Co-creation: technical development in Kenya 2019

Using co-creation to ensure we developed an effective solution with the local technicians based on our previous development.

This stage of the project involved the implementation of our technology in the village of Takaungu, Kenya. It was technically challenging to scope the issue and technical capabilities in the field, manufacture the machines and test them rigorously within the resource and time constraints we were presented with. First, we had to overcome the knowledge barrier that separated us initially from the local villagers: we understood the design of our machines; they were aware of the culture and skills of the villagers. Therefore, we had to carefully manage our initial interactions to ensure two-way flow of knowledge such that we would emerge quickly as a united team, with a common understanding of the problems and their subsequent solutions. We thus started our collaboration by dedicating a day to learning about the scale of the problem and the successes and failures of existing machines, before advancing to the design proposals we prepared and brought from Cambridge. In particular, we realised that hands-on cardboard models, not detailed sketches, conveyed the concept of each machine very succinctly and clearly to the technicians in particular who were able to refine the designs to make them more feasible to achieve within the duration of the trip. This principle of “co-creation” is based on the IDEO.org’s Field Guide to Human-Centred Design and formed a core part of our approach to collaboration. This is a concept that places humans at the centre of products, rather than the technology, essential in global sustainable development.

The manufacture of the two machines developed our technical competencies in implementing a detailed yet flexible construction procedure. Both teams needed to source correct materials, select suitable tools for each stage, manage human resources to streamline production and adapt to unexpected changes. The shredder team faced challenges in obtaining and implementing a bicycle to power the machine. They learned that although they had a model for how the shredder might look like and function in the UK, they had to completely adapt and use the resources and techniques available, instead using a bicycle frame on supports that was made from local, low-cost materials. In addition, they learned about the challenge of proper tolerancing in design and manufacture and obtaining a good fit of parts became the main technical challenge for the team.

The team also understood the importance of putting appropriate local technology first. Some parts of the design, which were seemingly simple in Cambridge, became quite foreign and difficult to use in Kenya. For example, the shredder stand was initially composed out of uni-struts, a common, modular structural component. The team favoured the idea of welded steel bars which were readily available as scrap and the local technicians (fundis) felt more comfortable using these materials, reducing production time. Similarly, the kiln faced some key changes compared to the design finalised in Cambridge. The core concept of an insulative cavity wall was retained, but the concept was simplified in Kenya to include less sheet steel and more recycled rebar.

The kiln sub-team faced another set of challenges. Whilst obtaining the materials, only a thinner sheet of galvanised steel was available, and had to account for this reduction in structural stability by introducing a more complex frame design. In addition, the complex manufacturing process had to be broken into clear steps that would be communicated to the fundis to be discussed. This methodical, reflective approach to build the kiln tested the team’s abilities to visualise the holistic process and evaluate the effectiveness of small design changes through consultation with the technicians.

Finally, we learned about how to carry out tests safely to evaluate our final machine designs. This was primarily the role of the kiln sub-team, who did five runs of the working machine to produce bricks of different plastic: sand compositions. All of the bricks made were rigorously tested back in Cambridge against official safety standards for construction, so the test conditions needed to be rigorously controlled in Kenya. We developed the capability to design, set up, carry out and analyse field tests on parameters of the machines. This included evaluating the effectiveness of the kiln cavity wall, where we measured the temperature of different surfaces at regular time intervals before analysing the data upon our return to the UK. Carrying out this testing in the centre of the village was important to complete the technological handover. There was a great interest for the machines and the process overall, with many individuals providing ways they felt the design could be improved. This was valuable for the team moving forwards, given the process of technological development in Kenya prioritised input from the community itself who would ultimately adopt the technology.