PROBLEM ASSESSMENT Process Document

January 2013

Problem Capturing

Immediate Responses and action points

User research methods

Partnerships and User Interaction

Determining the generic solution

Problem Assessment – Introduction

A paddy farmer in rural Karnataka facing labour shortage, a household in the Western Ghats of Karnataka discarding their fruit produce unable to store it for future consumption, school children from unelectrified households having to study under kerosene lamps - while each of these problems affect different groups of end users, the need for a reliable solution (often energy-based) is common across the categories. Over the last 3 years, SELCO Labs has been working with the energy concerns and last mile innovation needs of diverse communities from paddy farmers and rural households to school students and urban slum communities. An important aspect of developing appropriate solutions is to clearly understand what the problem is and how the solution can be structured- after considering all aspects of technology, finance and community.

There is an attempt, through this document to capture the method by which issues currently being worked on in SELCO Labs were first identified, assessed and taken forward for further action. Three specific programmes have been chosen as representative cases to track the process involved in problem capture and choosing from the various alternatives for implementation.

The larger aim of the document is to capture how problem identification and assessment has taken place within the Labs, so as to see if these could be applicable for other entities in other parts of the developing world. More importantly, this document will be a means for effecting changes and improvements within SELCO Labs’ existing processes for problem assessment.

Programmes chosen for analysis :

The following programmes were chosen as representative cases to document the process of problem assessment

• Transplanter: Project to address the problem of labour shortage in paddy farming. A product to help in transplanting is available but is still being tested, after which a detailed dissemination plan will be created.

• Light for Education: Programme to facilitate lighting where the local school becomes a vital link for students to charge portable batteries and use them at home to power study lamps.

• Hybrid Solar-Biomass Dryer: Project to help dry food in the absence of any means of preservation so that it can be stored for future consumption. A small-scale, solar-biomass hybrid drier, suitable for household level usage is being developed. There is no existing product for this scale at an affordable price.

Aspects of Problem Assessment :

The 5 aspects depicted above together represent the Problem assessment process of the SELCO Labs. Here, we choose to use the term ‘Problem Capture and assessment’ rather than Need assessment as the latter would be defined by many as an overall process to determine the most immediate, short term and long term needs of a community. Based on this process, a course of action to address one or more of the needs is developed.

Unlike this, in the case of the Labs, specific problems were brought to our attention for which we adopted a relatively focused approach that revolved around analysing the problem and determining possible solutions to meet needs associated with that problem alone.

1. Problem Identification

2. Immediate response and action points

3. User research Methods

4. Partnerships and User interactions

5. Determining the Generic solution

1. Problem Capturing:

Importance of inputs and information from Field sources In most programmes of the Labs, the trigger to work on a particular issue came because of the concern drawn to it by other sources on the field. The problems or issues to be worked on were not actively searched out. They were, instead, brought to our attention primarily through enquiries and information from SELCO’s field sources or other community organizations and partners. Initially, it was SELCO’s field staff that provided the Labs with information that a number of students in rural government schools came from un-electrified homes, and that this lack of electricity adversely affected their studying habits. In the case of the dryer project, a member of the Labs who had learnt of the general requirement for drying areca through previous work with a research organization threw light on the issue. On learning that enquiries were coming mainly from the Western Ghats region, we put more attention on the issue as it coincided with the location of the Rural Labs.

Similarly, the genesis of the small-scale agricultural machinery programme is attributable to the labour shortage problem- an issue that was first brought to our attention through a number of sources on the ground. Labour shortage was said to be a huge problem for small scale farmers in most agricultural belts of Karnataka. SELCO’s field staff as well as other partners of SELCO in the region corroborated this statement. Eventually, transplanting along with other agricultural processes became part of the Labs agenda as issues requiring interventions. Relevance to organization verticals and geographical location: Another important aspect of the Problem identification step is that the issues identified have been relevant not only to the organization’s verticals but also to the geographical location of its functioning. These two factors have been instrumental in determining the Labs’ decision to invest time and resources into investigating the issue further.

Problem identification

• Issue identification through information from field sources

• No active search from Labs for problems or issues

• Factors affecting Labs' interest in further investigation-

• Relevance of issue to an existing vertical- energy for agriculture, education or livelihoods

• Relevance of issue to the geographical area of functioning

• Build a good network of partners who can support with bringing in Issues

• Clearly publicise focus areas to make the Labs a one-stop shop for interventions in the focus areas

Learnings:

LFE in a school in rural Karnataka

Older version of the banana drier being tested

Transplanter purchased off the shelf being tested in Ujire

2. Immediate response and action points

Capitalizing on previous attempts and expertise: The most common response to learning about a certain problem has been to dig deeper into existing solutions as well as previous attempts at addressing the issue, both within SELCO and outside. In some cases, a solution has been attempted before (within or outside SELCO) but has either not yielded positive results or has simply not been scalable. The impediment to reaching more individuals or communities has been missing links in the attempted model. These included the lack of an ideal product with specific customizations; lack of ideal financial and community–related linkages etc. However, the fact that attempts had been made convinced the Labs team that the problem was serious enough to merit attention and investment of resources. Overall, there has always been an tendency (particularly when the problem is first introduced) to build on existing interventions rather than reinvent the wheel. One important way of thinking about the solution is to learn from business models in different projects, rather than the technology. This phase of the process also utilizes the expertise of members within the Labs, capable of suggesting alternatives that have been tried out and providing feedback on how they performed. Some pioneering work on designing biomass-fired dryers had taken place previously through the Indian Institute of Science. They also trained local entrepreneurs to fabricate them locally. However, most of these dryers catered to upper-class farmers in very specific regions. When the requirement of drying perishable foods was brought to the attention of the Labs, the intuitive response was to relook at the dryers but change the approach to accommodate requirements of lower-income farmers as well. There was an emphasis on categorizing target segments based on

their specific needs of size, price and so on- something that had been missed out in the previous attempt. To address the problem of school children studying without electricity, the intuitive solution was to provide cleaner, brighter lighting- which was already an area of expertise. Although a project for incentivising students through Light scholarships had been introduced earlier, it was on a much smaller scale. It had reached only 2-3 students per class in a few schools and had not been replicated in larger numbers. With the transplanter programme, some basic research revealed that a version of the product existed but was not available in the South Karnataka region. The intuitive response in this case revolved around eliciting feedback and responses from local users on such a product.

Need for additional research:

It was noticed that many of the previous attempts had failed to plug a variety of gaps that existed in product or service provision. The need assessments conducted in those attempts were either not comprehensive or the implementation failed to meet specific requirements and pay attention to detail. These lapses reinforced the need for more research (through secondary sources and informal interviews) covering the problem, the effect it has, current practices, variations of products and solutions available today and the ideal solution. This basic research proved to be an important foundation on which in-depth stakeholder research (interviews and surveys) could be conducted.

Immediate response and Action points

• Capitalize on previous attempts rather than reinvent the wheel

• Focus on plugging missing gaps- technology, finance, community

• Utilize expertise of team members

• Emphasis on additional research

• Strengthens the foundation for undertaking user research

•Important to look at existing alternatives to the problem before attempting to design the ideal solution

• The Basic research (secondary sources and informal interviews) can never be a replacement for User research, but can provide interesting insights and information useful to the User research phase

• Perhaps, sometimes this stage can result in a pre-determination of the solution- where expertise leads people to decide what the solution should be, hence there must be some caution exercised to ensure all options are given consideration

Learnings

3. Stakeholder research (1)

This phase consisted of surveys conducted with the actual user segment as well as other stakeholders involved with the issue. This research builds on the basic research undertaken using secondary sources and informal interviews with practitioners. Structured Interviews and surveys Programmes within the Labs have primarily used direct research methods such as structured interviews (customized for the issue at hand) and surveys to obtain information from stakeholders. There has not been an extensive use of other user-research methods such as Focus group sessions or in-depth interviews mainly because of time and resources constraints. We have also noticed that it is difficult to gather user groups together and keep them interested in the issue over a long time period. Within the structured interviews, the issues covered fall under 3 main categories: •Socio-economic data: Standardized questions such as age of respondent, sex, family income, occupation and so on. •Problem analysis: This section begins with an analysis of status quo and questions about current condition, how tasks are completed, the means used etc. Gradually, more specific questions about the problem and user perceptions are introduced including impact on individuals exposed, long term consequences, view points of users and potential stakeholders about alternatives that exist, financial loss or expenditure incurred in dealing with the issue etc. •Introducing a possible alternative: This section seeks to gauge reactions to our intuitive response, the model through which it can be introduced, the pricing etc. Questions are also asked about suggestions from users and stakeholders on the model or solution that is most feasible and attempt is

made to understand their perceptions on why it would or would not work.

Team members were always directly involved in putting together the questions and conducting the interviews. While open-ended, unstructured questions are ideal, our experience has shown that it is more effective to provide users with specific options. The basic research contributed greatly in determining what these specific options should be. For example, in the process of creating interview questions for the LFE programme, options for how much students would be willing to pay annually for study lighting . In the case of dryers, determining the scale of the project and dryer design required us to ask specific questions on how much is usually produced, how much is utilized and what quantity would have to be dried to preserve. By suggesting various precise options, we have noticed that respondents answer more accurately and substantiate responses with more details. However, one aspect that seems to have been missed out is brainstorming with stakeholders on how other products and services are provided to see if any of those models can be suitably applied to the issues that the Labs is working on. Maintaining interest of respondents In general, most respondents found the questions comprehensible and were able to answer them. However, there were instances during the interview method where the length of the interview resulted in a loss of interest and boredom among respondents. This was noticed during a survey on mechanization of Small scale agriculture. In an attempt to overcome this problem, the team improvised and used a more engaging User-research method to complete the interview- the pocket voting method. In this method, respondents answer in groups of 5 or 6.

Stakeholder Research

• Structured interviews with users and potential stakeholders

• Use of specific options to elicit more accurate responses

• Focus on understanding the problem and introducing alternatives

• Maintaining interest of respondents challenging in some cases

• Methods like Pocket-voting adopted

• Physical models or pictures used to introduce alternatives

• Exposure of team members to the problem

3. Stakeholder Research (2)

The options to the questions are represented in the form of bowls or containers and respondents are given tokens to drop into the bowl to indicate their preferences- higher the preference for a certain option, greater the number of tokens to be dropped in. In our experience, bringing in a physical model or pictures to illustrate the solution that is being spoken about is extremely useful in getting better responses from users. Till such time that a version of the solution is not seen- in some form or shape- communities do not seem to regard the solution as realistic. For example, showing users a picture of the transplanter was enough to elicit basic responses on willingness to pay and gain their insights on how this machinery would function on the field. Similarly, having a demonstration piece of a study light working on solar energy was useful in introducing the LFE solution to teachers and students in rural schools. Using this demo piece, their opinions were sought on how the operational aspects could work out, what role the school could play in the model, how much students would be willing to pay and so on. Seeing a working model becomes integral in determining a more concrete willingness to pay. It goes a long way in getting a clearer response from users about what they really need.

Exposing oneself to the problem: In all programmes, team members did expose themselves to the problem i.e. experience the problem themselves. This exercise has been quite important in eliminating obvious mistakes and convincing the team of certain responses of the users. However, given the short time span, exposure hasn’t necessarily resulted in very significant changes in the design of product and solution. This is in contradiction with popular belief that experiencing the problems oneself could bring very influential changes in design. There are at least two reasons that explain why this was untrue for Labs projects- one, the short time span and two, some aspects thought of as inconveniences by the team were very different to the perception of users who have been using the current method over a long time period and did not necessarily see them as problematic. Apart from eliminating obvious mistakes, this exercise proved to be a good way to connect with the community, increase their interest in the problem identification process and build a stronger relationship with them that is useful in the long run.

• Stakeholder research has been an integral part of learning about the problem

• It is also a great means of gauging reactions to the proposed solution

• Physical models or pictures used in this phase have been extremely useful in eliciting constructive feedback from users

• This interaction can be used to gain an understanding of delivery models for other products and services

• Exposure to problem does not always lead to significant changes in design, however it is a useful exercise to eliminate obvious mistakes and establish an informal connect with the community

Learnings:

4. Partnerships and User interactions (1)

This aspect seeks to complement the previous section on stakeholder research and takes note of the manner in which interactions with users and other stakeholders took place during the research phase.

On average, approximately 30-50 individuals were interviewed in the surveys conducted for each programme.

Partner organizations were critical in the survey process. The Labs itself is not a community organization and is largely dependent on field partners to mobilize communities. In some cases, the partner organizations themselves had introduced us to the problem, making them more willing to help in taking the project forward.

Benefits of partner-based introductions

Introduction through these field partners brings in an element of trust and increases the likelihood that interviewees will respond with greater accuracy and interest. Since the relevant partner organizations were

aware of the intent of research, respondents chosen by them as samples for user research were actually communities affected by the issue. This is a mutually beneficial situation as community organizations are often keen on facilitating solutions covering a wide range of community problems – making them eager to ensure the introduction.

Another advantage of having partners on the ground is that they are able to provide new perspectives on the suggested solutions- these perspectives stem from their years of work with the community and their insights about how the community functions. Not only is the partner introduction helpful in completing the interviews faster, it also provides an immediate set of users to test the prototype or model. This way, feedback on the prototype can be compared with the initial needs and requirements expressed by the respondents.

Partnerships and User Interactions

• Approximately 30-50 users interviewed for each programme

• Field partners provided introductions to user groups for research

• Increased trust and likelihood of better responses

• Gained perspectives of partners on problem and alternate solutions

• Built readily available user group to test prototypes and model

• Interviews very often conducted in a relevant context- where those interested and affected congregate

Project in urban slum undertaken through ground partners

4. Partnerships and User interactions (2)

The Shree Kshetra Dharmasthala Rural Development Project (SKDRDP) has been one such partner- vital in reaching out to the community. Their experience on the field also provides a different perspective on what is really needed and the various models through which the requirements can be met.

SKDRDP introduced us to a few rural schools to facilitate user research for LFE. This helped in making the teachers less sceptical of our activities there. Government schools are ideally not meant to entertain any activities without the permission of higher authorities, but since we approached them through partners known to the teachers and Principal, the interaction took place faster.

The community partner is also able to identify places where the target user group congregates making the survey process faster than a house-to-house approach.

Importance of Relevant contexts:

Responses tend to be qualitatively better when the interview is conducted in a relevant context, where the issue is already being discussed. For example, the Krishi Melas (Agricultural fairs) proved to be an excellent space to interview user groups on transplanting and other agricultural practices. Not only was there a concentration of potential users in one place, but they were also in the right mindset to answer questions about agricultural practices and machinery.

•Maintain strong partnerships with ground-level organizations that can introduce the community

•Extremely useful in conducting user research and getting feedback

•Make use of relevant contexts for undertaking user research

•Helps reach out to more number of users

•Elicits better responses since users are in the right frame of mind and thinking about the issue

Learnings

Transplanter being tested in an Agricultural fair in South Karnataka

Panels being shown in a rural school

Drier demonstrated at a jackfruit fair

5. Determining the generic solution

The Labs has largely been involved in incremental innovations on technology, finance and community-related aspects. Upon gaining an understanding of the problem, we look at three possible ways of arriving at the solution, in this order of preference:

•Purchasing a product off-the-shelf and working out the Financial and Community aspects of its use. The Transplanter that is currently being tested is a good example of this.

•Procuring a variation of the ideal product or solution; determining the changes required; modifying it to suit the specific needs of the users- technologically and financially. In the LFE programme, the generic solution proposed was a light with a detachable battery- this required us to find a product and suggest modifications to it.

•Designing a product from scratch on the assumption that no variation of this product exists in the market at an affordable price. The hybrid solar-biomass drier required an intervention of this nature as there was no affordable product for the target scale.

In cases where the product did exist, there was an attempt in the Problem assessment process to draw users’ attention to what product modifications are required to meet their specific needs, and how the model would work on the ground.

Across all programmes, the process has attempted to look into all the operational constraints that would be faced if the programme were to be implemented. The focus has been to ensure that no aspect that is vital to ground level implementation is missed out in the problem assessment.

Determining the Generic solution

• Incremental innovations on technology, finance and community-related aspects

•Purchase product off-the-shelf

•Procure product and make modifications

•Design product from scratch

• Process attempts to assess the ground level, operational aspects of the problem as well as the possible solution

• Important insights from stakeholder research - should be effectively incorporated into proposed solution

•Approaching the problem and the possible solutions from an implementation point is extremely useful:

• Allows for consideration of a variety of aspects

• Enhances the quality of the final output at a later stage, particularly when implemented on the ground

• There is a need to recognize models that have worked in other sectors- water, health, education- customize them for the energy sector and incorporate these models into planning the solution

Learnings:

Problem Assessment for Cookstove programme

Problem Capturing:

• Smoke in the Urban slum households and expenditure on firewood

• First came to Labs’ attention while working on a different project in the Urban slums

• Not brought through Partners

Immediate response:

• Improved biomass cookstove- was tried earlier by SELCO

• Adopt different approach- narrow down specific User segment

• Urban slums targeted- where smoke and expenditure are problems

User Research Methods and Stakeholder Interactions:

• More detailed User research using in-depth methods

• Baseline Assessment- Users views on not just Cooking but also Water, Health, Education, Energy

• Picture this- showing pictures of a large variety of stoves to understand level and reasons of acceptability.

• Learn to cook- Team learnt to cook on traditional cookstoves to experience current conditions

• Conversations and Observation to understand main items of expenditure in household; assets purchased etc.

Determining the generic solution:

• Facilitate sale of existing product, but focus on follow up after sale to households

• Undertake tests to choose best product for households in slums

• Ensure training on usage of improved cook-stoves and monitor usage and evaluate impact periodically

The Problem assessment phase in the Cookstove project was undertaken slightly differently from the representative cases and is worth a closer look. The problem was identified by the Labs team and the User research attempted to understand other issues affecting households apart from cooking. Besides, the approach was very clearly to look beyond identifying the product to understanding how the usage could be optimized.

Overall learnings to improve impact

There are some overarching learnings that have come out of understanding the problem assessment process. A few important ones are described below, while others are captured in the SWOT analysis on the following page.

• Dig deeper into analogies and other delivery models:

While developing a deeper understanding of the problem, particularly during the interaction with stakeholders, it would be useful to ask questions about delivery models of other products and services. Any product or service delivery model is dependent on certain key pieces- end user, technology provider, finance provider, some form of a nodal agency. Learning about successful delivery models and recognizing which of the pieces are missing in the energy scenario would be useful in helping plug the gaps.

For eg: with Energy and education, the stakeholders include the students, the school, the technology integrator and the external donor. Having these entities would ensure lighting access for students. Knowledge of these pieces and their ability to be part of other delivery models could help in working on a solution to address the challenge of children accessing clean drinking water.

• Need to think about the endgame for each solution:

Even at the stage of determining a generic solution to the problem, the team must begin to work out a basic plan that includes a concrete endgame. This endgame could be defined in terms of a time period (work on this solution for the next ‘x’ months), or end-user impact (till the product/service reaches ‘x’ number of households) or demonstration to

other entities (till ‘x’ number of entrepreneurs or organizations are convinced of the product/service solution and willing to invest). The endgame could also simply be determined by the lack of any result during a defined time period. Having this endgame in mind helps the team focus their limited resources and time on the most effective and efficient solution to address the issue.

• Not always a conscious decision to follow processes:

It is interesting to note that there are common threads in the way different problems have been approached within the labs. While this may not have been conscious, many similarities in steps and research methods exist.

The aspects that have had positive impacts should be identified and be made part of the process in a more formal manner. While there is a need for flexibility in the way issues are understood, some aspects should be made inherently part of the problem assessment process for better results.

SWOT Analysis of the Approach so far

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

Issue Identification: • Pull for Issues to be worked on comes from the Field- priority of users, field partners • Relevance of problem to Organization verticals and Geography help in screening Immediate response: • Capitalizes on previous attempts at addressing the issue rather than reinventing the wheel Research method: • Structured interviews provide opportunity for Lab members to interact directly with Users • Focus is on responses and feedback of potential user groups- bottom-up- rather than mere expert opinions on the problem Process in General: • Approach is solution and Implementation-oriented; tries to understand details that eventually play a role in ground-level implementation • Effectively uses partner networks to connect with communities and develop a User group to support problem assessment and subsequent testing

• Limited scope for actively seeking out and identifying issues across fields

• Inertia in terms of capturing problems across a range of issues and going into greater detail to understand them

• Bias towards pre-determined solutions or

ideas in addressing issue • More in-depth user and other stakeholder research methods such as Focus groups are not explored

• Absence of endgame for proposed project: In terms of the solution, no endgame is defined-in terms of where or what stage the intervention of the Labs will stop or at what point, other alternatives will be assessed.

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

• Course correction for upcoming projects where needed, to establish more concrete and replicable process • Strengthen ground-level partnerships for better user interactions in the long term • Allow for broader view on possible solutions • Seriously consider and implement different forms of user research, use larger sample size, other geographies to see if responses are qualitatively better or different • More extensive exposure to the problem to see if this can significantly change design • Recognizing delivery models that have worked on a certain issue, understanding and customizing them to be applicable for energy related projects of the Labs

• Responses from user surveys are ignored and Solutions are created purely on the convenience of the Labs

• Failures in effective Project implementation, where a number of aspects outside of technology are not considered