(This article was presented during the 7th Philippine Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Research Conference of the Benita and Catalino Yap Foundation or BCYF in partnership with the Philippine Association of Colleges & Universities [PACU] and the National CSR Educator’s Council [NCEC] held at Club Filipino, Greenhills last August 21, 2017.)
The Philippines today is a poster child of everything that is wrong with our society in terms of inequality. By inequality, we do not only focus on economic or income-related variables but of opportunities and distribution of resources as well. Looking at a macro-perspective, there is a steady increase of income generated from the global economic activity yet the gap between the rich and the poor is widening.
Close to home, this reality is more apparent. We so often hear about people venting their frustration on how there is a deeply lopsided access and opportunities between the haves and have-nots. Just recently, we’ve heard people lambasting the LTFRB for punishing the commuters instead of providing relief. People see Transport Network Vehicle Services (TNVS) like Uber or Grab as a relief and a safer and more efficient alternative from the daily punishing commuting experience of the conventional transportation services we currently have. People on social media claim that our leaders seem to lack the empathy as they can afford to be chauffeured oblivious to the plight of the ordinary commuters. This issue is also close to my heart as I’ve long given up driving in Metro Manila and have left my car in Dagupan City choosing to take the regular commute and relying on the safe and efficient services of TNVS. This also gave me the opportunity to walk the streets of Metro Manila and to see firsthand what is happening on the ground. And the reality is clear: our economic and societal models are broken, to say the least.
This is perhaps the impetus that drove us who are prodded by our consciences to do something about it — to look for ways to build the bridge to close the gap between the rich and the poor in whatever small way we can. Personally, I have been given the opportunity to serve the last, the lost and the least through the academe by way of the Hub of Innovation For Inclusion (HIFI) of the De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde. We look at ways to push for social innovations through initiatives within the academe: from mentoring students on how they can turn their thesis or capstone projects into social enterprise startups; to organizing events that promote culture building towards social innovation and enterprises. Our role is to help build a just and humane society.
On Social Innovation
But what is social innovation? How does it differ from social enterprises? What is it that we seek to do?
Social entrepreneurship and social innovation have become popular rallying points for those who are bugged by their conscience to become changemakers to improve our society. Social Innovation is any project, whether standalone or within a company, that have social change as the primary objective, where they are simpler, more convenient and accessible, targeting the underserved or overserved sectors of society. To have a common understanding on what we seek to do and to align ourselves with the global initiative of societal change, there is a need to adopt the common framework of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs).
Adopting the UN SDGs will allow for those of us who are in this sector to focus and consolidate our initiatives and efforts ensuring a better view and understanding of the impact we have made in the future. A collective effort also means that we are focusing on the trifocal commitment of People, Planet and Profit. This means that we have to ensure that our intiatives focus on people first, without having to forsake our planet, while ensuring that we remain sustainable and viable.
On Social Enterprise and Social Innovation
A social enterprise focuses on solving a social problem through business, while a social innovation looks to solve the problem through a number of different mediums. A social innovator may be an employee in a company, part of a government organization, or a participant in a hackathon. The persona of a social innovator, therefore, is either an entrepreneur — one who sets up a business with a soul; or, an intrapreneur — an individual within a company who seeks to innovate for social good. Social innovation, therefore, is not an enterprise but a “process and a mindset” (Bond, 2016).
While there are many who makes the case that “social innovation is a better vehicle” for ensuring maximum impact in societal change (Phills, Deiglmeier & Miller, 2008), I believe that every initiative for changemaking is equally needed.
Social Innovation Methodology
Most social innovation methodologies are wide adaptations from those in the industry. Methodologies such as open innovation, TRIZ, agile, lean, six sigma and design thinking are widely used by those who are practicing social innovation. Brown (2009) of Stanford d.School espoused design thinking as a suitable framework for social innovation because the mindset and the process is rooted in empathy. In addition, design thinking banks on its multidisciplinary collaborative problem-solving approach allowing for multiple perspectives on the problem-at-hand.
Design Thinking
Lor (2017), in his research on Design Thinking in Education, defined design thinking as an innovative, creative and human-centered process and mindset that employs collaborative multidisciplinary teams in order to generate user-focused products, services or experiences. Design thinking is a paradigm shift from the conventional framework-based or systems-based approach to problem-solving to that of grassroots-based, which is mostly espoused by social enterprises, foundations, CSOs and NGOs.
Design Thinking follows a flexible, non-linear, highly iterative and circular approach of (1) Discovering, (2) Interpreting, (3) Ideating, (4) Creating, and (5) Connecting. The framework basically asks three questions:
- Is the solution desirable by your users?
- Is it technologically and organizationally feasible?
- Will this be financially viable in the long run?
These questions are the usual metric when evaluating whether any solution, product, service or app proposed is human-centered.
The Benilde Design Thinking Process, adapted from the original framework by Stanford d.School.
The Design Thinking Process
DISCOVER
Discovery is the beginning of the design thinking process where the designer is seeks to know who the users are and understand what the challenge is. The goal of the practitioner is to step on the shoes of the users in order to empathize with them – to immerse in their experience, to understand where they are coming from and to observe their experiences. The usual tools used in this process are the interviewing for empathy, empathy map, personas, to mention a few. The practitioner also conducts research on the technical aspects of the challenge.
INTERPRET
Process, synthesize and define the problem with the end goal of understanding the root cause of the problem. This is the deepening of the understanding of the problem where the practitioner seeks to “read between the lines.” The outcome is the Point of View (POV) or the insight into the user’s underlying need.
IDEATE
Once the designer or researcher identifies and understands the problem, the next step is to brainstorm for ideas. This is the process of CREATING IDEAS (Idea+Create=Ideate) through the unpacking of thoughts and experiences into tangible and visual pieces to surround one’s self with information and inspiration.
CREATE
The fourth step is to transform the ideas into a physical form or prototype that one can interact, experience and learn. The purpose is to build to fail…to test your idea or process in order to learn from it. This allows you to better understand how the user or the community will react to your solution.
CONNECT
The fifth stage is to let your user or community try out, validate and present the low resolution products or paper prototypes. The designer uses observations and feedback to refine prototypes, learn more about the user, and refine the original point of view. In this stage, the designers or researchers can present their solution to the general public through a pitch presentation with the end view of gaining feedback from them.
While we presented Design Thinking as a step-by-step approach, it is important to note that this is flexible, non-linear, repetitive and highly iterative. Practitioners usually take time moving back and forth in the process ensuring that the next step brings about better understanding and empathy on the needs of the user.
Conclusion
Practitioners of design thinking are in agreement that the process is relevant for social innovation because of its flexibility and compatibility with other innovation approaches such as lean startup and agile. In addition, research shows that there is positive correlation between to empathy and creativity (Carlozzi, et al, 1995). This means that one can make creative and innovative solutions when there is deeper empathy with the user or community you are helping. Design thinking, according to Brown (2009) finds balance between creativity, user needs and rationality — elements that are necessary when one is on the lookout for solutions that you are sure that will truly change the world.
References:
- Lor, R. (2017). Design Thinking in Education. Asian Conference on Education & Psychology. ProHEF Bangkok.
- Cabanilla, A., Lor, R. (2017). Benilde Prize Design Thinking Workshop Presentation [Keynote slides]. De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde.
- Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2009). Design Thinking for Social Innovation (SSIR). Retrieved August 16, 2017, from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/design_thinking_for_social_innovation
- Phills Jr., J., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. (n.d.). Rediscovering Social Innovation (SSIR). Retrieved August 16, 2017, from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/rediscovering_social_innovation
- United Nations. (2015). The Sustainable Development Goals. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
- Kurin, K. (n.d.). Retrieved August 16, 2017, from https://www.wethinq.com/en/blog/2014/09/07/social-innovation-vs-social-enterprise.html
- Bond. (2016). An Introduction to Social Innovation. http://www.bond.org.uk.
- Fischer, M. (2015). Design it! Solving sustainability problems by applying design thinking. Gaia, 24(3), 174–178. http://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.24.3.9
- Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 1–10.
- Serrat, O. (2010). Design Thinking. Knowledge Solutions, 78(March 2010), 1–6.
- Carlozzi, A. F., Bull, K. S., Eells, G. T., & Hurlburt, J. D. (1995). Empathy as related to creativity, dogmatism, and expressiveness. The Journal of psychology, 129(4), 365-373.
Design Thinking for Education 