ABSTRACT
Purpose: To present a reference model for the process of development of Social Technologies (ST), based on the interaction between popular and scientific knowledge to improve living conditions and social well-being.
Theoretical framework: The theoretical framework discusses the Product Development Process (PDP), focused on the unified model proposed by Rozenfeld et al. (2006), and Social Technologies (ST), highlighting their significance to promote social transformations.
Methods: It was conducted an exploratory and qualitative research, based on literature review and documentary analysis. The methodology allowed to develop the proposed reference model based on consolidated concepts from Product Engineering and references from the ST literature.
Results and Conclusion: The reference model for the Social Technologies Development Process (STDP) is presented. The results highlight the effectiveness of STDP in creating and reapplying ST, minimizing uncertainties, errors in decision-making, and the time spent to develop the ST. The model is flexible across many types of ST and is based on 13 principles that ensure the legitimacy of ST. Conclusions emphasize the relevance of STDP in promoting ST as alternatives to address social challenges.
Research implications: The use of STDP has practical implications, relying on a robust framework for the effective creation and application of ST, directly benefiting those involved in the process of technology creation/reapplication and all its users.
Originality/value: STDP fills a gap in scientific literature by systematizing the process of development and reapplication of ST.
Keywords: Social Development, Product Development, Social Innovation, Appropriate Technology.
RESUMO
Objetivo: Apresentar um modelo de referência para o Processo de Desenvolvimento de Tecnologias Sociais (PDTS), norteado pela integração de saberes populares e científicos para promover melhorias nas condições de vida e no bem-estar social.
Referencial Teórico: O arcabouço teórico abrange o Processo de Desenvolvimento de Produto (PDP), com destaque para o modelo unificado de Rozenfeld et al. (2006), e referenciais sobre as Tecnologias Sociais (TS).
Métodos: A pesquisa adotou uma abordagem exploratória e qualitativa, baseada na revisão bibliográfica e na análise documental. A metodologia permitiu fundamentar o modelo de referência proposto com base em conceitos consolidados da Engenharia do Produto e discussões sobre TS.
Resultados e Conclusão: Apresenta-se o modelo de referência para o PDTS. Os resultados destacam a eficácia do PDTS na criação e reaplicação de TS, minimizando as incertezas, os erros e o tempo de concepção. O modelo é flexível quanto aos diversos tipos de TS e se baseia em 13 princípios que garantem a legitimidade da TS. As conclusões ressaltam a relevância do PDTS na promoção de TS como alternativas para enfrentar desafios sociais.
Implicações da pesquisa: A utilização do PDTS traz implicações práticas, baseadas em uma estrutura sólida para a criação e aplicação eficaz de TS, beneficiando diretamente os envolvidos no processo de criação/reaplicação da tecnologia e todos os seus usuários.
Originalidade/Valor: O PDTS preenche uma lacuna na literatura científica ao sistematizar o processo de desenvolvimento e reaplicação de TS.
Palavras-chave: Desenvolvimento Social, Desenvolvimento de Produto, Inovação Social, Tecnologia Apropriada.
1 INTRODUCTION
The Product Development Process (PDP) consists of phases that systematically seek to organize the conception, manufacturing, market insertion and discontinuity of new products. In general, the three macro phases of this process involve: (i) pre-development, in which the product project is prepared; (ii) development, which encompasses from the acquisition of information about the product until its final launch on the market; and, finally, the phase of (iii) post-development, in which the product is monitored and withdrawn from the market (Rozenfeld et al., 2006). In other words, PDP is an organized set of activities that describe the means by which companies convert ideas into products and services (Freitas et al., 2014).
There are generic PDP models (e.g. Buss, 2002; Rozenfeld et al., 2006) and models with adaptations for different business segments, such as clothing making of fashion products (Moretti, 2012), metallurgy companies (Bolgenhangen, 2003), agricultural machinery projection ( Romano, 2003) and the development of mechatronic products (Barbalho, 200 64). The literature shows that generic reference models for PDP are not used directly, as each segment has specificities in the development process of its products (Krishnan & Ulrich, 2001 ; Salgado et al., 2010). From this perspective, Moretti et al. (2012) have identified dozens of PDP models adapted to the most diverse areas of the organizations' activities. Among the numerous variations and adaptations in PDP models, the one most used as a reference model in Brazil is the unified model proposed by Rozenfeld et al. (2006), for being one of the most complete models (Paula & Mello, 2013).
The majority of the adaptations applied to the PDP models aim at attending to large companies with a view to supplying the development of products on an industrial scale, by means of the use of Conventional Technologies (TC). These technologies are characterized by maximizing productivity, high financial return, monopolization of large companies, application of optimal scales of production and by succession of machines (Dagnino, Brandâo & Novaes, 2004; Dagnino, 2014; RTS, 2005; Silva, 2012; Valadao, Andrade & Cordeiro Neto, 2014). Faced with these characteristics, social exclusion and the impoverishment of human labor are imbricated in the nature of CT (Souza & Pozzebon, 2020).
In contrast to CT, Social Technologies (TS) have a focus on meeting social needs through a "set of techniques, transformative methodologies, developed and/or applied in interaction with the population and appropriate by it, which represent solutions for social inclusion and improvement of living conditions" (ITS, 2004, p. 130). In addition, the adjectivation of the term "social" added to the term "technology" is due to the fact that, as the domain of CT is concentrated in few individuals, it is necessary to claim the development of technologies for society (Eid, Barbosa & Oliveira, 2012). In this sense, the TS are seen as products, techniques or methodologies that allow to boost the empowerment of collective representations, in order to enable them to compete for development alternatives for the defense of majority interests and for the distribution of income (Bava, 2004; Santos et al., 2023).
Dias and Dagnino (2007) state that sociotechnical adequacy refers to the modification of CT, which is influenced by capitalist values, so that the new form of technology can include different values. In this way, the needs of the whole of society are sought, instead of serving only the interests of a small group. Thus, the development of technologies that promote social transformations from the generation of products, services, techniques or low-cost methodologies, adapted to the needs of the communities is fundamental (Dagnino, 2009; Duque & Valadao, 2017). In addition, TS have a positive impact in Brazil, since they are alternatives to regain social legitimacy and modify the country's poverty and inequality picture (Dagnino & Novaes, 2003).
The Social Technology Network (RTS) has methodologies that allow the identification of social problems for the mobilization of human resources, evaluation and re-application of TS (Lassance Jr. et al., 2004), however, we have identified that scientific literature is still scarce when it comes to the systematization of the TS design process. In this sense, we find only the work of Lassance Jr. and Pedreira (2004, pp. 68-69), which describes four phases essential to the development process of TS; and a document from the Department of Social Assistance and Development of the Philippines (DSWD, 2018), which presents a specific model for the development of TS linked to the Office of Social Technology of the Philippines.
Starting from these exhibitions and considering that TS results from "[...] a political process of socio-technical reconfiguration, through which social practices mobilize methods and tools developed with the aim of promoting social transformations" (Souza & Pozzebon, 2020, p. 234), we present in this article a conceptual reference model for the development and reapplication of TS through the systematization of a set of activities and key principles.
The proposed model links knowledge from the product engineering area, especially through the work of Rozenfeld et al. (2006) and Costa (2006); and discussions related to the conception of TS (Souza & Pozzebon, 2020; Silva, 2012; Duque & Valadâo, 2017; DSWD, 2018; Dagnino, 2009; Lassance Jr. et al., 2004; Santos, 2017; Nascimento, Binotto & Benini, 29; Fonseca & Serafim, 2009; SEBRAE, 2017; Dagnino, 2014; Otterloo etai., 2009; Rodrigues & Barbieri, 2008; Pozzebon, Tello-Rozas & Heck, 2021).
In addition to this introductory section, we present below the theoretical framework with discussions related to the PDP and the TS, which subsequently underpin the conception and detailing of the Social Technology Development Process (PDTS). We then outline the methodological procedures used to conduct this research. Finally, we present our final considerations, the main contributions of this research and the prospects for future work.
2 THEORETICAL FRAME
This section details the PDP and TS-related concepts and characteristics.
2.1 Product Development Process
The PDP is based on models that aim to systematically organize the design of products and services in order for organizations to achieve success and profitability in the market, aligned to the needs of customers (Batista & Borges, 2017). In this sense, the PDP is essential for organizations that seek to effectively manage their productions aiming at maximum profitability, reducing production time and minimizing waste, whether of productivity, time or material resources (Rozenfeld et al., 2006).
The main feature that differentiates the PDP from other cases is its high degree of uncertainties, since important decisions must be taken at the outset, when questions are even greater (Rozenfeld et al., 2006). Moreover, some of the characteristics of a PDP is that: there is a difficulty to change, later, the initial decision-making; the activities are systematized, following the linearity "design-build-test-optimize"; the services and information come from the various areas of the companies; and, finally, there is a plurality of requirements to be developed throughout the product life process. In this way, a good PDP ensures that uncertainties are minimized through the quality of the information generated and recorded throughout the processes.
In the light of these considerations, we show that the logic of design and operation of most generic PDP models is intrinsically linked to the characteristics of the TC development process, imbued with the market approach for large-scale production and profit maximization. In this sense, thinking about the adaptation of a generic PDP model to meet the specifications of the TS development process represents a paradigm break through the dialog between controversial topics in their essences.
The PDP model created by Rozenfeld et al. (2006) (Figure 1) is a reference in the product development area (Rezende, 2008; Freitas et al., 2014; Araujo & Costa, 2018; Paula & Mello, 2013; Neves, Ferreira & Paes, 2011). This model is divided into three macrophases: (i) pre-development, (ii) development and (iii) post-development, which accompany the product from its idealization until its withdrawal from the market, with the end of the life cycle (discontinuity).
Pre-development encompasses the phases of Strategic Product Planning and Product Planning, which seek to define the development project through the delimitation of the company's constraints, its resource constraints and knowledge about consumers; as well as the survey of market trends, through a breakdown of the scope of the project (Rozenfeld et al., 2006).
The development macro-phase is divided into five phases. In the Informational Design phase, the project information is obtained together with the customers and the necessary requirements, target values and additional qualitative information about the product are identified. Next, at the Conceptual Design stage, a concept is proposed to be adopted during production, that is, a synthesis of the functions to be performed by the product is carried out.
The final specifications and the creation of a functional prototype, plus the end-of-life plan of the product, are made in the Detailed Design phase. In addition, in Production Preparation a pilot batch is approved, the process is approved and the product is certified. This phase analyzes the final product configurations, tolerances, manufacturing, and support. When the necessary standards are reached, the product is liberated to the market. Finally, there is the Product Launch, in which the processes of sales, distribution, technical assistance and customer service are defined (Rozenfeld et al., 2006).
To minimize failures during the PDP, gates are performed, based on the Stage-Gate process to improve activity management by partially evaluating results at specific stages/stages, before the next stage/stage begins (Cooper, 1990). The gates represent critical evaluation moments of what has been developed and assist in the decision-making regarding the continuity of the process.
Continuing, post-development is divided into two phases (Rozenfeld et al., 2006). In the product/process tracking phase, the company will monitor the level of acceptance by the public and the performance of the product, while monitoring will take place through communication channels and technical assistance. Last but not least, Product Discontinuity is performed, which occurs when it reaches the end of its life cycle. At this stage the company must conduct a survey to analyze whether the desired goals have been achieved and issue a post-project audit report so that the lessons learned can be reapplied to prevent future errors.
Support processes are also foreseen during product development. In this sense, engineering change management will gather information that can positively impact the company's production (Freitas et al., 2014).
This management enables changes that occur in the course of productions to be evaluated and implemented. To this end, the following phases are outlined: identify, propose, amend and implement changes (Rezende, 2008). These processes include the technical assistance teams and teams that are available to provide customer service, managing changes, improvements, product recall, and, finally, the evaluation of the entire product lifecycle (Rozenfeld et al., 2006).
Considering that the design of TS differs significantly from the production processes of CT, the next section highlights the characteristics of TS and the uniqueness necessary for its development process, which culminates in the need for a specific model for its development.
2.2 Social Technologies
TS are considered to be of public benefit, since they encompass products, processes, instruments or methods that have the capacity to reapply and that characterize themselves as effective solutions of social transformation (Silva, 2012). Thus, TS is developed in and for the community through the interaction of popular and scientific knowledge, aiming to generate social inclusion and minimize or mitigate problems in local communities. Therefore, thinking about TS implies actively integrating the community into the TS construction process, approaching citizens as protagonists of technology (Rodrigues & Barbieri, 2008) and generating more autonomy and development for local communities (Pozzebon, Tello-Rozas & Heck, 2021; Justen et al., 2020).
In light of these considerations, TS is the practice of developing and managing technologies aimed at solving social and environmental problems, promoting social inclusion and sustainable development (Thomas, 2009). In this way, the principles that underpin TS are focused on social inclusion, the empowerment of populations, socio-environmental and economic sustainability, interaction with communities, dialog between the diverse knowledge - traditional, technical, popular and scientific -, the construction of a democratic way, participatory planning processes and financial viability (Silva, 2012). These principles enhance the reapplication capacity of TS, which often need to be adapted to be employed in different contexts than they were originally conceived (Lassance Jr. & Pedreira, 2004).
From this perspective, the most adequate solution of a social problem depends on the context and the environment in which it is inserted (Eid, Barbosa & Oliveira, 2012). Therefore, a TS can be produced in different locations, having the same function and principles, but using different materials or processes (SEBRAE, 2017). In other words, a holistic view on the construction of TS is needed in order to detail the specificities of each environment/context. For this reason, the design of TS should not be determined only by scientific and technical criteria (Novaes & Dias, 2009).
Furthermore, it should be noted that the meaning of the term technology embraces the material and immaterial productions that can be recognizable and reapplicable (Pozzebon, Tello-Rozas & Heck, 2021). Thus, TS can also be actions, service delivery and creation of applications that aim at improving the social environment, such as the social action "Civic Audit In Health" (FBB, 2019a) and the application "Fast Food Policy - Affordable And Playful Political Education" (FBB, 2017a).
Since TS result from the action of the collective of producers on the production processes, aiming at community ownership, they are explicitly dissociated from CT, which maximize production in relation to the occupied workforce (Dagnino, 2014). In addition, CT generates profit for those who dominate it, environmental degradation, exploitation and exclusion (Eid, Barbosa & Oliveira, 2012), while TS are potentiating social transformations, in view of seeking social emancipation (Andrade & Valadâo, 2017). From this perspective, the consolidation of TS involves a set of actors and actions that imply the rationality of its development process and its effectiveness in improving the lives of the populations.
Strategic partnerships with research institutes, educational institutions, government, specialists and social organizations make it possible to integrate scientific and popular knowledge that reflect positively on the development of TS. These networks of supporters are necessary because they allow the creation of supports for the creation, consolidation of the TS and for its reapplication in the various social contexts (Lassance Jr. & Pedreira, 2004). In addition, these partnerships support the initial financial support and project structuring (Pozzebon, Tello-Rozas & Heck, 2021).
3 METHODS
As for the methods, we conducted a qualitative research (Martins, 2012), operationalized through a dense bibliographic and documentary research on two main themes: Social Technologies and Product Development Process.
Bibliographic research is based on the organization, analysis, synthesis and comparison of secondary sources through studies already published on the main topics of research (Gil, 2019). In this way, it is possible to identify the evolution of theories or methodological contributions and the trends and approaches of educational practices (Vosgerau & Romanowski, 2014). Marconi and Lakatos (2017) point out that bibliographic research allows the exploration of new areas in which problems have not yet crystallized sufficiently, opening up paths for new discoveries and future research. From another perspective, documentary research aims to explore official documents not published in academic vehicles (journals, scientific events, books etc.), such as reports, letters, contracts, films, standards and regulations (Gil, 2019).
We consider that bibliographic and documentary research is appropriate to the scope of this investigation, since these methods are not restricted to the repetition of studies or documents already published on the topic; on the other hand, they allow the analysis of the topic on a new approach or approach, instigating new conclusions (Marconi & Lakatos, 2017).
In the bibliographic research, we consider complete articles, dissertations, theses and books available in the following databases: Thesis Catalog and Dissertations of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES), Scielo, Web of Science, Scopus andGoogle Books. Regarding the documentary research, we included in the analysis the manuals, bulletins, primers and catalogs published by organizations such as the Institute of Social Technologies (ITS), RTS, the Banco do Brasil Foundation (FBB), the Brazilian Support Service to Micro and Small Companies (SEBRAE) and the Department of Social Assistance and Development of the Philippines (DSWD, 2018).
Based on a descriptive, reflective and critical approach to the results of the bibliographic and documentary research, we started the process of designing the PDTS with the identification of points of convergence and divergence between the two themes (PDP and TS), through the Method of Interpretation of Senses (Minayo, Deslandes & Gomes, 2016). The interpretative synthesis of the texts guided the emergence of the first units of significance, which were later broken down into phases, activities and key principles of the PDTS. Five versions of PDTS were structured and thoroughly discussed, which incorporated continuous improvements to each discussion group.
Finally, we validated the latest version of the model through simulations of its application in the development process of 15 TS, awarded by FBB in 2017 and 2019. FBB maintains the largest and most comprehensive database of TS in Brazil and every two years holds the Banco do Brasil Foundation Award for Social Technology, which aims to "identify, certify, reward and disseminate social technologies already applied, implemented at local, regional or national level, that are effective in solving issues related to food, education, energy, housing, environment, water resources, income and health." (FBB, 2021, n.p.).
4 SOCIAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Although the TS have their own characteristics and principles, the diversity of their themes (food, education, energy, housing, environment, water resources, income and health) and their numerous possibilities for reapplications require that the development process include general and specific steps that effectively contribute to their creation.
The reference model that we propose for the Social Technology Development Process (Figure 2) is divided into twelve phases that accompany from the identification of the social need and/or problem to the discontinuity or improvement of the TS, as well as the realization of two stages of process progress assessment (gates). The model also provides for the elaboration of the TS Design and Performance Report, which is crucial for the documentation of the design process and subsequently reapplication of the TS.
The following details the PDTS (Figure 2), and following this we provide a critical analysis of its main features and applications.
4.1 Pre-development: Collective idealization and assessment of the viability of TS
Identification of social need or problem. This phase is the starting point for the design of TS. Identifying social need or problem can be an initiative of the community members themselves, individually or collectively, through social organizations. In addition to the on-site perceptions and experiences of these members, social needs and/or problems can be identified through research in electronic media (scientific journals, books, newspapers, and local media) or through research done in the community itself, through informal conversations or more structured information collection using questionnaires or interviews. These research studies can further explain the nuances of social problems and enrich the idealization process of TS. TS's idea can also arise from gaps in existing products/services, from the adaptation of inaccessible CT to the population, or even through the reapplication of another TS.
Search for strategic partnerships. TS results from a plural action by stakeholders on a work (Dagnino, 2014). In this sense, it is essential to search for strategic partnerships that contribute positively to the process of building, validating and disseminating the technology. Possible partnerships include: civil associations, educational institutions, research and development institutes, research and extension centers, non-governmental organizations, cooperatives and public organizations. Strategic partnerships are crucial because they increase the chances of rationality of the TS (Izidio & Novaes, 2015), that is, the heterogeneity of the actors is characterized as an advantage in their constituent elements (Pozzebon, Tello-Rozas & Heck, 2021). Consequently, TS is expected to bring effective benefits to the community and have its chance of reapplication expanded. Many TS require legal requirements that do not always host the creators of these technologies, so institutional partnerships can endow them with administrative logic and corroborate with effective implementation (Lassance Jr. & Pedreira, 2004).
mapping existing technologies. This phase provides for the conduct of research on existing technologies to address the identified social need or problem. Research can be done through literature review, technological prospecting and/or research together with the community. This latter strategy can increase the creator's view of TS, by bringing together popular and traditional knowledge. In addition, the databases of organizations such as RTS (an initiative led by FBB) and the Center for Social Technologies (created by Petrobras) should be consulted, which seek to gather and disseminate information about TS in Brazil and in Latin American countries. This phase can result in four directions: (i) there are TS, however they need adaptations for a new social problem (reapplication); (ii) there are no TS that meet the identified social need or problem, but there are TCs that can be adapted to generate the TS; (iii) there are no technologies that can be adapted (TS or TC), however, there are technologies that support the creation of the TS; or (iv) there are no technologies that aim to meet the need found. In the latter case, the creation of a fully innovative TS will be necessary.
TS Planning. This phase provides for the assessment of sociotechnical suitability, i.e. the alignment of the creation of the technology to the characteristics and key principles guiding the concept of TS. In addition, it is necessary to analyze whether the creation, adaptation or reapplication of TS is economically viable, whether it meets specific technical standards, laws or regulations related to its performance. As an illustration, the creation of a TS for filtering water for human consumption needs to be developed in such a way that filtered water meets the drinking requirements defined by the respective standards. Another example is TS "Rede Bodega De Comercialization Solidaria" (FBB, 2017b), which brings together several commercial enterprises and needs to comply with laws and formalizations linked to the creation of enterprises in Brazil. As a result of this phase, it is expected to create an artifact representing the initial idea of TS.
Collective assessment. This phase should be carried out in conjunction with the beneficiary population, in order to ensure the organic expression of the community and its representations. In other words, the aim is to build participation by integrating local knowledge without neglecting global knowledge - academic, technical, etc. (Pozzebon, Tello-Rozas & Heck, 2021). Given this, this phase aims to collectively assess the initial design of TS (artifact). In addition to members of social representations, popular knowledge can be obtained through interviews, visits to other communities (benchmarking') and informal conversations with members who are knowledgeable about the problem. This collective construction is fundamental for the alignment between popular, traditional, technical and scientific knowledge (Garcia, 2014). In addition, community insertion is necessary because there are issues related to autonomy, such as the reapplicability of TS, which are essential for reproduction by the community (Barretto & Piazzalunga, 2012).
Gate 1. At this first moment of critical analysis of the project, those involved in the TS creation process must assess its feasibility. This analysis should take into consideration whether there is technical feasibility (technological standards), social (social acceptance), political (government support) and financial (investments and financing opportunities) for its production. This action must be done together with the community because it allows modifications in TS according to the decisions of the collective. If the results of the analysis corroborate the feasibility, the creation of TS should be continued and the results obtained in the TS Report attached. However, if the results are negative, we foresee two plausible directions: (i) return to the TS Planning phase and rethink/re-adjust the initial idea (artifact) or (ii) terminate the TS creation project with the justification of non-viability.
4.2 Development: TS final design and validation
Preparation of the final draft. At this stage the listing of materials and/or processes/actions that will be used in the development of TS should be done, in line with the key principles presented in the PDTS. In addition, this phase provides for the creation of an improved artifact, which represents the final version of TS. This new artifact can be a mockup, a prototype (3D), computer imaging and/or real simulation. It should be noted that TS is not restricted to the construction of a material technology (product/object), but may be, for example, a Community action. In this case, prototyping should be done through the concrete organization of the actions that will be reproduced (action plans). For a cooperative, for example, a business plan can be drawn up.
Search for funding. After the elaboration of the final project (second version of the artifact), those involved with the creation of TS can look for financing from development agencies by means of public notices and awards. In this case, strategic partnerships considerably increase the chances of obtaining financial resources. This stage can be disregarded if it does not apply to the TS in question.
Empirical validation. At this stage, the TS validation methods should be developed, which can occur by conducting actions in the community, creating and applying prototypes on site or in the laboratory. Validation should take place through continuous testing on the prototype to assess whether it meets social need and whether quality standards are being met so as not to create risks for citizens and the environment. Finally, validation will be successful if the expected results are satisfactory.
Gate 2. In this gate the technical feasibility of the prototype should be analyzed and whether it is ready to be made available to the community or whether adjustments and new tests are needed. This assessment must be carried out in conjunction with all the social players. The directions of this gate may be: (i) the prototype has obtained positive results and may be disseminated and implanted in the community; or (ii) the parameters have not been reached, therefore, improvements to the prototype must be implemented and the tests carried out again; or (iii) the process must be interrupted with the justification of non-viability.
4.3 Post-development
Launch and dissemination. When obtaining positive results about validation and Gate 2, one should start with the launch and dissemination of TS to society. TS must be widely shared to ensure the process of community autonomy capture (Pozzebon, Tello-Rozas & Heck, 2021). Based on the report, we suggest the elaboration of educational primers that assist the reapplication of TS. These primers can be disseminated on social media, in journals, newspapers, databases and through physical dissemination in the environments where they were created (communities, schools, cultural centers etc.). In addition, dissemination through participation in academic and cultural events and awards positively corroborates the spread of TS. From the perspective of generating autonomy, there is also the possibility of empowering citizens through training, workshops, lectures and the dissemination of explanatory videos about the creation of TS.
Reapplication. TS's disclosure can be made in several locations. Thus, taking into account the reapplication characteristic, we recommend to do a survey of alternative materials that can facilitate the reapplication of TS in other locations. This survey can be done by the TS's founding group or by other citizens who seek to apply it in other social contexts, and it is necessary because the various regions have distinct sociotechnical contexts. TS's submission to awards, to university extension projects/programs and to funding institutions expands the chances of reapplying the technology. For reapplication, we suggest that PDTS be used from the TS planning phase.
Certification. Although this phase is optional, we recommend TS certification as a way to ensure recognition of authorship to those involved, especially if the technology was developed with strategic partnerships. An initiative that allows TS certification is conducted by the FBB (Foundation BB Award for Social Technology), which identifies, certifies and awards TS every two years, serving as a showcase for achieving national support and stimulus for creators (Assunçào & Severino, 2015). In addition, it is worth noting that the interoperability of the databases allows soundness and effectiveness for TS, by articulating financial support, the generation of local communication and mobilization capacity, and, finally, the sharing of work.
Discontinuity or improvement. This phase provides for two directions: (i) the discontinuity of TS, i.e. its withdrawal from society and (ii) its improvement. In the first alternative, the technology has already reached its maximum usage time and its continuity no longer meets the same quality standards; or more accessible and efficient technologies already exist. Having said that, in order to minimize the environmental impacts, we suggest the recycling of the materials used. This can be done through partnerships with recycling industries and waste pickers' cooperatives, in order to provide a safe disposal for materials that have reached the end of their useful life. The second alternative can be done by the creator(s) of the technology or by citizens who are seeking to apply them in other social contexts. Improvement should be made whenever TS needs to be updated, making it useful again. In this way, one can replace TS's materials with new materials or retrofit it. For retrofitting, we suggest that PDTS be used from the TS planning phase.
4.4 Preparation of the Social Technology Report
The preparation of the TS creation report is fundamental for recording the experience of the development process, for systematizing the knowledge learned and for possible manualization of the TS. In this sense, we recommend a framework for the report based on the requirements necessary for TS certification by the program "Transform! Social Technology Network" (FBB, 2019b). Suggested items are:
TS Summary. Briefly describe the objective of TS, the issue that guided the creation of TS, its environmental, social and/or economic impact and the results achieved;
Problem Solved. Describe the environmental, social and economic impact that TS solves. This item should address the social need that has been modified through TS, i.e. the proven social impact that creators have achieved;
Description of TS. Detail the entire TS creation experience, the tests performed and the construction of TS, in order to facilitate its reapplication. The detailing can be done from the steps of the PDTS;
Resources Required". Please describe in detail all materials used for the construction of TS plus their costs;
Results Achieved". Score all results obtained to guide the parameters that need to be reached in the face of a possible reapplication;
Register of Future Ideas-. Score ideas for the creation of future TS or for the improvement of the technology created in order to generate social development.
Finally, we suggest adding photos of the entire TS development process, including the materials, construction process and community interactions.
5 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE REFERENCE MODEL
The reference model for the Social Technology Development Process (PDTS) includes key activities and principles that are key to ensuring the creation and reapplication of TS, as well as minimizing uncertainties, errors in decision-making and technology design time. In addition, PDTS favors the creation of a repertoire of best practices related to the development ofTS.
Considering the diversity of technologies, social contexts and resources available for the development of a new TS, we chose not to set deadlines for the realization of the stages of the PDTS. We believe that this ensures more autonomy in the coordination of the process, minimizes bureaucratic issues in the design process and contributes to the creative process during development. In this sense, the PDTS facilitates the feasibility of the TS creation process and its reapplication, compatible with the cultural, economic and political conditions of the context in which it is inserted.
The model enables a plural view of the creation of TS and suits the specificities that encompass the construction of these technologies, by incorporating 13 key principles that gravitate around the legitimacy of a TS. In addition, the PDTS makes explicit the need for the active participation of the community in the whole process, especially in the gates, which represent moments of critical reflection about what is being developed, stimulating appropriation and interaction between the creators.
To test the applicability of the model (validation), we simulated its application in the development process of the 15 TS awarded in the Banco do Brasil Foundation Award of the years 2017 and 2019, from the analysis of their reports. After some adjustments, we concluded that the model is satisfactorily suited to the process of developing new TS and that it even favors the improvement of existing technologies. The flexibility, clarity and versatility of the PDTS allow its use in the development process of the most diverse TS (materials and non-materials). Furthermore, the participatory construction provided for in PDTS facilitates for the community to interact with science, corroborating with the ecology of knowledge, by bringing together scientific and popular knowledge that makes it possible to rationalize TS and to make it more effective.
6 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
From a qualitative approach, based on bibliographic and documentary research, we propose in this article a conceptual reference model for the development and reapplication of TS through the systematization of a set of key activities and principles.
The model entitled "Social Technology Development Process" (PDTS) is flexible for the various types of TS and is based on 13 principles that guarantee the legitimacy of a TS. Although designing a TS is a complex activity, PDTS features phases and gates that streamline and simplify this process from an objective and accessible language. We believe that the use of PDTS brings practical implications that can directly benefit those involved in the process of creating/reapplying TS.
As to the limitations, we highlight the intrinsic subjectivity to bibliographic studies and the scarcity of works that systematize the process of designing TS. In this sense, we base the PDTS on studies by nationally recognized researchers in their respective themes and on exhaustive critical-reflective discussions about the convergence and divergence identified in the literature.
The perspectives for future developments in this research include the empirical validation of PDTS and the development of strategies to support its application, such as checklists, reporting models and the use of tool suggestions and techniques to help the conduct of each phase (e.g. use of quality tools).
FUNDING
This work was financed by the Science and Technology Support Foundation of the State of Pernambuco, through the Institutional Program of Scholarships for Academic Incentive (BIA) of the Federal University of the Säo Francisco Valley.
REFERENCES
Andrade, J. A. de, & Valadão, J. de A. D. (2017). Análise da instrumentação da ação pública a partir da teoria do ator-rede: tecnologia social e a educação no campo em Rondônia. Revista de Administração Pública, 51(3), 407-430. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612153318.
Araújo, J. G. P. de, & Costa, M. A. B. (2018). Gestão do processo de desenvolvimento de produtos: práticas e desafios. Refas-Revista Fatec Zona Sul, 4(3), 16-30.
Assunção, G. P.; Severino, M. R. (2015, outubro). Análise dos relatos de tecnologias sociais implementadas no estado de Goiás para o desenvolvimento do Empreendedorismo Social. In Anais do 35 Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção, Fortaleza, CE, Brasil.
Barbalho, S. C. (2006). Modelo de referência para o desenvolvimento de produtos mecatrônicos: proposta e aplicações (Tese de doutorado). USP, São Carlos, SP, Brasil.
Barretto, S. F. A., & Piazzalunga, R. (2012). Tecnologias sociais. Ciência e Cultura, 64(4), 4- 5. https://doi.org/10.21800/s0009-67252012000400002.
Batista, T. P. Z., & Borges, F. H. (2017, outubro). Aplicação do PDP no desenvolvimento de uma máquina de despalhe de cana-de açúcar: uma pesquisa-ação em uma indústria multinacional de grande porte. In Anais do 37 Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção, Joinville, SC, Brasil.
Bava, S. C. (2004). Tecnologia social e desenvolvimento local. In A. E. Lassance Jr et al. (Orgs), Tecnologia social: uma estratégia para o desenvolvimento (1a ed., Cap. 5, pp. 103-116). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Fundação Banco do Brasil.
Bolgenhagen, N. J. (2003). O processo de desenvolvimento de produtos: proposição de um modelo de gestão e organização (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.
Buss, C. D. O. (2002). Cooperação interfuncional no desenvolvimento de novos produtos: a interface marketing-engenharia (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.
Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. Business horizons, 33(3), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(90)90040-I.
Costa, M. F. D. (2006). Proposta de um Modelo para o Desenvolvimento de Novos Produtos. (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.
Dagnino, R. (2009). Tecnologia social: ferramenta para construir outra sociedade. Campinas, SP: UNICAMP.
Dagnino, R. (2014). Tecnologia Social: contribuições conceituais e metodológicas. Campina Grande, PB: EDUEPB. E-book. https://doi.org/10.7476/9788578793272.
Dagnino, R., Brandão, F. C., & Novaes, H. T. (2004). Sobre o marco analítico-conceitual da tecnologia social. In A. E. Lassance Jr et al. (Orgs), Tecnologia social: uma estratégia para o desenvolvimento (1a ed., Cap. 1, pp. 15-64). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Fundação Banco do Brasil.
Dagnino, R., & Novaes, H. (2003). Adequação sócio-técnica e economia solidária. Campinas, SP: Unicamp.
Department of Social Welfare and Development - DSWD. (2018). Republic of the Philippines. Omnibus guidelines on social technology development. Disponível em: https://www.dswd.gov.ph/issuances/AOs/AO_2018-014.pdf. Acesso em: 21 jan. 2024.
Dias, R., & Dagnino, R. (2007). A política científica e tecnológica brasileira: três enfoques teóricos, três projetos políticos. Revista de Economia, 33(2), 91-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.5380/re.v33i2.6511.
Duque, T. O., & Valadão, J. de A. D. (2017). Abordagens teóricas de tecnologia social no Brasil. Revista Pensamento Contemporâneo em Administração, 11(5), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.12712/rpca.v11i5.962.
Eid. F., Barbosa, M. J. de S., & Oliveira, R. E. (Org.). (2012). Em debate: Formação em Engenharia, Tecnologia Social Aplicada e Desenvolvimento da Amazônia. Belém, PA: ICSA.
Fonseca, R., & Serafim, M. (2009). A Tecnologia Social e seus arranjos institucionais. In R. Dagnino (Org.), Tecnologia Social: ferramenta para construir outra sociedade (2a ed., Cap. 9, pp. 139-153). Campinas, SP: Komedi.
Freitas, F. L., Ferreira, M. P., Matsuo, T. K., Forcellini, F. A., & Rodrigues, M. A. (2014). Processo de desenvolvimento de produto: aplicação em um projeto de P&D dentro do programa ANEEL. In 24° Seminário Nacional de Parques Tecnológicos e Incubadoras de Empresas, Belém, PA, Brasil.
Fundação Banco do Brasil - FBB. (2017a). Fast-Food Da Política. Disponível em: https://transforma.fbb.org.br/tecnologia-social/fast-food-da-politica-educacao-politicaacessivel- e-ludica. Acesso em: 21 jan. 2024.
Fundação Banco do Brasil - FBB. (2017b). Rede Bodega De Comercialização Solidária. Disponível em: https://transforma.fbb.org.br/tecnologia-social/rede-bodega-decomercializacao- solidaria. Acesso em: 21 jan. 2024.
Fundação Banco do Brasil - FBB. (2019a). Auditoria Cívica na Saúde. Disponível em: https://transforma.fbb.org.br/tecnologia-social/auditoria-civica-na-saude. Acesso em: 21 jan. 2024.
Fundação Banco do Brasil - FBB. (2019b). A Trama Do Algodão Que Transforma. Disponível em: https://transforma.fbb.org.br/a-trama-do-algodao-que-transforma/generatepdf? download=pdf&id=510. Acesso em: 21 jan. 2024.
Fundação Banco do Brasil - FBB. (2021). Transformar realidades por meio das tecnologias sociais. Disponível em: https://transforma.fbb.org.br/sobre-nos. Acesso em: 21 jan. 2024. Garcia, S. G. (2014). A tecnologia social como alternativa para a reorientação da economia.
Estudos Avançados, 28(82), 251-275. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-40142014000300015. Gil, A. C. (2019). Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social (7a ed.). São Paulo, SP: Editora Atlas. Instituto de Tecnologia Social - ITS. (2004). O que é Tecnologia Social. São Paulo, SP: ITS. E-book.
Izidio, L. L., & Novaes, L. (2015). Tecnologia social a partir de processos metodológicos de design na produção artesanal. In 5° Simpósio de Design Sustentável, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Justen, G. S., Morais-da-Silva, R. L., Takahashi, A. R. W., & Segatto, A. P. (2020). Inovação social e desenvolvimento local: uma análise de meta-síntese. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 14(1), 56-73. https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v14i1.1902.
Krishnan, V., & Ulrich, K. T. (2001). Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management science, 47(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.1.10668
Lassance Jr, A. E. et al. (2004). Tecnologia social: uma estratégia para o desenvolvimento. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Fundação Banco do Brasil.
Lassance Jr, A. E., & Pedreira, J. S. (2004). Tecnologias sociais e políticas públicas. In A. E. Lassance Jr. et al. (Orgs), Tecnologia social: uma estratégia para o desenvolvimento (1a ed., Cap. 2, pp. 65-82). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Fundação Banco do Brasil.
Marconi, M. A., & Lakatos, E. V. (2017). Técnicas de pesquisa (8a ed). São Paulo, SP: Atlas. Martins, R. A. (2012). Abordagens quantitativa e qualitativa. In P. A. Cauchick Miguel et al. (Coord.), Metodologia de pesquisa em engenharia de produção e gestão de operações (2a ed., Cap. 3, pp. 47-63). Campus, ABEPRO.
Minayo, M. C. D. S., Deslandes, S. F., & Gomes, R. (2016). Pesquisa social: teoria, método e criatividade (25a ed.). Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes.
Moretti, I. C. (2012). Proposta de um modelo de referência para o processo de desenvolvimento de produto do vestuário (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Ponta Grossa, PR, Brasil.
Moretti, I. C., Braghini Junior, A., Spak, M. D. S., & Silva, L. C. S. (2012, outubro). Modelos de Referência para Desenvolvimento de Produtos: Análise da Contribuição Acadêmica. In Anais do 32 Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção: Desenvolvimento Sustentável e Responsabilidade Social, Bento Gonçalves, RS, Brasil.
Nascimento, D. T., Binotto, E., & Benini, E. G. (2019). O Movimento da Tecnologia Social: uma Revisão Sistemática de seus Elementos Estruturantes entre 2007 e 2017. Desenvolve Revista de Gestão do Unilasalle, 8(3), 93-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.18316/desenv.v8i3.4784.
Neves, E. B. D., Ferreira, C. C., & Paes, R. L. (2011, setembro). Abordagem metodológica do processo de desenvolvimento de produto (PDP) para o projeto de um dispositivo filetador para garrafas PET. In Anais do 8 Congresso Brasileiro de Gestão de Desenvolvimento de Produto, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. Disponível em: http://repositorio.furg.br/bitstream/handle/1/5141/9138.pdf?sequence=1. Acesso em: 21 jan. 2024.
Novaes, H. T., & Dias, R. (2009). Construção do marco analítico-conceitual da tecnologia social. In R. Dagnino (Org.), Tecnologia Social: ferramenta para construir outra sociedade (2a ed., Cap. 4, pp. 113-154). Campinas, SP: Komedi.
Otterloo, A. et al. (2009). Tecnologias Sociais: Caminhos para a sustentabilidade. Brasília, DF: Rede de Tecnologia Social.
Paula, J. O. de, & Mello, C. H. P. (2013). Seleção de um modelo de referência de PDP para uma empresa de autopeças através de um método de auxílio à decisão por múltiplos critérios. Production, 23(1), 144-156. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-65132012005000082.
Pozzebon, M., Tello-Rozas, S., & Heck, I. (2021). Nourishing the Social Innovation Debate with the "Social Technology" South American Research Tradition. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(3), 663-677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00314-0.
Rezende, L. B. (2008). Gestão de Desenvolvimento de Produtos. Campo Grande, MS: UFMS. E-book.
Rodrigues, I., & Barbieri, J. C. (2008). A emergência da tecnologia social: revisitando o movimento da tecnologia apropriada como estratégia de desenvolvimento sustentável. Revista de Administração Pública, 42(6), 1069-1094. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0034- 76122008000600003.
Romano, L. N. (2003). Modelo de referência para o processo de desenvolvimento de máquinas agrícolas (Tese de doutorado). Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brasil.
Rozenfeld, H., Forcellini, F. A., Amaral, D. C., Toledo, J. C. de, Silva, S. L. da, Alliprandini, D. H., & Scalice, R. K. (2006). Gestão de Desenvolvimento de Produtos: Uma referência para a melhoria do Processo. São Paulo, SP: Saraiva.
Rede de Tecnologia Social - RTS. (2005). Histórico e elementos conceituais. Disponível em: https://fbb.org.br/files/29/Rede-de-Tecnologia-Social/105/Historico-RTS.pdf?preview=1. Acesso em: 19 jan. 2024.
Salgado, E. G., Salomon, V. A. P., Mello, C. H. P., Fass, F. D. M., & Xavier, A. F. (2010). Modelos de referência para desenvolvimento de produtos: classificação, análise e sugestões para pesquisas futuras. Revista Produção Online, 10(4), 886-911. https://doi.org/10.14488/1676-1901.v10i4.520.
Santos, C. R. S. D. (2017). Conectando saberes e práticas plurais-um olhar sob a ótica da tecnologia social e o licuri (Tese de Doutorado). Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, BA, Brasil. Disponível em: https://repositorio.ufba.br/ri/bitstream/ri/22475/1/Tese%20- Carla_Renata_Santos.pdf. Acesso em: 21 jan. 2024.
Santos, L. de O., Sousa, I. F. de, Barbosa, S. A., & Silva, G. F. da. (2023). Análise da eficiência de diferentes biomassas no tratamento da água de barreiro trincheira para consumo humano. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 17(1), e03000, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v17n1-025.
Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas - SEBRAE. (2017). Tecnologias sociais: como os negócios podem transformar comunidades. Cuiabá, MT: SEBRAE. E-book.
Silva, E. da. (2012). O desenvolvimento de tecnologias sociais nas universidades públicas estaduais do Paraná (Tese de doutorado). Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brasil. Disponível em: http://hdl.handle.net/1884/29750. Acesso em: 14 jan. 2024.
Souza, A. C. A. A. de, & Pozzebon, M. (2020). Práticas e mecanismos de uma tecnologia social: proposição de um modelo a partir de uma experiência no semiárido. Organizações & Sociedade, 27(93), 231-254. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-9270934
Thomas, H. (2009, setembro). De las tecnologías apropiadas a las tecnologías Sociales: Conceptos/estrategias/diseños/acciones. In 4° Seminário Iberoamericano de Ciência y Tecnologia, Córdoba, Argentina.
Valadão, J. de A. D., de Andrade, J. A., & Cordeiro Neto, J. R. (2014). Abordagens sociotécnicas e os estudos em tecnologia social. Revista Pretexto, 15(1), 44-61.
Vosgerau, D. S. A. R., & Romanowski, J. P. (2014). Estudos de revisão: implicações conceituais e metodológicas. Revista diálogo educacional, 14(41), 165-189. https://doi.org/10.7213/dialogo.educ.14.041.ds08.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2024. This work is published under https://rgsa.emnuvens.com.br/rgsa/about/editorialPolicies#openAccessPolicy (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Objetivo: Apresentar um modelo de referência para o Processo de Desenvolvimento de Tecnologias Sociais (PDTS), norteado pela integração de saberes populares e científicos para promover melhorias nas condições de vida e no bem-estar social. Referencial Teórico: O arcabouço teórico abrange o Processo de Desenvolvimento de Produto (PDP), com destaque para o modelo unificado de Rozenfeld et al. (2006), e referenciais sobre as Tecnologias Sociais (TS). Métodos: A pesquisa adotou uma abordagem exploratória e qualitativa, baseada na revisão bibliográfica e na análise documental. A metodologia permitiu fundamentar o modelo de referência proposto com base em conceitos consolidados da Engenharia do Produto e discussões sobre TS. Resultados e Conclusão: Apresenta-se o modelo de referência para o PDTS. Os resultados destacam a eficácia do PDTS na criação e reaplicação de TS, minimizando as incertezas, os erros e o tempo de concepção. O modelo é flexível quanto aos diversos tipos de TS e se baseia em 13 princípios que garantem a legitimidade da TS. As conclusões ressaltam a relevância do PDTS na promoção de TS como alternativas para enfrentar desafios sociais. Implicações da pesquisa: A utilização do PDTS traz implicações práticas, baseadas em uma estrutura sólida para a criação e aplicação eficaz de TS, beneficiando diretamente os envolvidos no processo de criação/reaplicação da tecnologia e todos os seus usuários. Originalidade/Valor: O PDTS preenche uma lacuna na literatura científica ao sistematizar o processo de desenvolvimento e reaplicação de TS.