The Bamboo Project Blog

It's Not Just About "Good Enough," It's About Empowerment

My post earlier this week on disruptive innovations and "good enough" solutions sparked an interesting response from Niels Unis:

"Bamboo gives the example of micro-lending which has changed many people’s lives. What is so effective about micro-lending, among other things, is that it empowers people to change their own lives finding solutions in situations that they know and understand. This empowerment, however, is a radical idea, and much more than a “good enough” solution. Mother of Peace has built a self sustaining farm. They make their own bread. . .

What I think is at stake is that in wanting to provide the ultimate solution, we want to feed our ego, increase our power over the world. The shift in thinking is not from “perfect” to “good enough.” The shift is one that recognizes that creating more power for the powerless, ultimately empowers everybody."

I think that Niels is right on with this insight. While the original intention of my post was to share the concept of catalytic innovations and "good enough solutions," , Niels accurately points out that the power of many of these innovations may lie in their capacity to empower the powerless.

"Good enough" solutions by their very nature will not be able to breed the same level of dependence found in more comprehensive programs. They are meant to be less fully-featured, easier to use, more simplistic. They are meant to get a specific job done and in the process, they empower the recipients to be the ones to do that.

I think Niels is also right that there's a touch of ego in wanting to provide more "comprehensive" solutions. On many occasions I've worked on designing education and training programs for TANF recipients and disadvantaged youth. Time and again I've been told that these people aren't "capable" of learning like other people--that we need to set up a system that basically does everything for them because they aren't able to do it for themselves. When I've been able to successfully fight this mentality and create a more empowering, more loosely-structured program, the naysayers have always been astounded by the results. Not that it doesn't mean I don't often have a fight on my hands again the next time I push for more customer control.

So another reason for us to pursue more catalytic innovations--because they empower the people with whom we are working.

Michele

What if Social Change Depends on More "Good Enough" Solutions?

Grameen Bank, one of the best-known microlenders in the world, fights global poverty by lending small, collateral-free sums of money to the poorest of the poor. In 2005, it had 5.6 million borrowers (97% of them women) in nearly 60,000 villages throughout Bangladesh. Since its inception in 1976, it has lent more than $5 billion to its borrowers, with a more than 98% rate of recovery.  Grameen has been so wildly successful, the Bank and its founder, Professor Muhammad Yunus were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.

Grameen Bank is what's known as a "catalytic innovation" to spur social change and a recent Harvard Business Review article "Disruptive Innovation for Social Change" argues that we need many more Grameen success stories, if we're going to really have social impact. (Note that you can view an executive summary of the article for free, but the full version is $7. I sprang for the $7, but could have saved my money as the executive summary and other resources offered a "good enough" picture of the concept)

Modeled on the idea of "disruptive innovations", a catalytic innovation is a "good enough" social change solution that is simpler, more convenient and less expensive than the usual offerings. It serves the needs of an unserved or under-served population, creating large impact for less money. Think of the
$100 per unit One Laptop Per Child project or KickStart, which sells treadle-style irrigation pumps to poor farmers, substantially increasing their earning capacity.

What's interesting about these innovations is that they turn our existing notions of social change strategies on their head. When we see broad, sweeping issues such as poverty or hunger, we tend to believe that we need broad, sweeping solutions. If these broad solutions aren't working, then it must be because of a lack of funding. Keep throwing money at our same old solutions and the problem will eventually be solved.

This may be true in some cases. But it may be that we are mis-allocating our resources, putting too much money into maintaining the status quo when there's much that can be accomplished with smaller, simpler interventions that are "good enough."

KickStart's pumps are labor-intensive and low capacity when compared to a motorized pump. But for far less than what it would take to purchase a motorized option, a Kenyan farmer can increase annual income from $100 to $1,000, allowing him to send his children to school, invest in other equipment, etc.  The $100 laptop lacks an internal hard drive and has a hand pump to crank for power, but it puts computing power into the hands of children who might otherwise never see a computer.

Catalytic innovations don't have to be confined to just products. They can also be found in a re-thinking of the services provided to unserved or under-served populations. The Virtual High School provides online educational courses to students in schools where a course might not otherwise be offered. At a Minute Clinic, you can access basic, low-cost, non-emergency healthcare treatments in convenient locations.

As a "big picture" perfectionist, the idea of doing something less than comprehensive is difficult to swallow. But after reading some of these success stories, I'm starting to think differently. Maybe we need to be looking for more "good enough" solutions to problems. Who are the under-served populations we work with and what stripped down, simpler and less expensive idea might take them exactly where they want to go?

How might "good enough" actually change the world?

Building Nonprofit Networks Part Six: Creating Collective Value with Individuals

Before I went on my little sabbatical earlier this month, I'd been working on a series devoted to Nonprofit Networking based on NetGains. In that last post, I talked about the need to create a collective value propositions in networks because it is the perception of value that makes a network greater than the sum of its parts. I had planned to next write about the developmental tasks of a network, but began to think more about collective value propositions and with whom we end up forming those.

In my previous posts, we talked primarily about networks formed with other nonprofits. There's a strong need for us to do this better and it's an avenue we need to continue to pursue.

But I believe that increasingly, our opportunities for growth, resources and collective action may lie in forming networks with individuals, particularly through the Internet. Yes, we need to find ways for nonprofits to work together better, but some of the most successful organizations right now are those that have figured out how to form collective value propositions with individuals, rather than with other nonprofit organizations. And this is possible only because of the new breed of web-based tools that have created a more interactive and participatory online culture. 

Creating Collective Value By Forming Networks with Individuals
Remember, there are four ways to create value in a network:

• Providing connections to the right people

• Sharing valuable knowledge

• Providing access to skills and competencies of other network members

• Providing access to resources that may be useful to other members

Yesterday, I shared the list of the 59 Smartest Organizations Online, developed by NetSquared, Squidoo and GetActive.  Many of the organizations on the list are there in part because they have made innovative use of the web to form more open and creative networks with constituents.  For example:

• Several of the nonprofits on the list provide opportunities for micro-donations. Kiva allows donors to lend small amounts of capital to specific entrepreneurs they wish to support, thus providing value both through creating connections between the right people and access to resources for the entrepreneurs. ASPCA and  Modest Needs are other examples of nonprofits using micro-donation opportunities to foster collective value and action.

• An example of a network that is leveraging the skills and competencies of individual members is Witness. Formed to encourage video documentation of human rights abuses around the world, Witness provides training and on-line resources that prepare people to videotape violations of human rights. Videographers can then upload their videos to the site, creating a comprehensive video library that can be accessed both by the public and by all members.

• World Changing.com is a nonprofit devoted primarily to bringing together world-changing ideas, resources and people. As their manifesto states, "WorldChanging.com works from a simple premise: that the tools, models and ideas for building a better future lie all around us. That plenty of people are working on tools for change, but the fields in which they work remain unconnected. That the motive, means and opportunity for profound positive change are already present. That another world is not just possible, it's here. We only need to put the pieces together." Their site uses blogging and commenting to share ideas and encourage individual ongoing conversations about ways to change the world, thus forming collective value around a wide variety of propositions.

• Freedom Toaster is an unusual South African project devoted to putting vending machines throughout South Africa that are preloaded to dispense free digital products, including software, photography, music and literature. Their site provides all of the documentation necessary to built, install, maintain and customize Freedom Toasters, empowering users to create their own wherever they want. This is a network that is basically putting the tools, resources and competencies necessary to create the product into the hands of anyone prepared to act.

To me, a big part of the message here is that technology is enabling nonprofits to pursue the creation of new value propositions and the formation of new networks. Some organizations, like the ones I mentioned above, were created in part to take advantage of the ways that web technologies now foster collective value and action. But even more "traditional" nonprofits are benefiting from engaging individuals in support of their cause through smart use of the Web. The Sierra Club, GreenPeace, The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the ASPCA have all been around for years and each is working hard to better engage individuals in supporting their cause, not just through financial donations, but through collective productive action.

I believe that success in nonprofit networking requires us to do a better job of creating and nurturing networks of nonprofits. But I also believe that long-term survival and success may ultimately lie in our ability to create new and better networks with individuals. This means we need to pay attention to how we can create value and network connections in arenas where we may never have worked before.

Michele

Building Nonprofit Networks--Part Five: Creating Value

For the past several days I've been exploring three types of nonprofit networks and the characteristics/features of each. Yesterday we discussed the need for networks to have a collective value proposition, which I promised to explore in more detail today.

According to NetGains:

"As goes the collective value proposition, so goes the network. The collective value proposition is what makes the network greater than the sum of its parts. As Heather Creech points out, 'If the network serves only as an umbrella for a collection of individual projects, it is not realizing its added value potential.' A collective value proposition is a commitment to joint value creation by network members."

How Do Networks Create Value for Members?
According to NetGains, collective value is a two-way street. Often when organizations begin to create a network, they are "organization-centric" in their thinking, considering mostly what they can get from the network, rather than what they can offer to the network. But to be successful, there must be a give and take in value creation--if everyone is there to take, there will be nothing to get. A collective interest must be forged, one that satisfies both your interests and the interests of others.

Networks can create value in four ways:

• Connections--Connecting others in the network to people who may be able and willing to help them.

• Knowledge--Bringing valuable information that others may not posses to the network.

• Competencies--Providing skills that others may need.

• Resources--Providing access to resources or funds that may add value for network members.

Collective value is created by the synergy of these four value options and how each individual network member finds and creates value through these options. What is critical to understand here is that it's the collective value that makes the network. Each network member must find at least one thing that they value from their membership in the network that is shared by other network members. They must also be willing to GIVE to the network in a way that creates value for the other members.

Further, network members must be willing and able to give up a degree of their own individuality and autonomy to buy into the collective vision that is created through membership in the network. Otherwise, as Heather Creech notes above, the network will not reach its true potential.

Collective Value in Connectivity Networks
Remember that connectivity networks are the foundation of all networks. They are formed to link people to people and people to information. Obviously then, the collective value propositions for those involved in a connectivity network will begin with the people and information each member can bring to the network.

Getting members to share both their information and their connections can be a challenge for network organizers. In my experience, there can be something of a "proprietary" flavor to what individual nonprofits are doing. Particularly in a competitive funding environment there's often a reluctance to share either information or connections. Yet failure to do so will doom a fledgling network to failure, as it is the access to information and people that motivates most network members in the first place.

The other issue here is how to make sharing of information and connections easy for members to do. This is where the presence of "weavers"--individuals who are in charge of making the linkages within the network and bringing in more network members--is critical. This is also where technology tools, such as e-mail newsletters, wikis and blogs, can play a role.

Creating Collective Value in Affinity and Production Networks
Affinity networks, remember, grow out of connectivity networks. They are organized around a set of shared values, approaches, etc. In other words, around a collective value proposition. Production networks then take this collective value one step further and translate it into joint action.

Affinity and production networks will continue to need the value that's created by people and knowledge. But in addition, they will also need members to create value based on competencies and resources. This is particularly important with production networks because they rely on the skills and resources of their members to get work done.

As with connectivity networks, the challenges for affinity and production networks lie in facilitating the process of sharing value contributions to create collective value. Careful attention must be paid to ensuring that individual members are monitoring "process," finding out who has what to offer to the network, and making linkages that can create new value for network members. Both face-to-face and technological strategies are necessary to accomplish this.

The Importance of Multiple Collective Value Propositions
While networks can be formed around a single collective value proposition, most networks find that they need to offer multiple  options  because different organizations will generally want and need different things. One nice example of this is Lawrence Communityworks, a network of more than 1,600 residents of Lawrence, MA:

". . . (the program) offers multiple value propositions through its many different programs for members. 'They are designed to draw people into the network,' explains Bill Traynor. 'They are doors into the network. Having many different doors is critical because it increases the chances that someone will find a reason to join the network.'"

Network organizers recognize that a key to network-building is paying ongoing attention to the value that members derive from their membership in the network. Different individuals and different organizations will find that they are drawn to the various ways they can be involved in the network, as well as the different benefits they find through their membership. The challenge is to continue to identify these needs and refine the ways in which the network is able to create and communicate this collective meaning.

In the next post on this topic, I'm going to take a look at the five developmental tasks of a network and how these play out.

Above, Original image: 'Lindsey's' www.flickr.com/photos/49502981712@N01/109450218
by: Kristine

Potential Donor Looking for Nonprofit Wish List

Sarah of Freedom for IP is looking for a way to create a "nonprofit wish list" similar to an Amazon Wish List that allows her to:

• Create a list that she could give to friends, family, etc. where they could donate money to support one of her favorite nonprofits, in lieu of giving her gifts. She's interested in unrestricted giving (and aren't all nonprofits looking for those opportunities?) so existing sites like Changing the Present aren't cutting it for her.

• Combine this nonprofit wish list with her list of the "material stuff" she would also like to receive.

A few Chip-In Widgets might get her toward her first goal, but I think a little API magic is required to get her toward her second one. Lacking that expertise, I'm opening this up to the nonprofit community to consider, because I'll tell you what--the first person who figures this one out may have a pretty killer app on their hands.

Michele

Stop Managing to the Exceptions and Start Learning from the Consequences

In my work with nonprofits, I've found that there's a tendency to manage to the exceptions. This plays itself out a few ways.

In some cases, entire systems will be developed around what could go wrong. Staff management policies and and practices are based on the few who are problems, rather than the many who are not. Client services are developed to "control" the "bad" client, rather than to meet the needs of the vast majority who are "good."

I've also seen this principle in action when management are evaluating the use of new ideas or  technologies. They immediately consider the worst possible scenario and then use that as a reason to ultimately stick with the status quo. They've already proven they can live with the negative consequences of what currently exists, so in their minds it is often the case that "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't."

I think it's valuable to evaluate new ideas in light of the potential worst case scenario. You need to be clear about what COULD happen, rather than being all Pollyanna about it. But to me, envisioning worst case scenarios should be a route to planning to deal with them, rather than to shooting down something that could, in fact, serve you better.

I thought about this phenomenon when I was reading Chris Lehman's post on Dealing with the Worst Consequences of Your Best Ideas. Chris is the principal of a newly-opened high school in Philadelphia called the Science Leadership Academy. They are in the process of working through their first year and what Chris has to say about their planning process is applicable to nonprofits, too, I think:

One of the things I always try to keep in mind when I think about school planning and design, and something I said a lot to the faculty as we planned, was "There is no panacea in education and every great idea has a dark side, so what are the worst consequences of your best ideas?" It's important to do for two reasons -- one because I think that many educational institutions become reactionary too often, throwing the baby out with the bathwater when an unforeseen consequence of a really good idea comes along. I'd rather think about every potential dark side so that when they happen, I'm not surprised, I've thought about them first, and I've come to the conclusion that it's a consequence I can live with. And two, because you can look to mitigate them and plan for them, and speak about them before hand.

This is what happens in nonprofits, too. There is no panacea in nonprofit work.  We work with very complex social problems with no easy answers. These problems (should) force us to consider complex solutions with great potential to backfire. But unintended consequences shouldn't make us back away from powerful solutions. Instead, they should invite us to delve deeper and to consider how these consequences can help staff learn and grow to more workable options.

To illustrate this point, Chris discusses a recent issue that the school had with their students using instant messaging on their laptops:

We had some students use the laptops and instant messaging in really inappropriate ways. It was upsetting teachers and students alike, and we saw a creeping loss of a sense of safety. So what did we do? We talked about it as a community on our moodle site. The student forums were suddenly filled with conversations about what was going on, what screennames to beware of, how to block someone in iChat, and (I'm not kidding) discussion by students about how poorly this reflected on our community. The adults chimed in from time to time to give our perspective, and the conversations continued as we did continue to try to find out who was doing this. What was interesting is that as the conversations about the behavior continued, we saw less of the behavior, and I believe that to be two-fold, 1) We, the adults, made it clear that there would be consequences, and 2) (and more importantly) it quickly became obvious that the kids doing it didn't have a ton of support in the community. Kids were really upset.

This is the kind of thing that nonprofit managers fear will happen when staff use social media tools. Maybe they won't say inappropriate things, the way that teenagers would, but what if staff talk about non-work related things? Or link to something we don't approve of? In many cases, the fear of this will be enough to squash the idea before it's even implemented. But if you're willing to use this as a learning opportunity, these consequences can actually help you improve your community and capacity to function.

What strikes me about Chris's response is that the school chose to use this unintended consequence as a learning opportunity rather than to shut down their use of the tool.

Many schools (and nonprofits) would look at the experience and say "See--they're doing exactly what we worried they'd do. This is why we shouldn't have allowed them to do it in the first place!" But Chris and his teachers took a different approach. They used the experience to reinforce the organizational culture they are trying to create, one that is focused on developing students and their critical thinking skills, rather than one that is trying to create unthinking robots:

In the end, of course, this is about much more than how a few students used their laptops. It's about the culture of SLA, and how we create an open culture where kids aren't just told what to do, but have a lot of ability to make decisions in a caring community. There's a Vaclav Havel quote that speaks powerfully to this whole issue:

"Freedom is only one side of the coin, where the other side is represented by responsibility. . .

. . . (This experience)  reminds us of our own values and how we have to strike that balance, and not take away the kids' freedom to express themselves, freedom to make decisions, freedom to take ownership in our community, because that is our best idea, but rather, we just have to make sure we teach -- and embody ourselves -- the responsibility that goes with that."

To me, this story captures the essence of organizational capacity-building--having the courage to try complex new ideas and then to facilitate the organization through discussion and learning about the consequences of those ideas. Bad or good, there's always something to be learned.

Michele

Looking for Best Practice Examples of Social Change Websites? Here are 534 of Them

I've begun using Google Alerts and this morning, Rochelle Robinson's Socialchangewebsites slid into my inbox. According to the site:

Social Change Websites is a directory of the best nonprofit, grassroots, and advocacy campaign websites dedicated to making a   difference in the world.      

Our goal is to create a central resource for organizations and causes using the best practices of online advocacy to support their mission. We strive to make this directory as thorough and useful as possible for organizations, volunteers, educators, constituents, and donors.

This site is the brainchild of online advocacy specialist Rochelle Robinson. She started this project in an effort to centralize and highlight the numerous web sites working towards positive progressive goals.

I haven't had a chance to browse through yet, as I'm preparing to leave today for a quick training trip and a more thorough review will have to wait for the weekend. At this writing, the site contains 534 sites that have been evaluated for content, design, usabilty and interactivity. Sites are arranged by category, but you can also view by state and conduct searches for sites. There's also a section of resources for nonprofits.

I think this will be a nice resource for our wiki. If you get a chance to take a look and drop me a comment to let me know what you think.

Michele

Lessons from Starbucks

I'm not a marketer, but regular readers of this blog will have figured out that I'm always on the lookout for marketing information and techniques. To me, marketing is the power of persuasion and frankly, we can all use a little marketing savvy.

That's why I was pleased to find on this morning's visit to Slideshare that John Moore of Brand Autopsy had just uploaded the fabulous slideshow above, sharing some of his "tribal knowledge" from his years at Starbucks. (Be sure to check out the slides on the differences between marketing, advertising, PR and branding, slides 15-18. I've never seen a better description!)

I was even more pleased to read at John's blog that he's participating in an hour-long conference call this Friday where he'll review these slides and answer your questions. Looks like it's free (my favorite price!)--you just have to dial in to the call.

If I didn't have a training to do on Friday, you can bet I'd be on that call with my cup of Starbucks next to me!

 

P.S.--I'm going to have to tone down the caffeine--normally I'm not an exclamation point kind of person.

Michele

Fast Company's 2007 Social Capitalist Awards

On the long flight home yesterday, I was finally able to spend some time reading the latest Fast Company, which features their 2007 Social Capitalist Awards:

Our fourth annual Social Capitalist Awards honor these leaders, who combine savvy business models with solutions to pressing social needs in ways that challenge our assumptions about making a profit and making a difference. . .

On these pages, you'll find evidence of a movement that's not just changing the world, but changing how we think about creating change. Increasingly, we're witnessing the blurring of commerce and charity: Companies now tend to their citizenship; nonprofits hitch income-earning solutions to markets. That phenomenon led us this year to assess the most innovative corporate partnerships among our winners--alliances that represent both business value and a choice about what kind of future to create.

There's a lot to explore in this comprehensive article, not the least of which are all the ways in which nonprofits are incorporating business practices and developing deeper partnerships with business to be more effective at accomplishing their missions.  Winners include:

• Hands On Network, a 17-year-old group that links national corporations and local nonprofits to fuel volunteer efforts in community-service projects. Last year, Hands On marshaled 168,000 employee-volunteers to work more than 1.4 million hours at 48,538 projects.

• The Housing Partnership Network, a peer network and business cooperative of 87 of the most accomplished affordable housing nonprofits in the country. Members operate on a citywide or regional basis and share a similar public/private business model that forges entrepreneurial partnerships among the business, community, and government sectors to create and sustain affordable housing.

• Springboard Forward partners with employers and community-based organizations to improve job performance and promote upward mobility for the low-wage  workforce. They provide coaching services for business and career management services to low-wage workers.

• EcoLogic Finance, a nonprofit offering affordable financial services to community-based businesses operating in environmentally sensitive areas of Latin America and select countries of Africa and Asia.

• First Book, which gives low income children the opportunity to read and own their first books.

There are also some great resources for social capitalists and a nice slideshow on lessons learned. Well worth a look.

Michele

 

Applying the Laws of Simplicity

I love my iPod Nano. It's a simple, beautiful piece of technology that looks great, feels wonderful in my hand, and delivers to me what I want without unnecessary bells and whistles. As with most Apple products, it's a reflection of the company's commitment to user-centric design.

I thought of this while reading John Maeda's Laws of Simplicity, which I found via Presentation Zen. While the most obvious application of Maeda's Laws is to product development, I think they also have something to tell us about how we run nonprofits, which can sometimes become bloated and overwhelming as we try to be all things to all people. (Bear with me as I wax philosophical. After a weekend of Christmas shopping, I'm in a mood to simplify)

Law 1: The Simplest Way to Achieve Simplicity is Through Thoughtful Reduction
Maeda's first law tells us  "when in doubt, remove. But be careful what you remove." In other words, know what programs, services, processes, etc. we need to have in place in order to be functional and provide value to various customers and then remove the rest. There's a temptation in this field, I've found, to always offer more, as though we can prove our worth by adding something else to the list of what we do. But then we find ourselves in the position of doing many things, none of them well, which is bad for all concerned.

Law 2: Organization Makes a System of Many Appear Fewer
Per Law 1, many nonprofits offer a range of services and information that can be overwhelming to outsiders. We tend to provide customers with information in a menu format that emphasizes the broad range of things we can do. But for most people, this laundry list is confusing and overwhelming. We need to consider how we organize and chunk the information we provide to people (volunteers, donors, employees, constituents) and how we can use organization to make this data easier to manage and understand.

Law 3: Savings in Time Feels Like Simplicity
In our time-challenged society, we yearn for speed. We're impatient with lines and waiting and give our undying loyalty to those organizations that respect and help us manage our time. Several years ago I worked for a nonprofit that said they operated on "government time," which meant that people waited weeks and months for services and information. Disturbingly, this didn't bother them at all. Today, this is no longer acceptable to most people. One of the greatest services we can provide is ways to save customers time.

Law 4: Knowledge Makes Everything Simpler
There's data and information and then there's knowledge. I find that when we're in a system, we tend to forget what it's like to be on the outside. So we use a lot of jargon with customers. Or we provide information without turning it into knowledge. In the workforce development system, state Departments of Labor have vast quantities of data about unemployment rates, numbers of people employed in an occupation, etc. This is available to the various nonprofits that provide employment and training services to job seekers and to businesses. But what is the purpose of this information? How do I turn this into knowledge that makes the information useful to the customers I'm serving? How am I supposed to use the unemployment rate to help a business or a job seeker? This is when information becomes clutter.

Law 5: Simplicity and Complexity Need Each Other
There can be a danger in committing to simplicity that we pare away too much of what we do. We have to seek balance and understand that simplicity helps us make sense of complexity. It shouldn't be a replacement for the complex web of services that are needed as much as a way to help us make sense of things that are complicated.

Law 6: What Lies in the Periphery of Simplicity is Definitely Not Peripheral
Simplicity requires context. In some cases, what we consider unimportant is in fact of central importance to our customers. We can't afford to assume that because to us a service or program or process is peripheral, that it will be the same for the people using it. Often it's the central piece that we've failed to simplify. And by failing to simplify this piece, our other attempts at simplicity fail as well.

Law 7: More Emotions Are Better than Less
Good design is as much about emotion as it is about logic. We have to understand and honor the emotional space of our various customer groups and we need to build this into our processes. As humans, even when we think we're being logical, we are usually having more emotional responses. Understanding and engaging customer emotions will usually lead us to better design of services and procedures.

Law 8: In Simplicity We Trust
It is easier for us to trust something we understand than something we don't. Complexity provides more opportunities for mistrust to develop because it feels less in our control. When we design things to be simple, we build trust.

Law 9: Some Things Can Never Be Made Simple
Social change is never simple. It usually involves broad system changes that are, by their very nature, complex. There are no simple solutions to ending poverty or to fighting AIDS or to saving the environment. Acknowledging this is important. But within that complexity, the service we can provide is to make aspects of it simple to understand. I may not fully understand global warming and how it occurs and all the ramifications. But I can understand simple things I can do to address the problem. It's good to recognize the complexity. But always be seeking to simplify.

Michele