PlayPump: When Good Intentions Aren’t Enough
A story about design, enthusiasm, context… and water.

Once upon a time, there was an idea that seemed perfect. And for a while, everyone wanted to believe in it.

In the late 1980s, in South Africa, Trevor Field — an advertising executive — discovered a curious invention: a children’s merry-go-round connected to a subterranean water pump. The device was called the PlayPump. As children spun the carousel, the mechanism could draw clean water from underground into an elevated tank.

It was a combination of usefulness, play, and technology, designed for rural communities without easy access to clean drinking water. One of those ideas with the magnetism of the obvious: why hadn’t anyone thought of this before?

Trevor thought the same. He fell deeply in love with the project, acquired the patent, and spent years improving it. His enthusiasm was genuine. So was his purpose.

‍When Everything Starts with Enthusiasm

For years, the idea kept gaining traction. In 2000, PlayPump won a World Bank award. In 2006, the U.S. First Lady, Laura Bush, announced a multi-million dollar investment to expand the system in Africa. Jay-Z mentioned it during a concert. Steve Case, founder of AOL, became a patron.

The goal was ambitious: to install 4,000 PlayPumps in countries like Mozambique, Zambia, South Africa, and Swaziland.

By then, the project was already being hailed as a magical solution to a very real problem. The photos reinforced it: children laughing, playing, spinning as clean water flowed. Purpose-driven technology. Impactful design.
What could possibly go wrong?

‍

The Ground Always Has the Final Word

By 2009, around 1,800 units had been installed. But things weren’t working as expected. Gradually, the first reports and testimonies began to surface:

The merry-go-round didn’t spin freely like in a playground. It had to be pushed constantly.

To meet even the minimum water needs of a village, the PlayPump had to spin for about 27 hours a day (according to The Guardian).

Before long, the children got tired. Naturally. In fact, no one had asked if they even wanted to spin it every day, for hours.

So in many communities, women began operating the system instead. It wasn’t easy. It wasn’t comfortable. And, above all, it wasn’t what they had been promised.

Some pumps were out of service for months. Others never worked properly at all. The idea that the system would be sustained through advertising printed on the tanks also failed — it generated no real income to cover maintenance costs. In Zambia, a UNICEF report revealed that 63% of the communities had not been consulted before installation.

‍
When the Problem Isn’t the Idea, But the Leap

PlayPump wasn’t a scam. It wasn’t an act of bad faith. It was a powerful idea, driven by genuine intention… but lacking proper validation.

What wasn’t done — and this is key — was testing the solution iteratively, under real-world conditions, with the people involved, before scaling up.

There was no deep exploration of the physical burden of daily use, the gender roles in those communities, or the symbolic relationship with the act of collecting water.

No one asked enough. No one listened enough.And so, when the time came, the context didn’t embrace the solution.It rejected it — or, at best, ignored it.

‍

Key Takeaways

The PlayPump case has become a reference point in social innovation and user-centered design — not because it "failed," but because it highlights a recurring risk: falling in love with the solution before fully understanding the problem.

It’s a cautionary tale for designers, policymakers, and donors alike.

The core issue was not the technology itself, but the absence of contextual validation:

• No iterative testing in real-world conditions
• No consideration of social roles, physical burden, or symbolic meaning of water collection
• And crucially, no meaningful consultation with the intended users

The lesson isn’t to be skeptical of every big idea — but to ensure that enthusiasm is always accompanied by deep research, observation, participatory design, and the willingness to pivot when necessary.

‍