From Blueprints to Better Lives: Using Design Thinking to Tackle Arsenic in Rural Water
What happens when future engineers are asked to put aside their equations and focus on people? At a university civil engineering course, 17 students were challenged to solve a real environmental problem using two completely different approaches: the traditional technical method and the human-centered framework of Design Thinking. The issue at hand was grave—a rural community’s water supply was contaminated with arsenic, posing a serious health risk. How would each team approach the challenge, and what could be learned from the difference?

The Challenge
The water treatment class was divided into two groups. Group A followed the usual engineering path—technical data analysis, feasibility studies, and proposed systems. Group B was tasked with something less familiar: to address the problem through Design Thinking, starting with human connection, empathy, and observation.

What emerged was a remarkable journey that not only delivered creative solutions but also transformed how students understood their role as engineers.

The Design Thinking Pathway

🔍 Phase 1: Empathize

Rather than jumping straight into water purification systems, the Design Thinking group began with people. They conducted ethnographic fieldwork, spending time in the affected community, talking to residents, and observing their daily routines and concerns.

What did clean water mean to them? What were their fears, habits, or cultural practices surrounding water use? These questions revealed insights that no textbook could offer.

📌 Phase 2: Define

The group synthesized what they had learned to create a clear, actionable problem statement. They didn’t define the issue as “arsenic contamination.” Instead, they framed it as:
"How might we ensure that residents trust and consistently use safe water sources in a way that fits into their daily lives?"

This shift—from a technical to a behavioral and emotional lens—became the foundation for their entire approach.

💡 Phase 3: Ideate

The students generated a broad spectrum of ideas, combining engineering knowledge with real-world context. Some ideas were scrapped immediately, while others were grouped, merged, or evolved.

They explored solutions like:

• Low-cost visual indicators for clean vs. unsafe water

• Community co-designed filtration stations

• Educational campaigns led by local youth ambassadors

🧪 Phase 4: Prototype & Test

With limited time, the students focused on rapid prototyping. They created basic models of their proposed filtration systems and educational tools. The emphasis wasn’t on perfection but on clarity and usability.

While the traditional group continued to refine a technically sound, centralized filtration system, the Design Thinking group tested their small-scale prototypes directly with users—gathering feedback, adjusting their messaging, and even simplifying technical processes for local adaptability.

Results and Reflections
While both groups provided viable proposals, the Design Thinking team stood out for their innovation, empathy, and adaptability. Their solutions weren’t just technically sound—they were feasible, culturally sensitive, and community-endorsed.

A professor noted, “The DT group didn’t just build a solution—they built trust.”

Why It Worked

• Engaging with real users reshaped assumptions and brought clarity

• Students saw the emotional and social dimensions of environmental engineering

• Prototyping encouraged trial and error, reinforcing adaptability

Why It Matters for VET and Engineering Education
This case breaks the mold of traditional STEM training. It shows that engineers need more than formulas—they need empathy, communication skills, and the ability to think iteratively.

By embedding Design Thinking into civil engineering curricula, educators can train students to develop solutions that are not only functional, but also human-centered and sustainable.

Looking Ahead
The experience inspired several students to consider careers in community-based or humanitarian engineering. It also led to a broader curriculum review, where the faculty began integrating social innovation and Design Thinking modules into technical subjects.