The Praxis of Systems Thinking for Concurrent Design Space and Business Strategy Exploration

Rachel Dzombak, Chanakya Mehta, Khanjan Mehta, and Sven G. Bilén Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (HESE) Program

The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA Correspondence: khanjan@engr.psu.edu

Abstract—Systems thinking is a holistic approach to solving complex problems by considering every issue as part of a complex web of interconnected and interacting systems rather than independent issues with unrelated consequences. Such an approach forces attention on the bigger picture and wider processes of change rather than concentrating on discrete outputs at the individual task level. Systems thinking can be especially helpful in navigating the complexity and chaos inherent in technology-based social ventures in developing communities. Lack of clarity in the roles, responsibilities, and returns for the various stakeholders epitomizes this chaos and is a major contributor to the failure of such projects. The E-Spot canvas is a design space and business strategy exploration tool that facilitates group-thinking amongst stakeholders to match project resource requirements with money, time, sweat, and other equities that can be expended by them to sustain their project socially, economically, and environmentally. The canvas serves three roles: an educational tool for studying and practicing systems thinking; an entrepreneurial tool for developing equitable business and implementation strategies; and an ethical reflection tool for understanding motivations and incentives of various stakeholders and for making decisions that optimize short-term and long-term benefit and minimize the risk for everyone involved. This paper discusses the relevance of eight tenets of systems thinking—namely interdependence, holism, multifinality, equifinality, differentiation, regulation, abstraction, and leverage points—to technology-based social ventures from conceptual and practical perspectives. With the help of several examples, the paper describes how the E-Spot canvas operationalizes systems thinking to help identify appropriate stakeholders and determine the forms of equity they might offer towards fulfilling the overarching objectives of the venture while meeting their own needs.

Keywords—systems thinking, social entrepreneurship, business strategy, appropriate technology

I. INTRODUCTION The most distinctive aspect of social entrepreneurship is its

targeted audience, i.e., those that might be classified as marginalized, as well as its focus on actually implementing sustainable solutions to benefit those individuals and their communities [1]. Designing solutions for complex problems in resource-constrained contexts necessitates systems thinking and a trans-disciplinary approach to develop innovative and realistic solutions. Primary challenges for these projects are typically not as much on the technical side, but are related to the cultural, social, ethical, and business planning aspects, mostly during project implementation [2]. The key challenges

include designing and evaluating appropriate systems (as opposed to individual products); ensuring equity between the stakeholders; identifying marginalized stakeholders and engaging them in the project; understanding and managing power dynamics and privilege systems within communities; identifying and incentivizing champions; public relations; and business planning with non-cash equity. In essence, while the development of appropriate technologies from a systems perspective is important, it is not sufficient to the praxis of social entrepreneurship.

Technologies alone do not create impactful change in developing countries. Strategic and appropriate business models that enable growth and financial viability must accompany transformative products. However, the implementation of such entrepreneurial ventures is rarely straightforward and challenges are only further exacerbated when working in resource-constrained contexts [3]. Applying a systems approach to entrepreneurial ventures intended to address global challenges infuses organization into an inherently chaotic environment. The chaos arises from the number of stakeholders that have direct and indirect influence over a project’s realization. With so many stakeholders, from community members to international agencies, local governments, and NGOs, projects often become plagued by a lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities. The inability to allocate project ownership to local stakeholders can also inhibit a venture’s lifespan. No matter what level of dedication an international agency has, the users of a technology need to have a vested interest in seeing the venture succeed. This need for community interest raises questions regarding mutual benefit. What benefits can stakeholders derive from engaging in this endeavor? How can an entrepreneur show both short- and long-term benefits throughout their implementation process? In developing country contexts, the implementation process is as important as the product itself. The authors see the local people as the determiners of successful, sustainable projects. The outsiders who come to “help” can, and should, fulfill only a minimal role. Those foreign to the community may hold altruistic or productive intentions; however they often fail to identify the most salient barriers to sustainable value creation. “Sticky information” or contextual intricacies can reveal mechanisms of actualizing sustainable projects and ways to overcome identified impediments in a systematic fashion. It is critical to find the optimum distribution of money, time, sweat , and other (hereafter referred to as MTSO) equity among the communities and partnering organizations in order

978-1-4799-2402-8/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 438 IEEE 2013 Global Humanitarian Technology Conference

to ensure sustainability. The search for equilibrium in this complex context necessitates a systems thinking approach.

This paper discusses the relationship between the tenets of systems thinking and overviews a tool called the Equilibrium Spot Canvas, which is used to map stakeholders with specific resources required to implement technology-based ventures in developing communities. The creation of the canvas was guided directly by the tenets of systems thinking and, as such, the canvas intrinsically manifests them. Although academics and practitioners in the field of development emphasize systems thinking, there is a dearth of practical and usable tools to integrate systems thinking in development projects. Our work focuses on bringing these tenets to life in a very practical manner. This article starts with a short discussion on the tenets of systems thinking followed by a description of the Equilibrium Spot Canvas. We discuss how each tenet exists within the canvas and explain why the canvas and the tenets of systems thinking are relevant to the implementation and success of these ventures.

II. SYSTEMS THINKING TENETS Systems thinking can be especially helpful in navigating the

complexity and chaos inherent in technology-based social ventures in developing communities. Lack of clarity in the roles, responsibilities and returns for the various stakeholders epitomizes this chaos and is a major contributor to the failure of such projects. By employing systems thinking, entrepreneurs can establish feedback mechanisms, ensure equity for all stakeholders, and enable system sustainability.

Social entrepreneurial ventures are inherently complex. Robust organization and feedback mechanisms are required to achieve stakeholder satisfaction [4]. The guiding tenets of systems thinking seek to ensure that ideas, products, or solutions are thought about as belonging to larger contexts, as opposed to being considered in isolation, unless a particular tenet requires the user to break down the larger system into its constituent components. This is necessary because the components of systems are interdependent and such parts cannot be understood except in relation to one another. Each aspect of a system exerts influence over the others. It is critical to differentiate between individual stakeholders and sub-systems within the larger system to better understand their relative functions and how they synergistically contribute to overarching goals. Dynamic systems exhibit holism wherein the whole of a system is usually greater than the sum of its constituent parts. If each aspect is working correctly, a multifinal system will be created wherein all component parts will be satisfying their own objectives while simultaneously contributing to the goals of the stakeholders and the overall system. There are often many different pathways for such win–win situations to come to fruition. Equifinality acknowledges the multiple trajectories that a system can follow to satisfy its objectives while the determination of which ones are optimal comes as a result of integrating regulatory mechanisms. Regulation entails employing feedback loops to ensure stressors and disturbances to the system are controlled, and mechanisms are put in place to

detect and address systemic breakdowns. Accountability mechanisms are also a form of regulation to ensure that stakeholders fulfill their previously agreed-upon responsibilities. It is important to note that regulatory mechanisms, in general, can be extremely varied and irregular. The goal of including them as a tenet of the canvas is to ensure a formal tool for accountability.

Enabling a system to achieve a higher equilibrium requires one to first analyze its potential for wider application and usage. Abstraction is the process of extracting a concept’s core elements, removing any dependence and connections to real world objects, and “generalizing it so that it has wider applications or matching among other abstract descriptions of equivalent phenomena.” [5] Although abstraction may seem to conflict with interdependence, it is the process of abstraction that allows interdependence to occur. That is, by understanding the value of the isolated system, the interdependent relationship of the system to its surroundings can be more easily studied. After analyzing the ways in which parts of a system are interdependent, one can use abstraction to reveal leverage points or parts of the system that can serve as catalysts for widespread scale or impact.

Systems thinking has significant implications for entrepreneurs attempting to start technology-based enterprises in developing communities. The tenets can guide an entrepreneur to develop solutions that transcend social, technical, and economic barriers by encouraging analysis of how a system fits into an existing context. Further, systems thinking can identify weak aspects of systems or places susceptible to disturbance. Ultimately, employing a systems approach to venture implementation can lead to stronger ventures more compatible with the needs and challenges of the resource-constrained environments. The Equilibrium Spot Canvas incorporates systems thinking to aid entrepreneurs in business planning and design space exploration. The next section describes how it facilitates the equitable distribution of limited resources to determine the optimal means of achieving sustained and equitable engagement amongst stakeholders.

III. THE EQUILIBRIUM SPOT CANVAS The Equilibrium Spot (henceforth referred to as the E-Spot)

Canvas is a tool to aid students, faculty, and practitioners in the study and practice of systems thinking as it relates to technology-based social ventures. A design space and business strategy exploration tool, the canvas facilitates group-thinking amongst stakeholders to match project resource requirements with MTSO equities that can be expended by them to sustain their project socially, economically, and environmentally. The canvas serves as an entrepreneurial tool for developing equitable business and implementation strategies. In addition it serves as an ethical reflection tool for understanding motivations and incentives of various stakeholders and making decisions that optimize short-term and long-term benefit and minimize the risk for everyone involved. Too often the implementation strategy is missing from venture development, ultimately preventing venture success. A particular strength of the canvas is its ability to employ systems thinking for the concurrent pursuit of perfectly-aligned design, business, and

Figure 1. Two-Level Business Plan

implementation strategies. The ultimate objective for the E-Spot Canvas is to develop “sustainable” projects. Sustainability, in this regard, refers to projects that are technologically appropriate, environmentally benign, socially acceptable, and economically sustainable. Projects should leverage resources that are affordable and accessible to the community where the venture will be implemented. The communities must have ownership of the project and a say in every aspect of its design, implementation, and sustenance. It is also important to ensure that people outside of the formal economy, i.e., those who have no money to pay for services, are included in the project.

Systems theory focuses on the relationships between parts. Rather than reducing an entity such as the human body into its parts or elements (e.g., organs or cells), systems theory focuses on the arrangement of, and relationships between, the parts and how they work together as a whole. The way the parts are organized and how they interact with each other determines the properties of that system. The behavior of the system is independent of the properties of the elements. Viewing and understanding phenomena in this way is referred to as a holistic approach. The application of these principles is crucial to the E-Spot Canvas and helps it in finding and tracking the optimum intersection between money, time, sweat, and other equities (e.g., credibility, contacts, etc.) contributed by the stakeholders.

Technology projects can be classified into at least three types: 1) infrastructure projects such as renewable energy systems, wastewater management systems, and community water filtration plants; 2) durable/long-term products such as large greenhouses, solar dryers, and donkey carts that are used repeatedly over time by a group of people; and 3) fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs) that are individually purchased and

used such as shampoo, chocolates, seedlings, and cell-phone credit. The E-Spot Canvas is concerned with infrastructure-based and durable/long term usage products that are shared by a number of stakeholders. For such products, as shown in Figure 1, a business plan is necessary for two entities: 1) the Level 1 business plan that focuses on the entity that manufactures the system and sells it to the communities and 2) the Level 2 business plan that focuses on how the community will afford and sustain the system. Osterwalder and Pigneur [6] have developed the Business Model Canvas, an easy-to-understand business model conceptualization tool. Osterwalder’s canvas helps develop Level 1 business plans whereas the E-Spot Canvas can be used to develop strategies for Level 2 business plans. The E-Spot Canvas provides a structured mechanism for integrated design space, business strategy, and implementation strategy exploration. The stakeholders for the Level 2 business plan may include, but are not limited to, community members, local business people, U.S. and foreign universities, U.S.-based and local funding organizations, microfinance institutions, etc.

To clarify this concept further, consider an NGO that designs and builds small-scale environmentally-friendly rainwater harvesting systems for use by communities. The firm needs to ascertain two things: that they will have a customer base to which they will be able to sell their product, and that their customers will be able to install and sustain the systems. The engineering firm will need a business plan to define how the manufacturing and selling of the rainwater harvesting systems will function. This Level 1 business plan would look and function similar to a conventional business plan for a technology company. The NGO will need to consider models of how the end-user(s) will purchase and sustain the system or examine how the product could be shared amongst groups and/or organizations. Pertinent considerations include: how can

individual customers afford the system? What options exist for accessing capital? How many families can a single system service? If a community of, say, five households buys this system, how will they pay for it? Will every household pay an equal share? What should be done if a certain household does not have the required financial contribution? Through what means would such households contribute? How will the system be maintained and who will pay for that? What happens if some families leave the place, or if more families move in? Are there any non-profits or faith-based organizations (like the local church) willing to contribute a certain amount? Will the contribution be on the capital expenses or will they help maintain it? What are the duties and expectations of all the involved stakeholders? The Level 2 business plan would contain answers to such questions. A fundamental hypothesis for this model is the criticality of balanced equity from all stakeholders, which brings with it pride and ownership in the system. The equity and ownership could also result in lower barriers for social challenges or personal vendettas to hinder optimal utilization of the product and, hence, further sustainability of the project. Without a realistic Level 2 business plan, the NGO cannot accomplish their sales goals, which in turn imperils their Level 1 business plan [7].

Stakeholder equities will be combinations of MTSO contributions. Ensuring equity can be thought of as finding the sweet spot between MTSO equity “arrangements” for all the stakeholders with appropriate returns. From an academic perspective, finding innovative methods to ensure equity requires students to have a thorough understanding of the social, economic, technological, and logistical issues related to the project, and can lead to deeper learning.

The E-Spot Canvas (Figure 2) is a tool used to design Level 2 business strategies for technology-based social ventures. Using the canvas enables the optimization of key resources and

ensures that a balance is struck between MTSO equities (credibility, contacts, etc.) inputted by any and all stakeholders. This is referred to as the “Equilibrium Spot”, or the E-Spot. The model will be used to locate the E-Spot for the implementation, sustainability, and scalability of the venture. A primary objective for the E-Spot Canvas is to calculate the MTSO equity required for the installation, sustainability, and scalability of the appropriate technology products. These equities are defined as:

• Money: Money or other material support; • Time: Time + non-labor intensive work; • Sweat: Time + labor-intensive work; and • Other equity: Knowledge, credibility, social capital, trust,

etc.

The initial design of the intended technology-based system should be completed prior to using the canvas. The canvas assumes consideration of locally-available materials, and the skills, expertise, and training capabilities within the community throughout the design process. If, however, a particular resource, whether material or human, must be acquired from outside, it should be distinctly noted within the canvas as a liability. Completion of the design subsequently mandates the development of the Bill of Materials, which may be distributed amongst the diverse forms of equity. In addition to the design and installation aspects, system creators should determine the failure modes of the system as well as the resources necessary to satisfy regular maintenance requirements. The failure analysis will inform the localization process as well as clarify the sustainability of the project. Project sustainability implies that attention is paid to end-of-life analysis, or how every item used in the system will be recycled after its lifetime. These might be items that are discarded after a regular maintenance cycle or when the entire system is decommissioned. The overarching goal of this canvas is to create a cradle-to-cradle

Figure 2. The E-Spot Canvas

design. Items that cannot be recycled should be identified as such, with specific instructions on how they can be discarded safely.

The design should be adapted to local materials and end-of-life considerations should be determined in an iterative manner between the design, failure analysis, and end-of-life analysis blocks. The localization might be done for a particular community or, more likely, for a region with similar resources and characteristics. Upon finalizing the design, entrepreneurs shift their focus to implementation strategies, subsequently moving towards the right side of the canvas. The E-Spot methodology assumes that a community assessment to understand the community’s needs, resources, and concerns was conducted and formed the basis for the design. However, stakeholders’ roles and influences (positive or negative) on the operation of the venture need to be formally identified. The goal is to understand who the stakeholders are, and define their capabilities and limitations. It is important to list the kinds of equities they can invest in the venture, and what their expectations are in return for their investment. Explicitly identifying these factors will help the stakeholders understand each other’s inherent capabilities and limitations and build trust over the longer term.

In addition to forming partnerships and building trust, evaluating local markets and trends both regionally and in the larger country context are essential for venture advancement. The focus of such analyses is the economics of sustaining the venture, a shared resource, in the intended community. The community is the largest stakeholder. The assumption is that there will be a (possibly non-cash) revenue stream from the system that will be used by the community to maintain the system and used for other valid community purposes. Other relevant economic factors include: average family income, saving ability, affordability of capital costs, ability to provide/seek informal loans, additional spending, and business growth opportunities. Identifying what equities can be shared by the community members for installation or maintenance and supply chain and distribution channels informs how the community might own the project in its entirety over time.

Delving deeper into social dynamics of the community to identify specific “power” relationships consequently reveals leverage points through social deconstruction. Deconstruction, in this context, refers to the multiple ways of analyzing social situations; an understanding of this multiplicity can help expose the workings of various power relationships within communities. Understanding the power dynamics can help to develop equity schemes that create value for everyone without reinforcing traditional winners and losers or destabilizing the power structure just to create new winners and losers. This analysis could be related to the distribution of power, money, gender roles, opinion leaders, tribal leaders, governmental authority figures, popular naysayers, religious leaders, etc. The leverage points lead to exposure of marginalized stakeholders and resources previously not considered.

After navigating the other blocks of the canvas, the E-Spot determination algorithms are employed to find the sweet spot between MTSO equities from various stakeholders against the backdrop of the economic and social context. The objective of

the E-Spot determination is to iterate the equity allocations in a participatory fashion until all aspects of the MTSO equity match; stakeholder analysis, social, and economic assessment have been accounted for; and all the stakeholders are satisfied by the equity match. The outcome of this step will result in a clear definition of roles, responsibilities, and potential benefits for all the stakeholders. The equity match must also be in harmony with the leverage points identified earlier. The leverage points will inform the equity match-ups and help identify additional tasks to be conducted during the implementation phase of the project to ensure project success. In some ventures there might be a need to trade the MTSO equities amongst the stakeholders. For example, a funding agency might refuse to pay for community member’s wages (so that they are not seen as employers) but be willing to subsidize or provide another object (e.g., batteries, LED lamps, food) that the community members would have to pay for otherwise. In this case, money is being traded for sweat and the object. This equity trade, when done collaboratively, would meet the needs and expectations of the stakeholders while maintaining equity between their contributions.

It is important to update the final E-Spot Canvas as the equity matches change and evolve during the implementation phase. Project evaluation instruments and methodologies ultimately will be a part of the software tools and will help track the project from conceptualization to eventual decommissioning. Tracking the lifecycle of the product will help design better technologies, business strategies, and effective replication strategies for infrastructure projects.

IV. SYSTEMS THINKING TENETS AS MANIFESTED BY THE E-SPOT CANVAS

Social entrepreneurs need to understand not only immediate problems but also the larger social system and its interdependencies; this understanding allows for the introduction of new paradigms at critical leverage points that can lead to cascades of mutually-reinforcing changes that create and sustain transformed social arrangements. It is for this reason that the development of the E-Spot Canvas was guided by the tenets of systems thinking. This section will describe how the systems thinking tenets are captured by the canvas. The tenets each can apply to various aspects of the E-Spot Canvas, but the main connects are conveyed in Figure 3.

A. Differentiation, Holism, and Interdependence Differentiation, holism, and interdependence are intricately

connected. Differentiation is manifested when individual units perform specialized functions within a system [8]. It is a means of identifying component parts of larger systems and their individual function relative to the overall system goals. Differentiation enables interdependence, which necessitates holism [9]. Holism can be defined by two overarching principles. First and foremost, the parts of any large system can only exist and be understood in their relationships to the whole [10]. Also, holism acknowledges that the whole is always greater than the sum of its individual parts [11]. This is because the individual parts of a system are enhanced by their interdependence. Interdependence is defined as the mutually beneficial and reciprocal relationship between systems or

related subsystems. Individual systems may not achieve their goals or function to maximum potential without feedback from additional entities.

Differentiation, holism, and interdependence cannot exist independently as they are inherently in unison with one another. In order to precisely analyze a system, it is essential to differentiate the various sub-systems and approach them from a holistic standpoint, so as to identify and establish various interdependencies between the sub-systems and how they relate to the whole. Saavedra, Earley and van Dyne expressed a similar idea while relating to the interdependence between all living things [12]. In 1971, von Bertalanffy talked about the implicit differentiation between the properties of a given system, whether physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, or linguistic, and the importance of looking at these unique sub-systems in a holistic manner [10]. Recently, in a similar study, Flood defined holism as an emergent property of interdependent sub-systems while discussing the application of systems thinking to action research [13]. Family systems theory is another good case for establishing the correlation between differentiation, holism, and interdependence. Mulej, Potocan and Rosi talk about the ethics of interdependence regarding conflicts between holistic and specialist thinking. While holistic thinkers and specialists differ on most methodologies, there is absolute certainty that their actions are synergized by nature [14].

The participatory process called for by the E-Spot Canvas reflects the interdependent relationships between the stakeholders, technology, and the value created by it. The trade of equities epitomizes this interdependence.

Stakeholders explicitly come to understand how they need to work together to make the project successful and benefit themselves at the same time. This is particularly important for multisectoral approaches. For example, the community members might not know what investments and behind-the-scenes help have been provided by a foreign foundation or the local government. Such contributions must be recognized and clearly articulated as they implicate other aspects of the venture. Furthermore, while the stakeholders might contribute radically different resources, the success or failure of the venture is shared by all. The canvas then becomes a tool to foster a deeper understanding of civic systems and the capabilities/limitations of different kinds of individuals and organizations. Practically, for example, the community members might expect the government to do certain things or the external NGO to provide something for free. The canvas provides the community members a deeper insight into what those entities are actually providing and to explore and understand the interdependence between the economic, social, and environmental bottom lines.

B. Multifinality Multifinality is exhibited when a controlled group of

inputs can yield a myriad of outputs, thus following various trajectories and achieving multiple goals simultaneously [15]. For technology-based social ventures, multifinality occurs when individual stakeholders meet their own goals while the system itself simultaneously achieves its overarching objectives as well [16]. The ultimate objective of the canvas is to determine the optimal win–win situation for all relevant stakeholders while the system itself meets its own goals. From

Figure 3: Systems Thinking Tenets and the E-Spot Canvas

the canvas, stakeholders gain a clear understanding of what they contribute and what they get back from the project with temporal specificity. Too often external actors enter communities and make promises that never come to fruition. The canvas provides a statement of what others are contributing and receiving. Transparent reciprocity is rare in endeavors in developing countries, but can lead to the strengthening of the venture as a whole through elucidation of capital, sustainability, and scalability with specific timestamps.

C. Equifinality Equifinality refers to the ability of a system to achieve the

same end goal through a variety of processes, or concept of operations. For example, economically sustainable, environmentally benign, and socially acceptable ventures can be built around a myriad of business models: for-profit, non-profit, or donor-dependent. Systems thinking can also be used to assess the optimal trajectory for an enterprise to follow so that impact can be maximized. On the E-Spot Canvas, equifinality translates to various equity matches between multiple stakeholders to meet a set of objectives (social, economic, environmental). The canvas enables stakeholders to develop their own mappings between MTSO equity. Some stakeholders might contribute time, some sweat, but they are equally valued as the coefficients are determined by the group collectively. The canvas acknowledges that the desired economic, environmental, and social gains by the stakeholders and the venture will evolve over time. Accordingly, stakeholders can revisit and renegotiate their engagement. Negotiating is a distinct cultural feature in many developing communities and the canvas permits negotiation of equities in a transparent and participatory manner.

D. Regulation Regulation, in the context of social ventures, is the

mechanism of feedback designed to ensure that the activities of an organization (or person) meet the stated objectives or self-imposed goals. Tight feedback loops that allow for disturbances or changes to be sensed and addressed in a timely fashion enhance a system’s and organization’s resilience [17]. Assessment of social outcomes (a critical aspect of social entrepreneurs’ work) is difficult, particularly within a developing country context. Entrepreneurs must work to ensure traceability of all activities, partnerships, and evaluations to the overarching system goals. Entrepreneurial endeavors are inherently chaotic. The E-Spot Canvas’ primary strength is its ability to regulate systems and organize stakeholder involvement. Social, economic, environmental, and technical regulation is manifested in the canvas.

Social regulation occurs through the socio-cultural analysis and the determination of the equity matches. Additionally, technologies, approaches, and business strategies that are incompatible with the community’s social mores will be regulated as plans are clarified and discussed. The openness of the process ensures that the stakeholders can revisit and rethink community mores in the evolving cultural context. For

example, in many communities, using human waste for energy production (e.g., in an anaerobic digester) would be considered culturally inappropriate. The participatory approach encourages discussion on such topics and the community can democratically agree on how they would like to tackle the issue. The purpose of regulation, in this case or as a systems concept, is not about controlling or dictating how things will work but rather actively discussing and deciding what is best for the stakeholders and the venture.

Economic regulation is manifested in failure analysis, economic analysis, and equity matches. Projects often fail because there are no explicit mechanisms for maintenance of technologies and, hence, an analysis of essential routine repairs and common failure modes must occur. For example, communities and their partners might pay beyond their budgets to purchase the best (and most expensive) products in the market, such as a US$2,000 solar panel and $500 in additional equipment (battery, charge controller, etc.). The community might not realize that the lifespan of the battery is just one year and the project requires $300 annually for upkeep. Such oversights often result in project failures. Maintenance costs need to be considered early in the implementation process as they significantly influence economic viability. The economic analysis called for by the E-Spot Canvas confirms that a plan exists for the community to recoup costs for regular maintenance. It additionally ensures the feasibility of replication and scaling-up. Also, the community, as active participants, can understand the true costs of the project. This stands in stark contrast to top-down approaches where communities might be passive recipients of technology products and not be aware of the capital or sustenance costs of the project.

The canvas regulates environmental impacts through the end-of-life analysis, which is seldom conducted by entrepreneurs in developing communities. By examining the usability and recyclability of every component of the system at various time points, entrepreneurs are able to ensure that long-term environmental impacts do not outweigh immediate benefits. Additionally, conducting end-of-life analysis encourages entrepreneurs to seek out locally-available materials that can be reused or recycled, such as sisal, bamboo, and hemp. The goal is to eliminate or recycle waste from designs so they become more cradle-to-cradle [18].

A core assumption of ventures utilizing the E-Spot Canvas is that a user-centric approach was employed throughout the design of their technology. Often though, engineers, entrepreneurs, and designers are unfamiliar with the constraints unique to developing countries. Conversing with local stakeholders helps to regulate the choice of materials for the product and the assumed suitability within the context. The end-of-life analysis once again forces entrepreneurs to think about the longevity of their product and its ability to be re-used or recycled.

E. Abstraction Abstraction is a means of categorizing ideas as a part of

larger systems. Abstraction is “the thought process wherein ideas are distanced from objects” [19]. Every stakeholder has a different level of engagement with the venture and contributes various equities. The diverse stakeholder roles and determination of MTSO equities reflect the various levels of abstraction that exist. For example, a charitable foundation may contribute money but might not be intricately involved with on-the-ground operations; a technology company might provide technical expertise but is abstracted from the operations. On the other hand, the local community might provide their time and sweat but might not be able to contribute as much money as the other stakeholders. The expectations of the diverse stakeholder from the project also vary. While the local community might be interested in bolstering their livelihoods through the project, the government might be interested in boosting GDP and attracting foreign investment, while the expectations of the funding agencies might be related to larger quality-of-life issues or even global peace! Some stakeholders might be interested in furthering science, while others might be driven by the actual community impact. Considering stakeholder engagement and expectations at various levels of abstraction as a function of time (from capital costs to long-term sustainability) enhances transparency and validates the multiple dimensions and motivations of the engaged stakeholders.

F. Leverage Points Leverage points are “places within a complex system (a

corporation, an economy, a living body, a city, an ecosystem) where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything” [20]. These changes could be positive or negative, but ultimately lead to vast reshaping of the status quo. The process of determining leverage points is, in itself, a form of regulation, as it enables entities to determine if their actions are towards the goals of the individual or venture, or if their work has gone awry. Social entrepreneurs need to possess an understanding of both local challenges and the intricacies of the larger societal context; this understanding allows for identification of leverage points. The E-Spot model enables deconstruction of social situations with a specific focus on the distribution of power and money, gender roles, opinion leaders, etc. It helps social entrepreneurs better understand the social environment. This, in turn, leads them to marginalized stakeholders and resources not considered earlier. It helps entrepreneurs to identify key nodes in the network that need to be “addressed”—i.e., key players in the game that need to be strengthened or weakened. These nodes will ultimately manifest themselves as key leverage points in the equity model where an intervention is needed. For example, in a Kenyan village, the local priest may be a highly reputable individual. His participation and approval for a medical clinic may ensure high participation numbers among the larger community. In India, it may be difficult for a group of men to approach a women’s organization to conduct interviews.

However, if the support of a local nurse or a female doctor is gained, the issue may be addressed. Similarly, meeting with government ministers from the education department in Tanzania would be practically impossible, unless the meeting was called by the president of one of the area’s largest universities. Key individuals and authority holders such as those described can help entrepreneurs to leverage resources, a community, or an entity, to enable development of the greater good. However, it is important to employ constant regulation within your leverage nodes to ensure that intentions are not hindered; that in hunt for a greater good, unethical or questionable paths are not treaded upon.

V. CONCLUSION Academics and practitioners alike discuss the tenets of

systems thinking and appreciate their importance. However, methods of utilizing the tenets in a real-world project setting are often vague and difficult. This inability to translate systems concepts into practical tools and applications leads individuals to disregard these principles and results in sub-optimal project implementations. In order to bring the tenets of systems thinking to life, the authors have developed a design space and business strategy exploration tool. The goal of this tool, the Equilibrium-Spot Canvas, is to aid entrepreneurs in their implementation of technology-based ventures in developing countries. This article discussed how the E-Spot Canvas leverages the tenets of systems thinking to enable users to find the optimal distribution of their limited resources. The canvas has been applied to several infrastructure-based development projects in East Africa. It has proven to greatly increase the efficacy of the projects by providing a participatory forum for diverse partners to come together, anticipate implementation challenges, and proactively identify and establish mechanisms of environmental, social and economic sustainability.

REFERENCES [1] J. Mair and I. Marti, "Social Entrepreneurship Research:

A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight," Journal of World Business, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 36-44, 2006.

[2] K. Mehta, "Lessons from the Field: Setting up a Windmill Based Business in Rural Kenya," in NCIIA Annual Meeting, Dallas, 2008.

[3] S. Maley, A. Perez and K. Mehta, "The Significance of Implementation Strategy for Scaling-Up Base of Pyramid Ventures," in NCIIA Annual Meeting, Washington DC, 2013.

[4] R. Dzombak, C. Mehta, K. Mehta and S. G. Bilén, "The Relevance of Systems Thinking Tenets in the Quest for Multifinal Social Enterprises," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Under Review.

[5] S. Patel and K. Mehta, "Systems, Design, and Entrepreneurial Thinking: Comparative Frameworks," The Design Journal, Under Review.

[6] A. Osterwalder and Y. Pigneur, Business Model Generation, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2010.

[7] C. Mehta and K. Mehta, "A Design Space and Business Strategy Exploration Tool for Infrastructure-Based Ventures in Developing Communities", International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 30-57, 2011.

[8] P. Senge, The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization, New York: Currency Doubleday, 1990.

[9] W. Rasch and E. Knodt, Systems Theory and the System of Theory, New German Critique, 1994.

[10] L. von Bertalanffy, General System Theory: Foundations Development Applications, New York: G. Braziller, 1971.

[11] G. W. Flake, The computational beauty of nature. In Computer explorations of fractals,chaos, complex systems, and adaptation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.

[12] R. Saavedra, P. Earley and L. Van Dyne, "Complex Interdependence in Task-Performing Groups," Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 61-72, 1993.

[13] R. Flood, "The Relationship of 'Systems Thinking' to Action Research," Systemic Practice and Action Research, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 269-284, 2010.

[14] M. Mulej, V. Potocan and B. Rosi, "Ethics of Interdependence - Solution for Conflicts Between

Holistic and Specialist Thinking," 6 eme Congres Europeen de Science des Systemes, 2005.

[15] A. Baykal, "Open Systems Metaphor in Instructional Design," Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 2027-2031, 2009.

[16] R. Stepler, S. Garguilo, K. Mehta and S. Bilen, “Applying Systems Thinking for Realizing the Mission of Technology-based Social Ventures in Africa,” in ASEE, Louisville, 2010.

[17] B. Walker and D. Salt, Resilience Thinking, Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006, p. 111.

[18] W. McDonough and M. Braungart, Cradle To Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, North Point Press, 2002.

[19] S. Langer, Feeling and Form, New York: Scribner's, 1953.

[20] D. Meadows, "Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System," The Sustainability Institute, 1999.

[21] S. A. Zahra, E. Gedajlovic, D. O. Neubaum and J. M. Shulman, "A Typology of Social Entrepreneurs: Motives, Search Processes and Ethical Challenges," Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 24, pp. 519-532, 2009.

[22] J. G. Dees, "The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship," in Comments and suggestions contributed from the Social Entrepreneurship Funders Working Group, 1998.