{"id":111591,"date":"2025-12-03T14:58:11","date_gmt":"2025-12-03T13:58:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.hiig.de\/?p=111591"},"modified":"2025-12-03T16:53:52","modified_gmt":"2025-12-03T15:53:52","slug":"impactful-by-design","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hiig.de\/en\/impactful-by-design\/","title":{"rendered":"Impactful by design: For digital entrepreneurs driven to create positive societal impact"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Given the goal of developing a healthcare app for mothers in Ethiopia, it would be easy to assume that the main challenge would be technical. But that is not necessarily the case. The deeper difficulties often lie in understanding what local communities truly need and in recognising that creating positive impact through technology begins with openness to learning. This highlights a longstanding truth: technology itself does not create positive impact. From civic innovation to climate technology, many digital solutions promise change but falter when they overlook the lived realities of those they aim to serve. This article explores how impact entrepreneurship and research can bridge this gap through participatory and value-sensitive design, placing inclusivity at the center of technological innovation.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Albert Einstein once rhetorically asked students at the California Institute of Technology: \u201cWhy does this magnificent applied science, which saves work and makes life easier, bring us so little happiness?<\/em> What was true for Einstein in 1931 remains true today: technological progress does not automatically translate into societal progress. In fact, without reflection and accountability, even well-intentioned technologies can unintentionally reinforce inequalities or fail to address the problems they set out to solve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This tension between promise and peril <\/em>has become especially urgent in the context of impact entrepreneurship, as previously looked here<\/a>. Entrepreneurs seeking to combine business goals with social or ecological change are increasingly turning to digital technologies as their tools of choice. Some studies even show that such entrepreneurs invest more in digital capabilities than purely commercial ventures (Kotiranta et al., 2024). At the same time, initiatives like hackathons and innovation challenges encourage the use of digital technologies to solve societal problems\u2014many times with attractive economic incentives. But how can we foster technologies that are not only technically effective or appealing, but also meaningfully impactful?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this article, I will discuss two main ideas: how impact-driven entrepreneurship sets the stage for designing technologies with purpose, and how research contributes to projects that aim for positive societal impact. I will also illustrate how research methodologies can be integrated into technology design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Impact entrepreneurship: Setting the stage for more impactful technology<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The field of impact entrepreneurship has emerged to unite fragmented discussions on entrepreneurship that aim to address social and ecological challenges through a business model logic\u2014that is, creating, delivering, and capturing value (Vogel et al., 2025). By doing so, it acknowledges that entrepreneurial activities inherently shape societal and economic realities, both positively and negatively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The growing interest in impact ventures, such as through impact investing<\/a>, reflects a cultural shift: businesses are increasingly expected not only to generate economic value but also to contribute to solving systemic problems. Yet, this path is not without difficulty. Impact entrepreneurs often build hybrid organizations <\/em>that face tensions between differing logics (G\u00fcm\u00fcsay, 2018). For instance, relying on the market while at the same time challenging it.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A key difference between traditional entrepreneurship and impact entrepreneurship lies in how they frame opportunity. Instead of viewing opportunity solely as something found<\/em> in the market, impact entrepreneurs often identify a \u201cproblem-as-opportunity\u201d (Vogel et al., 2025). Thus, beyond being an empirical or social phenomenon, impact entrepreneurship takes on a design orientation<\/em> (Dimov et al., 2023), where entrepreneurs choose specific solutions and ways of governance to address particular problems (Vogel et al., 2025). This means that impact entrepreneurs should<\/em> go through a design process that is iterative, relational, and open to diverse perspectives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For digital entrepreneurs, this often means asking: What kinds of futures are we building when we use or develop a technology? Whose voices are included, and whose are left out?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two approaches for designing impactful technologies<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

From telemedicine solutions in underserved areas to platforms that promote civic engagement, technology has the potential to expand access, efficiency, and empowerment. However, impact is not guaranteed simply by introducing technology into a problem space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what does it take to design technologies for genuine societal impact? In our recent article (Vogel et al., 2025), Gebken and I take a section to argue for the importance of entrepreneurs and researchers working together; which means sometimes entrepreneurs putting on the researcher hat. To this end, we bring to the fore two connected approaches that stand out because of their emphasis on reflection and collaboration: value-sensitive design and participatory design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Value-sensitive design<\/strong> (VSD) highlights the importance of embedding ethical and social values directly into the technical design process. For example, instead of treating privacy, fairness, or inclusivity as \u201cadd-ons,\u201d VSD integrates them from the start. This means entrepreneurs actively consider trade-offs\u2014such as protecting the dignity of marginalized groups even when it might reduce donor control or profitability. It is a way of ensuring that technologies do not inadvertently encode harmful assumptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Participatory design<\/strong>, on the other hand, emphasizes working directly with the people who will use or be affected by a technology. Rather than assuming what stakeholders need, participatory approaches engage them in the co-creation process. This allows for the incorporation of lived experience, cultural context, and diverse perspectives, which can fundamentally change the trajectory of a project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The strength of these frameworks lies not in offering one-size-fits-all solutions, but in reminding entrepreneurs that while technology is a tool, its deployment is not neutral. Every line of code and every design choice reflects certain priorities and values. The question, then, is how to make those values transparent, intentional, and inclusive.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Methodologies in action: Designing healthcare apps with Ethiopian communities <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To illustrate one of these approaches, consider the development of a maternal and child healthcare app in rural Ethiopia. At first glance, building a digital tool to support healthcare delivery seems relatively straightforward: connect patients, healthcare workers, and resources more effectively. But as Bekele et al. (2019) describe, the reality proved far more complex. Many women in the region were illiterate or spoke a variety of languages, making written instructions and standard medical visuals ineffective. Early prototypes also relied on generic imagery, for example, pictures of Western-style bathrooms or hospital beds, that did not reflect local living conditions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The project team adopted participatory methods, working closely with local mothers, healthcare workers, and community members to understand their needs and contexts. This was not just a matter of gathering user feedback at the end; it was about embedding collaboration throughout the design process. They did so by creating a \u201cuser study team,\u201d which consisted of information system and public health professionals who acted as ethnographers, using methodologies like field observations, hands-on experience workshops, and focused collaborative reflective sessions. The user study team served as a bridge between users and programmers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The final version of the app not only incorporated audio-visual content in Amharic and local dialects, culturally adapted illustrations, simple icon-based navigation, and voice prompts. It was also designed to work offline, acknowledging limited connectivity and digital experience in rural areas. The application also addressed the specific needs of multiple stakeholders simultaneously: mothers seeking care, health extension workers providing services via a light weight web based system, and other healthcare professionals. Together, these adaptations ensured that the technology aligned with users\u2019 everyday realities rather than imposing external assumptions. The research team\u2019s active presence in the community also enhanced the app\u2019s credibility and trustworthiness. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although this case emerged from an NGO initiative<\/a>, it highlights the transformative potential of participatory approaches. It shows how researchers and entrepreneurs can collaborate to ensure that digital technologies fulfill their promise of creating positive societal impact. By respecting local knowledge and amplifying marginalised voices, the project avoided the trap of designing a \u201cuniversal\u201d solution that fails in specific contexts. Instead, it produced a tool that reflected the lived realities of its users and served multiple stakeholder needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Learnings (closing thoughts)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe simple answer runs: because we have not yet learned to make sensible use of it,\u201d<\/em> Einstein replied to his earlier question. The Ethiopian healthcare app exemplifies the effort and learning involved in creating technologies that align with people\u2019s values. This process demands reflection, ethical consideration, and deep engagement with those whose lives will be shaped by technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For impact entrepreneurs, the key question is not simply whether digital technologies can solve a problem, but whether they are the right tools<\/em> for the task. Often, the most meaningful innovations emerge not from pushing technological boundaries, but from rethinking our assumptions, listening to stakeholders, and aligning design choices with values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both of the approaches discussed\u2014value-sensitive and participatory design\u2014require human and financial resources. Those who have access to such resources should consider including people with these skills in their teams. At the same time, entrepreneurial education should place greater emphasis on developing these competencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, many entrepreneurial projects emerge from moments of serendipity and improvisation\u2014this is true for commercial and impact ventures. In such cases, the researcher\u2019s role may become a nuanced part of the entrepreneur\u2019s own practice. My colleagues and I hope that our research, and that of others, can support these efforts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you are a (digital) entrepreneur aiming to make an impact, I invite you to explore our full article, \u201c<\/em>Impact Entrepreneurship: Reimagining Entrepreneurial Purpose and Research for Driving Societal Impact<\/em><\/a>.\u201d<\/em> Together with my colleagues, we explore connected topics to impact entrepreneurship and technology, such as impact measurements, ecosystems, and education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the lengthier version of Einstein\u2019s quote, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Bekele, R., Sametinger, J., Biru, T., Groher, I., Pomberger, G., & Floyd, C. (2019). Adapting Ethnography for Design Research: Lessons Learnt from Design of Mobile Systems for Rural Health Care in Ethiopia. ICIS 2019 Proceedings. 12. https:\/\/aisel.aisnet.org\/icis2019\/is_health\/is_health\/12<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dimov, D., Maula, M., & Romme, A. G. L. (2023). Crafting and Assessing Design Science Research for Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(5), 1543\u20131567. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/10422587221128271<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

G\u00fcm\u00fcsay, A. A. (2018). Unpacking entrepreneurial opportunities: An institutional logics perspective. Innovation, 20(3), Article 3. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/14479338.2017.1404430<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kotiranta, A., Puumalainen, K., Sj\u00f6gren, H., & Dana, L.-P. (2024). Digitalization as a growth driver for social enterprises. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 209, 123837. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.techfore.2024.123837<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vogel, A., Nadegger, M., Wolf, B., Spanjol, J., G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fay, A. A., Edinger-Schons, L. M., Volkmann, C., Krebs, K., Bafera, J., Gebken, L., Vilchez, P., Von Schweinitz, F., Stroehle, J., Gossel, B. M., Kruse, D. J., Mirtsch, M., & Unger, V. L. (2025). Impact Entrepreneurship: Reimagining Entrepreneurial Purpose and Research for Driving Societal Impact. Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s41471-025-00221-w<\/a><\/p>\n