Food for Thought: I’ve been keeping an eye on McKinsey Quarterly to see what business is seeing as spaces for innovation, just to keep my finger on the pulse.

The future is the great unknown – “I never think of the future,” Albert Einstein once observed. “It comes soon enough.” Well, the prevailing winds are strong forces, and why not use them to shape your course?

“Confronted by the economic, social, and technological forces shaping the global business landscape, most managers assume that their ability to sculpt the future is minimal. But systematically spotting and acting on emerging trends [that are reshaping business] helps companies to capture market opportunities, test risks, and spur innovations. A McKinsey team that explored the key global trends defining the coming era has identified five forces, or “crucibles,” where the stresses and tensions will be greatest and thus offer the richest opportunities for corporate strategies.”

cool.. luxuriate in these ideas here at Global Forces home.

Why Trendwatching could save your business:

McKinsey director Peter Bisson explains the value behind tracking those global forces and how to build them into corporate strategy. check it out

But what really caught my eye today and that I had to post was this:

10 Tech Business Trends to Watch

• Distributed cocreation moves into the mainstream
• Making the network the organization
• Collaboration at scale
• The growing ‘Internet of Things’
• Experimentation and big data
• Wiring for a sustainable world
• Imagining anything as a service
• The age of the multisided business model
• Innovating from the bottom of the pyramid
• Producing public good on the grid

read all about it here and listen to podcasts of experts.

What do you think? Let’s discuss how these ideas could impact public health..

The answer is yes if you ask Carina Lupica.

Carina is Executive Director of Fundación Observatorio de la Maternidad (OM), an entrant in this year’s Healthy Mothers, Strong World competition. The competition, jointly sponsored by Ashoka and the Maternal Health Task Force, seeks to identify maternal health innovations from around the world. OM is a globally unique organization that is dedicated to using data as a policy advocacy tool for maternal health in Argentina.

Argentina’s maternal mortality ratio (MMR) – 44 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2007 – is much lower than high maternal mortality countries, but it is high when compared to other national indicators (Ramos et al., WHO Bulletin, 2007). In 2007, OM identified a lack of quality data focused on maternal health issues as a key gap in Argentina. OM has responded to this gap by aggregating data from various sources to develop a comprehensive understanding of the maternal health landscape in Argentina. OM maintains a holistic view of maternal health, including environmental factors and social issues, such as access to clean drinking water and the increasing frequency of single mothers.

As Carina writes by email, “This is brand new information that contributes to a complete diagnosis of the state of motherhood, which constitutes the necessary grounds for any public policy proposal.”

The organization’s focus on policymakers is having a real and significant impact. In 2009, OM research helped to pass national law 1914-D-2009: Universal Payments to Children and Adolescents (link in Spanish), a conditional cash transfer program that aims to reduce poverty and improve family health. This program was based on OM research showing that poorer mothers are more likely to contribute a higher share of household income, 72.5% in the lowest income group.

Just this month the Lancet published a study that estimated that there were 343,000 maternal deaths in 2008. Included in this study were detailed estimates for individual countries, including success stories such as China, Egypt, and Bolivia. Study lead Christopher Murray remarks, ”Finding out why a country such as Egypt has had such enormous success in driving down the number of women dying from pregnancy-related causes could enable us to export that success to countries that have been lagging behind.” As with OM, this comment suggests that better data can result in better maternal and child health.

Can better data save the lives of mothers? Absolutely.

The important question now is this: Can the OM model be replicated globally?

The mission statement from Medicall’s site (chem’em out here):

Proveer atención médica de acceso inmediato, presencial y a distancia, a través de un sistema de membresías y una red de proveedores médicos, con calidad y descuentos garantizados, e incorporando conocimientos y tecnologías vanguardistas.

Translation (forgive my Spanish translation…it’s been a while): To provide immediate and live medical attention at a distance through a membership system and a network of medical providers with quality and guaranteed discounts and incorporating knowledge and advanced technologies.

The skinny:

- 1 million households subsribe

- 90,000 calls per month

- 62% of calls are resolved over the phone

- $5/month/household

Thanks Ashsish for passing along the info.

It’s really great to see so much effort being channeled towards innovation in international maternal and child health. The text4baby service was launched just one month ago. Our last post was about a USAID-supported mHealth eConference for maternal and child health. This post is about a maternal health innovations competition put on by Ashoka.

There are now nine days left to enter the Healthy Mothers, Strong World competition, billed as THE NEXT GENERATION OF IDEAS FOR MATERNAL HEALTH. The best innovations will be awarded prizes totaling US$600,000. More information is available at the competition website.

Two early entry prizes have already been awarded. One of the prizes went to Aadharbhut Prasuti Sewa Kendra, a privately-run birthing center led by nurse-midwives in Nepal. It is described “the first and only initiative taken by Nepalese nurses in a low resource setting, where they have never ever taken such a step independently”. The other prize went to Maternova, an portal for innovations in maternal and neonatal health that we first reported on in November 2008.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The New National Health Plan Is Texting (science.slashdot.org)

Kopernik: Connecting Innovative Technologies with Poor Communities
We are lucky to have a guest post today by Ewa and people like her in general who are doing what they can for global health. She and her team have just launched a new web platform connecting you with poor communities and technologies that might be needed there via an online store. I cannot emphasize enough that is this is long long overdue and that we should all be embarrassed that this hasn’t happened before. So major kudos to Ewa and her team for pulling this platform together and giving it a shot. Please visit their website and spread the word (you can also read there Tech for development blog here):

Guest Post by Ewa Wojkowska, a former UN worker, is the co-founder of TheKopernik.org.
As the rubble is cleared in Haiti, as a measure of stability comes to Sudan, as Sri Lanka holds a bitter peace and as Burundi faces its first election in the wake of massive civil war, a new development opportunity presents in some of the world’s poorest and most troubled places.

Online social entrepreneurship for the poor is one of the most compelling ways to fight poverty—and to reshape our development practices. Examples like Kiva and Global Giving are already leading the way, linking people anywhere in the world to better assistance and real results. The internet has created the opportunity for a transparent virtual marketplace: communities in developing countries identify their local needs, individuals anywhere in the world directly respond. Today our site—www.thekopernik.org—joins the force, connecting breakthrough technology to the poor through an online marketplace. It’s a simple, direct idea for real assistance to people in need.

Here’s our idea: Registered local organizations provide short proposals explaining their needs—simple water filtration in Freetown, Sierra Leone, self-adjusting eyeglasses in Manado, Indonesia. Any visitor to the site, anywhere in the world, can review the proposals and make donations to fund the plan of his or her choice. We connect these breakthrough technologies—water filters and drums, self-adjusting eye glasses, and solar lights, just to name a few—to the people who need them most.

What sets us apart is the focus on technology and a review mechanism for local organizations, or ‘technology seekers’, to rate the products. By including a feedback mechanism on the effectiveness of these technologies, Kopernik gives voice and choice to local communities and organizations – simple elements that are so frequently missed in international development efforts. We’re looking to take out the delays and to spark new ideas in international aid, one click at a time.We believe this is the new face of development.

If more people everywhere have safe, unfettered access to clean water, more efficient means of transporting that water, clear eyesight, and reliable light, how would their choices change? How would they see the world and their place in it? What could their empowerment achieve?

We now have the technology to improve everyone’s lives, and the internet is the window to get these life-changing technologies into people’s hands, directly and efficiently. We’re building a resource that those in need can access for themselves.

Ewa Wojkowska, a former UN worker, is the co-founder of Kopernik.org. The website launched this past week.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Kopernik Sells Technology To The Developing World (techstartups.com)
• Sierra Leone link to India medics (news.bbc.co.uk)

Cross post by Alex from over at Tales of Water in Africa:

Over the last year or so, I’ve encountered a tremendous push for innovation in the fields of development and disaster relief. Organizations big and small are looking for the ideas that will catapult millions of people out of poverty. The next clever gadgets that will cheaply and quickly filter water, prevent malaria, and stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. These ideas are almost by definition just over the horizon – because once an idea has been around for a few months, it’s not that innovative anymore.

And so what happens to those innovative ideas? What happens when the clever creator has received his fellowship grant and begins to work out the tricky details? From what I’ve seen, the funding organizations have moved on to the next ‘innovation’ and left the creator to work out the Boring Stuff on their own. My experience in Africa has pointed to the Boring Truth – 90% of what’s needed is not innovation but ‘capacity building’ – training, logistics, and equipment purchases. Building systems that can scale up to help thousands more people.

Take for example the work my fiancée does in health care. She is deploying an innovative new computer and mobile phone-based system to track and process health claim forms. It promises to reduce overhead and errors, increasing the rate at which health providers are reimbursed by funding agencies such as KFW (the German development bank). And yet the health providers she partners with, while supportive of her new claims system, are more excited by the equipment and training she is giving as part of the research. They’re excited about the opportunity to purchase laptops, check email, and learn how to track patients on Excel. And they want to do it on laptops, not smart-phones, as are being so heavily touted in development circles. They want to do things like we do in developed countries. Given the option, they’re taking the boring stuff before the innovative.

To a large extent I’ve found the same to be true in the work I do with water. The basic work – building gravity flow systems – has been done since the Romans! It’s not exactly cutting-edge technology. But the great improvements are coming from the Boring Stuff – GPS devices to mark pipe and tank locations. Creating a database to manage the hunt for new sources of water. These behind the scenes changes are making it much easier to build and manage a water system.

But unfortunately the Boring Stuff isn’t sexy enough to get funding. The truth is, nobody wants to fund it because they can’t put their names on it. The funding organizations can’t brag to their peers and donors about the Boring Stuff – “look we gave $10,000 to train X health practitioners on how to enter and process data!” But when they put out $10,000 to fund the Next Big Thing, out come the press, book agents, and dollars.

This trend points to a glaring fact – we in the developed world are more interested in creating a system that makes us feel good rather than creating a system that provides the resources people in the developing world need to succeed. And I will be the first to confess of this – I want to feel good about myself just as much as anyone else.

Now, all this is not to say that innovation is inherently bad – far from it. It is only to say that innovation should not be the absolute focus, or even the primary focus. We need to support the Boring Stuff, the physical and educational infrastructure that will be the foundation on which the vast majority of people are lifted out of poverty.

Related articles by Zemanta

• United Nations population data for every country in the world (guardian.co.uk)
• The Gates Foundation’s Capitalist Manifesto (trueslant.com)
• Gates Foundation Pledges $35 Million for Banking Innovation (innovationtoronto.com)
• A conversation with Bill Gates (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

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.