When I started working on HeroX, my goal was simple: use technology to reach people who are often left behind. Not just to digitise an experience or make something “smarter,” but to ensure those at the margins, especially the elderly, the disabled, and those without consistent access to care, will have their needs seen, heard, and met. What I’ve learned early on is this: if your tech isn’t built for the most vulnerable, it isn’t built to last.

Building for those left behind

One of the first communities we tried to serve was a group of elderly residents in a public housing estate in Singapore. Many of them lived alone. Some had mobility issues, others were struggling with loneliness or health conditions. Their children often lived far away, and access to regular care was inconsistent. We thought, at the time, that a mobile-first approach could work like simple check-in tools, appointment reminders, wellness prompts. We imagined sleek user flows and smart backend systems.

What we didn’t account for was this. Most of them didn’t use smartphones. They had phones but had never opened an app store. Our idea, though well-intentioned, was built for convenience, not context. And that mistake taught us more than any user survey ever could.

The shift to a hybrid model

So we went back. We spent time on the ground. We walked the corridors. We listened. We learned that many of them trusted the people who delivered food or medicine more than they trusted tech. That human interaction, even brief, was a lifeline. That’s when the idea for a hybrid tech-human model began to take shape. HeroX evolved to focus on a last-mile service and wellness platform that used real community-based agents, powered by tech, not replaced by it.

Also Read: Inclusion starts at the top: Why listening beats moving fast in Southeast Asia

We used a decentralised logistics system where delivery partners second as wellness checkers. These weren’t just gig workers. They were neighbours, caregivers, and volunteers. The app they used had to be simple, localised, and intuitive, but the service they provided had to feel deeply personal. That’s what worked. And not because it was technically advanced, but because it was emotionally attuned.

Why inclusive design matters

This is why inclusive design matters not as a buzzword, but as a non-negotiable starting point. The real challenge in health, education, and agriculture isn’t just infrastructure. It’s accessibility. It’s cultural fit. It’s trust. If we build in a silo designing for what’s fast, scalable, or VC-friendly, we risk creating beautifully engineered systems that don’t land where they’re needed most.

In Southeast Asia, where socio-economic divides are vast and digital literacy varies widely, tech must do more than perform. It must translate. This means design choices can’t be made in boardrooms alone. They have to be shaped by fieldwork, community dialogue, and, sometimes, failure.

Inclusive design isn’t a feature, it’s a philosophy. It asks, who’s being left out? What assumptions are we making? And are we building solutions for real needs or for ideal users who only exist on pitch decks?

Redefining inclusion as a process

For HeroX, inclusion meant slowing down. It meant building trust before features. It meant asking residents if they preferred reminders via phone call, text, or a knock on the door. It meant testing interfaces with caregivers who only had one hand free. It meant letting community delivery agents co-design their onboarding experience. And it meant being okay with the reality that not all tech has to look cutting-edge to be life-changing.

Also Read: Why diversity and inclusion are key for startups to succeed in the Philippines

Sometimes the most “transformative” thing isn’t what you build, it’s how you choose to build it, and with whom.

The true test of tech for good

I still don’t think we’ve gotten it perfectly right. But I know we’re closer to the mark because we’ve made inclusion not just a value, but a process. It shapes how we recruit, how we test, how we scale. It’s not always efficient. But it’s effective.

So here’s what I’m still holding onto as we continue to build in this space. Great tech doesn’t just serve users, it respects them. And respect looks like asking, listening, adapting, and co-creating.

If you’re building something, ask yourself this. Are you designing for the person with the newest iPhone and fastest Wi-Fi? Or are you designing for the mother of three with one prepaid phone and an unstable signal? One will give you early traction. The other will give you a lasting impact.

Because at the end of the day, the true test of tech for good isn’t just how advanced it is but how far it reaches, and who it brings along with it.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image courtesy: Canva Pro

The post Built for all or built to fail? Why tech for social impact must start with inclusion appeared first on e27.