In my last post, I talked about how introducing new technology to developing countries is often not enough, regardless of how great it is. There are many cook stove technologies being developed, but how many, really, have made a significant impact? How many have been embraced by women as the norm, and not as something foisted on them by an aid agency? I think that seeking to understand culture and how it changes over time is what differentiates our cook stove project from many others that have gone before it.

Culture explains why we chose some of the paths we took, such as deciding to make a wood-burning stove rather than choosing “greener” (or even free) sources of heat. It explains how low the stove is because the women we designed it for are used to squatting on the ground, and how wide the opening for the firebox is because they like to regulate the strength of the flame by the amount of wood they add to the fire.

Unexpectedly, culture also explained why women were so excited that the box design of the stove and the flame it produced made it look just like a gas stove; our design made them feel rich.

Don’t get me wrong, having a robust technology is still important to us. We’ve made some improvements to existing stove designs to minimize fuel consumption and to protect women from the heat of the fire because we know those are important considerations for them as well. But besides implementing the technology well, we hope to create a product that provides meaning in our customers’ lives. We’re creating a stove that enhances their culture, not rejecting it as “primitive” or “backward”, which some stove projects have a tendency to convey.

And yes, culture does change. People in this country didn’t use microwave ovens from day one—that technology had to be introduced. Perhaps there was a large resistance to change then, with women complaining that using a microwave wasn’t “real” cooking. As a team, we’re not averse to introducing new technologies as long as it seems to fit with where the culture of cooking is going. In fact, enclosing an open flame is still a pretty revolutionary idea in some parts of the world. And the microwave, though it was a radical departure from the cooking technologies before it, was part of a greater shift towards time-saving devices and a growing culture of convenience; it still made sense.

For me, the most satisfying compliment about our stove is not, “wow, it saves THAT much wood?!” It is in the stories we hear back from our partners saying that the stove has a prominent place in the home, is considered a pet by the women, and has become the focus of the family’s conversation at the dinner table. That’s when I know we have a shot at lasting impact.

During our trip to Myanmar last year, our team created a set of cook stove prototypes  that rural women could try out in their cooking spaces.  We created two prototypes–one box-shaped and one bucket-shaped–that we took to women and asked them to compare.  We asked them: do you prefer the box or the bucket stove and why?  Which one would you prefer to use and why?  What does a bucket stove make you think about?  Have you seen something like this before?