Olea Cohen
Rethinking a Government Ecotechnology Distribution Program
This research evaluated the internal structure and operational dynamics of a government program that distributed ecotechnologies—such as rainwater harvesting systems—in low-income urban areas. Unlike typical user-centered studies, this project examined the entire ecosystem of implementation: policymakers, administrators, field staff, technicians, and suppliers. The goal was to uncover systemic pain points, misalignments, and opportunities for cross-functional redesign.
%206_57_54%E2%80%AFa_m__edited.jpg)
Rather than focusing solely on end-user adoption, the study explored how bureaucratic inefficiencies, communication gaps, and poorly defined roles were impacting program effectiveness at every level. It asked: How do internal processes affect external outcomes?
Research Challenge
%207_09_06%E2%80%AFa_m_.png)
Research
Objectives
Redesign the program based on a systemic understanding of its operational breakdowns.
Key Questions:
-
What are the main challenges faced by each actor in the ecosystem?
-
Where do communication failures occur?
-
How can workflows be redesigned to improve coordination and impact?
Methods
Duration: 3 months of field research, 1 month for synthesis and redesign proposal.
Activities:
-
20 semi-structured interviews with bureaucrats, field workers, technicians, and suppliers.
-
Field observations during distribution and installation phases.
-
Mapping of workflows, communication chains, and decision-making hierarchies.
Key Findings
-
Systemic Friction: Misunderstandings and inefficiencies were common due to vague role definitions, siloed departments, and lack of structured feedback loops.
-
Low Empathy for Users: Design and delivery decisions were often made without considering the real-world conditions of end-users.
-
Coordination Gaps: There was no shared operational language or strategy across departments, making collaboration inconsistent.
Recommendations
-
Redesign program materials tailored to specific roles (e.g., technician manuals vs. user guides).
-
Establish feedback loops between field staff and decision-makers.
-
Incorporate participatory planning methods to ensure frontline input during program design.
-
Simplify internal workflows through updated documentation and clearer escalation paths.
%207_13_25%E2%80%AFa_m_.png)
Promoters don’t stay for long. There’s a need for a stable, interdisciplinary team.
The local government's only commitment is to sign and deliver. There’s a lack of follow-up before and after the rainy season. They’ve only focused on the installation, but the process for selecting beneficiaries is far from ideal.
Public officials come and go. The idea is to figure out how to generate data, and how that data—on behalf of Cuencas [the responsible agency]—can begin to have an actual impact. For example, if we know that this area has a certain number of rainwater harvesting systems, or even a community-level system, then we should start shutting off the main water supply when it rains, so the effects of these systems can really be seen from an administrative standpoint. It costs us, as a government, to provide water—not just in monetary terms, but also in CO₂ emissions and electricity use. It's a heavy investment. We should be doing everything we can to reduce that cost by 20%
Impact & Implementation
Findings were presented to program leadership and public procurement officers in a multi-stakeholder session. Co-design workshops helped realign departmental goals and test new process frameworks.
Outcomes
The redesigned approach was piloted in a neighboring district, resulting in:
-
Smoother inter-departmental collaboration
-
Faster installation cycles
-
Increased satisfaction among field staff and end users
The initiative demonstrated the power of systems thinking in public service design and set a precedent for future participatory policy design efforts.