issue –
they call their movement ‘TOMS Tribe’. (http://www.
toms.com/tribe)
TOMS encourages and supports their tribe with
resources such as the ‘TOMS Tribe Guidebook’ for
event, program, club, project ideas, info on Bulk order,
and more. Materials are also provided for the ‘Super
Fan’, parents and educators on their website making
it easy to be a part of the movement. In 2015, TOMS
‘One Day Without Shoes’ annual event leveraged on
social media platform ‘Instagram’by encouraging people
to share a photo of their bare feet. With every photo
tagged, TOMS Shoes gave a pair of shoes to a child in
need. (TOMS, 2015)
02/03
Image 11. Blake Mycoskie fits
an Argentinian child with his
company’s 1 millionth pair of
donated shoes. (TOMS, 2010)
What Social Problem?
But what exactly is the issue that TOMS Shoes is trying
to solve? In the documentary film “For Tomorrow: The
TOMS Shoes Story” highlighted that “40% of the
world’s people don’t have shoes. A child’s walk to get
clean water can be miles. Cuts, infection and hookworm
are prevented with shoes.” TOMS justifies its battle
against shoeless-ness largely from a public health
perspective. (Favini J., 2013)
However, an article written on the second annual ‘One
Day Without Shoes’ by Fast Company’s Co.Exist,
Cheryl Davenport (2012) thought otherwise.Davenport
pointed out two existential flaws about the company:
1. The TOMS buy-one-give-one model does not
actually solve a social problem.
2. TOMS isn’t designed to build the economies of
developing countries. It’s designed to make western
consumers feel good.
Davenport argues that the model is only a temporary
solution in a sea of complex problems in need of a long-
term economic development, health, sanitation and
education solutions. While her second point, pointed
out how the brand started only because it felt like a
good idea for a good cause but did not consult with the
villagers or experts about what they needed to lift them
out of poverty. (Davenport C., 2012)
Instead Blake Mycoskie consulted his female friends
over dinner where he shared about his trip to Argentina,
the shoe drive,and the idea of TOMS.“You don’t always
need to talk with experts; sometimes the consumer, who
just might be a friend or acquaintance, is your best
consultant.” (Mycoskie B. 2011)
Undercutting Local Economy
Seemingly oblivious to the real problem on the ground,
TOMS goody two shoes, were creating more problems
and was labelled as another ‘White Man’s burden’
(Favini J., 2013) The millions of donated shoes were
falling in the footsteps of the many donated second-
hand clothing projects around the developing world,
where countries’ textile industries collapsed due to the
large amount of donations. (Wadhams N., 2010)
“The goal is not to hurt the economy in these areas but
to be an asset and to be a blessing to these people that
otherwise wouldn’t have jobs.” remarked Ken Surritte,
Founder of WaterIsLife.com. (Wadhams N., 2010)
The repercussions of TOMS interventions were
hindering the economic growth and undercutting local
producers. (Joshua Keating J., 2013) It was reported
that the donated shoes landed in local markets and were
sold as goods instead. Blogger Gwen Mangine recalls
her experience purchasing TOMS Shoes for her four
kids on resale at her local market. (Mangine G., 2012)
Mangine wondered about the ethical responsibility of
the person receiving the donated shoes and whether
there should be limitations on how the shoes are used.
She illustrated her point with an example:
“What if a Haitian family here had 6 kids and so,
therefore, received 6 pairs of shoes but all their kids
already had shoes and one of them needed medication.
Would it be unethical for them to sell the shoes to buy
medicine?” (Mangine G., 2012)
16
TOMS Shoes
Image 12. Child with
a pair of TOMS.
(Lane D., 2010)

Leads us to the never-ending debate in the aid world
with regards to ‘Bad Charity’- unnecessary donations of
things a community do not need. Vast body of research
shows that foreign aid has had little impact especially in
the economic growth in Africa. (Wadhams N., 2010)
A research study evaluating the impact of TOMS Shoes
found that its donations had a negative impact on
local economies. It was reported that researchers were
“unable to find a way in which the shoes had much of
a substantive impact on poor kids’ lives. There was no
significant improvement in their school attendance or
self-esteem.” Instead it was suggested that the shoes
potentially made the kids to feel somewhat more reliant
on external aid. (Wydick B., 2015)
“The long-term solution is not aid. It may seem cruel
that aid should stop, but really it should,” says Rasna
Warah,a Kenyan newspaper columnist and editor of the
anthology Missionaries, Mercenaries and Misfits, a call
to arms against aid. (Wadhams N., 2010)
While others, blames TOMS for being blind-sided
and not being able to address the real problem. Scott
Gilmore, CEO of the not-for-profit Building Markets,
which works to boost local economies in post-conflict
countries, says the problem of persistent poverty is “not
a lack of shoes, but a lack of opportunity and a lack of
jobs.” (Chu J., 2013)
Though Gilmore acknowledges TOMS in helping to
Image 13. Original Photo: TOMS gives away shoes in 60 countries and works with 100 NGOs to distribute donations (The
Telegraph, 2015) Edited Photo: Start Something That Works! (Ziqq, N. 2016)
build awareness of poverty, its success however, sadly
portrays the power of monetizing white guilt.
“How can we make ourselves feel better?”Gilmore asks.
“This is the power of self-congratulatory smugness,
of saying, ‘I’m better than you because I’m helping
somebody.’ But the people who lose out are ironically
the ones they say they’re trying to help.”
Temporary Solution
At the end of it all, TOMS has been criticised mainly
for its cost-effectiveness, constantly questioned and
challenged about its true impact on children and
communities.
Critics argue that there are a number of more effective
alternatives. (Favini J., 2013) Zac Mason a former
Peace Corps volunteer, suggested donating the money
for a pair of TOMS Shoes to a local public health
organisation instead. Money donated could possibly
eradicate hookworm incidence for decades compared to
the couple year’s lifespan of a TOMS Shoe. (Mason Z.,
2010)
As the shoes are only a temporary solution that will
eventually wear out in a couple years, the children
benefitting from TOMS “will be just as susceptible to
the health and economic perils associated with bare feet
as they were before.” (Davenport C., 2012)
TOMS Shoes may very well be classified as a classic
example of Bruce Nussbaum’s ‘disconnectedness’. The
arrival to the solution was not driven by an actual need
of the community rather, seen as a business opportunity
in the eyes of entrepreneur Blake Mycoskie. He writes
in his book “Start Something That Matters” that
he witnessed pockets of poverty after a few days of
travelling from village to village. And for the first time
saw “the real effects of being shoeless: the blisters, the
sore, the infections.” (Mycoskie B., 2011)The key words
to note here are ‘witness’ and ‘a few days’.
It has been said that Western designers see a country’s
problem the way they want to see it and not necessarily
through the eyes of the locals, the actual people they
are designing for. (Kaye L., 2010) While others “feel
folks from western countries are often condescending
and patronizing; many believe that they have plenty
of individuals in their countries who have the talent to
address their most festering problems.” (Kaye L., 2010)
Is this a repeat of the grumblings heard by Bruce
Nussbaum? “What makes him think that he can just
come in and solve our problems?”
18
TOMS Shoes
Image 14. A pair of red TOMS Shoes

Design For The First World
In 2010, Carolina Vallejo a Bogota-born designer and
educator from Colombia, launched Design for the
First World (Dx1W), a competition in response to an
assignment in her design class: to create an object on
“Social Design” (Arieff A., 2010)
“Why would anyone assume that you could design
something to solve a problem for the so-called Third
World—a world you don’t know—in a week?” (Vallejo
C., 2010)
In an interview with ‘The Daily Good: A Magazine
for the Global Citizen’ (2010) Vallejo talked about
the example of the ‘The Red Campaign’ and the ‘One
Laptop Per Child’ and describes them as “paternalistic
let’s produce unnecessary crap and throw it out projects”
(Arieff A., 2010)
She applauds One Laptop Per Child for recognising
that there are other needs in communities other than
“water and medicine”. And followed up with a harsh
criticism, “the whole project is nothing more than a
generalised remedy that ignores particularities…who
cares if there’s no electricity! Lets give computers to the
children! It makes me sick.” (Vallejo C., 2010)
Vallejo described Dx1W as a competition that seeks
to draw attention to—and dissolve—the dualistic,
‘Us’ versus ‘Them’ dynamic that persists in the field of
Humanitarian Design. It completely flips the role of
“the designer” and “users”. This allows both parties to
see what works and what did not.Vallejo highlights that
the present model of the First World is failing the Third
World. She admits as well that the developing world
should be more aware of what is going on in the other
*
DESIGN FOR THE
FIRST WORLD
The winning entry, ‘Real Time Chat’ by Brazilian
designer Layla Cavalcante seeks to address the problem
of anti-social behavior created by wearing headphones.
She created a magnetic patch that is pasted on
headphones.The patch shows the availability chat status
of the headphone user in real time.(E.g.Busy,Available,
etc.) The project was awarded with USD$1000 cash.
(Shelly K., 2011)
The competition raised similar questions as the ones
Bruce Nussbaum raised in his debated-article:
“Do designers need to better see themselves through the
eyes of the local professional and business classes who
believe their countries are rising as the U.S. and Europe
fall and wonder who, in the end, has the right answers?
Might Indian, Brazilian and African designers have
important design lessons to teach Western designers?”
(Nussbaum B., 2010)
hemisphere as the problems faced in the First World
are “all interlinked and has a direct impact on how life
is going to be.”
In addition, Vallejo blames the developing world for
“seeming too ready to hand over their fate to others
unfamiliar with their reality.” (Arieff A., 2010)
It is our fault, she explains,“for critiquing ‘the system’as
if we (developing world) were not part of it. And this
is scalable to planetary magnitudes. It is time that we
all take responsibility and agency and become present
and aware, and open our hearts and minds.”(Vallejo C.,
2010)
Theonlinecompetitioninvitedfellowcreativeswithideas
to participate, with only two conditions: participants to
be born in and live in a developing country and at least
13 years of age or older. Dx1W reportedly received 30
design submissions and interest from over 150 countries
from Bangladesh to Mexico.
20
Design For The First World
Image15.DesignfortheFirstWorld(VallejoC.,2010)
Image16.Winningentry‘RealTimeChat’byLaylaCavalcante(2010)

03 FOR BETTER
OR WORSE?
“I knew it would be hard.
But, yes, it proved even
harder.”
– Nicholas Negroponte, OLPC
(Hatch D., 2009, p.30)
“It might have been a bit
ambitious. But hey you
got to dream big.”
– Trevor Field, PlayPumps
(Frontline/World., 2010, 21 mins.)
Thehardpart?“Giving,
man,” Mycoskie says
with a shake of his
head.“Giving is hard.”
- Blake Mycoskie,TOMS
(Chu J. 2013)
Image17.(BrinsonK.,2016)
Image18.(KaiG.,2009)
Image19.(Shamengo,2013)
Doing Good Is Hard. So Do It Right.
Be it providing access to education (One Laptop Per
Child), access to clean water (PlayPumps) or providing
fashionable healthcare solutions (TOMS Shoes) – all
three founders agreed that it is hard to do good. But
that should not stop people from continuing to aspire to
make the world a better place.The field of Humanitarian
Design is after all a growing industry,with loads of room
for improvement and that “we should all keep trucking.”
(Pilloton E., 2010)
But to “keep trucking” blindly would be regressive.
‘FAILFaire’ and event that celebrates and discussed
failed projects in developing countries organised by
UNICEF, reminds us that the process of “design is
about trying, failing and trying again. It is an iterative
process.”It is reported that organisations has a tendency
to repeat the same mistakes over again as the culture of
talking about failure is not widely accepted. (Bakić I.,
UNICEF, 2013)
“We talk a lot about not re-inventing the wheel – but
maybe we should talk more about not re-doing the
failures.” (Bakić I., UNICEF, 2013)
In all three stories,we learnt that we should always listen
to the people on the ground. We should never lose sight
of their needs, and to always work towards their needs
and not ours. They should be our top priority above all
things. As Emily Pilloton puts it:
“For all of us who consider ourselves part of the
‘design world,’ the issue is not of geography, but one of
commitment.” (Pilloton E., 2010) If one is committed
in serving others,his or her motivation will never change
- always having a clear conscience of why they are doing
what they are doing.
Solve The Correct Problem
On the get go, all three interventions were well received
at the beginning – seen as a brilliant innovative solution
and a cool idea. But Professor Donald Norman a
cognitive scientist, and more famously known for
coining the term “user experience” (Gube J., 2010) -
reminds us that a seemingly brilliant solution to the
wrong problem can be worse than no solution at all.
Professor Norman encourages designer to solve the
correct problem instead. (Norman D., 2013, p.218)
“Good designers never start by trying to solve the
problem given to them:they start by trying to understand
what the real issues are.” (Norman, D. 2013, p.218)
To get to the correct problem, Professor Norman
suggested a technique called ‘root cause analysis’ where
one “investigate an accident until the single underlying
cause is found.” (Norman D., 2013, p.164-165) And
suggested a line of questioning called the ‘Five Whys’
that slows down the design process and allows designers
to reflect, question and be more aware of the problem
they are addressing, without jumping the gun. (Norman
D., 2013, p.164-165)
Localism
“Localism is the driving principle underpinning the
Government’s changes to the policy framework for
planning, housing, regeneration and economic growth.”
(Royal Institute of British Architects [RIBA], 2013)
Victor Papanek known for “advocating socially,
ecologically responsible design” (Wikipedia, 2014)
shares in his second edition, completely revised book
‘Design for the Real World’ (1971), his experience of
having worked in six developing countries over the span
of eight years, >>
22
03ForBetterorWorse?

>> “These experiences in Latin America, Africa, and
Asia make me realise that the people of the Third
World are more capable in solving their own design
problems...Problems can now be solved in a better way
by local designers and architects whose familiarity with
local ways of living yields better and more appropriate
solutions, rather than a quick fix leading to eventual
disappointments.” (Papanek V., 1971, p.85)
Though written in the 1970s, Papanek views today
are still being practiced by the 21st century design
organisations such as ‘Architecture for Humanity’. In
its surprising rebirth after its filed bankruptcy in 2015
(Ferro S., 2015) ‘Architecture for Humanity’ talked
about “work done locally by local designers for their
local communities” (Campbell-Dollaghan K., 2016)
providing support to locals such as raising money
and professional development. The works done by
‘Architecture for Humanity’ has positioned itself as a
huge “role as a bastion of community-based architecture
on a national level.” (Campbell-Dollaghan K., 2016)
Localism is after all described as a way to empower
councils and communities “to have more say in the
development process which is critical in driving change
at a local level.” (RIBA, 2013)
Change Begins With Me
But for any change to happen be it on the local or
global scale, change first and foremost begins with
me, the designer. Ezio Manzini describes that in the
past century, designer has the tendency of isolating
themselves as the sole designer in the field, they now
however, find themselves in a world where everybody
has the capability to design.
“This change in role calls them to become something
different from what they have been until now. This
means that in order to adapt to what is required of
them, they must redesign themselves and their way of
operating.” (Manzini E., 2015, p.2)
As briefly mentioned in the introductory chapter of this
thesis, ‘social actors’ is described as the local who takes
on his/her daily struggles through innovating a solution
to make life better for them and their community.
(Manzini E., 2015) This is an opportunity for the expert
designers to work collaboratively to further empower
these ‘social actors’ to further impact change. The old
way of working as the designer who “swoops in with
their capes and ‘design thinking’ to save poor folks”
(Pilloton E., 2010) is changing, and has got to change.
Image 20. Design Says Hello trip to Cambodia, Instagram Collage (2014)
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the case of One Laptop Per Child,
PlayPumps and TOMS Shoes had dire repercussions
on the community they were designing for. The
repercussions are real and evident. Through the many
research, evaluative reports and studies conducted on
all three interventions in measuring its impact on the
community they were addressing, have shown that it
caused more notable harm than good. It did not help
student to excel in school (OLPC), it did not make
it easier to access clean water (PlayPumps) nor did it
actually help solve a healthcare problem (TOMS Shoes).
On a personal level, these are the very reasons why I
chose to walk away from that project in Cambodia. I
felt like an inexperience doctor ambitiously trying to
diagnose a patient. I was not willing to take that risk, to
wrongfully diagnose a problem and provide a solution
that will eventually not solve anything, but adding on
more problems to an existing sea of highly wicked and
complex problems. For better or worse, my conscience
is clear, for these are real people, with real families and
children. Human lives are at stake, and I was not willing
to gamble on that.
24
03ForBetterorWorse?

04 REFERENCES
One Laptop Per Child:
Blossom, E. (2011) Material Change: Design Thinking and the Social
Entrepreneurship Movement. United States: Metropolis Books.
Nussbaum, B. (2010) Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism? Fast
Company Co.Design. [Internet] July 6 2010. Available from: <http://www.
fastcodesign.com/1661859/is-humanitarian-design-the-new-imperialism>
MIT (2007) Seymour Papert [Internet] March 2007 Available from:
<http://web.media.mit.edu/papert/>
OLPC (2009) One Laptop Per Child Overview in 2009. OLPC News.
[Internet] March 2009. Available from: <http://www.olpcnews.com/files/
One_Laptop_Per_Child_Overview_2009.pdf>
Lagace, M. (2007) One Laptop Per Child [Internet] 10 December 2007.
Available from: <http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/one-laptop-per-child>
United Nations (2005) OLPC Initiative Moving Expression of Global
Solidarity, Corporate Citizenship, Secretary-General Says at Tunis Media
Event. UN Press Release. [Internet] 16 November 2005. Available from:
<http://www.un.org/press/en/2005/sgsm10217.doc.htm>
United Nations (2006) UN Supports Project Aimed at Providing Cheap
Laptops to Students in Poor Countries. UN News Centre [Internet]
28 January 2006. Available from: <http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.
asp?NewsID=17328#.VoVazzbWZE4>
Negroponte, N. (2006) TEDTalk: Founder of the MIT Media Laboratory,
Describes How the One Laptop Per Child Project Will Build and
Distribute the $100 laptop. [Internet] February 2006. Available from:
<https://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_negroponte_on_one_laptop_per_
child?language=en#t-320113>
Keating, J. & Shaikh, A. (2009) Why did One Laptop Per Child Fail?
ForeignPolicy. [Internet] 9 September 2009. Available from: <http://
foreignpolicy.com/2009/09/09/why-did-one-laptop-per-child-fail/>
Stecklow, S. & Bandler, J. (2007) A Little Laptop With Big Ambitions:
How a Computer for the Poor Got Stomped by Tech Giants. Wall Street
Journal. [Internet] 24 November 2007. Available from: <http://www.wsj.
com/articles/SB119586754115002717>
Cristia, J., Ibarraran, P., Cueto S., Santiago A. & Severin E.(2012)
Technology and Child Development: Evidence from the One Laptop
Per Child Program [Internet] February 2012. IDB Working Paper No.
ADB-WP-304. Available from: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=2032444>
Vota, W. (2014) Goodbye One Laptop per Child. OLPC News. [Internet]
11 March 2014. Available from: <http://www.olpcnews.com/about_olpc_
news/goodbye_one_laptop_per_child.html>
Stahl, L. (2007) What If Every Child Had A Laptop? CBS News.
[Internet] 20 May 2007. Available from: <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/
what-if-every-child-had-a-laptop/3/>
Preface:
Aziz, A. (2013) Design Says Hello: Design With Humility, Design For
Humanity. JUICE Magazine. Singapore. [Internet] November 2013. p.100
Available from: <http://epublishbyus.com/juice_nov_2013/10034878#>
Floyd, D. (2013) Why Failure can be the Best Platform for Innovation
[Internet] 30 September 2013. Available from: <http://www.theguardian.
com/social-enterprise-network/2013/sep/30/failure-best-platform-for-
innovation>
Introduction:
Kolko, J. (2012) Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving, An
Introduction to Wicked Problems: A Handbook & A Call to Action.
Austin Texas. Austin Centre for Design.
Lykketoft, M. (2015) United Nations General Assembly 69th Session,
Sustainable Development Agenda. [Internet] 12 August 2015. Available
from: <http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/
L.85&Lang=E>
United Nations (2015) 17 Goals to Transform Our World [Internet]
Available from: <http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/>
Manzini, E. (2015) Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction
to Design for Social Innovation. Introduction, p.1-6. Cambridge,
Massachusetts. London, England: The MIT Press.
Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. & Mulgan, G. (2010) The Open Book of
Social Innovation: Ways to Design, Develop and Grow Social Innovation.
Social Innovator Series. [Internet] 3 March 2010. Available from: <http://
www.nesta.org.uk/publications/open-book-social-innovation>
DBS Mashable UK (2015), A New Era of Corporate Responsibility
as Global Organizations Foster Social Entrepreneurship [Internet] 22
October 2015. Available from: <http://mashable.com/2015/10/22/social-
entrepreneurship-brandspeak/#ZIppfolFpuql>
Schwarz, M. & Krabbendam, D. (2013) Sustainist Design Guide: How
Sharing, Localism, Connectedness and Proportionality Are Creating A
New Agenda For Social Design. Amsterdam, Netherlands: BIS Publishers.
Schwarz, M. & Elffers, J. (2010) Sustainism is the New Modernism:
A Cultural Manifesto for the Sustainist Era. New York, United States:
Distributed Art Publishers.
Brown,T. (2008) Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review. [Internet]
June 2008. Available from: <https://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/
thoughts/IDEO_HBR_Design_Thinking.pdf>
IDEO (2009) Human Centered Design Toolkit [Internet] Available from:
<https://www.ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit/>
Wærn, R. & Wingårdh, G. (2015) Is the Architect an Authoritarian? Arch
Daily. [Internet] 28 August 2015. Available from: <http://www.archdaily.
com/772586/is-the-architect-an-authoritarian>
26

Fildes, J. (2008) Intel Undermined Laptop Project. BBC News.
[Internet] 9 January 2008. Available from: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
technology/7178241.stm>
Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism?
The Editors (2010) Humanitarian Design vs Design Imperialism: Debate
Summary. Design Observer. [Internet] 16 July 2010. Available from:
<http://designobserver.com/feature/humanitarian-design-vs-design-
imperialism-debate-summary/14498/>
Nussbaum, B. (2007) It’s Time To Call One Laptop Per Child A Failure
[Internet] 24 September 2007. Available from: <http://www.businessweek.
com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/09/its_time_to_cal.
html>
Pilloton, E. (2010) Are Humanitarian Designers Imperialists? Project H
Responds. Fast Company Co. Design. [Internet] 11 July 2010. Available
from: <http://www.fastcodesign.com/1661885/are-humanitarian-designers-
imperialists-project-h-responds>
Kolko, J. (2010) The Puzzle of Bruce’s Zeitgeist. [Internet] 12 July 2010.
Available form: <http://www.ac4d.com/2010/07/the-puzzle-of-bruces-
zeitgeist/>
Sinclair, C. (2010) ‘Admiral Ackbar, It’s a Trap!’ How Over-simplification
Creates a Distorted Vision of Humanitarian Design.The Department
of Small Works. [Internet] 8 July 2010. Available from: <http://
designobserver.com/feature/humanitarian-design-vs-design-imperialism-
debate-summary/14498/>
PlayPumps:
Bennion, J. (2005) South Africa: The Play Pump: Turning Water Into
Child’s Play [Internet] 24 October 2005. Available from: <http://www.pbs.
org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/10/south_africa_th.html>
Erasmus, J. (2008) Tapping into Ingenuity [Internet] 1 July 2008. Available
from: <http://www.mediaclubsouthafrica.com/land-and-people/549-
tapping-into-ingenuity010708>
Longwe, B. & Hayes, S. (2014) Play Pumps On ED Part 1 [Internet]
Uploaded 9 May 2014. Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=4wtT5nEmaf0> [Accessed 16 December 2015]
SK52DesignStudio (2010) Interview with Trevor Field: Play Pumps Bring
Joy and Access to Clean Drinking Water. [Internet] Uploaded 3 August
2010. Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBEttIM-
K8E> [Accessed 16 December 2015]
Costello, A. (2005) South Africa: The Play Pump [Internet] 24 November
2005. Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/watch/player.ht
ml?pkg=entrepreneur&seg=13&mod=0> [Accessed 16 December 2015]
Costello, A. (2006) PlayPump Project Receives Major U.S. Funding
[Internet] 20 September 2006. Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/
frontlineworld/blog/2006/09/playpump_projec.html>
Bennion, J. & Cate, R. (2010) The Play Pump Trail [Internet] Available
from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/southernafrica904/
timeline_tw.html>
UNICEF (2007) An Evaluation of the PlayPump Water System as an
Appropriate Technology for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programmes
[Internet] October 2007. Available from: <http://www-tc.pbs.org/
frontlineworld/stories/southernafrica904/flash/pdf/unicef_pp_report.pdf>
Frontline/World (2010) Amy Costello Reports Troubled Water: Story
Synopsis [Internet] 29 June 2010. Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/
frontlineworld/stories/southernafrica904/video_index.html> [Accessed 17
December 2015]
Freschi, L. (2010) Some NGOs Can Adjust to Failure: The PlayPumps
Story [Internet] 19 February 2010. Available from: <http://aidwatchers.
com/2010/02/some-ngos-can-adjust-to-failure-the-playpumps-story/>
Ugly Side of Humanitarian Efforts
Savio, N. (2015) Making Things That Make Things Better [Internet] 3 June
2015. Available from: <https://medium.com/@nadav/humanitarian-design-
f1ee4f2c889#.wpsiduhaz>
to Design for Social Innovation. Chapter 3: Design for Social Innovation,
p.55-74. Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England: The MIT Press.
html>
Definition of ‘Natural Monopoly. Investopedia. [Internet] Available from:
<http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural_monopoly.asp>
Chambers, A. (2009) Africa’s Not-So-Magic Roundabout.The Guardian.
[Internet] 24 November 2009. Available from: <http://www.theguardian.
com/commentisfree/2009/nov/24/africa-charity-water-pumps-
roundabouts>
SDS Admin (2012) How To Survive Humanitarian Design. School of
Design Strategies (SDS) at Parsons The New School for Design. [Internet]
9 December 2012. Available from: <http://sds.parsons.edu/transdesign/
how-to-survive-humanitarian-design/>
TOMS Shoes
Mycoskie, B. (2011) How I Did It: The TOMS Story [Internet] 20
September 2011. Available from: <http://www.entrepreneur.com/
article/220350>
Chu, J. (2013) TOMS Set Out To Sell A Lifestyle, Not Just Shoes.
Fast Company. [Internet] 17 June 2013. Available from: <http://www.
fastcompany.com/3012568/blake-mycoskie-toms#3>
Poulos, J. (2012) TOMS Shoes: A Doomed Vanity Project? Forbes.
[Internet] 11 April 2012. Available from: <http://www.forbes.com/sites/
jamespoulos/2012/04/11/toms-shoes-a-doomed-vanity-project/>
Veerasamy, V. (2015) How TOMS Shoes Built A Multi-Million-Dollar
Movement With Word-of-Mouth (And Gave Away Millions Of Shoes)
[Internet Blog] 25 July 2015. Available from: <http://www.referralcandy.
com/blog/how-toms-shoes-built-a-multi-million-dollar-movement-
with-word-of-mouth-and-gave-away-millions-of-shoes/> [Accessed 20
December 2015]
TOMS (2016) TOMS Tribe [Internet] Available from: <http://www.toms.
com/tribe>
TOMS (2015) One Day Without Shoes [Internet] 21 May 2015. Available
from: <http://www.toms.com/one-day-without-shoes>
Favini, J. (2013) Some Bad News About TOMS Shoes [Internet] 18 April
2013. Available from: <http://www.whydev.org/some-bad-news-about-
toms-shoes/>
Davenport, C. (2012) The Broken “Buy-One-Give-One” Model: 3 Ways
To Save TOMS Shoes. Fast Company. [Internet] 10 April 2012. Available
from: <http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679628/the-broken-buy-one-give-
one-model-three-ways-to-save-toms-shoes>
Wadhams N. (2010) Bad Charity: All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt.
TIME. [Internet] 12 May 2010. Available from: <http://content.time.com/
time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C1987628%2C00.html>
Keating, J. (2013) Is TOMS Shoes Listening To Its Critics? [Internet]
17 October 2013. Available from: <http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_
world_/2013/10/17/toms_shoes_to_begin_producing_shoes_in_haiti_will_
this_be_a_more_effective.html>
Mangine, G. (2012) One For One? [Internet Blog] 24 February 2012.
Available from: <http://www.mangine.org/2012/02/one-for-one.html>
[Accessed 27 December 2015]
Wydick, B. (2015) The Impact of TOMS Shoes [Internet] 16 March 2015.
Available from: <http://www.acrosstwoworlds.net/?p=292>
Mason, Z. (2010) Do You Cause More Harm Than Good By Giving
TOMS Shoes To The Poor? [Internet Blog] 4 October 2010. Available
from: <http://zacstravaganza.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/does-toms-cause-
more-harm-than-good-by.html> [Accessed 28 December 2015]
Kaye, L. (2010) The Backlash Against Humanitarian Design [Internet]
Available from: <http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/07/the-backlash-
against-humanitarian-design/>
Design For The First World:
Arieff, A. & Vallejo, C. (2010) Design For The First World: The Rest
Saving The West. Interview With Carolina Vallejo. GOOD Magazine.
[Internet] 23 June 2010. Available from: <http://magazine.good.is/articles/
design-for-the-first-world-the-rest-saving-the-west>
Shelly, K. (2011) Design By The Rest. [Internet] 21 December 2011.
Available from: <http://www.cooperhewitt.org/2011/12/21/design-by-the-
rest/>
For Better of Worse:
Bakić, I. (2013) FAILFaire – Improving the Lives Of Children By
Encouraging Adults To Talk About Their Failures. UNICEF. [Internet]
6 December 2013. Available from: <http://www.unicefstories.
org/2013/12/06/failfaire-improving-the-lives-of-children-by-encouraging-
adults-to-talk-about-their-failures/>
Norman D. (2013) Design 0f Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded
Version. Chapter 6, Design Thinking: Solving the Correct Problem. p.218-
220. Cambridge Massachusetts. London, England: The MIT Press.
Gube, J. (2010) What Is User Experience Design? Overview,Tools And
Resources. Smashing Magazine. [Internet] 5 October 2010. Available from:
<https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/10/what-is-user-experience-
design-overview-tools-and-resources/>
Papanek, V. [Internet] Available from: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Victor_Papanek>
Papanek, V. (1971) Design Tor The Real World: Second Edition/
Completely Revised. Chapter 4, Do-it-Yourself Murder: Social & Moral
Responsibilities of Design p.79-85. United States of America: Academy
Chicago Publishers.
Ferro, S. (2015) What’s Next For Architecture For Humanity? [Internet]
9 January 2015. Available from: <http://www.fastcodesign.com/3041234/
whats-next-for-architecture-for-humanity>
Campbell-Dollaghan K., (2016) The Story Behind Architecture For
Humanity Surprising Rebirth. [Internet] 21 January 2016. Available from:
http://www.fastcodesign.com/3055724/the-story-behind-architecture-for-
humanitys-surprising-rebirth
RIBA (2013) Guide To Localism Opportunities For Architects. Part One:
Neighborhood Planning. Royal Institute of British Architects. [Internet]
Available from: <https://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAHoldings/
PolicyAndInternationalRelations/Policy/GuidetoLocalism-
Part1NeighbourhoodPlanning.pdf>
28

05BIBLIOGRAPHY
A
Arieff, A. & Vallejo, C. (2010) Design For The First World: The Rest
Saving The West. Interview With Carolina Vallejo. GOOD Magazine.
[Internet] 23 June 2010. Available from: <http://magazine.good.is/articles/
design-for-the-first-world-the-rest-saving-the-west>
Aziz, A. (2013) Design Says Hello: Design With Humility, Design For
Humanity. JUICE Magazine. Singapore. [Internet] November 2013. p.100
Available from: <http://epublishbyus.com/juice_nov_2013/10034878#>
B
Bakić, I. (2013) FAILFaire – Improving the Lives Of Children By
Encouraging Adults To Talk About Their Failures. UNICEF. [Internet]
6 December 2013. Available from: <http://www.unicefstories.
org/2013/12/06/failfaire-improving-the-lives-of-children-by-encouraging-
adults-to-talk-about-their-failures/>
Berger, W. (2009) Meet Bruce Mau. He Wants to Redesign the World
[Internet] 9 December 2009. Available from: <http://www.wired.co.uk/
magazine/archive/2010/01/features/meet-bruce-mau-he-wants-to-
redesign-the-world>
Bennion, J. (2005) South Africa: The Play Pump: Turning Water Into
Child’s Play [Internet] 24 October 2005. Available from: <http://www.pbs.
org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/10/south_africa_th.html>
Bennion, J. & Cate, R. (2010) The Play Pump Trail [Internet] Available
from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/southernafrica904/
timeline_tw.html>
Blossom, E. (2011) Material Change: Design Thinking and the Social
Entrepreneurship Movement. United States: Metropolis Books.
Brown,T. (2008) Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review. [Internet]
June 2008. Available from: <https://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/
thoughts/IDEO_HBR_Design_Thinking.pdf>
C
Campbell-Dollaghan K., (2016) The Story Behind Architecture For
Humanity Surprising Rebirth. [Internet] 21 January 2016. Available from:
<http://www.fastcodesign.com/3055724/the-story-behind-architecture-for-
humanitys-surprising-rebirth>
Case, J. (2009) Autumn Updates from Jean Case [Internet Blog] 10
September 2009. Available from: <http://casefoundation.org/blog/autumn-
updates-jean-case/> [Accessed 13 December 2015]
Chambers, A. (2009) Africa’s Not-So-Magic Roundabout.The Guardian.
[Internet] 24 November 2009. Available from: <http://www.theguardian.
com/commentisfree/2009/nov/24/africa-charity-water-pumps-
roundabouts>
Cheng, M. (2013) 10 Ideas Driving the Future of Social Entrepreneurship
[Internet] 25 April 2013. Available from: <http://www.fastcoexist.
com/1681921/10-ideas-driving-the-future-of-social-entrepreneurship>
Chu, J. (2013) TOMS Set Out To Sell A Lifestyle, Not Just Shoes.
Fast Company. [Internet] 17 June 2013. Available from: <http://www.
fastcompany.com/3012568/blake-mycoskie-toms#3>
Costello, A. (2005) South Africa: The Play Pump [Internet] 24 November
2005. Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/watch/player.ht
ml?pkg=entrepreneur&seg=13&mod=0> [Accessed 16 December 2015]
Costello, A. (2006) PlayPump Project Receives Major U.S. Funding
[Internet] 20 September 2006. Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/
frontlineworld/blog/2006/09/playpump_projec.html>
Cristia, J., Ibarraran, P., Cueto S., Santiago A. & Severin E.(2012)
Technology and Child Development: Evidence from the One Laptop
Per Child Program [Internet] February 2012. IDB Working Paper No.
ADB-WP-304. Available from: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=2032444>
D
Damberger, D. (2011) TEDx Talk: Learning From Failure [Internet]
Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGiHU-agsGY>
[Accessed 3 November 2015]
Davenport, C. (2012) The Broken “Buy-One-Give-One” Model: 3 Ways
To Save TOMS Shoes. Fast Company. [Internet] 10 April 2012. Available
from: <http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679628/the-broken-buy-one-give-
one-model-three-ways-to-save-toms-shoes>
DBS Mashable UK (2015), A New Era of Corporate Responsibility
as Global Organizations Foster Social Entrepreneurship [Internet] 22
October 2015. Available from: <http://mashable.com/2015/10/22/social-
entrepreneurship-brandspeak/#ZIppfolFpuql>
Definition of ‘Natural Monopoly. Investopedia. [Internet] Available from:
<http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural_monopoly.asp>
E
Erasmus, J. (2008) Tapping into Ingenuity [Internet] 1 July 2008. Available
from: <http://www.mediaclubsouthafrica.com/land-and-people/549-
tapping-into-ingenuity010708>
F
Farquhar, S. (2012) The Justness of “Just Giving” [Internet] 15 August 2012.
Available from: <http://tedxoxford.co.uk/the-justness-of-just-giving/>
Favini, J. (2013) Some Bad News About TOMS Shoes [Internet] 18 April
2013. Available from: <http://www.whydev.org/some-bad-news-about-
toms-shoes/>
Ferro, S. (2015) What’s Next For Architecture For Humanity? [Internet]
9 January 2015. Available from: <http://www.fastcodesign.com/3041234/
whats-next-for-architecture-for-humanity>
Fildes, J. (2008) Intel Undermined Laptop Project. BBC News.
[Internet] 9 January 2008. Available from: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
technology/7178241.stm>
Floyd, D. (2013) Why Failure can be the Best Platform for Innovation
[Internet] 30 September 2013. Available from: <http://www.theguardian.
com/social-enterprise-network/2013/sep/30/failure-best-platform-for-
innovation>
30

Freschi, L. (2010) Some NGOs Can Adjust to Failure: The PlayPumps
Story [Internet] 19 February 2010. Available from: <http://aidwatchers.
com/2010/02/some-ngos-can-adjust-to-failure-the-playpumps-story/>
Frontline/World (2010) Amy Costello Reports Troubled Water: Story
Synopsis [Internet] 29 June 2010. Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/
frontlineworld/stories/southernafrica904/video_index.html> [Accessed 17
December 2015]
Frontline/World (2009) Troubled Water: Interview with Amy Costello
[Internet] Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/
southernafrica904/reporter.html>
G
Goldberg, M. L. & Negroponte, N. (2009) Founder of One Laptop Per
Child Responds. UN Dispatch [Internet] 10 September 2009. Available
from: <http://www.undispatch.com/founder-of-one-laptop-per-child-
responds/>
Gube, J. (2010) What Is User Experience Design? Overview,Tools And
Resources. Smashing Magazine. [Internet] 5 October 2010. Available from:
<https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/10/what-is-user-experience-
design-overview-tools-and-resources/>
H
Hatch, D. (2009) Have Laptop, Will Travel [Internet] 11 April 2009.
Available from: <http://laptop.org/images/pdf/2009_apr_11_OLPC_
National_Journal.pdf>
Hunter, N. (2014) Design Innovation: New Ways of Thinking Can
Change The World [Internet] 19 June 2014. Available from: <http://www.
theguardian.com/culture-professionals-network/culture-professionals-
blog/2014/jun/19/design-innovation-young-people-rsa>
I
IDEO (2009) Human Centered Design Toolkit [Internet] Available from:
<https://www.ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit/>
J
Jenvey, N. (2015) The Global Rise of Social Entrepreneurship [Internet] 27
March 2015. Available from: <http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.
php?story=20150324131055167>
K
Kaye, L. (2010) The Backlash Against Humanitarian Design [Internet]
Available from: <http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/07/the-backlash-
against-humanitarian-design/>
Keating, J. & Shaikh, A. (2009) Why did One Laptop Per Child Fail?
ForeignPolicy. [Internet] 9 September 2009. Available from: <http://
foreignpolicy.com/2009/09/09/why-did-one-laptop-per-child-fail/>
Keating, J. (2013) Is TOMS Shoes Listening To Its Critics? [Internet]
17 October 2013. Available from: <http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_
world_/2013/10/17/toms_shoes_to_begin_producing_shoes_in_haiti_will_
this_be_a_more_effective.html>
Kokin, K. (2008) For Tomorrow: The TOMS Shoes Story [Internet]
Available from: <https://vimeo.com/40143777> [Accessed 22 December
2015]
Kessler, S. (2012) Mashable UK: 2.5 Million Laptops Later, One Laptop
Per Child Doesn’t Improve Test Scores. (Study) [Internet] 9 April 2012.
Available from: <http://mashable.com/2012/04/09/one-laptop-per-child-
study/#lEaaQ7Z4faqb>
Kolko, J. (2012) Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving, An
Introduction to Wicked Problems: A Handbook & A Call to Action.
Austin Texas. Austin Centre for Design.
Kolko, J. (2010) The Puzzle of Bruce’s Zeitgeist. [Internet] 12 July 2010.
Available form: <http://www.ac4d.com/2010/07/the-puzzle-of-bruces-
zeitgeist/>
L
Ling B. (2010) This Huge Humanitarian Design Debate Is A Moot
Point. [Internet] 20 July 2010. Available from: <http://designsojourn.
com/2010/07/20/this-huge-humanitarian-design-debate-is-a-moot-
point/>
Lykketoft, M. (2015) United Nations General Assembly 69th Session,
Sustainable Development Agenda. [Internet] 12 August 2015. Available
from: <http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/
L.85&Lang=E>
M
Mangine, G. (2012) One For One? [Internet Blog] 24 February 2012.
Available from: <http://www.mangine.org/2012/02/one-for-one.html>
[Accessed 27 December 2015]
to Design for Social Innovation. Introduction, p.1-6. Cambridge,
Massachusetts. London, England: The MIT Press.
to Design for Social Innovation. Chapter 3: Design for Social Innovation,
p.55-74. Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England: The MIT Press.
Marie Vandendriessche N. (2012) The Story of PlayPumps: Merry-Go-
Rounds, Water, and Failures in Development Aid [Internet] March 22,
2012. Available from: <http://unitedexplanations.org/english/2012/03/22/
the-story-of-playpumps-merry-go-rounds-water-and-failures-in-
development-aid/>
Mason, Z. (2010) Do You Cause More Harm Than Good By Giving
TOMS Shoes To The Poor? [Internet Blog] 4 October 2010. Available
from: <http://zacstravaganza.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/does-toms-cause-
more-harm-than-good-by.html> [Accessed 28 December 2015]
MIT (2007) Seymour Papert [Internet] March 2007 Available from:
<http://web.media.mit.edu/papert/>
Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. & Mulgan, G. (2010) The Open Book of
Social Innovation: Ways to Design, Develop and Grow Social Innovation.
Social Innovator Series. [Internet] 3 March 2010. Available from: <http://
www.nesta.org.uk/publications/open-book-social-innovation>
Mycoskie, B. (2011) How I Did It: The TOMS Story [Internet] 20
September 2011. Available from: <http://www.entrepreneur.com/
article/220350>
N
National Geographic (2008) PlayPumps International [Internet]
9 January 2008. Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=qjgcHOWcWGE> [Accessed 22 December 2015]
Negroponte, N. (2006) TEDTalk: Founder of the MIT Media Laboratory,
Describes How the One Laptop Per Child Project Will Build and
Distribute the $100 laptop. [Internet] February 2006. Available from:
<https://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_negroponte_on_one_laptop_per_
child?language=en#t-320113>
Norman D. (2013) Design 0f Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded
Version. Chapter 6, Design Thinking: Solving the Correct Problem. p.218-
220. Cambridge Massachusetts. London, England: The MIT Press.
html>
O
OLPC (2009) One Laptop Per Child Overview in 2009. OLPC News.
[Internet] March 2009. Available from: <http://www.olpcnews.com/files/
One_Laptop_Per_Child_Overview_2009.pdf>
P
Papanek, V. [Internet] Available from: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Victor_Papanek>
Papanek, V. (1971) Design Tor The Real World: Second Edition/
Completely Revised. Chapter 4, Do-it-Yourself Murder: Social & Moral
Responsibilities of Design p.79-85. United States of America: Academy
Chicago Publishers.
Poulos, J. (2012) TOMS Shoes: A Doomed Vanity Project? Forbes.
[Internet] 11 April 2012. Available from: <http://www.forbes.com/sites/
jamespoulos/2012/04/11/toms-shoes-a-doomed-vanity-project/>
R
RIBA (2013) Guide To Localism Opportunities For Architects. Part One:
Neighborhood Planning. Royal Institute of British Architects. [Internet]
Available from: <https://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAHoldings/
PolicyAndInternationalRelations/Policy/GuidetoLocalism-
Part1NeighbourhoodPlanning.pdf>
S
Savio, N. (2015) Making Things That Make Things Better [Internet] 3 June
2015. Available from: <https://medium.com/@nadav/humanitarian-design-
f1ee4f2c889#.wpsiduhaz>
Schwarz, M. & Krabbendam, D. (2013) Sustainist Design Guide: How
Sharing, Localism, Connectedness and Proportionality Are Creating A
New Agenda For Social Design. Amsterdam, Netherlands: BIS Publishers.
Schwarz, M. & Elffers, J. (2010) Sustainism is the New Modernism:
A Cultural Manifesto for the Sustainist Era. New York, United States:
Distributed Art Publishers.
SDS Admin (2012) How To Survive Humanitarian Design. School of
Design Strategies (SDS) at Parsons The New School for Design. [Internet]
9 December 2012. Available from: <http://sds.parsons.edu/transdesign/
how-to-survive-humanitarian-design/>
Shelly, K. (2011) Design By The Rest. [Internet] 21 December 2011.
Available from: <http://www.cooperhewitt.org/2011/12/21/design-by-the-
rest/>
Sinclair, C. (2010) ‘Admiral Ackbar, It’s a Trap!’ How Over-simplification
Creates a Distorted Vision of Humanitarian Design.The Department
of Small Works. [Internet] 8 July 2010. Available from: <http://
designobserver.com/feature/humanitarian-design-vs-design-imperialism-
debate-summary/14498/>
SK52DesignStudio (2010) Interview with Trevor Field: Play Pumps Bring
Joy and Access to Clean Drinking Water. [Internet] Uploaded 3 August
2010. Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBEttIM-
K8E> [Accessed 16 December 2015]
Stahl, L. (2007) What If Every Child Had A Laptop? CBS News.
[Internet] 20 May 2007. Available from: <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/
what-if-every-child-had-a-laptop/3/>
Stecklow, S. & Bandler, J. (2007) A Little Laptop With Big Ambitions:
How a Computer for the Poor Got Stomped by Tech Giants. Wall Street
Journal. [Internet] 24 November 2007. Available from: <http://www.wsj.
com/articles/SB119586754115002717>
T
Taub A. (2015) Buying TOMS Shoes Is A Terrible Way To Help
Poor People [Internet] 23 July 2015. Available from: <http://www.vox.
com/2015/7/23/9025975/toms-shoes-poverty-giving>
The Editors (2010) Humanitarian Design vs Design Imperialism: Debate
Summary. Design Observer. [Internet] 16 July 2010. Available from:
<http://designobserver.com/feature/humanitarian-design-vs-design-
imperialism-debate-summary/14498/>
TOMS (2016) TOMS Tribe [Internet] Available from: <http://www.toms.
com/tribe>
TOMS (2015) One Day Without Shoes [Internet] 21 May 2015. Available
from: <http://www.toms.com/one-day-without-shoes>
TOMS (2013) TOMS Commitment to Haiti [Internet] 19 September
2013. Available from: <http://www.toms.com/stories/giving/toms-
commitment-to-haiti>
32

U
United Nations (2005) OLPC Initiative Moving Expression of Global
Solidarity, Corporate Citizenship, Secretary-General Says at Tunis Media
Event. UN Press Release. [Internet] 16 November 2005. Available from:
<http://www.un.org/press/en/2005/sgsm10217.doc.htm>
United Nations (2006) UN Supports Project Aimed at Providing Cheap
Laptops to Students in Poor Countries. UN News Centre [Internet]
28 January 2006. Available from: <http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.
asp?NewsID=17328#.VoVazzbWZE4>
United Nations (2015) 17 Goals to Transform Our World [Internet]
Available from: <http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/>
V
Veerasamy, V. (2015) How TOMS Shoes Built A Multi-Million-Dollar
Movement With Word-of-Mouth (And Gave Away Millions Of Shoes)
[Internet Blog] 25 July 2015. Available from: <http://www.referralcandy.
com/blog/how-toms-shoes-built-a-multi-million-dollar-movement-
with-word-of-mouth-and-gave-away-millions-of-shoes/> [Accessed 20
December 2015]
Vota, W. (2014) Goodbye One Laptop per Child. OLPC News. [Internet]
11 March 2014. Available from: <http://www.olpcnews.com/about_olpc_
news/goodbye_one_laptop_per_child.html>
W
Wadhams N. (2010) Bad Charity: All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt.
TIME. [Internet] 12 May 2010. Available from: <http://content.time.com/
time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C1987628%2C00.html>
Wærn, R. & Wingårdh, G. (2015) Is the Architect an Authoritarian? Arch
Daily. [Internet] 28 August 2015. Available from: <http://www.archdaily.
com/772586/is-the-architect-an-authoritarian>
Watters, A. (2012) The Failure of One Laptop Per Child [Internet] 9 April
2012. Available from: <http://hackeducation.com/2012/04/09/the-failure-
of-olpc/>
Wydick, B. (2015) The Impact of TOMS Shoes [Internet] 16 March 2015.
Available from: <http://www.acrosstwoworlds.net/?p=292>
34
If you completely missed the hidden messages - use the red/blue
filter that came with this book to uncover hidden truths behind
the interventions found on selected Images throughout this book.
Sometimes things are not what it seems on the surface.
BA (Hons) Interaction Design Arts
University of the Arts London
London College of Communication
N.ZIQQ / 2016
BIN13404568
www.ziqqsayshello.com

Failure To Learn: The Repercussions Of Design Interventions In Developing Countries Considered Through The Failures Of Social Innovation

Failure To Learn: The Repercussions Of Design Interventions In Developing Countries Considered Through The Failures Of Social Innovation

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (19)

En vedette

En vedette (7)

Similaire à Failure To Learn: The Repercussions Of Design Interventions In Developing Countries Considered Through The Failures Of Social Innovation

Similaire à Failure To Learn: The Repercussions Of Design Interventions In Developing Countries Considered Through The Failures Of Social Innovation (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Failure To Learn: The Repercussions Of Design Interventions In Developing Countries Considered Through The Failures Of Social Innovation