Kevin - excellent points, all. I agree wholeheartedly that beyond proof of concept, all of these great social innovations we’re hearing about need to pass some rigorous reality checks. I think the four you’ve enumerated above capture the essence of what I’m seeing in scholarly literature, and, more often (and thanks to people like you) in popular literature. The importance of understanding - deeply - local culture is often de-valued, and I’m so pleased to see it mentioned here. The only thing I’d add are 2 items to your 4 questions are in #4 - first, manufacturing. I’m not sure if you’re assuming the product (stoves in this case) are made abroad and brought in, or being manufactured locally (which adds jobs, etc. but adds training, CAPEX, and labor concerns, among others). When you factor in manufacturing, there are also supplier (esp. availability and quality of components) concerns. The second thing I’d add to #4 is maintenance and repair. How will replacement parts be fabricated and/or made available? Who is qualified to repair the item?
Excellent story, Kevin. I’ve seen numerous examples of ‘improved cookstoves’ and have always wondered if they are improved enough!
You article brought to mind a product I noticed on a trip this summer to Kenya. At the home of a struggling farmer, a “LifeStraw” hung on the wall of the hut. I inquired about it and learned it was handed out for free by a nonprofit working in the community. I asked them mother if she uses it and the answer was “yes, when I have time”. But most of the time she’s in a hurry to use the water and doesn’t take the time to filter it first. The product is facing issues two points you raised. Point #1, does she perceive the need for the product? While she understands clean water is important, it appears the need is not a high enough priority to always purify the water. And point #3, can she use it as designed? She feels the rate at which water comes through the filter is not fast enough for her.
Here, here! Spot on Kevin. So much of what will make a difference is the unglamorous hard work, persistence and tiny adjustments that don’t make headlines. We definitely need the pendulum to swing from talk to action.
Number 3 is so important when predicting real impact. Many people’s actual behavior is very different from what they say they want out of a product/service. Understanding your end user, pivoting, and providing true value is critical… This follows a very lean startup approach. Great article!
Excellent post! I too suggest that Number 3 is a ‘black box’ so to speak, one that requires much unpacking. Simply stated, if stoves are used ‘as designed’ this does not equate the fulfilling of a social mission, nor does it predict impact. As you and others rightfully note, cookstove designs are often very technically sound, however, they in no way predict user behaviour.
Related to this is the current debate in the world of improved cookstoves relating to the tests used to legitimate stove designs (for example, the standardized in-lab water boiling test). Some important questions to consider: What do these tests actually measure/predict? Are in-lab tests capable of predicting behaviour or even health/environmental outcomes? How do in-lab tests compare with those that examine stove use in the ‘field’ as they are used in everyday life?
More emphasis needs to be placed on how stoves are legitimated, and on monitoring and evaluation. This demands a refocusing away from the technical, marketing, and supply chain aspects of the cookstoves industry, to longitudinal measures of user behaviour and health/environmental outcomes. Predicting impact requires measuring impact over time; this will also help to ground the (sometimes incredible) claims of the problems stoves are purported as capable of resolving (such as sexual violence in conflict zones).
About “Getting Beyond Hype: Four Questions to Predict Real Impact,” where do we answer the four questions, and submit this?? We have an insulating pottery rocket stove, which meets all four requirements.
COMMENTS
BY Cathy Lada, Robert Morris University
ON September 3, 2014 09:17 AM
Kevin - excellent points, all. I agree wholeheartedly that beyond proof of concept, all of these great social innovations we’re hearing about need to pass some rigorous reality checks. I think the four you’ve enumerated above capture the essence of what I’m seeing in scholarly literature, and, more often (and thanks to people like you) in popular literature. The importance of understanding - deeply - local culture is often de-valued, and I’m so pleased to see it mentioned here. The only thing I’d add are 2 items to your 4 questions are in #4 - first, manufacturing. I’m not sure if you’re assuming the product (stoves in this case) are made abroad and brought in, or being manufactured locally (which adds jobs, etc. but adds training, CAPEX, and labor concerns, among others). When you factor in manufacturing, there are also supplier (esp. availability and quality of components) concerns. The second thing I’d add to #4 is maintenance and repair. How will replacement parts be fabricated and/or made available? Who is qualified to repair the item?
BY Debbie Hall
ON September 5, 2014 10:32 AM
Excellent story, Kevin. I’ve seen numerous examples of ‘improved cookstoves’ and have always wondered if they are improved enough!
You article brought to mind a product I noticed on a trip this summer to Kenya. At the home of a struggling farmer, a “LifeStraw” hung on the wall of the hut. I inquired about it and learned it was handed out for free by a nonprofit working in the community. I asked them mother if she uses it and the answer was “yes, when I have time”. But most of the time she’s in a hurry to use the water and doesn’t take the time to filter it first. The product is facing issues two points you raised. Point #1, does she perceive the need for the product? While she understands clean water is important, it appears the need is not a high enough priority to always purify the water. And point #3, can she use it as designed? She feels the rate at which water comes through the filter is not fast enough for her.
BY David White
ON September 5, 2014 11:45 AM
very well stated….makes me consider our own work. Thank you.
BY Steve Hardgrave
ON September 10, 2014 11:13 PM
Here, here! Spot on Kevin. So much of what will make a difference is the unglamorous hard work, persistence and tiny adjustments that don’t make headlines. We definitely need the pendulum to swing from talk to action.
BY Brook Manville
ON September 17, 2014 08:24 AM
Another question to ask is whether change will be based on working with a network or in fact a community…the difference matters….
http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/09/you-need-a-community-not-a-network/
BY Meg
ON September 24, 2014 01:36 PM
Number 3 is so important when predicting real impact. Many people’s actual behavior is very different from what they say they want out of a product/service. Understanding your end user, pivoting, and providing true value is critical… This follows a very lean startup approach. Great article!
BY Samer Abdelnour
ON October 13, 2014 04:53 AM
Excellent post! I too suggest that Number 3 is a ‘black box’ so to speak, one that requires much unpacking. Simply stated, if stoves are used ‘as designed’ this does not equate the fulfilling of a social mission, nor does it predict impact. As you and others rightfully note, cookstove designs are often very technically sound, however, they in no way predict user behaviour.
Related to this is the current debate in the world of improved cookstoves relating to the tests used to legitimate stove designs (for example, the standardized in-lab water boiling test). Some important questions to consider: What do these tests actually measure/predict? Are in-lab tests capable of predicting behaviour or even health/environmental outcomes? How do in-lab tests compare with those that examine stove use in the ‘field’ as they are used in everyday life?
More emphasis needs to be placed on how stoves are legitimated, and on monitoring and evaluation. This demands a refocusing away from the technical, marketing, and supply chain aspects of the cookstoves industry, to longitudinal measures of user behaviour and health/environmental outcomes. Predicting impact requires measuring impact over time; this will also help to ground the (sometimes incredible) claims of the problems stoves are purported as capable of resolving (such as sexual violence in conflict zones).
BY willem kuipers
ON February 2, 2016 03:00 AM
kevin,
very spot on and our tests in tanzania show exactly your points. we are progressing in the same way to help our neighbouring villages
BY Reid Harvey
ON February 17, 2016 08:42 AM
About “Getting Beyond Hype: Four Questions to Predict Real Impact,” where do we answer the four questions, and submit this?? We have an insulating pottery rocket stove, which meets all four requirements.