Implemented framework for identification of frugal innovation: Subset of cases
| FI feature | Criteria (compare against local mainstream benchmark) | Level of likelihood | Descriptive information per FI feature | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case A: Agromun | ||||||
| Multiple actors and motivations | Affordability and cost minimization | Cost reduction from a user or producer perspective | 0.5 | Med 2.0 | Local mainstream benchmark | Small-scale farmers sell their crops to an intermediary who comes at their doorstep and dictates the price. On occasions, farmers have to sell at a loss or rather opt to leave their crops to perish unsold |
| Inexpensive/reasonably priced as compared to benchmark | 0.5 | |||||
| Ease of financial accessibility to the end user | 1 | Case: Agromun | Market place that connects farmers with buyers under a B2B or B2C model. It eliminates price speculation and the costs of intermediation. By selling directly to buyers, farmers get better payments for their crops. Need to factor-in transport costs for delivery. Registration is free for the end consumer but it has a fee for the producer, depending on the type of participation | |||
| Minimization of resource use | 0 | |||||
| Optimal design, function, and performance | Adequate quality for intended purpose | 0.5 | Low 1.0 | Local mainstream benchmark | Farmers deliver the crop at their doorstep and the intermediary takes care of all logistics from that point onwards. Farmers are unable to get in contact with the end buyer | |
| Simplicity. Elimination of unnecessary features | 0 | |||||
| Ease of use throughout service life | 0 | Case: Agromun | The marketplace only accepts participation of farmers that have certified sustainable production. It connects sellers with either wholesalers or retailers. It also offers data analytics to improve access to information for the farmers. It requires internet access and an average web browsing knowledge to operate the marketplace | |||
| Sufficient functionality for intended purpose | 0.5 | |||||
| Focused on a resource constrained context | Adapted by the producer to the contextual conditions of un(der)served users | 0.5 | Med 2.0 | Local mainstream benchmark | Farmers are dependent on intermediaries to reach buyers, under an unequal power relation. In most cases, intermediation is accepted because is the only available option, as farmers are unable or uninformed to reach markets and sell directly. Farmers feel frustrated by their inability to receive a fair payment for their work | |
| Appropriate to the local context | 0.5 | |||||
| Available in the local market | 0.5 | Case: Agromun | It is targeted to the local rural communities and designed to provide better sales conditions to small scale farmers who are served unfairly by the traditional agricultural value chain. However, its technological level is high to the standards of the average user, which generates doubts around its acceptability and adoption by local farmers | |||
| Acceptable by the intended users | 0.5 | |||||
| Case B: Ekogroup H2O | ||||||
| Multiple actors and motivations | Affordability and cost minimization | Cost reduction from a user or producer perspective | 1 | High 3.5 | Local mainstream benchmark | Irregular/iterative water provision from the local aqueduct. Communities might rely on water collected from natural sources, which may be several km away. On occasions car tanks will come to the town. Buying gallons of bottled water. Harvesting rainwater is not a common practice |
| Inexpensive/reasonably priced as compared to benchmark | 0.5 | |||||
| Ease of financial accessibility to the end user | 1 | Ekogroup H2O | The system (called ekomuro) is low-cost and can be self-constructed by the users mostly using recycled materials. Instruction manuals and video tutorials are available for free for anyone who wants to build. Several ekomuros have been installed for free at schools and houses of vulnerable communities with the sponsoring of private foundations | |||
| Minimization of resource use | 1 | |||||
| Optimal design, function and performance | Adequate quality for intended purpose | 1 | High 4.0 | Local mainstream benchmark | Urban, peri-urban and rural communities in poor areas lack access to stable and safe water sources and do not have a culture of collecting rainwater. Those that do attempt to collect rainwater often struggle with space limitations posed by conventional containers which are bulky, which is often a problem as house sizes are small. Communities collect water from natural springs which may be distant from their homes and might affect the natural ecosystem | |
| Simplicity. Elimination of unnecessary features | 1 | |||||
| Ease of use throughout service life | 1 | Ekogroup H2O | Inspired in participatory design methods and appropriate technologies. Rainwater-harvesting vertical tank made from reused PET bottles. It is robust and easy to install and use. It can be made by the users themselves, is designed in a modular way, takes up minimal space and is made of nine towers of six three-liter bottles each, connected to a PVC pipe base. If coupled with a filter, then the water is potable | |||
| Sufficient functionality for intended purpose | 1 | |||||
| Focused on a resource constrained context | Adapted by the producer to the contextual conditions of un(der)served users | 1 | High 4.0 | Local mainstream benchmark | About 14% Colombians lack access to reliable and permanent water supply. They are dependent on various sources, some of which are not apt for human consumption, including natural springs, buying bottled water or waiting for water-trucks to come in town. However, harvesting of rain water is not widely adopted by these communities | |
| Appropriate to the local context | 1 | |||||
| Available in the local market | 1 | Ekogroup H2O | Began at public schools in Bogota as a teaching proposal on the proper use of solid waste and the benefits of harvesting rainwater. It has expanded by working directly with low-income communities in urban, peri-urban and rural areas across the country, where access to safe water is limited or non-existent. The system is adaptable, appropriate to local conditions and is built and co-created with local communities | |||
| Acceptable by the intended users | 1 | |||||
| FI feature | Criteria (compare against local mainstream benchmark) | Level of likelihood | Descriptive information per FI feature | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple actors and motivations | Affordability and cost minimization | Cost reduction from a user or producer perspective | 0.5 | Med | Local mainstream benchmark | Small-scale farmers sell their crops to an intermediary who comes at their doorstep and dictates the price. On occasions, farmers have to sell at a loss or rather opt to leave their crops to perish unsold |
| Inexpensive/reasonably priced as compared to benchmark | 0.5 | |||||
| Ease of financial accessibility to the end user | 1 | Case: Agromun | Market place that connects farmers with buyers under a B2B or B2C model. It eliminates price speculation and the costs of intermediation. By selling directly to buyers, farmers get better payments for their crops. Need to factor-in transport costs for delivery. Registration is free for the end consumer but it has a fee for the producer, depending on the type of participation | |||
| Minimization of resource use | 0 | |||||
| Optimal design, function, and performance | Adequate quality for intended purpose | 0.5 | Low | Local mainstream benchmark | Farmers deliver the crop at their doorstep and the intermediary takes care of all logistics from that point onwards. Farmers are unable to get in contact with the end buyer | |
| Simplicity. Elimination of unnecessary features | 0 | |||||
| Ease of use throughout service life | 0 | Case: Agromun | The marketplace only accepts participation of farmers that have certified sustainable production. It connects sellers with either wholesalers or retailers. It also offers data analytics to improve access to information for the farmers. It requires internet access and an average web browsing knowledge to operate the marketplace | |||
| Sufficient functionality for intended purpose | 0.5 | |||||
| Focused on a resource constrained context | Adapted by the producer to the contextual conditions of un(der)served users | 0.5 | Med | Local mainstream benchmark | Farmers are dependent on intermediaries to reach buyers, under an unequal power relation. In most cases, intermediation is accepted because is the only available option, as farmers are unable or uninformed to reach markets and sell directly. Farmers feel frustrated by their inability to receive a fair payment for their work | |
| Appropriate to the local context | 0.5 | |||||
| Available in the local market | 0.5 | Case: Agromun | It is targeted to the local rural communities and designed to provide better sales conditions to small scale farmers who are served unfairly by the traditional agricultural value chain. However, its technological level is high to the standards of the average user, which generates doubts around its acceptability and adoption by local farmers | |||
| Acceptable by the intended users | 0.5 | |||||
| Multiple actors and motivations | Affordability and cost minimization | Cost reduction from a user or producer perspective | 1 | High | Local mainstream benchmark | Irregular/iterative water provision from the local aqueduct. Communities might rely on water collected from natural sources, which may be several km away. On occasions car tanks will come to the town. Buying gallons of bottled water. Harvesting rainwater is not a common practice |
| Inexpensive/reasonably priced as compared to benchmark | 0.5 | |||||
| Ease of financial accessibility to the end user | 1 | Ekogroup H2O | The system (called ekomuro) is low-cost and can be self-constructed by the users mostly using recycled materials. Instruction manuals and video tutorials are available for free for anyone who wants to build. Several ekomuros have been installed for free at schools and houses of vulnerable communities with the sponsoring of private foundations | |||
| Minimization of resource use | 1 | |||||
| Optimal design, function and performance | Adequate quality for intended purpose | 1 | High | Local mainstream benchmark | Urban, peri-urban and rural communities in poor areas lack access to stable and safe water sources and do not have a culture of collecting rainwater. Those that do attempt to collect rainwater often struggle with space limitations posed by conventional containers which are bulky, which is often a problem as house sizes are small. Communities collect water from natural springs which may be distant from their homes and might affect the natural ecosystem | |
| Simplicity. Elimination of unnecessary features | 1 | |||||
| Ease of use throughout service life | 1 | Ekogroup H2O | Inspired in participatory design methods and appropriate technologies. Rainwater-harvesting vertical tank made from reused PET bottles. It is robust and easy to install and use. It can be made by the users themselves, is designed in a modular way, takes up minimal space and is made of nine towers of six three-liter bottles each, connected to a PVC pipe base. If coupled with a filter, then the water is potable | |||
| Sufficient functionality for intended purpose | 1 | |||||
| Focused on a resource constrained context | Adapted by the producer to the contextual conditions of un(der)served users | 1 | High | Local mainstream benchmark | About 14% Colombians lack access to reliable and permanent water supply. They are dependent on various sources, some of which are not apt for human consumption, including natural springs, buying bottled water or waiting for water-trucks to come in town. However, harvesting of rain water is not widely adopted by these communities | |
| Appropriate to the local context | 1 | |||||
| Available in the local market | 1 | Ekogroup H2O | Began at public schools in Bogota as a teaching proposal on the proper use of solid waste and the benefits of harvesting rainwater. It has expanded by working directly with low-income communities in urban, peri-urban and rural areas across the country, where access to safe water is limited or non-existent. The system is adaptable, appropriate to local conditions and is built and co-created with local communities | |||
| Acceptable by the intended users | 1 | |||||
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.