Addendum (6-Mar-2010): The conference announcement and call for abstracts was only distributed as an image (see below), but that isn’t too useful for search or for general information dissemination. As a service to our readers – and for the benefit of this conference – I processed the image through a free, online OCR tool. Not responsible for misspellings:

HOW CAN MOBILE PHONE TECHNOLOGIES IMPROVE FAMILY PLANNING,

MATERNAL AND NEWBORN SERVICES IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD

Online Conference May 5, 2010

The United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Strengthening Health Outcomes through the Private Sector (SHOPS) Project is launching an annual eConference to advance private sector innovations in the sustainable provision and use of quality family planning/reproductive health and other health information product. and services. The theme of the 20l0 eConference is mHealth which is the use of mobile technology to improve health program effectiveness and efficiency.

Abstract submission deadline: March 17, 2010

Call for abstracts: The SHOPS Proiect and die mHealth Alliance invite you to submit an abstract by March 17, 2010 to present at this online conference which will focus on how mobile technologies can improve family planning, maternal and newborn services in the developing world. Priority will be given to those submissions that are evidence-based. Abstracts should fall into one of the five categories below:

• Family planning
• Pregnancy
• Delivery
• Post partum (newborn care. family planning)
• Cross-cutting (e.g.. gender barriers, low literacy populations, training requirements, administrative management, supply chain)

The deadline for abstracts is March 17th and the conference is on Cinco de Mayo. Let’s hope they have some results and some data,  all info in the image below:

The Global Forum for Health Research Forum 2009: Innovating for the Health of All took place in Havana, Cuba from 16-20 November. This is the sixth and final in a series of posts from the conference.

It’s now been a month since Forum 2009, so it’s time to wrap up any remaining thoughts from the meeting. My intention with these posts was never to provide a comprehensive view of the conference. If you’re looking for that, or simply additional insights into the meeting, I recommend the following resources:

1. Priya Shetty’s coverage of Forum 2009 for the SciDev.Net blog, five posts
2. TropIKA.net comprehensive coverage of Forum 2009, including daily reports and session reports

On my Cancún-bound flight out of Havana, on the morning of the 20th, the woman sitting next to me asked me for help with her Mexican immigration forms. As I was helping her, I asked what she did. “Terapista”. She asked what I was doing in Cuba. Attending “un congreso de investigaciones de salud pública”. She was a Cuban physical therapist going on a three month medical mission to Tecate in the Mexican state of Baja California, via Cancún, Mexico City, and Tijuana. I spent most of the short flight asking about her experiences on previous missions, all to Mexico, and probing for more details about the Cuban health system. Most memorably, she was quite proud of a unique surgical treatment the Cubans have developed for Parkinson’s disease.

I spoke about the medical assistance Cuba lends to other countries in an earlier post. The photo below of the 20 convertible peso note reinforces this. It touts Operación Milagro (Wikipedia link in Spanish), a joint program between Cuba and Venezuela with official aims similar to Cuba’s other medical mission efforts.

While I was speaking to this terapista on the plane, it occurred to me how important the setting of the conference was given the innovation theme. I don’t think that this was lost on many of the conference participants given external interest in the Cuban system, Cuban participation on panels, and various site visits. Still, there were three circumstances that limited knowledge exchange between the visitors and the Cubans:

1. Language barriers. There wasn’t very much communication between the several hundred Cuban participants and the external participants, especially those from outside Latin America. This was due in no small part to language barriers. Simultaneous translation took place during the larger sessions (UN-style headsets), but the smaller sessions didn’t have any and the informal exchange was visibly limited between the two groups.
2. An apparently flawless system. The Cuban health system may have been the talk of the week, but it was presented without fault. Even though it may be one of the best systems on the planet, it is not immune to needing improvement. Without a realistic understanding of the challenges, it was hard to understand the true effectiveness of the system. (In comparison, Minister of Health Chen Zhu was frank in talking about elements of the Chinese health system that need improvement, for example indicating in his plenary talk that many public clinics in China operate like private clinics.)
3. No U.S. government employees in attendance. There were certainly Americans at Forum 2009, but because of the restrictions associated with the U.S. embargo – it’s a bloqueo the Cubans said, since an embargo implies wrongdoing – there were almost no representatives of U.S. government institutions. I didn’t realize this myself until a colleague from the WHO pointed it out to me. He cited the example of his colleagues from the CDC who were not permitted to attend. Looking through the participant list, I only spotted one, someone from USAID. It’s unfortunate because there was a big opportunity for learning in both directions. In any case there were strong suggestions that we are months away from ending the embargo/bloqueo. Time will tell.

And here’s a post Aman wrote for Global Health Ideas about the Cuban health system two years ago: Lessons from Cuba: Healthcare Infrastructure and Information Systems.

The Global Forum for Health Research Forum 2009: Innovating for the Health of All took place in Havana, Cuba from 16-20 November. This is the fifth in a series of posts from the conference. Only one or two more after this one.

My reason for attending Forum 2009 was to participate in a session title “Innovation for Remote Populations”. This post is a about that session. What follows is taken from my recent report to the Global Forum for Health Research – edited only slightly.

Innovation for Remote Populations

Thurs-19-Nov-2009, 14:00-15:45, Global Café, Palacio de Convenciones, La Habana, Cuba

Coordinators/Facilitators:

• Patricia Mechael, mHealth and Telemedicine Advisor, Millennium Villages Project, Earth Institute, Columbia University, USA & Egypt (organizer & facilitator)
• Tim Hurson, Facilitators Without Borders (facilitator)
• Charles Gardner, Global Forum for Health Research (focal point)

Speakers (alphabetical order):

• Simon Adebola, NEPAD Council Global Health Commission, Geneva
• Najeeb al-Shorbaji, Director, Knowledge Management and Sharing, WHO
• Caren Serra Bavaresco, Student, Epidemiology, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
• Karl Brown, Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation
• Arul Chib, Assistant Professor, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication, and Assistant Director, Singapore Internet Research Center, Nanyang Technological University
• Dziedzom Komi de Souza, Ph.D. Student and Research Assistant, Parasitology, Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research, Ghana
• Bastiaan Hoefman, co-Founder, Text2Change
• Bernardita Labarca, Project Coordinator, Zoltner Consulting Group, Chile
• Claire O’Neill, Chairperson, Cell-Life-South Africa
• Ravi Ram, Head, Monitoring & Evaluation, African Medical Research and Research Foundation (AMREF), Nairobi Kenya
• Marco Salmen, OHR-GMCP Initiative for HIV/AIDS, Global Micro-Clinic Project, United States
• Jaspal S. Sandhu, Design Researcher, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA
• Joel Selanikio, co-Founder and Director, Datadyne.org, USA
• Garance Upham, General Secretary, Direction, Safe Observer International, France

Additional participants – from the audience:

• Elmer Zelaya – Fundación Chica/Nicaragua
• Timothy Dye – SUNY Upstate Medical School/USA
• Jane Kengeya – WHO
• Oyewale Tomori – Redeemer’s University/Nigeria
• Lishandu/Zambia (full name/affiliation not available)
• Vargas/USA (full name/affiliation not available)

Summary:

1. Diverse users and uses: The speakers presented a variety of mHealth/eHealth applications involving a wide variety of users, including both the health workforce and community members, e.g. educating teenagers about HIV/AIDS in South Africa (O’Neill), Internet access in western Kenya to improve uptake of HIV VCT (Salmen), mobile emergency response systems in Aceh (Chib), electronic IMCI in Tanzania (Brown), text-based health education and health service promotion in Uganda (Hoefman), training for health workers as a downloadable game package for phones in Kenya (Ram), telemedicine to improve the skills of health workers at primary levels in Brazil (Bavaresco), delivery of health information to communities in Chile (Labarca), a general set of tools for mobile data collection being used worldwide (Selanikio), and handheld computers to support rural healthcare delivery in Mongolia (Sandhu).
2. mHealth/eHealth is about enabling access: A common theme across diverse applications was that information and communication technologies are being used to enable access to health information and services in places where access is difficult because of remoteness and/or cost.
3. Coordination among the various players: Coordination among donors and projects is necessary to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and to share what works. This is the role of the mHealth Alliance, supported by Rockefeller Foundation among others (Brown). While there were questions from the program side as to what data donors want (Chib), there was a simultaneous sentiment that donors need “stepwise” guidance (al-Shorbaji).
4. De-emphasizing technology: The mHealth Alliance has recently been discussing development of an “mHealth Toolkit”, to provide a common technical architecture and platform for those planning to implement mHealth programs (Brown). The existence of free technology platforms – in this case DataDyne’s tool – enables programs to focus on developing health content (Labarca). It is important to have a generalizable tool, as DataDyne has done, that can be used by anyone; if individual governments must approve technology “you’ve lost the battle” (Selanikio). Programs must focus on understanding people and applications more than technology; in response to a question from Dye about the use of ethnography in this field, three examples were given: ethnography of teen chat rooms in South Africa (O’Neill), multi-year ethnographic fieldwork as the basis for the program in western Kenya (Salmen), and design ethnography of the information management practices of rural health workers in Mongolia (Sandhu).
5. Defining good evaluation: There are challenges to seeing change in population health outcomes (Chib). It is difficult to measure behavior change (Hoefman) and to evaluate systems that provide health content to people (Labarca). Ethnography should be considered more seriously as a complementary evaluation strategy in mHealth (Sandhu). In evaluation, the metrics should match the intervention – mHealth is another intervention; in addition, we want to see the unintended effects of technology (Ram).
6. New modalities of engaging people: Mobile phones enable fundamentally new ways of engaging with people. As opposed to mass communication that is often used in social marketing, phones allow for interpersonal communication that can be tailored and cost-effective (O’Neill). There are two modalities, moving messages out to people and demand-driven services, where people demand the information that they need (Ram). Salmen lent his support to the importance of demand-driven services and argued that phones will bring more equity. This is all supporting the shift to citizen-centered healthcare (Mechael).
7. Cautions moving forward: In natural disasters, the cellular network is the first to go (Zelaya). An open question: Who owns the data? (al-Shorbaji). Nobody is thinking about “real sustainability” (Adebola). Reliable phone networks are a challenge (Lishandu). We should be careful that we don’t become too dependent on one tool (al-Shorbaji).
8. Need to think more creatively: We should be bolder with approaches; if we are, poor countries “could leapfrog” in health and development terms (Upham). Many of the applications discussed focused on SMS and telephony capabilities; we should think about leveraging more advanced capabilities of mobile phones (Kengeya).
9. Who should design technology? There is an assumption that Africans cannot develop software, but that is not true (Adebola). DataDyne software was already developed by Africans (Selanikio). Africans should develop software, but they shouldn’t redesign what has already been built (Brown).

Conclusions/Recommendations:

1. There is a need for increased knowledge-sharing about mHealth/eHealth within the global health community. This should definitely include policymakers. As Prof. Tomori elegantly stated, while we are thinking about how to reach remote populations, we should think about “hard-to-reach” African leaders.
2. While there was discussion of both eHealth and mHealth, the discussion focused primarily on the latter.
3. There is a need for a continuing dialogue about mHealth. It is unrealistic to expect policy recommendations to come out of this meeting given the state of the field (many open issues) and the limited engagement at the meeting.
4. Major mHealth topics to be discussed at future meetings: definitions; standards, including how to conduct evaluation; and successes and failures from the field.
5. The value of the meeting was threefold: (1) it helped extend the network of those working in mHealth; (2) it provided those outside the field with an understanding of the opportunities and challenges of using mobile phones to improve population health; and (3) it placed a much-needed emphasis on prioritizing people and applications over technology.
6. Mechael suggested reviving the Mobile Metrics and Evaluation Group as a means of maintaining an active mHealth community discussion outside of official meetings.

Other observations:

1. The fishbowl format was successful in eliciting relevant commentary from a large group of speakers as well as from the audience. Time was an issue, though, as several invited speakers only spoke once and several audience members had comments or questions that they were unable to share.
2. One key issue that was not explored – as I stated at the end of the session – was the link between social entrepreneurship and mHealth. This is especially relevant to issues of demand, incentivization, and sustainability.
3. There is a need for an ongoing discussion of these issues at Forum 2010 and beyond – while the conversation will continue in other settings, the Global Forum for Health Research should continue to be involved because of its systems focus, its emphasis on actionable research, and the unique mix of parties (policymakers, donors, implementers) it brings together.

The Global Forum for Health Research Forum 2009: Innovating for the Health of All took place in Havana, Cuba from 16-20 November. I was in Jamaica the week following the conference and completely offline. Now that I’m back in the U.S., I’m planning at least two more posts about Forum 2009. This is the fourth in a series of posts from the conference.

In early 2009, Oxfam released a report Blind Optimism critical of the private sector’s role in healthcare in poor countries. It drew attention to the cause of those who believe that any private involvement in healthcare in these countries is harmful. The arguments, evidence, and position of the report were flawed in numerous ways; sound responses to the report were provided by April Harding and the World Bank:

• Oxfam — This Is Not How to Help the Poor
• World Bank responds to new Oxfam health report

The reasonable conclusion one would come to from working in the field and from studying health systems is that a mix of private and public approaches will be most effective – and that the need for different approaches should be dictated by local context. Ideological extremism – pro-private or pro-public – doesn’t serve anyone, most especially the people who need access to health.

At Forum 2009, there was much stronger representation of the private sector than at the previous meetings. In addition to pharma and biotech, there were several sessions and plenary speakers dedicated to talking social entrepreneurship. One of these speakers was Al Hammond, Senior Entrepreneur-in-Residence at Ashoka. Al spoke during Wednesday’s plenary - Enhancing national environment for innovation: perspectives on low- and middle-income countries (TropIKA.net post about the session) – about Ashoka’s Healthcare for All pilot Punjab, India.

During Q&A Claudio Schuftan of the People’s Health Movement criticized Dr. Hammond and Ashok [sic] for: (1) bringing electronics to people where there is no electricity or way to repair devices, (2) supporting the interests of multinational corporations, and (3) making people dependent on products. Dr. Hammond began his response by saying, “We are aware that there is hostility towards private sector approaches”. He explained that they use market approaches to achieve efficiency and that all the programs he presented are social enterprises started by NGOs. Based on the success of the three pilots so far, the Punjabi government has requested 600 additional units. “Take what you will from that”, he ended.

Dr. Schuftan’s comments are well-aligned with the Blind Optimism ideology. Such comments attempt to polarize policymakers, donors, and implementers. In doing so, they actually keep us from thinking critically about the private sector and social entrepreneurship. Fortunately, this was not the overall tone of the meeting.

At the end of a session examining the role of governmental policy in supporting social entrepreneurship, Julius Mugwagwa of the Open University (UK) asked a question about the “backlash” that might occur if something went very wrong with one of these social entrepreneurial models. This is the type of balanced discussion we really need.

“What I really want to know is: are things getting better or are they getting worse?” – Laurie Anderson

Driving back from the Lesotho border, my eye caught the last brilliant light of the day on a young man carrying wood he had gathered for the fire. I thought back to the teenagers who guard cows all day, of the women waiting, waiting by the side of the road, sitting in the tall grass for hours with small children in the hot sun, waiting for a lift.

And in a world where anything is possible for some of us, is that really true for all of us?

Yes, we can now have video night in Kathmandu, but television only allows you to receive. The real catalyst is the internet, where you become a global citizen – you can learn and participate and create.

You can always just read the news to fall headlong into THINGS THAT ARE GETTING WORSE: “Dubai Debt Woes Raise Fear of Wider Problem”, “Traumatized Russians View Their Dead After Train Bombing”, “Afghans Detail Detention in ‘Black Jail’ at U.S. Base”.

But what the soul needs to live is hope, and dreams.

Innovation Journalism brings us ideas that can change the world by reporting on people, processes and practices of innovators, as well as risks and opportunities. It is a ‘horizontal’ beat, reaching across politics, technology, health et al to report on how innovations arise, and helps shape our future by giving us new language to talk about new ideas.

Crowdsourcing is harnessed brilliantly by Innocentive, the innovation marketplace, where Seekers pose challenges they are having difficulty solving on the internet. A stunning 50% of these questions are successfully solved, and Innocentive has just publicized a study on how successful Solvers tackle problems – which can help us all problem solve better!

But what if you live in rural Uganda, and the roots of your cassavas are rotting? Question Box to the rescue! You can ask a question in your own language that can be answered by someone with access to research, the internet and a question archive informed by local knowledge. If you want to sell those cassavas in Ghana you can text TradeNet (and in Zambia, too) to get the current market prices, so you don’t sell yourself short.

In Mozambique, Village Reach decided to extend services to the last mile.. all people should have access to essential medicines, and they decided to bring in energy sources to preserve the vaccine cold chain. By creating an energy market, now fishermen could refrigerate their catch, and the entire local economy improved.

But how to create social change? We can improve the essentials of life, but to start movements, we must collaborate. Witness the effect of Twitter on the Iranian elections. My cousin’s post on Facebook alerted me to Open Access Week, which encourages the immediate sharing of published research results with everyone, everywhere, for the advancement of science and society. But social change must also come from the grassroots, like City Year, which brings young people together for a year of citizen service, to find their place in the world, and to break down the barriers of race, class and education to change our future. Nelson Mandela saw the potential of these young leaders when he visited Seattle, and asked City Year to come to South Africa to help heal the country. But it shouldn’t be up to one person to spread the word.

Ideas this good shouldn’t be kept to ourselves, they should be shared. And then we can say, “Yes, things ARE getting better.”

Ashoka: Innovators for the Public are hosting Tech 4 Society, a conference exploring technology, invention and social change, in Hyderabad, India, in February 2009. Find out more about the conference here. This blog post is an entry in their competition to find the official blogger to travel to and cover the event.

Just happened upon a great discussion about making data make sense quickly on the Innovation in Evaluation Blog over at good.is

What happens when we put people at the center of evaluation (as Jocelyn Wyatt puts it)? In this context, it means recognizing that people are preoccupied with more important tasks than spending long amounts of time in front of dashboards and data visualizations.

This is true in any setting, and in our case it was driving. The role of visualization should not be to demand full attention, but to support the priority task and improve it through feedback loops. The challenge is not just to display how you are doing right now, but also to figure out how you could do better. So, what does this mean for the visualization itself?

Every form of visualization should tell a story. Unfortunately there is limited attention and time to process all the stories. So the gist of the story, or its immediate impact, should be visible right away. The term I like to use for this principle is “glanceability.” What does a visualization tell us before we take time to analyze it? I invite you to look at the following chart and image for 10 seconds each and compare. What did you see? What did you feel?

Modified from Azar Askin’s reproduction of a poster by Muenster Planning Office, Germany

A followup post talks about understanding how data is presented. How can you tell what is fact and what is fiction? What basic questions should you ask of the graph? How do you know if you are being taken for a ride?

Super-cool. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go curl up with some of the other posts here – How Can We Measure What’s Most Meaningful? and In Non-Profit World, Numbers Don’t Tell the Full Story.. (something a friend of mine always used to tell me).

Read all about it! @ Innovation in Evaluation.

Nota bene: These are a few highlights from CGI – please do add your inspirations/ideas in the comments!

Clinton Global Initiative – Making things happen through Commitments

Action speaks louder than words. At CGI, you’ve got to commit – and that has an amazing impact.

What will your commitment be?

CGI was the birthplace, in past years, of projects like Matt Damon’s water program (water.org, expanding this year to Haiti), the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women Initiative, and so many more. In the five years of CGI, there have been 1,400 commitments made (participants are required to make commitments to existing projects or commit to creating new projects), valued at $46 billion dollars, and impacting the lives of 200 million people in 150 countries. This year’s meeting will give birth to 30 more of these programs – more by Andrew Mersman over at Passport Magazine/ Change by Doing blog.

Check out CGI Commitments here.

Innovation!

Business Week highlighted innovation as a top priority for the global economy, and President Obama announced a new strategy for innovation: A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Towards Sustainable Growth and Quality Jobs. Download white paper.

Judith Rodin of the Rockefeller Foundation identified innovation strategies that could be applied to social problems – user-driven innovation, crowd sourcing and collaborative competitions reported here by Alexandra Cheney at Fast Company.  And Innovate Today: 8 Ways Business can End Poverty - superb post by Steve Enders over at tonic.

A few people – including Muhammed Yunus and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of the World Bank at CGI had an Innovation Wish List. Yunus talked about the edible yogurt pot, and Judith Rodin announced a new initiative to help the poor – the Global Impact Investing Network. This gets my vote for one of the most exciting developments to come out of CGI – read the Economist article.

Investing in Women and Girls

Women make up half of the world’s population, but do 2/3 of the world’s work, produce 50% world’s food, earn 10% world’s income, own 1% of world’s property.

Read the rest of this entry »

This year’s Clinton Global Initiative takes place from 22 – 25 September 2009, where heads of state, government and business leaders, scholars, and NGO directors work together to analyze, discuss, and debate possible solutions to urgent global issues. Each participant is then asked to take action on one or more issues by making a Commitment to Action.

The Economist calls the meeting ‘an important part of the global elite’s calendar’, so join online and watch the live webcast!

As noted in our post on Girls Count: The Girl Effect, one of the major themes this year is Investing in Girls and Women. The four focus areas are Innovation, Human Capital, Infrastructure, and Equitable Futures.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mayo Clinic, Global Health and Design Thinking. You might be wondering what those three terms have to do with each together. This is my partial recap on time spent at the Mayo Clinic this past week where I saw one potential vision of what the future of healthcare might look like. It was a great privellege to hang out at the Mayo Clinic for what was the best conference I have attended in a long long time or maybe ever (Amy Tenderich at Diabetes Mine also has a recap that I encourage you to read). The Mayo Center for Innovation hosted a TED style event – Transform, a collaborative symposium on innovations in health care experience and delivery, all the videos are online (highly recommended viewing). It is going to take me a few months to digest what happened there and wrap my mind around everything I heard. There were over 430 people from 23 states, 7 countries and over 1,350 tweets. The caliber and just genuine niceness of every person I interacted with was on some other level, the conversations were rich, deep and thoughtful. The conference organizers *created an open purposeful environment* that led to an incredible experience. The folks at Mayo certainly shaped and designed a great space to achieve the symposium goals (this all reminded me of the Winston Churchill quote – “We shape our buildings and afterwards, our buildings shape us”).  Let me stop before you think I have joined a cult. The direct connection to global health here – it was discussed by keynote speakers and my first tweet from Mayo was “this place reminds me of Aravind (Aravind Eye Care System). Jaspal, Mahad and I have written several articles and cases studies on Aravind and I continue to believe it is a premiere model for innovation and care delivery. More on this in a bit.

The Global Health Convergence: “Design Thinking” and Innovation
There were many things that made this event great, however, in terms of extending your horizons and making you think, one of the most refreshing things was to see some convergence of disciplines and people from a variety of backgrounds. This is very hard to do and cannot be underrated. We all live in a sea of fragmentation,  in systems, in professions and fragmentation in how we solve problems. This is even reflected on a micro level – look at the mainstream peer reviewed journals in healthcare where you see severe fragmentation amongst the physician, nursing and pharmacy focused journals (some of this is for good reasons and some of it’s not). This conference was in part about ditching that fragmentation and about a convergence of ideas, people and relationships working collaboratively. In addition to innovative projects, new models of delivering care and how the process of innovation can be conceptualized, managed, and enabled was discussed. Much of this was encompassed under the umbrella of Design Thinking (innovating and problem solving using various methods). Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, was a headliner on this front and re-emphasized a call for design to big, an ethic of design for social impact/change, which Jaspal and I have covered on this blog before (see our previous post – 8 Links for Design and Global Health).

If you were too look at the methods of design thinking you would see an amalgamation and convergence of mostly existing methods from a variety of disciplines (from engineering to ethnography to epidemiology to psychology to health services research to name a few examples). As Tim Brown said in his talk: “Design thinking begins with integrative thinking which is the ability to hold opposing constraints and opposing ideas and from those create  new solutions…this means balancing societal needs (desirability) with what’s possible (feasibility) and what’s sustainable (viability)“. When Tim Brown said “Design should not be left in the hand of designers” he hit the nail on the head – design thinking can be incorporated by non-”designers” to help innovate and solve problems. What we do has to be a participatory, collaborative effort. Tim Brown wrote more about this participatory perspective (How to Design a Participatory System in a post crisis economy world). There are many critically important reasons why this is a key factor, one of which goes back to Paulo Freirean educational tenets – people who participate in their own education, become engaged in the transformation of their own world. The other reason is because even though as brilliant as Tim Brown is, (and all the people working at organizations like his) he doesn’t have all the answers, or even the correct ones (read his other piece at FastCompany on HSAs where his point is highly debatable about the solution and at best has over simplified the problem).

The bottom line that I took away is that we need more of a participatory system, we should be open to new ways of approaching problems (“design thinking”) and we can provide some structure to the process of innovation. Besides design thinking the other major theme I want to point to is global health – as I said above in the keynote presentations global health made an apperance. Both Clay Christensen and Tim Brown mentioned the Aravind Eye Care System and Jaspal spoke entirely about global health. We have said on this blog before that there are many lessons that can be learned from outside our system where innovation is taking place due to extreme necessity, it’s not a choice (a lot of this is taking place over the web and with mHealth – mobile phones for health). In Global Health, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of innovative experiments going on using a wide area of technology (devices, drugs, the web, mobile phones, etc.), however, how we track these experiments, talk about failure, and share what has been learned seems to be highly inefficient and lacking.  We have covered a lot of this ground over the past three years, the easiest summary of examples can be found in this post:

42 “Extremely affordable” Innovations in Global Health

Clay C, Tim B, and Jaspal all pointed to global health as a place we can learn from. While there are some serious limitations, there is a ton to learn from the use of mobile phones in developing countries and how that might apply here – because overseas usage of phones is far beyond what is being done in the US. The other area to keep an eye on is chronic diseases. In some places, there is going to be an explosion of chronic conditions and new models will have to be devised to handle that tidal wave. I would love to see Amy Tenderich and her community do a brainstorming session on design for diabetes in developing countries. On this front see two previous posts:

1. Reverse South to North innovation – Borrowing innovation: health services, financial services, and clean tech
2. A massive wave of chronic disease in India and China

Let me leave you on a note of caution, a “design thinking” approach (remember using existing methods) can offer some powerful alternatives. However, there can also be something seductive about design thinking and a rapid approach (we’ve cautioned this on the graphics/visual side before). If you fall into that seduction, then this is just a fad for you, it’s on us to be rigorous, thoughtful and corrective when need be:

“The myth of innovation is that brilliant ideas leap fully formed from the minds of geniuses. The reality is that most innovations come from a process of rigorous examination through which great ideas are identified and developed before being realized as new offerings and capabilities.” IDEO website.

I have many more thoughts on this, if I get the time I’ll jot down a few more notes and quotes from the conference, in the meantime, it is well worth watching the videos from Transform.

“Women hold up half the sky,” says the Chinese proverb, but in most of the world women are second class citizens – “girls are uneducated and women marginalized, and it’s not an accident that those same countries are disproportionately mired in poverty and riven by fundamentalism and chaos.” If girls and women cannot reach their full potential, then we as a world cannot either. In this century, the great moral imperative is empowering the women of the world, write Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn in an impassioned article in the New York Times Magazine special issue on Saving the World’s Women

Investing in girls and women is the new focus of foreign policy. The brilliant Girl Effect video and New York Times special were based on the report Girls Count: A Global Investment and Action Agenda by Ruth Levine and colleagues from the Center for Global Development, who are releasing a report on the global health agenda for adolescent girls today. See here for Ruth Levine’s reflections on the NYT article. And, the Clinton Global Initiative is dedicating its annual conference starting on 22 September to the issue (join online on the webcast or podcasts).