# Principles of Product Design in Developing Countries
## Results
### Communicating Ideas
#### Repair and Maintenance  
So-called 'Jugaad' (_dev-gard_) solutions were the most common fixes to problems that arose. These solutions are typically ad hoc by people the locals refer to as 'barefoot engineers'. The solutions are innovative and tend to achieve a minimum level of functionality. One such example was using a hacksaw blade (with no handle) to tap a thread into a PVC pipe used for a water heating system. A period of unexpected cold had burst one of the pipe fixtures and it was critical to repair the system. The tapped thread lacked the required precision to fit in the fixture and subsequent shaving using a shard of window glass was undertaken. The shaving attempt also failed, at which point the PVC was heated using a candle and forced into the fixture. Water was run through the piping and no leaking occurred. When breakages in a system occurred, it was more feasible to solve the problem using what was readily available than to get expert advice or waiting for the appropriate tools. The necessity to solve problems without external input has driven members of the community to develop impressive capacities for adaptation and innovation. This innovation is directed at solving problems within the resource-constraints imposed by the situation. Also evident is the adaptability of solution strategies: people did not persevere with a failing strategy, but instead innovated a new approach and tried that. All of this requires cognitive abilities to create and self-evaluate progress, psychological abilities of personal agency and self-efficacy, and physical skills of craftsmanship. Consequently, although the level of technological innovation was not high, the intellectual innovation was. The corollary is that people in developing countries innovate in ways that may be overlooked when sophistication of technology is taken as the key metric of innovation. When working with mud, nothing is an irreversible problem. Any defects or damage done can be fixed with application of more mud. Cracks can be joined. Extra width can be added, excess can be removed. The same frugal mentality was extended to working with other materials to make use of everything. Examples are detailed below:  
* Wood that snapped was reinforced at the break so it could be reused
* Metal that was damaged or scrapped by someone else was bashed into shape for continued use. No edge was deemed too rough to be unusableShirts and blankets that were worn out beyond repair were used with rocks as valves for the canals to provide water control for field irrigation  
This categorization of repairaability leads to development principles 2.3 and 2.6 as follow. **Deployment Principle 2.3: Design for lifespan reliability rather than optimal efficiency**  
Robust materials should be used wherever the option exists. It is more useful in this context to provide a long-lasting design with reduced efficiency than an increased efficiency design that is less robust. New product failure in rural DC markets are susceptible to a lack of local service networks and robust design features are the most important factor achieving successful implementation [26]. **Deployment Principle 2.6: Acknowledge the local perception towards repurposing materials to fix system failure points**  
The most probable failure points of a system should be identified to give some idea of how these will be fixed by the locals. Designing for ease of cleaning and for non-destructive replacement of parts is critical. Moving parts add extra degrees of complexity that will be harder to reproduce with limited resources and more difficult to remedy later when they fail. Hence, moving parts should be avoided when possible. It has to be assumed that any repair work on a damaged system will be carried out with very limited access to tools. Failure points of a design should be considered on the basis of how they are likely to be repaired.