e-ISSN 2518-1181
DOI 10.33146/2518-1181
Online Media ID R40-06293
← Back Published: 30.03.2025

Building Cost-Effective and Affordable Medical Solutions Using the Design Thinking Approach

Authors

Abena Engmann Academic City University College, Accra, Ghana ORCID 0000-0002-0516-1538
Mammie Hutchful Nortey University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
Collins Ngwakwe University of Limpopo, Polokwane, South Africa ORCID 0000-0002-6954-8897

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33146/2307-9878-2025-1(107)-135-143

Abstract

Nowadays, healthcare innovation is the main tool that improves the provision of medical care in developing countries, especially in countries with low resources. This research case presents the innovation journey of Goliath Robotics, a startup company in sub-Saharan Africa, specifically Ghana that operates in the health space and produces electric wheelchairs. The case focuses on three theories, particularly the resource-based view, effectuation theory and the bottom of the pyramid integrated with the design thinking process to show how these theories can be applied together in a business model to achieve affordability, accessibility and sustainability. The co-founders not only strive to source raw materials themselves but also fill in skills gaps required to produce the wheelchairs, as well as overcome a bevvy of technical hurdles in their startup journey. The research aims to bridge the literature gap regarding entrepreneurs producing affordable health solutions using the design thinking approach in underserved markets. It also delves into the importance of involving various stakeholders in developing solutions. The paper applied a case study approach. Data was collected using interviews, which were recorded, transcribed, and data analyzed interpretively. The study results show that integrating these theories creates a comprehensive framework for guiding innovation in healthcare delivery and the end user's involvement at the base of the pyramid to develop appropriate, cost-effective solutions. By integrating these theories, entrepreneurs and firms can use design thinking to identify opportunities to serve low-income populations, leverage local, available and affordable resources and internal capabilities, make effective decisions and adapt to uncertainty. Researchers can test this framework in other markets or developing countries for future studies.

Keywords

entrepreneurship, innovation, health, resource constraint, co-creation, design thinking
References
  1. Altman, M., Huang, T. T., & Breland, J. Y. (2018). Design thinking in health care. Preventing chronic disease, 15, E117. http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd15.180128
  2. Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
  3. Brown, T. (2018). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.
  4. Chandler, G. N., DeTienne, D. R., McKelvie, A., & Mumford, T. V. (2011). Causation and effectuation processes: A validation study. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.10.006
  5. Compton, B., Barash, D. M., Farrington, J., Hall, C., Herzog, D., Meka, V., Rafferty, E., Taylor, K., & Varghese, A. (2018). Access to Medical Devices in Low-Income Countries: Addressing Sustainability Challenges in Medical Device Donations. NAM Perspectives, 8(7). https://doi.org/10.31478/201807a
  6. Dentchev, N. A., Michelini, L., Verbeke, A., Hall, J., & Hillemann, J. (2022). New Perspectives on Base of the Pyramid Strategies. Business and Society, 61(8), 1977–1991. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503221125420
  7. DeSalvo, K. B., O’Carroll, P. W., Koo, D., Auerbach, J. M., & Monroe, J. A. (2016). Public health 3.0: Time for an upgrade. American Journal of Public Health, 106(4), 621–622. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303063
  8. Essounga, Y. N. (2018). Entrepreneurship and a healthcare system in Africa: a theoretical reflection. Transnational Corporations Review, 10(3), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/19186444.2018.1507876
  9. Ghana Statistical Service (2023). Population (5 years and older) by physical disability, district, region, type of locality, age, education and sex, StatsBank Ghana. Retrieved from https://statsbank.statsghana.gov.gh/ pxweb/en/Search%20Bar/-/physical_disability_table.px/table/tableViewLayout1/ (Accessed: 26 May 2024).
  10. Herzlinger, R., Ramaswamy, V. K., & Schulman, K. A. (2014). Bridging health care’s innovation-education gap. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/11/bridging-health-cares-innovation-education-gap
  11. Houssaini, M. S., Aboutajeddine, A., & Toughrai, I. (2024). Development of a Data-Centric Design Thinking Process for Innovative Care Delivery. Health Environments Research and Design Journal, 17(2), 146–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867231215071
  12. Hu, F., Qiu, L., & Zhou, H. (2022). Medical Device Product Innovation Choices in Asia: An Empirical Analysis Based on Product Space. Frontiers in Public Health, 10(April), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.871575
  13. Interaction Design Foundation – IxDF (n.d.). What is Design Thinking?. Retrieved from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/design-thinking (Accessed: 12 February, 2024)
  14. Kabra, G., & Mukerjee, H. S. (2024). Analyzing barriers to design thinking adoption within organizations: a DEMATEL approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 74(3), 915–939. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-12-2023-0670
  15. Khandker, V. (2023). Two decades of the bottom of the pyramid research: identifying the influencers, structure, and the evolution of the concept. Management Review Quarterly, 73(3), 1151–1178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00271-y
  16. Linna, P. (2013). Bricolage as a means of innovating in a resource-scarce environment: A study of innovator-entrepreneurs at the bop. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.1142/S1084946713500155
  17. Overhoff, M., Lumpe, T. S., & Shea, K. (2023). A Product Life Cycle Approach to Medical Device Development for Low-Resource Settings-A Systematic Literature Review. In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (Vol. 87349, p. V006T06A041). American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2023-109064
  18. Peteraf, M. (1993). The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: a Resource Based View. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  19. Saidi, T., & Douglas, T. S. (2022). Critical elements in the design, development and use of medical devices. A systemic perspective of orthopedic devices landscape in low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy and Technology, 11(1), 100593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2021.100593
  20. Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Toward Causation and Effectuation: A Theoritical Shift From Inevitability to Economic Entrepreneurial Contingency. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/259121
  21. Sheth, J. (2021). New areas of research in marketing strategy, consumer behavior, and marketing analytics: the future is bright. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 29(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2020.1860679
  22. Vishnoi, P., Bhardwaj, N., & Vohra, A. (2022). Marketing at the bottom of the pyramid: Literature review and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(5), 1517–1536. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12804
  23. Wattanasupachoke, T. (2012). Design thinking, innovativeness and performance: An empirical examination. International Journal of Management & Innovation, 4(1).
  24. Yu, K., Zhang, Y., & Huang, Y. (2023). Entrepreneurship at the Bottom of the Pyramid: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032480