Vanessa Meadu who works for ASB (Partnerships for the Tropical Forest Margins) and who is based at The World Agroforestry Center in Nairobi, attended the KS Workshop and got quickly known among participants as THE Flickr resource person.. She said nice things about her workshop experience like:
“I had a fantastic time in Addis and found the workshop to be extremely invigorating. I feel like I can approach my work with new enthusiasm,  and also new skills!” and: “The KS workshop has really helped at least sow the seeds for how to do things.”  But Vanessa did not only have fun and it seems that the seeds that were sowed collectively are carrying quickly fruits:
Vanessa shared with us proudly her brand new ASB blog! The blog is replacing the news section of the ASB website and features an interesting tool. The delicious account that she created feeds directly into the blog, which means that every time that a bookmark is created on delicious, it appears as a blog post. Vanessa says she has started to get ASB scientists excited about the collective bookmarking approach. 

Some interesting tips on how to train scientists in Web 2.0 tools can certainly be found in Pete Shelton’s recent post: Three lessons from a year of teaching 2.0 to researchers

Well done Vanessa!

“IFPRI’s call to shake-up research” is the name of the article in the most recent edition of the New Agriculturalist magazine highlighting the recently held ‘Advancing Agriculture in Developing countries through Knowledge and Innovation conference’, by IFPRI in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in April 2008.

The conference, as seen by the New Agriculturalist was part of ‘the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) now joining the growing chorus‘ on necessary changes in agricultural research by ‘issuing its own “roadmap” for development, which champions the importance of innovation and the pressing need to make scientific research relevant to farmers‘.

One key objective that was pointed out in the conference was the need to “identify and promote better research...” since the “academic accomplishments of isolated laboratory staff have often found no practical use, with new findings often failing to trickle down to smallholders. If and when they have, some technologies have either been inappropriate or farmers have lacked the human and financial resources to implement them.” (Source: Article)

The article points out that the conference was looking for ways to address these problems. Some highlights of approaches proposed included:

• encouragement for researchers (including students) to talk to farmers and find ways of linking indigenous knowledge with more formal research processes and findings
• fundamental change in research structures and processes so that research is tailored to the needs of farmers and scientists have the technical skills to deal with them

More information about the conference, including key documents, can be found on the IFPRI Conference website

The topic of the event is closely aligned with the principles embodied in the ICT-KM program and its interventions. The ICT-KM is trying to support the “focus on changing systems” by Centres such as IFPRI and the CGIAR as a whole through learning about, sharing knowledge, providing technology and giving support in the types of tools, technologies, approaches, and systemic changes which can bring about and support such changes.

The ICT-KM program through the Knowledge Sharing in Research project provided funds to support this important event. In addition Enrica Porcari-CGIAR CIO and Leader of the ICT-KM program- represented the program at the event, gave a presentation on ICT-KM interventions, and chaired a session.

To see the ICT-KM interventions abstract -view ifpri-abstract-final

To see the ICT-KM interventions presentation-view(Note size = 1.5 MB) ictkm_kiard-addis-1-april1

The ICT-KM interventions presented will be featured in a chapter of the book which will be coming out of the Conference.

The Institutional KS project is suggesting and looking for feedback on a framework for action that has two main objectives:

• Imbed KS action into a strategic and practical  framework.
• Create a baseline for monitoring and evaluation of future KM/KS interventions.

This is an initial attempt which should be fine-tuned over the next months through:

• Discussions with the ICT-KM Program, and a wider KS practitioner community.
• Collaboration on the evaluation activity of KS project Phase 1
• Preparation and the outcomes of the CGIAR KM strategy workshop which is currently being prepared for December 08.

Rational

Knowledge sharing and organizational development

We argue that institutional KS is to be analyzed and developed as an integral part of organizational development. Organizational development “is the process through which an organization develops the internal capacity to most efficiently and effectively provide its mission work and to sustain itself over the long term. “ (see Wikipedia).

Organizational development takes place in a constant interaction between Power (decision making and effectiveness managed from the top) and Empowerment (processes that allow us to gain the knowledge, skill-sets and attitude needed to cope with and influence the changing world and the organizational circumstances in which we evolve). We also argue that organizational development is unfolding in a constant effort to the cope with the duality between Complexity and organizational Effectiveness. Complexity is increasing by the scientific research problematic itself, the scope, and the geographical spread and cultural diverse teams that are involved nowadays in our research work to mention only a couple, and Effectiveness is a condition for sustainability. Power, Empowerment, Complexity, and Effectiveness are main pillars and challenges in the path towards beneficial and positive organizational development and are represented in an axes chart (see below).

4 interrelated fields of action

• Three of the four fields of action created by the axes represent possible areas of KS intervention whereas the forth field between empowerment and effectiveness is the desirable stage where all organizational development efforts are aiming at: Momentum of adoption, impact and satisfaction.
• The field between Complexity and Empowerment is an area of action that aims at improving skill-sets, knowledge and attitudes. They address issues related to capacity building, and strengthening, M&E, Impact assessment and organizational learning.
• The field between Power and Complexity deals with strategic planning, development, or change management, as an effort to approach them in a systemic perspective and inclusive approach, based on an active interaction with the whole organization.
• The field between Effectiveness and Power deals with corporate aspects related to: administrative issue, business reengineering and development, as well as communications, all those efforts that intend to make organizational processes more effective, visible, and transparent.

The left side of the axes is the area of organizational development that deals with transformative issues; the right side is the area that deals with practical aspects of organizational development.

The circle around the four components reflects their constant interaction; they are all essential to organizational development. We can for example state that: Empowerment which is based on the acknowledgement of organizational complexity and which benefits from management support and participatory decision making processes leads most probably to organizational effectiveness.  We could also say: An organization that empowers its personnel but does not manage a momentum of decision-making is going to reach levels of complexity that are difficult to handle and are getting in the way of effectiveness.   

A framework for Institutional KS project activities
 
Within this suggested framework, the activities of the Institutional KS project can be clustered as follows:

• The KS Workshop, the KS Toolkit, the evaluation study of Phase 1 of the KS project (2004-2006) as well as the involvement with the KM4Dev community are activities that aim at empowerment of CGIAR staff  based on the acknowledgement of the complexity of organizational realities and our related KM/KS efforts.
• The involvement in the CGIAR Change Management Process, and AGM events, as well as a planned KM strategy workshop are activities that support strategic planning processes in order to evidence the usefulness of KS approaches in that area. The pilot project with CIFOR on their strategic planning process is also part of this group of activities.
• The pilot projects with IRRI (research data management) and WorldFish (effective communication through ‘storymercials’) are to be considered as an effort to showcase innovative ideas to make CGIAR daily business more effective and attractive. The KS Web site featuring Web 2.0 tools, and this blog are also to be considered part of this area.

The Institutional KS project has started to reflect with the ongoing Change Management Process coordinators on ways for effective engagement with all kinds of stakeholders.
The current opportunities to feed back to the process in general via a blog and the working groups outcomes (currently the Visioning group paper) through a discussion forum seem for the moment not generating lots of interest.
Many reasons can be found. Some are included in the following post on the Change Management blog post here.

But there are a number of things that we could do to encourage participation. Here are some ideas:

• The Center directors could send an encouraging message to their staff and role model by participating in the blog and / or forum.
• The working group members could forward the invitation to their networks and colleagues.
• The Centers could organize short seminars followed by group discussions and feed back the results via the blog or forum.
• The visioning paper could have an executive summary (if possible in Spanish and French to support all staff and stakeholders) in order to facilitate the scanning of the main messages and ideas.
• The Steering Committee and working groups could choose among them a blogger who updates the wider audience regularly

Those are just a few… I am curious to know if there are other ideas…

The latest edition of LEISA magazine- Magazine on Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture (June 2008 volume 24 no.2) features an article by Janice Jiggins entitled “Sustainable agriculture in the news: International study stresses role of farmers”–see article

This article is based on “A ground-breaking three-year study that recently concluded that the agriculture sector should use the know-how of small-holder farmers better“.

This is at the very heart of much of the work that is being done by the Knowledge Sharing in Research project and its Pilots–finding ways to share knowledge with stakeholders, including how to understand the needs and situations of beneficiaries on the ground, recognising and valuing their knowledge, skills, experiences and ideas, and finding ways to collaborate and learn with them.

Janice Jiggins opens her article by stating that “Global Agriculture is not delivering all it should.” She poses the question of “what kind of agricultural knowledge, science and technology do we need to solve these problems?“

The article highlights a massive study which has been recently undertaken: the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology (IAASTD). She informs the readers that “the broad conclusion was that agricultural knowledge and technology need drastic changes: ‘business as usual is not an option‘ “.

Interestingly she presents three main transitions that the study suggests to help move practice in the desired direction. Of note to our work in the Knowledge Sharing in Research project are:

“First transition: Science must complement local knowledge…”

and

“Second transition: Issues like subsidies, markets , access to land and know-how must take the necessities of small-holder farmers into account.”

The article concludes with:

“This assessment highlights the contribution of strong collaboration between researchers, formal science, and the knowledge, skills and expertise of small farmers in moving sustainable agriculture forward.“

This is an interesting support to work in the KSinR project and some of the Pilot projects who have been experimenting with approaches to knowledge sharing with stakeholders, beneficiaries and end users especially the:

• International Farmers’ Conference of ICARDA with presentation of stories from farmers themselves
• Participatory monitoring and evaluation with communities in an adaptive management fisheries project by WorldFish
• Collaborative work on wastewater research and message dissemination by IMWI in Ghana
• The use of a Learning Alliance approach in IWMI’s WASPA project to work directly with stakeholders to identify problems and solutions

How can we derive, share and apply lessons and best practices of ways to engage with farmers in order to learn and make use of their needs and knowledge in our agricultural work?

What has been/is working? What should be replicated or mainstreamed?

How can we improve our collaboration and learning efforts?

Hopefully lessons from the KSinR project will start to contribute to this larger discussion and movement.

What seems to be apparent is that in many cases people believe in the idea behind multi-stakeholder processes or platforms- seeing the benefit in bringing together various stakeholders in a process of research and action towards a defined goal.

But where many questions still lie is in how to organise such a process, what model to adopt, which characteristics to capitalise on.

In the previous posts on the Learning Alliance in the WASPA project- Alexandra Clemett from IWMI indicated that trying to use the whole structure proposed for Learning Alliances was too much for her project–and somewhat jokingly said “what we need is Learning Alliance light!”

And perhaps there is some more serious idea in this?

What are some of the main components that should be developed for a multi-stakeholder process?

What are key activities or ways to work with the stakeholders?

How should it be structured? organised?

How can we get the most benefit/value out of a process without it taking too much time, energy and resources to carry out?

What would our Learning Alliance light–look like?

Check out the most recent ICT-KM newsletter (2nd Quarter 200 at http://ictkm.cgiar.org/Newsletter/newsletter.html which has just been released.

This bumper edition contains lots of updates and articles on ICT-KM program projects, activities, initiatives, events and much more.

The newsletter highlights the KS project particularly through:

• an article about the KS toolkit-see link
• a piece about the recently held ICARDA International Farmers’ Conference-see link
• an advertisement of the active KS blog in ‘Bragging about our blog(s)’

The newsletter contains lots of other interesting information and is well worth a look.

written by Gerry Toomey

For knowledge creators, brokers, and users alike, it’s perhaps stating the obvious to declare that we live in an increasingly interconnected and complex world. While this modern truism has some annoying consequences – information overload being among the most pervasive – we shouldn’t lose sight of the enormous opportunities on offer. At least that’s part of the thinking that drives the Information and Communications Technology and Knowledge Management (ICT-KM) Program of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

The Institutional Knowledge Sharing (KS) Project of this Program together with its CGIAR Center partners has been experimenting with a range of KS tools and methods over the past five years and has recently been assembling these and many others into a toolkit (http://kstoolkit.wikis.cgiar.org). This evolving resource – continually updated, edited, expanded, and critiqued in wiki fashion – is targeted mainly on scientists, research support teams, and administrators in the 15 international centers of the CGIAR. But it also serves their partner organizations, as well as development organizations working in areas other than agriculture. And it benefits from their diverse feedback too.

Science has traditionally relied on a few key vehicles for sharing and validating new knowledge. The most important are experiment replication, the publication of research results in peer reviewed journals, literature searches, and formal and informal communications at conferences, workshops, and other meetings. In addition, the patent system serves as a complementary knowledge broker in instances where research spawns technical innovation. With such longstanding  institutions already in place, why is there a need for new avenues to share knowledge? The answer to that question is surprisingly complex; but a few key reasons stand out.

Read the full article

During my visit with the IWMI-led Wastewater, Agriculture and Sanitation for Poverty Alleviation (WASPA) project, I spent alot of time with the Project Leader Alexandra Clemett, an IWMI researcher, to discuss the Learning Alliance approach her project is piloting with support from the ICT-KM Knowledge Sharing in Research Project.

Alexandra shared alot of her thoughts, ideas, frustrations, lessons, positive feelings, and challenges around using the Learning Alliance as a knowledge sharing strategy/mechanism in the research project she is leading. This post is my impressions coming from our discussions.

We discussed two main aspects:

1. The Learning Alliance itself-evaluating it as a strategy for KS, how does it work within the research project, what are some of successes, what are some of the challenges, what is the value, what have you learned, etc
2. The M&E framework which has been designed and is being used in the two Learning Alliances (Sri Lanka and Bangladesh) to derive lessons about the Learning Alliance approach

On the Learning Alliance itself (point 1), the following were some of the highlights of our interview:

• The Learning Alliance approach has some positives/values and some negatives/challenges.
• It is very time consuming. It takes alot of personnel, time and energy to run this approach and this costs money and may take resources away from other research activities
• It is an expensive approach to use
• However in trying to create interventions on the ground that bring about impact it is necessary to build relationships, especially with those who can and will carry out actions.
• One has to be patient with the LA approach as you may not see results right away.
• Many times the benefits of the LA approach are intangible, and some even outside of the project mandate. It is hard to measure them and be accountable for them.

Then we discussed the M&E framework(point 2) that was developed and is being used with the Learning Alliances .

The M&E framework developed for the LA component of the project aims to inform not only the project about the direction, operation and value of the LAs but also to provide others with awareness of the approach and the realities of its use. The content results as well as the developed methodology will both be of use to others.

Alexandra explained that the M&E framework includes three main components:

1. Review of the process (LA) with the project team–using interviews
2. Review with all the stakeholders involved–through a mix of Focus Group Discussions and interviews
3. Exploring if the knowledge coming up in the LA has been shared or outscaled to others and if it being used

At this point they are starting to introduce and use the M&E framework, but later on what will need to be done is an evaluation of what worked from the framework which they finally decided on. Already Alexandra feels that the method is a bit too complicated and so may not be used properly or fully as it is.They will have to wait ti see what kind of information comes out of using it though.

We then discussed whether the Learning Alliance approach as it is presented/promoted is appropriate for this or other research projects. “I think it is too much as it is and rather you need to think about what the minimum requirements for a Learning Alliance are or could be–and just use/do these” remarked Alexandra.

“There is alot of value in bringing a large numbers of relevant stakeholders together,” Alexandra stated, ” but it is not necessary to have ALL stakeholders involved in ALL activities, at ALL times or stages of the project. It just becomes too cumbersome.“

“The focus of energy turns to trying to persuade all stakeholders to come to meetings, rather than focusing on the necessary activities and the key stakeholders you need for a particular activity at that time” Alexandra added.

The reality is also that not all stakeholders have the expertise necessary to engage and be useful in certain activities. And the danger is that in coming together with other groups, some people try to pretend that they have the expertise and make alot of statements and suggestions which are not correct or useful.

Meetings and activities should be flexible to recognize that not all stakeholders need to be involved in certain activities or even certain meetings.

Alex told me that for individual activities she thinks that it would be better to work with the few necessary stakeholders. ” The value of having all stakeholders together comes first at the beginning of the project to identify problems with stakeholders, consult with stakeholders about ideas for how to move forward on these, and engage those who will be willing to collaborate“. An example of this was the development of Participatory Action Plans (PAPs) to be carried out by the project, through the LA.

“You can come back to the larger group later to then share knowledge that has been generated and to showcase what actions have been accomplished and to once again check with them about next steps.”

Finally the stakeholders should be informed on all project activities and efforts made to see how actions and networks can continue.

“This is a different model for a Learning Alliance–meeting less often, with varied participation in different Learning Alliance activities. This is Learning Alliance light, I guess” remarked Alexandra.

Key values of the Learning Alliance approach which should be capitalised on include:

* be able to do problem identification with a wide range of stakeholders–helps to improve research questions and methods, making it more appropriate and relevant for the reality on the ground

*collaborating with various groups on activities which gives experience, skills and greater buy-in

*place and opportunity to share research findings and knowledge with a number of stakeholders

* useful mechanism for getting research into use

On the flip side Alexandra pointed out some challenges to using the approach:

*it is a highly ambitious approach with expectations of innovations coming out of it–while often the real needs can be met with quite basic solutions, but there is pressure to come up with something ‘amazing’

*how to integrate relevant training into the Learning Alliance

*how to measure and show real benefits from the Learning Alliance

*what to do after the project finishes–what does sustainability of the Learning Alliance mean?

I asked Alexandra the same final question as I did with COSI- ‘ Could WASPA have been done without the Learning Alliance approach?’

Alexandra proposed that without the LA approach, WASPA could have been designed and carried in two different ways: As a ‘Classic research project’ or a ‘Classic Implementation project’. She described these as extremes on the spectrum to make a point.

The Classic research model would have:

• had little buy-in or engagement
• decided on research questions in isolation of others or situation on the ground
• carried out research- generated knowledge
• come up with findings and recommendations
• had little way of getting actions carried out based on research

The Classic implementation model would have:

• top-down interventions without engagement of stakeholders
• little other benefits other than actual intervention, e.g empowerment, increased knowledge, skills and experience
• chosen and implemented interventions in isolation to other actors, efforts and issues; perhaps not understanding broader issues and limitations

What the Learning Alliance did is to bring these two types of approaches together and find a balance. So you are finding out the problems, discussing it together, carrying out research, sharing the research, deciding on actions, engaging in collaborative efforts, and implementing actions. The Learning Alliance helps to cover the spectrum.

The Wilgoda Community, a community of mainly Tamils working as labourers for the Kurunegala Municipal Council, is one of the members of the Learning Alliance of the IWMI-led Wastewater, Agriculture, and Sanitation for Poverty Alleviation (WASPA) project. The Learning Alliance is one of two Learning Alliances set up in the project sites of WASPA- Kurunegala, Sri Lanka and Rajshahi in Bangladesh.

I spent an afternoon talking to the WIlgoda Community recently to find out their perspective on the Learning Alliance approach which has been piloted in the WASPA project through support from the ICT-KM Knowledge Sharing in Research project, which is learning from the piloting of such knowledge sharing approaches in research projects.

The Wilgoda Community were invited to be part of the Learning Alliance which is addressing wastewater agriculture.

Hum?! Doesn’t it seem like a strange group to have involved when looking at wastewater agriculture? Well not if we are looking at more holistic management of water, sanitation and the two combined in wastewater- because the Wilgoda community have been contributing to the (mainly organic) pollution of the canal water which reaches the farmers at the end, by using it as a replacement for broken, communal toilets in their community.

Thus this project realised the need to bring together all the various actors contributing to, making decisions around, and with possibility to do actions etc…but needed a way to facilitate such collaboration, learning and research into action. They chose the Learning Alliance approach.

So how does the Wilgoda Community feel about the Learning Alliance approach used in this project?

“We really like the WASPA project and also the Learning Alliance” remarked the Wilgoda Community Organisation Chairperson, one of four members of the community to attend LA meetings.

‘But why’, I pressed, ‘has it helped you?’

As a marginalised community in the eyes of the state-run agencies such as the Municipal Council, these people face many more rights issues when it comes to land, housing, water supply and provision of sanitation infrastructure.

Before the project there were no proper sanitation (toilet and bathing) facilities. The toilets were leaking and there were no doors. “We were forced to use the canal instead“. Before the Learning Alliance approach- “we had no way to tell others about these problems or seek help to address them“. What the WASPA project with its LA process has resulted in for them they told me was “we now have had our toilets fixed and replaced and new systems for use, cleaning and maintenance developed. Our water supply has also been improved. We don’t have to use the canal any more.”

When asked what the larger impact of it all has been, the Chairperson said ” the people are much cleaner now. We have better sanitation behaviour now–not everyone yet, but most people.”

So I continued to explore what the key aspects of the Learning Alliance had contributed to their improved behaviours and lives.

Some key points raised by them were:

• Before the Learning Alliance they had no avenue for making relationships with groups working in or managing the sanitation (and other) sectors, especially the Municipal Council. They were scared and didn’t feel that they approach groups to help them.
• The Learning Alliance then offered them a chance to be able to meet and discuss with other groups.
• Over time they gained more confidence to speak to other groups, even outside of LA meetings
• At Learning Alliance meetings they felt that they had the opportunity to speak, to share their problems and discuss with others how to solve them.
• They were able to gain help and collaboration in plans to fix their issues, e.g toilets
• Before the LA, alot of promises were also made but not followed through. The LA, however, rrmade plans and carried them through to actions.
• They could be involved in activities in the LA–so gain a sense of empowerment and pride by being allowed, supported and motivated to plan, manage, and carry out activities.
• They got alot of knowledge, skills and experience by being involved in the LA.

While many of their perspectives on the Learning Alliance were positive, they did indicate a few issues:

• They feel that Learning Alliance approach requires an external intermediary such as WASPA project team or COSI to manage the meetings and relationships between groups–marginalised groups could still be marginalised in this setting if it is not managed properly
• How can they continue to have this kind of voice, support and access to relevant groups to help them?

From my own perspective I could see that despite positive results from the project through the Learning Alliance, the larger issues surrounding the marginalisation of these people and the resulting issues could not be resolved by the Learning Alliance.

The quetion of whether the LA eperience has any longer lasting effects comes with two answers from my observations:

1. On the one hand the benefits seen during the project and LA will not continue without these in place. Without the LA intervention run by an intermediary, this kind of coordinated, collaborative activity will not continue

HOWEVER:

2. The process did build alot of self-confidence and pride amongst the community which will have longer effects on the community taking actions themselves and changing behaviours.

“The people are keeping the toilets and showers cleaner now. They have even started throwing shampoo packets into a small garbage instead of everywhere. If someone see someone making a mess or littering they tell them off” the Chairperson proudly told me.