eight principles derived from the engineering literature for

EIGHT PRINCIPLES DERIVED FROM THE ENGINEERING LITERATURE FOREFFECTIVE DESIGN FOR THE DEVELOPING WORLD

Christopher A. Mattson∗

Associate ProfessorDept. of Mechanical Engineering

Brigham Young UniversityProvo, Utah 84602

Email: [email protected]

Amy E. WoodGraduate Research Assistant

Dept. of Mechanical EngineeringBrigham Young University

Provo, Utah 84602Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACTThis paper reviews the findings of several engineering re-

searchers and practitioners on the topic of design for the devel-oping world. We arrange these findings into eight guiding prin-ciples aimed at helping those who are searching for effective andsustainable approaches for design for the developing world. Thefindings reviewed come from the mechanical engineering disci-pline, as well as from other engineering disciplines. For eachprinciple, we provide references to various studies as a meansof supporting the principle. We also provide a detailed exam-ple of each principle. Finally, based on our own experience andbased on the many papers reviewed, we provide a succinct listof suggestions for using each principle. Ultimately, we believethat the stated principles help overcome the challenges of designfor the developing world, which are often dominated by designerunfamiliarity with poverty and foreign culture, as well as by theconstraint of extreme affordability.

KEYWORDSPoverty Alleviation, Design for the Developing World,

Resource-Poor, Low Resource, Design Principles.

∗Address all correspondence to this author.

1 INTRODUCTIONTwenty percent of the world’s population lives on less than

$1.25 a day [1]; a stark contrast can be made to the averagemechanical engineer in America, who earns enough to live on$256.26 a day [2]. These resource-poor individuals face signifi-cant life challenges including lack of clean drinking water [3–6],chronic hunger [7, 8], inadequate health care [9, 10], poor edu-cation [11], lack of sanitation [12, 13], and short life expectancy[14]. There is no shortage of want for these basic needs, and thereis no shortage of opportunity to deliver as resource-poor individ-uals represent a $5 trillion market [15]. There is a shortage how-ever in our understanding of how to effectively and sustainablyserve this market; many decades of effort has gone into tryingwith varying degrees of success. This paper reviews a portion ofthat work and articulates principles from the recurring themes,experiences, and conclusions of many people.

In the past decade, there has been a surge of effort to reachresource-poor markets from leaders in business, social science,international development, and engineering. Most prominent inthe engineering literature is the work carried out by electrical andcivil engineers to design and install electrical, water, and sani-tation systems for resource-poor communities [16–20]. In con-trast, very little work has been published in the area of productdesign for resource-poor individuals [21–23]. Considering thelife challenges listed above, innovative products have the poten-tial to make a significant difference. The term product is usedin this paper to describe any consumer good that is purchased

1 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Proceedings of the ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference

IDETC/CIE 2013 August 4-7, 2013, Portland, Oregon, USA

DETC2013-13108

by an individual or a household. This includes medical prod-ucts, income-generating products, mobile communication prod-ucts, educational products, or any other products that make lifeeasier or more enjoyable in some way. While mechanical engi-neering is not the only professional field with training in productdesign, mechanical engineers are well-trained in mechanical de-sign, optimization, and manufacturing techniques – all of whichmay be needed to produce effective, sustainable product solu-tions. Unfortunately, the opportunity and urgency to find solu-tions that alleviate poverty are far greater than the number ofmechanical engineers currently involved.

There is a small subset of mechanical engineers who focustheir research and professional efforts on alleviating poverty andtheir contributions have been significant [6, 24–28]. But greaterimpact is needed. Over the past decade, interest in design forresource-poor individuals has grown among students and profes-sionals [29]. Engineers Without Borders membership in the US,for example, has increased 500% since 2005 [30]. Unfortunately,a generalized set of guiding principles to support these growingengineering interests is absent from the literature and commonpractice.

In this paper, we review the findings of several engineeringresearchers and practitioners on the topic of design for the de-veloping world. We arrange these findings into eight guidingprinciples aimed at helping those who are searching for effectiveand sustainable approaches for design for the developing world.For each principle, we provide reference to various studies as ameans of supporting the principle. We also provide a detailedexample of each principle. Finally, based on our own experienceand based on the many papers reviewed, we provide a succinctlist of suggestions for using each principle.

2 Eight Principles for Effective DesignIn this section, we articulate and support principles related to

design for the developing world – as derived from the engineer-ing literature. We also provide illustrative examples, and providesuggestions for how each principle can affect the day-to-day en-gineering of those involved in designing products for individualsin the developing world.

2.1 Principle 1: Co-design encourages designer em-pathy, promotes user ownership and empowersresource-poor individuals.

ArticulationCo-design is the act of collaborative and egalitarian product

development with resource-poor individuals. It (i) expands thedesigner’s understanding of the needs of resource-poor individu-als, (ii) expands the designer’s understanding of the environmentwhere the developed products will operate, (iii) promotes design

ownership among resource-poor individuals, and (iv) empowersthem for current and future product development activities.

SupportBased on their experience gained through the co-design of

toilet systems for Indian slums, Burra et al. [13] state that design-ing collaboratively with the community for which the product isintended leads to more sustainable and impactful products. Theypoint to resource-poor individuals as invaluable experts; theseindividuals know what their problems are and they know whatsolutions they prefer. Burra et al. observed such expertise whenlocal users of the toilets helped design and build them. A highlevel of sustainability was achieved for the toilets because therewas a large sense of ownership for them among the resource-poorindividuals. This ownership is evidenced by their willingness topay a monthly fee so community members can be compensatedto maintain the toilets. This ownership is due in part to theirparticipation in the design activities.

Co-design can be implemented to varying degrees. Nieusmaand Riley [31] teach that simply talking to people in low-resourcecommunities is only the beginning. In order for them to be trulycommitted to and excited about the resulting product, designersmust involve resource-poor individuals in the concept genera-tion, concept selection, and other important phases of productdevelopment.

Nieusma and Riley [31] use two case studies to describe thateven when working with people from a developing country wemust choose the right people within that country to work with.They most often worked with people from Non-GovernmentalOrganizations (NGOs) and universities, and found that these peo-ple rarely lived in poverty themselves and therefore didn’t fullyunderstand the challenges of poverty. This type of co-design ap-proximates but does not full embody the four hallmarks of co-design articulated by Murcott below [32].

Hallmark 1: The co-design partnership is egalitarian andsynergistic. Hallmark 2: Recognition that resource-poor indi-viduals have valuable expertise in the areas of surviving in lowresource environments and understanding of local materials andnetworks. Hallmark 3: The co-design test lab is the actual en-vironment where the final product is intended for use. Hallmark4: The ultimate degree of co-design occurs when the collabo-ration is expanded widely, for example under the framework ofopen-source innovation [33].

To have a more useful engagement with the stakeholdersof their designs, Cruickshank and Fenner [34] believe that en-gineers need to “evolve and embrace some of the ‘soft skills’that lie at the interface of the physical sciences and the human-ities/social sciences.” George and Shams [35] also suggest this.Nieusma and Riley [31] observe that because engineers have atendency to focus too heavily on technology, they can sometimesforget about other factors that significantly affect the impact oftheir work, such as social power relations, governmental con-


straints, and project sustainability. Novy-Hildesley [36] believesthat if engineers had more training in business, the sustainabilityof projects would be improved.

ExampleAs a more in-depth example of this principle, let us consider

more fully the toilet system described by Burra et al. [13]. Ur-banization in India has presented many unique challenges. Insome cities, as much as 50% of the population lives in infor-mal slum housing with inadequate sanitation. The sanitation im-provements the government undertook were infrequent, slow, ex-pensive, and were designed without consulting people living inthe slums which made them ineffective. Burra et al. worked withwomen’s cooperatives, an Indian NGO, and many governmentleaders to build toilet systems for over half a million resource-poor individuals in eight Indian cities. The strategic use of co-design led Burra et al. to this effective and sustainable solution.

In an effort to protect their modesty, women in Indian slumsoften wait until dark to defecate, causing gastric disorders; andchildren are often pushed out of lines for the small number ofavailable toilets. Because of this, women and children have themost to gain from improved sanitation. Burra et al. focused muchof their efforts on the needs of women as they designed new toiletsystems for these communities. After extensive surveys and in-terviews with people (mostly women) who use these toilets, theyfound that the most important features to these people were (i)that the men’s and women’s toilets be separate, (ii) that there bea water tank to ensure adequate water supply for hand washingstations and for cleaning the toilets, and (iii) that they would bebuilt as inexpensively as possible to ensure that the largest num-ber of people could be served. Interestingly, these features werenot included in the government’s previous designs. Furthermore,as the co-design efforts initiated by Burra et al. continued, manyother innovative changes were added to the toilet design.

Throughout the process of designing and building, weeklymeetings with community leaders, NGO workers, and govern-ment officials were held. According to Burra et al., this provideda channel for open communication, encouraged government offi-cials to respect these previously marginalized community mem-bers, and decreased the occurrence of bribes during the construc-tion phase. These interactions also gave community leaders con-fidence in their abilities and empowered them to make changesin their own communities. Women with no previous construc-tion experience and little education began bidding for contractsto build the toilets and began training women in other communi-ties to do the same.

Suggestions for using this Principle

1. Respect the potential for resource-poor individuals to makesignificant design contributions.

2. Immerse yourself in the culture of those for whom the prod-uct is intended. Optimally, travel to the intended environ-

ment. Otherwise bring as much of the local environment toyour current location as possible. Use personas [37], or lo-cales (same concept as personas but the focus is a location,not an individual).

3. Invite resource-poor individuals to join the design team; en-sure that they are compensated for their effort; ensure thatthey have a meaningful way to participate.

4. Consider the complete product life cycle. This will requirethe design team to consider more fully the product’s long-term integration into the intended environment, which in-cludes defining the supply and distribution chains. Suchconsiderations are facilitated through co-design.

2.2 Principle 2: Field testing is an essential part ofproduct development, not merely a final step.

ArticulationComprehensive simulation environments are not possible to

create in a laboratory setting. The complexities of the physics,coupled with political, social, and cultural influencers are simplybeyond our ability to simulate at high fidelity. As comprehensivetesting is a part of effective and sustainable product development,we must include field testing as part of the evolutionary process,not merely as a final validation of the concept.

SupportBailis et al. [38] stress the importance of different validation

tests at different stages of product development and implemen-tation. Their experience in the area of biomass cookstoves illus-trates that although product development teams can have goodresults in the lab, the actual product impact is not usually mea-sured. To begin such a measurement, teams could ask: Does theproduct perform the same in the field as in our lab? Do the peo-ple who own the product actually use it? Do they use it the waywe intended for them to use it? Have we done enough follow-upresearch to answer these questions?

As the number of engineering projects for the developingworld increases it is important for us to establish a method forevaluating the quality of the projects. George and Shams [35] in-troduce three questions for design teams to ask when evaluatingthe quality of a project; Have the customer needs been met? Isthe project sustainable and maintainable by the customer? Doesthe project respect the environment and make effective use of lo-cal renewable resources? Clearly, the value of mid-developmentfield testing is indispensable in answering these questions.

Murcott [32] proposes a pattern for sustainable designfor the developing world, which includes the recognition thatfield testing outweighs all laboratory simulations. Importantly,Harris and Marks [39] emphasize that carefully choosing thetest/implementation site is critical to the product’s success. Fortheir work in the area of perinatal ultrasound, some key factorsare the size of the client base, transportation to the clinic, avail-


ability of trained staff members, security, and import/customslaws. Undoubtedly, attempts to fully simulate these factors ina laboratory setting is ineffective compared to field testing.

ExampleNgai et al. [40] experienced the value of this principle as

they worked on water filtration in Nepal. Arsenic and pathogencontamination are common in the well systems used by 90% ofthe southern Nepalese population. Arsenic contamination is asmuch as 100 times the recommended value, and microbial con-tamination is the single largest cause of waterborne disease anddeath. Ngai et al. developed a filter to solve these problems andused this principle to achieve sustainable results. They startedwith clear goals for the filter, such as being easy for women andchildren to operate, being low cost, and having a minimum flowrate of 10 L/hr. After a survey of existing technologies, 50 poten-tial solutions were identified and 8 were thought to be viable inrural Nepal. These 8 were tested in a laboratory setting and thebest 3 were chosen. Then, a total of 180 filters of these 3 typeswere distributed to households in Nepal and monitored monthlyfor 4 to 12 months. Their technical, social, and economic per-formance was rigorously tested to determine which filter wouldprovide the best solution for the target communities. After it wasestablished that the Kanchan Arsenic Filter [41] was the best,Ngai et al. prepared the filter for local manufacturing in Nepal.One year later, over 80% of households were still using the filterdaily and four years later, over 500 filters were in operation. Theemphasis the team placed on testing – not just in the laboratory,but also in the field – was essential to the filter’s sustainability.


1. Answer the questions above about impact and those posedby George and Shams [35].

2. Allocate financial and time resources for field testing.3. Choose implementation and/or test sites carefully.4. Plan for field testing to be a mid-development activity, not

merely a post-development activity.

2.3 Principle 3: Importing technology is generally in-effective and unsustainable.

ArticulationTechnologies that have been successfully integrated into the

developed world will not generally integrate into the developingworld effectively or sustainably without significant modification.

SupportSubrahmanyan and Gomez-Arias, [15] emphasize that to en-

ter low-resource markets it is not effective to simply remove fea-tures to make products less expensive, but it is effective to adaptand tailor products to be more relevant to the various needs ofresource-poor individuals. In their efforts to design ultrasound

devices for perinatal care, Harris and Marks [39] say that findingthe balance between introducing new technology and respectingtradition is difficult. They also indicate that training models mustbe tailored to the new setting and personnel.

In Nieusma’s studies [42], he points out that imported tech-nology did not yield the desired results because the context of de-velopment and use were very different. Nieusma and Riley, [31]also say it’s a difficult task to design something that works wellfor people in low-resource settings. Further, it is hard for engi-neers from developed countries to let go of their assumptions andfocus on doing what is right for the resource-poor community.

After designing and attempting to establish local manufac-turing for a manual mechanical shredder, Weiss et al. [43] madeobservations that support this principle. They observed that man-ufacturers in the developing world prefer to operate based onproven, established approaches instead of on less familiar, lesscertain approaches. This was due, in part, to the difficult chal-lenge of overcoming cultural norms, such as those related to theconcepts and expectations of production quality control.

A different yet equally interesting phenomena in the devel-oping world was encountered by Wijayatunga and Attalage [44]as they analyzed the use of electricity in rural Sri Lanka. Theyobserved that using existing technology to reduce the effects ofpoverty can actually create unanticipated use-senarios and de-mands for that technology – even when the new use-scenarios donot reduce the effects of poverty.

Other support from Akubue [45] indicates that importinglarge-scale technologies from the developed world does not gen-erally help alleviate poverty in the developing world becausethese technologies are capital-intensive in a market with littlecapital. Further, costly labor-saving technologies are not valuedin communities with excess labor capacity. Ultimately, accord-ing to Akubue, the importation of large-scale technologies en-courages urbanization, which can help resource-poor individualsin urban settings, but it creates a larger income gap between thethe rural and urban communities.

ExampleWijayatunga and Attalage [44] experienced the realities of

this principle as they studied barriers to adopting clean and con-venient energy sources. In many developing communities, thegoal of electrification is to reduce the amount of biomass used incookstoves so as to decrease harmful emissions and slow the rateof deforestation. Through their study of domestic energy sourcesin Sri Lanka, they found that the electrification of a communitydid not decrease the amount of biomass used for cooking. Be-cause biomass could be gathered and did not have to be paid for,members of the community chose to use the electricity for thingsthat only electricity could be used for such as lightbulbs, radios,and televisions. They continued to use biomass to cook becausethey were accustomed to working with it and prefered the waytheir food is prepared using that fuel. Instead of replacing other


sources of energy as anticipated, electrification increased house-hold demand for energy by providing access to new technologies.The electrification of this community had many benefits, but asfar as reaching the goals of decreasing dangerous emissions andreducing deforestation, the importation of this new technologywas ineffective.


1. Use Failure Modes and Effects Analysis [46] to examine thevarious unanticipated use-scenarios for new technologies.

2. Understand social context as well as possible to avoid tryingto implement existing technology that will not integrate wellin the developing world.

3. Use robust design techniques [47] to develop products thatwill operate well without having to be produced with smalltolerances.

2.4 Principle 4: Design for the developing world canhave a significant impact on resource-poor indi-viduals in both rural and urban settings.

ArticulationResource-poor individuals in rural settings have been the fo-

cus of significant poverty alleviation efforts [7, 8, 48]. Resource-poor individuals in urban settings, however, also benefit frompoverty alleviation efforts.

SupportFisher [8] and Postel et al. [7] state that 70% of people living

on less than $1 a day are rural subsistence farmers. Because ofthis, their efforts have focused on pumps and irrigation systemsto help people in this group increase their income. But in thelast decade these resource-poor farmers have been moving to ur-ban areas where they are met with inadequate housing, a lack ofsanitation and access to water, and unemployment. The UN [49]reports that there are over 1 billion people living in urban slumsand that this number is expected to double by 2030. Cruickshankand Fenner [34] state that 19 out of 26 cities with populationsover 10 million are in the developing world, as are 2/3 of the61 cities with populations over 5 million. These numbers areonly expected to increase. Cities with large populations living inslums are spread across Africa, South America, and many Asiancountries, most notably in India where Burra et al. [13] reportthat often half of the urban population lives in slums.

The scale and urgency of the problems faced by those liv-ing in urban poverty are overwhelming, but this new trend ofurbanization offers some hope. Programs that provide essentialservices like sanitation, healthcare and employment opportuni-ties can be more easily implemented in these densely populatedareas. And many of these slum communities have their own so-cial organization and are generating innovative ways to solve theproblems that their communities face. With proper support from

designers and engineers, solutions to their challenges are attain-able [13].

ExampleMorawczynski and Miscione [50] discuss the effects of

mobile-phone-enabled banking on resource-poor individuals liv-ing in urban settings. More than 60% of the population inNairobi, Kenya lives in one of Africa’s largest slums, an areacalled Kibera. Only 17% of adults in this area are permanentlyemployed and HIV rates are 4 times larger than Kenya’s nationalaverage. People living here lack access to employment, water,sanitation, electricity, and many other services, including bank-ing. Traditional banks are available in Nairobi, but resource-poorindividuals can not usually afford the monthly fees and tradi-tional banks are hesitant to open in Kibera because of securityissues. In March 2007, Safaricom introduced a mobile-phone-enabled banking service called M-PESA that allows resource-poor individuals to make deposits, withdrawals, and transfers ofmoney or phone credit. The majority of customers living in Kib-era use this service to send money to family and friends in ruralareas. Customers go to an M-PESA agent to deposit or collecttheir money, then receive an SMS message to their mobile phoneconfirming the transaction. After observing one of these agentsand interviewing customers, Morawczynski and Miscione reportthat there are approximately 50 to 65 transactions per agent perday. There were typically more deposits than withdrawals, show-ing that resource-poor individuals are mostly using this servicefor remittances or to save their money. The agents reported thatpeople would typically deposit large sums of money and thenmake small withdrawals throughout the month. After one year,there were almost 2 million registered customers and for some,this was their first exposure to the formal economy. This servicewas successful in Kibera because it was tailored to the needs ofresource-poor individuals in this urban area.


1. Consider more fully the benefits your efforts can have onresource-poor individuals living in urban settings.

2. Understand the different nature of problems faced by thoseliving in urban poverty versus those living in rural poverty.

3. Understand the data and the trends regarding urbanization indeveloping countries.

4. Consider the unique financial opportunities that exisit in theurban market.

2.5 Principle 5: Women and children are more af-fected by poverty alleviation efforts than men.

ArticulationWomen and children are typically more vulnerable to the

challenges of poverty than men and are therefore more affectedby solutions to those challenges. Also, women are most often


the ones who will bear the ongoing labor burden associated withpoverty alleviating products.

SupportBurra et al. [13] explains that women and children in Indian

slums are most severely affected by a lack of sanitation. Womenare busy cooking in the mornings and cannot accompany theirchildren to wait in line for toilets, so children are often pushedout of the way by adults. The government-built toilet systemshad no separation for women and men, so women had little pri-vacy and were often harassed as they used the toilets. Becauseof this, women and children benefited most from the improvedtoilet design described by Burra et al. [13].

Murcott [32] explains that we should use engineering to cre-ate freedom from disease, poverty, and environmental degrada-tion. She points out that women and children are usually the mostvulnerable and severely affected by these kinds of problems. Weshould also use engineering to create education, dignified work,and safety.

Also, women are often the key figure in establishing lastingsolutions because they typically manage household resources.In many cases, if a solution is going to be successfully imple-mented, it will need to be accepted by the women. Harris andMarks [39] say that “women play a vital role in both cookingand energy management,” and Ngai et al. [32] report that oneof the criteria for their water filter was that it be acceptable towomen, since they are the typical managers of household wa-ter. Because of women’s direct role in implementation, they arestrongly affected by efforts to alleviate poverty. Especially aswomen are most often the ones who will bear the ongoing laborburden associated with poverty alleviating products [7].

Women also face many challenges that men do not, the mostobvious of which is bearing children. Harris and Marks indicatethat maternal mortality is the leading cause of death for women ofchild-bearing age in developing countries [39]. Additionally, theresponsibility of bearing and raising children prevents womenfrom being employed outside the home, which leaves women(most certainly single mothers) vulnerable to poverty in moreways than men.

ExampleHarris and Marks [39] embraced this important principle

when they learned that maternal and newborn mortality rateswere significantly higher in developing countries – an issue thatonly directly affects women and children. Their solution to thisproblem was to select and implement a compact ultrasound de-vice that would operate well in a low-resource setting. The se-lected compact ultrasound device was sturdy, designed to workwith rechargeable batteries where electricity was not available,and was portable enough to be used in many situations, such asat bedsides, or in clinics and hospitals. The technology allowstrained radiologists to understand the baby’s position, make ob-

stetric measurements and gather other information that allows formore personalized medical care. Once these things are known,the radiologist can recommend transferring the patient to a clinicin the area that has the proper equipment and expertise to safelydelivery her baby. This greatly increases the chance of survivalfor both the mother and the child. Harris and Marks went to ahospital in Nicaragua to donate one of these compact ultrasounddevices and within an hour, expecting mothers were lining up fora chance to be examined. When Harris and Marks returned ayear later, they found that annual maternal deaths had decreasedfrom 12 to 5.


1. Engage resource-poor women in co-design efforts.2. Understand the unique problems faced by resource-poor

women and children.3. Pre-evaluate how implemented solutions will negatively and

positively affect women and children.

2.6 Principle 6: Project management affects the im-pact and sustainability of the product.

ArticulationThe design team’s choice of project management strategy

has a noticeable affect on the impact and sustainability of thedeveloped product.

SupportGeorge et al. [51] stress that investing time in project man-

agement is an important part of working with other groups, es-pecially because of the ambiguity inherent in international devel-opment projects. As an essential part of project management, therole of each person needs to be clear and they need to be heldaccountable to it. They also suggest that risk management strate-gies could be used to increase the likelihood of success. Under-standing communication and cultural differences will also leadto a more successful project. Some communities, for example,are accustomed to oral communication only.

Reflecting on their multi-year project experience, Georgeand Shams [35] promote the importance of effective project man-agement. They provide useful tips including: (i) Begin theproject with meaningful relationships; this comes through cul-tural education, humility, respect, and a pre-project visit. (ii)Choose a project with care; this is best done with communityand NGO involvement. (iii) Have an on-site development part-ner; US engineers are outsiders and it takes time to build trust;on-site development partners facilitate this. (iv) Include localmanufacture and materials when executing the project; these areimportant for sustainability. (v) Select team members carefully;members should be well prepared for the experience and shouldexpect to learn more than just design; select team members whocan contribute or learn to contribute to social change. (vi) Plan


for long-term involvement and encourage previous developmentteam members to help mentor new members through the process.(vii) Define success criteria, which should always include com-munity approval as a primary objective. Nieusma and Riley [31]also suggest that many NGOs and universities place a strong em-phasis on education and team member exposure to new cultures.These goals do not always align with the goals of the community,which if ignored can lead to an increase in social injustice.

Additionally, George et al. [51] suggest that determining in-tellectual property rights at the beginning of the developmentproject is helpful.

ExampleGeorge et al. [51] learned the importance of this principle

working to help women in Mali produce shea butter and intro-duce it into international markets. Faculty and students at a USuniversity started working with faculty and students at two uni-versities in Mali and a Malian NGO. After several years of part-nership, two other US universities were added to the project. Thispartnership of researchers, students, NGO workers, governmentofficials, and resource-poor individuals created increased com-plexities in project management. George et al. experienced –through trial and error – that unclear project objectives and un-clear role definitions for team members had a serious negativeaffect on the sustainability of their projects and on how muchpeople enjoyed being a part of them. Having project goals andresponsibilities in written form ensures that they are clearly ar-ticulated and that each team member can understand and refer-ence them. George et al. report that increased care in communi-cating across institutions and cultures would have prevented re-peated work and helped the sub-teams interact more effectively.It would have also clarified expectations and prevented disap-pointment by helping all team members understand the univer-sity’s semester schedule and the feasible possibilities for the var-ious phases of the projects. It would have also helped all teammembers understand the iterative nature of mechanical design,the importance of prototyping, and the desire that local peoplemay have to see a product working for someone else before theyinvest in it. George et al. suggests using project and risk man-agement tools to overcome these challenges, but warn that thesetools should not be imposed on the community. These tools don’tusually work well in other cultures and US engineers need to re-spect that cultural difference.


1. Consciously choose and implement a project managementstrategy.

2. Articulate everyone’s responsibilities and hold all account-able.

3. Understand, value, and adjust to different communicationstyles.

4. Clearly establish success criteria, and use their measurement

as a project management tool.5. Use risk and project management tools without imposing

them on resource-poor communities.

2.7 Principle 7: Cooperation from governments andpolicy makers is essential for many poverty alle-viation plans.

ArticulationPoverty alleviation plans, both large and small, often require

cooperation with governments and policy makers to be success-ful. This can be challenging and frustrating to design teams asgovernmental objectives can differ from those of the design team.

SupportDecades of research has shown that rural electrification can

help alleviate poverty, improve health, reduce drudgery, andincrease literacy [52]. Infrastructural/systemic improvements,large or small, require cooperation and/or funding from gov-ernment and/or policy makers. Fulkerson et al. [53] present anambitious poverty alleviation plan that requires significant gov-ernmental involvement to be successful. In their study of ruralelectrification, Fulkerson et al. introduce a 20 year, $100 billionplan to bring sustainable energy to 1 billion resource-poor indi-viduals who do not currently have access to electriciy. The planallows each person 0.025 kW; the US usage per capita is 1.8kW, and the world average is 0.3 kW. Although plans such asthese require governmental support, they come with significantbenefits to governments. Such electrification programs stimulatethe economy in many ways, creating jobs from fee collection toconstruction of power plants to maintenance of the grid infras-tructure.

In their study of toilet systems in India, Burra et al. [13]provide a list of obstacles to sanitation development in slums.Interestingly, they found that some governments and land own-ers are hesitant to improve sanitation because this attracts morepeople to those slums, thus compounding the issue and makingsanitation harder to maintain. Burra et al. [13] imply that govern-mental bureaucracy is often a major obstacle to implementation;politics and over-regulated funding lead to inefficiencies and thiscan prevent products from getting to the people who need themmost. It’s important to observe that governmental objectives of-ten focus on the population as a whole as opposed to individualneeds.

After indicating that we need smaller-scale technologies thathelp a lot of people in small ways, Akubue [45] points out thatone of the main obstacles to the spread of smaller-scale technol-ogy is “the existing power relations that favor advanced capital-intensive technology.” He says that the political structure needsto change and adapt in order for small-scale technology to makea real impact. As a different view, Margolin [29] says that realdevelopment does not come from individual products for indi-


vidual families, but from better manufacturing methods that al-low these developing countries to have a strong economy andcompete in a global market. He uses Japan and South Korea asexamples. Fisher [8] teaches that high-quality, low-cost produc-tion is needed to reduce product costs enough to be feasible.

Harris and Marks [39] share their experience that bringingtechnology into a developing country can take a long time andcan be expensive, with unexpected tariffs and bribes and thatsmaller devices are easier to get through customs. Harris andMarks teach that these things should be planned for.

Considering governmental support from a different perspec-tive, Uko [54] examines the value of governmental funding tosend students from their own country to more developed coun-tries to earn an engineering or science degree. The motivation forthis is understandable as the US, Japan, and other countries haveshown that engineering research is directly linked to economicprosperity. The ineffectiveness, as pointed out by Uko [54], isthat most of the research these students do for advanced degreeshas little to no application in their home countries. Further, thehome governments often have no influence over the research per-formed by the students they fund. Uko also states that “effec-tive engineering research cannot be conducted in isolation fromthe sociopolitical conditions of the country.” He also provides12 suggestions for governments and policy makers to improvethe situation. For example, he suggests that (i) national librariesarchive the research done by these students, (ii) governments takea more active role in defining the research performed by thesestudents, and (iii) national industries help fund research and havea role in defining what the research area is.

ExampleAn interesting example of both positive and negative gov-

ernment and policy maker influence is reported by Panuk andCavallieri [55]. They explain that in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil manypeople had moved from rural areas to favelas, or Brazilian slums.In the 1960s and 70s, the government had many eradication andresettlement programs. They tried to eliminate all favelas within10 years by moving resource-poor individuals out of the city’scenter to the outskirts, which unfortunately left them with lit-tle access to transportation, employment, sanitation, and manyother necessities. This program ended when the government wasoverthrown. The resulting political instability lead to a decade oflittle formal policy for the favela – a period known as “the lostdecade” when there was minimal social development.

As the government stabilized, the favelas began to be up-graded under the favela-bairro program. This program was in-tended to (i) provide adequate sanitation that would be main-tained by the municipal government, (ii) spatially reorganize thefavelas to better integrate them into existing city streets and com-munity space, (iii) provide access to social services for peopleliving in the favelas, and (iv) legalize land tenure. Programs suchas mail service, trash collection, public lighting, and training pro-

grams for youth to learn marketable skills while improving theirown communities were implemented. This helped give the pro-gram a more holistic approach and these upgrades were plannedand implemented with frequent input from the people living inthese areas. Here, the government intervened in a way that noother organization could to improve the lives of millions of ur-ban resource-poor individuals.


1. Value the role that governments and policy makers play inpoverty alleviation.

2. Understand that governmental objectives are for the popula-tion as a whole, which goes against the design trend of beingfocused on individuals.

2.8 Principle 8: There are known methods for sus-tainable implementation that designers can use.

ArticulationVarious implementation strategies have been tested and used

over the past few decades. Known and proven methods for sus-tainable implementation should be used whenever applicable.

SupportOf course there is some debate as to which known im-

plementation methods are most effective and/or sustainable.Akubue [45] supports the well-known approach of appropriatetechnology [29, 56–58], which is a “development approach thatis aimed at tackling community problems”. It focuses on us-ing the resources available (labor), not scarce resources (capital,skilled labor). The appropriate technology approach has not beenwithout criticism. Akubue [45] provides a discussion about howcritics point to many examples of failed projects to say that thismethod is inadequate. He also finds other drivers – not the ap-proach itself – that could have caused the failures.

Fisher [8] and Polak [59] express the belief that the only wayto effectively alleviate poverty is to help people make money.Fisher provides what he believes to be the steps to creating moreimpactful ventures: (i) Identify profitable new business oppor-tunities. (ii) Design equipment. (iii) Establish a supply chain.(iv) Develop the market. (v) End market subsidies. In oppo-sition to one of the appropriate technology tenets, Fisher indi-cates that poverty-alleviating products need to be individuallyowned and cared for rather than community based, to have im-pact. With community owned products, he and others argue thereis no penalty for people who do not contribute and no reward forpeople who do.

Postel et al. [7] describe that International Development En-terprises’ (IDE) treadle pump was successful because they mar-keted well to the communities they targeted. For example, IDEfound significant success using movies instead of printed ads topromote their product. They also established the supply chain to


make sure there would be a market for the surplus crops grownusing the treadle pumps. Postel et al. [7] considers these es-sential to sustainable development, because good ideas and de-signs won’t have impact unless people buy and use them. IDE’smethod is not implemented without challenges. Postel et al. [7]suggest that access to markets for crops and access to micro-credit are other challenges that must be solved for these systemsto have a great impact.

Fisher [8] also indicates that it is very difficult to have a suc-cessful for-profit business in this space because (i) resource-poorindividuals are extremely risk averse, (ii) for-profit companiesare forced to make a small profit from many people, and (iii) theinitial cost to develop and sell a product is too high for resource-poor individuals to afford.

Novy-Hildesley [36] describes implementation strategies in-volving philanthropic resources. Philanthropic resources allowpoverty alleviating products to get to the people who need themthe most by counteracting the market pardox in developing coun-tries – large demand, yet no willing local or foreign suppliers.Unfortunately, most products wanted in the developing worldare not marketable in the developed world, therefore subsidizingcosts to those in poverty by selling to both markets is effectivein only limited situations. Aside from funding, philanthropic re-sources can also include mentoring in financial, marketing, legal,and other areas, as well as connections to other people workingin this space.

ExampleSubrahmanyan and Gomez-Arias [15] documented many

sustainable implementation methods for products designed forpeople in developing countries. One interesting strategy theydiscuss is that of including knowledge with every product sold.They describe CEMEX, a Mexican cement company that sells allthe building materials someone would need to build themselvesa house. There are many innovations in their business modeland one impactful innovation is that they offer design consulta-tion so consumers can learn how to design and build a sturdyand comfortable house. This allows people to be independentand build at their own pace as their income allows, but also givesthem new knowledge that allows them to improve their own lives.Subrahmanyan and Gomez-Arias review Maslow’s hierarchy ofneeds [60] and provide evidence for the fact that many peoplein developing countries choose to fill their higher-level needs atthe expense of their lower-level needs. This is because in manyforeign cultures the community or family is more important thanself. For example, families will sacrifice things they need so theycan send the children to budget private schools. Another exam-ple of including knowledge and self-development in a productis Danone’s single serving yogurt in Bangladesh. Women aretrained to sell this product, but they are also trained in nutrition.As they sell their yogurt, they pass this knowledge on to othermembers of the community. Including knowledge with every

TABLE 1. Summary of Principles

Principle (shortened) Supporting Citations

1. Synergy in Co-design [31, 32, 34–36]

2. Importance of Field Testing [32, 35, 38–40]

3. Risk in Technology Importation [15, 31, 39, 42, 44, 45]

4. Rural and Urban Opportunities [7, 8, 13, 34, 52]

5. Effects on Women and Children [7, 13, 32, 39]

6. Project Management Strategy [31, 35, 51]

7. Government Cooperation [8, 13, 29, 39, 45, 53, 54]

8. Implementation Methods Available [7, 8, 36, 45, 56, 57]

product sold is just one of many implementation methods thathave been documented and can be used by designers to moresustainably implement their products.


1. Where possible use existing implementation methods to re-duce the risk of failure.

2. Understand which implementation methods will work wellfor the environment in which you hope to introduce a newproduct.

3 CONCLUDING REMARKSAs gleaned from the published literature, this paper has ex-

amined the work, experiences, and insight of various researchersand practitioners working in the area of design for the developingworld. We have observed recurring themes within the examinedwork and summarized them in the form of eight principles for ef-fective and sustainable design for the developing world. Table 1shows the eight principles in shortened form, with reference tothe supporting citations. We feel that these principles – some ofwhich are intuitive and some are not – represents the state-of-the-art in published design principles for engineers working toalleviate poverty.

We have also provided a list of suggestions for how to useeach principle in day-to-day design and engineering practice. Webelieve that alone or as a compilation these lists provide a usefulset of suggestions for any novice or expert searching for greaterproduct impact and sustainability in the developing world.

We have not presented engineering analysis techniques inthis paper. The reason for this is simple; the barrier that liesbetween well-intending engineers and effective/sustainable solu-tions for the developing world is not engineering analysis. Thebarrier is in the design techniques that make the engineering anal-yses so valuable. Our hope is that the principles and suggestions


provided in this paper will act as a catalyst for discovering thosedesign techniques. We believe this will enable engineers to moreeffectively couple creative and analytical techniques as they seekto alleviate poverty through design.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTThe authors would like to recognize the National Science

Foundation Grant CMMI-0954580 for funding this research.Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations ex-pressed in this material are those of the authors and do not nec-essarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

REFERENCES[1] T. Bank, “World development indicators,” tech. rep., The

World Bank, 2010.[2] C. Sethi, “Engineering salary survey: your value in today’s

economy,” ASME News and Articles, 2011.[3] J. Baumgartner, S. Murcott, and M. Ezzati, “Reconsid-

ering ’appropriate technology’: the effects of operatingconditions on the bacterial removal performance of twohousehold drinking-water filter systems,” EnvironmentalResearch Letters, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–6, 2007.

[4] O. Varis, “Right to water: the millenium development goalsand water in the MENA region,” Water Resources Develop-ment, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 243–266, 2007.

[5] C. Matlack, H. Chizeck, T.B.Davis, and J. Linnes, “A low-cost solar disinfection indicator for safe water,” in IEEEGlobal Humanitarian Technology Conference, 2011.

[6] K. Hamza, M. Shalaby, A. Nassef, M. Aly, and K. Saitou,“Studies on the design of reverse osmosis water desalina-tion systems for cost and energy efficiency,” in ASME De-sign Engineering Technical Conference, 2010.

[7] S. Postel, P. Polak, F. Gonzales, and J. Keller, “Drip irriga-tion for small farmers,” Water International, vol. 26, pp. 3–13, 2001.

[8] M. Fisher, “Income as development: KickStart’s pumpshelp Kenyan farmers transition to a cash economy,” In-novations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, vol. 1,pp. 9–30, 2006.

[9] D. Alder, K. Mgalula, D. Price, and O. Taylor, “Introduc-tion of a portable ultrasound unit into the health servicesof the Lugufu refugee camp, Kigoma District, Tanzania,”Emergency Medicine, vol. 1, pp. 261–266, 2008.

[10] D. Zurovcik, A. Slocum, G. Mody, R. Riviello, andR. Sheridan, “Development of simplified negative pres-sure would therapy device for low-resource settings,” IEEEGlobal Humanitarian Technology Conference, 2011.

[11] M. Gustavsson, “Education benefits from solar technology–access to solar electric services and changes in children’s

study routines, experiences from Eastern Province Zam-bia,” Energy Policy, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 1292–1299, 2007.

[12] S. Chaplin, “Social exclusion and the politics of sanitationin urban India,” Environment and Urbanization, vol. 11,no. 1, pp. 145–158, 1999.

[13] S. Burra, S. Patel, and T. Kerr, “Community-designed, builtand managed toilets blocks in Indian cities,” Environmentand Urbanization, vol. 15, pp. 11–32, 2003.

[14] A. Daar, H. Thorsteinsdottir, D. Martin, A. Smith, S. Nast,and P. Singer, “Top ten biotechnologies for improvinghealth in developing countries,” Ethics of Science and Tech-nology: Exploration of the Frontiers of Science and Ethics,pp. 145–158, 2006.

[15] S. Subrahmanyan and J. Gomez-Arias, “Integrated ap-proach to understanding consumer behavior at the bot-tom of of the pyramid,” Journal of Consumer Marketing,vol. 25, pp. 402–412, 2008.

[16] M. Dornan, “Solar-based rural electrification policy design:the renewable energy service company (resco) model inFiji,” Renewable Energy, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 797–803, 2011.

[17] W. Biswas, P. Bryce, and M. Diesendorf, “Model for em-powering rural poor through renewable energy technologiesin Bangladesh,” Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 4,pp. 333–344, 2001.

[18] M. Hoque, “Design and analysis of a mini solar grid in re-mote area of Bangladesh,” 2009.

[19] E. Moe and A. Moe, “Off-grid power for small commu-nities with renewable energy sources in rural Guatemalanvillages,” in IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Con-ference, 2011.

[20] S. Mok, “New village gadgets: synergy of human-powered generation and ultra-efficient electrical appliancesfor poverty eradication,” in IEEE Global HumanitarianTechnology Conference, 2011.

[21] C. Wood, P. Lewis, and C. Mattson, “Modular product op-timization to alleviate poverty: an irrigation pump casestudy,” in ASME International Design Engineering Tech-nical Conference, 2012.

[22] A. Winter, M. Bollini, D. DeLatte, B. Judge, H. O’Hanley,J. Pearlman, and N. Scolnik, “The design, fabrication, andperformance of the east African trail leveraged freedomchair,” in ASME International Design Engineering Techni-cal Conference, 2010.

[23] A. Winter, M. Bollini, B. Judge, N. Scolnik, H. O’Hanley,D. Dorsch, S. Mukherjee, and D. Frey, “Stakeholder-drivendesign evolution of the leveraged freedom chair develop-ing world wheelchair,” in ASME International MechanicalEngineering Congress and Exposition, 2012.

[24] R. Campbell, P. Lewis, and C. Mattson, “A method foridentifying design principles for the developing world,”in ASME International Design Engineering Conference,2011.


[25] A. Andersen and C. Kim, “Principles of mechanical de-sign for the developing world: a case study approach,” inASME International Design Engineering Technical Confer-ence and Computers and Information in Engineering Con-ference, 2011.

[26] K. Bryden, “Understanding rural village energy needs anddesign constraints,” in ASME International Design Engi-neering Technical Conference and Computers and Informa-tion in Engineering Conference, 2011.

[27] B. Sloan, “A case study of the implementation and main-tenance of a fee for service lighting system for a rural vil-lage in Sub-Saharan Africa,” in IEEE Global HumanitarianTechnology Conference, 2011.

[28] S. Arif and Z. Siddique, “Design and selection of safe watersupply solutions for emerging regions- a demography baseddemand driven approach,” in AMSE International DesignEngineering Technical Conference, 2012.

[29] V. Margolin, “Design for development: towards a history,”Design Studies, vol. 28, pp. 111–115, 2007.

[30] Engineers Without Borders USA, “Charting EWB-USA’simpact,” 2012.

[31] D. Nieusma and D. Riley, “Designs on development: en-gineering, globalization and social justice,” Journal ofthe International Network for Engineering Studies, vol. 2,pp. 29–59, 2010.

[32] S. Murcott, “Co-evolutionary design for development: in-fluences shaping engineering desing and implementation inNepal and the global village,” Journal of International De-velopment, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 123–144, 2007.

[33] N. Sawhney, Cooperative innovation in the commons: re-thinking distributed collaboration and intellectual prop-erty for sustainable design innovation. PhD thesis, Mas-sachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003.

[34] H. Cruickshank and R. Fenner, “The evolving role of en-gineers: toward sustainable development of the built envi-ronment,” Journal of International Development, vol. 19,pp. 111–121, 2007.

[35] C. George and A. Shams, “The challenge of including cus-tomer satisfaction into the assessment criteria of overseasservice-learning projects,” International Journal for Ser-vice Learning in Engineering: Humanitarian Engineeringand Social Entrepreneurship, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 64–75, 2007.

[36] J. Novy-Hildesley, “From idea to impact: funding inter-vention for sustainability,” Innovations: Technology, Gov-ernance, Globalization, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 31–42, 2006.

[37] B. Hanington and B. Martin, Universal methods of design:100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovativeideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers,2012.

[38] R. Bailis, V. Berrueta, C. Chengappa, K. Dutta, R. Ed-wards, and O. M. et al., “Performance testing for monitor-ing improved biomass stove interventions: experiences of

the household energy and health project,” Energy for Sus-tainable Development, vol. 11, pp. 57–70, 2007.

[39] R. Harris and W. Marks, “Compact ultrasound for im-proving maternal and perinatal care in low-resource set-tings: Review of the potential benefits, implementationchallenges, and public health issues,” Journal of Ultra-sound in Medicine, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1067–1076, 2009.

[40] T. Ngai, R. Shrestha, B. Dangol, M. Maharjan, andS. Murcott, “Design for sustainable development- house-hold drinking water filter for arsenic and pathogen treat-ment in Nepal,” Journal of Environmental Science andHealth, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environ-mental Engineering, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 1879–1888, 2007.

[41] T. Ngai, B. Dangol, S. Murcott, and R. Shrestha, “Kanchanarsenic filter,” tech. rep., Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology and Environment and Public Health Organization,Nepal, 2005.

[42] D. Nieusma, “Alternative design scholarship: working to-ward appropriate design,” Design Issues, vol. 20, pp. 13–24, 2004.

[43] J. Weiss, C. George, and J. Walker, “Redesigning an ap-propriate technology shredder for manufacture in a devel-oping country,” International Journal for Service Learningin Engineering: Humanitarian Engineering and Social En-trepreneurship, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 11–26, 2006.

[44] P. Wijayatunga and R. Attalage, “Analysis of rural house-hold energy supplies in Sri Lanka: energy efficiency, fuelswitching and barriers to expansion,” Energy Conversion &Management, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 1123–1130, 2003.

[45] A. Akubue, “Appropriate technology for socioeconomicdevelopment in third world countries,” Journal of Technol-ogy Studies, vol. 26, no. 1, 2000.

[46] G. Pahl, W. Beitz, H. Schultz, and U. Jarecki, Engineeringdesign: a systematic approach. Spring, 2007.

[47] A. Parkinson, C. Sorensen, and N. Pourhassan, “A generalapproach for robust optimal design,” ASME Journal of Me-chanical Design, vol. 115, pp. 74–80, 1993.

[48] P. Lewis, C. Mattson, and V. Murray, “An engineeringdesign strategy for reconfigurable products that supportpoverty alleviation,” in ASME International Design Engi-neering Technical Conference, 2010.

[49] “Slum dwellers to double by 2030: Millennium Develop-ment Goal could fall short,” tech. rep., UN Habitat, 2007.

[50] O. Morawczynski and G. Miscione, “Examining trust inmobile banking transactions: the case of M-PESA inKenya,” IFIP International Federation for ImformationProcessing, vol. 282, pp. 287–298, 2008.

[51] C. George, A. Shams, and F. Dunkel, “Lessons learned inan international service-learning collaborative: shea but-ter case study,” North American Colleges and Teachers ofAgriculture Journal, vol. 13, pp. 71–77, 2011.

[52] A. Barkat, S. Khan, M. Rahman, S. Zaman, A. Poddar,


S. Halim, N. Ratna, M. Majid, A. Maksud, A. Karim, andS. Islam, “Economic and social impact evaluation study ofthe rural electrification program in Bangladesh,” tech. rep.,Human Development Research Centre in Dhaka, 2002.

[53] W. Fulkerson, M. Levine, J. Sinton, and A. Gadgil, “Sus-tainable, efficient electricity service for one billion people,”Energy for Sustainable Development, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 26–34, 2005.

[54] C. Uko, “Engineering research - are developing nations get-ting value for money?,” Journal of Professional Issues inEngineering, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 236–240, 1987.

[55] A. Pamuk and P. Cavallieri, “Alleviating urban poverty in aglobal city: new trends in upgrading Rio-de-Janeiro’s fave-las,” Habitat International, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 449–462,1998.

[56] E. Schumacher, Small is beautiful: economics as if peoplemattered. Harper & Row, 1973.

[57] V. Papanek, Design for the real world: human ecology andsocial change. Academy Chicago, 1984.

[58] V. Papanek, Design for human scale. Van Nostrand Rein-hold Co., 1983.

[59] P. Polak, Out of poverty: what works when traditional ap-proaches fail. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2009.

[60] A. Maslow, “A theory of human motivation,” PyschologicalReview, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 370–396, 1943.


eight principles derived from the engineering literature for

Documents