What are the recommendations you would have to decision makers for the use of ICTs in resilience? (December 9th)

Welcome to our fifth and last question of the forum discussion on the use of ICTs for Resilience. We have collected quite some interesting contributions so far! We hope to read more under this question too. This question will be important for the development of the policy brief on the use of ICTs for Resilience. Do not forget that all questions remain open until the end of the forum and you can go back an forth between the questions in case you still want to add onto the discussions under earlier opened questions. Thank you all for your contributions! 

My recommendation is for Governments, Non-Governmental Organisations, and Civil Society to recognize the important role played by "conformists, disruptionists and misfits" in the modern society. Every individual has something to contribute to the entrepreneurial spirit and to resilience building whether they have a "status"' or not. 

Recognition of such members of the society should also be supported with pragmatic measures/mechanisms to allow for the full expression of talents and abilities of conformists, disruptionists and misfits. 

History is replete with experimenters and pioneers who pursued relentlessly (and still do) simple ideas regardless of their absurdness, and got transformative and impactful results. Such ideas in hindsight find themselves as the foundation to the changes that can be attributed partly to ICTs. 

Some key barriers to uptake by farmers include; illiteracy, financial illiteracy, digital illiteracy and lack of trust.  Recent mAgri experience in Malawi (http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00m8qj.pdf), Kenya (http://www.technoserve.org/files/downloads/case-study-connected-farmer-alliance.pdf), Tanzania and elsewhere reveal that in our rush to roll out platforms in rural areas we have not acknowledged these key barriers in terms of promoting awareness and education amongst farmers.  There has also been little/no regard for the requisite internal change management within agribusinesses to secure mgmt and staff buy-in.  

For issues such as; crop diseases/pests, increased production quality/quantity, cooperative formation and improved post harvest handling it is interesting to note that NGOs, civil society and governments will robustly respond with traditional agriculture knowledge transfer initiatives.  Decision makers should embrace ICT as simply another content area of agriculture that can be added to the traditional menu of agriculture knowledge transfer content areas.  To date, any ICT4Ag awareness and education that has been done has happened on an ad hoc basis.  By integrating ICT into the traditional menu of agri knowledge transfer we will 'institutionalize' the promotion of awareness and education amongst the farmers as well as other value chain stakeholders.   

Unlike the traditional content areas, from a practical standpoint this will require that NGO, civil society and government invest the resources to create and deliver  - for the first time - ICT4Ag training curricula.  In addition, these entities also need to develop their own human capacity in ICT.  In addition, as with the previously mentioned lack of internal change management and mgmt and staff buy-in by agribusinesses .....there needs to be the same internal change management and mgmt and staff buy-in by NGO, civil society and government.       

The fundamental approach towards use of ICT for resilience in agriculture is different in every aspect as compared with other products or services for urban, domestic and industrial use. Though the products are same, tones for rural use must be appropriate considering simplicity, robustness,  multi-fold illiteracy, need of bigger life cycle of products, local support, moderate cost and adequate training.  Here is the budding of innovations which is the key of success. An innovative thought always pops up when there are severe constraints. In India, there are thousands of local innovations in the rural sector of which few having.long term scalable business model could succeed.

I refer to our own case of Nano Ganesh - first version in 2004 – For achieving longer distance range of remote control for water pumps, we innovatlvely used Nokia feature phone as a low cost wireless device near hazardous river beds. In first instance, Nokia officials could not even believe it. It was awarded as the Best Mobile Innovation for emerging markets in 2009 by Nokia in Barcelona.and gained popularity among farmers too.

For recommendations of use of ICTs for resilience, I think that it will be convenient to refer the list of dos and don’ts for the following different dimensions –

1. Use of 4 Ps model – A proven model for ICT success for resilience

Public (Government, Institutions) - Private (ICT enabler company) – People (NGOs, Local technicians and user) Partnership

2. Innovative approach in every segment of operations –

Innovation in the technology, ways of operations, adoption, training, cost reductions, use etc. wherever possible.

3. Appropriate Product design approach, R&D –  

Appropriate technology, easy to use irrespective of education, gender, age and language, robust for 3-5 years performance, moderate cost etc. are important while developing the product supported by continuous upgrading of the technology as per the market demand and evolution.

4. Strong need of infrastructure for local training & support for speedy adoption –

Mechanism for in-plant and on-site training to user and local technicians is must for building self confidence in use of ICT.  Use of latest communication techniques, videos, literature, call centre has to be efficient enough to handle user’s queries 24x7.

5. Continuous feedback of users in the product life cycle -

Pains of the user and their aspirations must be understood including emotional, mental and psychological impact.

6. Empowering farmer’s internal capacity for positive attitude with different inspiration processes.

7. Agro Electronics Commando – Establishing a network of village technicians who are adequately trained for the assured operation and maintenance of ICT. DO PLAN for Local Support Team and AVOID expenses in travelling and resources.

8. Need of innovative ways for reducing the expenses on promotion & marketing – Effective use of media, internship for educational students, R&D from engineering institutes, social  media and programmes, CSR funding , participation in different exhibitions, government supported schemes etc. always help to reduce the heavy burden of expenses on advocacy and promotion activities.

9. Building of Social Entrepreneur Business model – Use of technology for the social impact on a larger scale always needs to be driven with mission and passion.

10. Permanent emotional connections with the community – A top secret for ICT success in villages. It should be the long term commitment with ourselves to serve the rural community which is sometimes beyond short term profits but assuring life time happiness and peace.

I shall add few more in the second phase very shorlly.

Considering the severe challenges for adoption of ICT in the remote places with assurance of prompt delivery, support and healthy performance for 3 to 5 years at low cost, a business and finance model is necessarily a special one.

Speciality of the Rural Market –

The main USP of the rural market is that the farmers are facing so many challenges needing life changing support in different forms out of which the technology is a major one.

Huge market potential with exponetial growth rate and dramatic socio-economic impact is a promising driving factor to invest in this sector.

ICT for villages saves different elements like unwanted expenses, energy resources, time, labor along with convenience and comforts assuring healthy yield in agriculture production.

The farmer’s class is very much sensitive and well aware of their problems. They accept the technology solutions very positively only after a trust is built along with larger time cycles and commitment of the brands to serve the rural community. e.g. In India, Jain Irrigation Systems pioneered the work in drip and sprinklers irrigation since 80’s with commitments and today they control the major share of the Indian market.

Few points on the business and finance -

1. Various Partnerships - The business model has to consider different alliances in various fields e.g. partnership with telecom partner, electronics manufacturer, educational institutes, NGOs, government, established rural brands, engineering contractors and so many...!

2. 4 P Model - As introduced in my previous part of Q5, the successful formula is of 4 Ps i.e.Public, Private, People Partnership.

3. Social Entrepreneurship or Impact business where expectations are to build business for profit or no profit model for the benefit of the society, saving of material resources, socio-economic change among on scalable, profitable & sustainable basis.

4. Speed in scalable adoption after pilot project is done

5. Involvement of education institutes in building and executing business plans

6. Patient funding is adequate in majority of social-entrepreneurship cases

7. Finance Literacy - ICT enabler must be FINANCE LITERATE beyond his technical capabilities.

Hope there are so many other evolutionary aspects and recommendations for ICT for Resilience. It would be always good for all to share individual experiences and insights on this forum.

My cheers to E-Agriculture community...!

Few points on the business and finance -

1. Various Partnerships - The business model has to consider different alliances in various fields e.g. partnership with telecom partner, electronics manufacturer, educational institutes, NGOs, government, established rural brands, engineering contractors and so many...!

I quote Santosh Ostwal from his previous comment because it is so important. My recommendation to decision makers is to embrace business. Encourage investment from large private enterprise as once markets and economies are established it is these enterprises which will benefit. Why should they not invest early? But decision makers and governments need to maintain control of the objectives and clearly set codes of practice and a public, transparent and agreed community centred approach. 

There is no "one size fits all" solution. Each deployment of ICT, and each farmer, community, region or country is different with specific needs. This makes it safer to deal with large enterprise as the possibility of a single, massive monopoly is reduced due to the diversity of the sector. Yet if enterprises ivest and work together, they can drive wider adoption of ICT tools and supports, to the benefit of all.

Thanks to e-Agriculture forum for arranging this discussion, it has been very worthwhile.

Market driven ICT tools

Designing ICT in such a way that they respond to a need in terms of service, as well as a product for a firm, an Ngo a public agency. In a such perspective, ICT service for resilience can lead to a sustainable business development while solving a "societal problem". 

Affordability, accessibility

Promoters of ICT can be sensitive to not create a social differentiation between users and non-users. tarification to access ICT services can create social exclusion. In addition, ICT technologist development may co-construct ICT innovations in such a way to assure their great and easy adoption.

Engage with stakeholders in imaginig ICT for their utilization

I very much agree with Sinead Quealy’s comment that even as we promote business and private sector involvement and investment in ICT for resilience efforts, “governments need to maintain control of the objectives and clearly set codes of practice and a public, transparent and agreed community centred approach.” As we see with some of the challenges digital entrepreneurs experience with maintaining control over their IP when they take on funding or other support (ex. access to APIs) from larger private sector players such as mobile operators, it is easy for the big business lens to lose track of both certain end-user needs and the needs of smaller private sector actors.

But I think your points that  “There is no "one size fits all" solution,” and this can free us from fear of monopoly is also wise. This mindset enables practitioners (governments, international donors, community-based organizations, technology players, household-level end-users) to take more risks as we design projects and involve diverse stakeholders.

So my recommendation to decision-makers is to jump in and encourage investment in frontier technologies and frontier ideas, and know that no one solution will be a panacea.

I also encourage decision-makers not to underestimate the importance of knowledge management and information capture, because if other decision makers do not know of your successes and failures, how can we move initiatives forward and take small projects and isolated pilots to scale?

Finally, learning from our failures can often be more useful and tangible than learning from successful initiatives. We’ve even organized full conference events called “Fail Fests” to discuss exactly this. Particularly in the context of a conversation on resilience, I cannot emphasize enough how dissemination and presentation of failed or challenged efforts has helped lead to bigger and better things, both in my own work and work I have seen in others.

Of all the recommendations to decision makers concerned with the use of ICTs in resilience I can think of, this is the most important: 

ICTs can be a two edged sword in that they can bring about greater efficiency and with it greater economic success. The other side of the coin is that this greater efficiency can in many cases bring about increased loss of jobs and with it, increased social upheaval. Long term, we have to ensure that these ICT efficiencies do not reach down into the economics of those already empoverished and disenfranchised.  Especially at this level of society, as well as in the middle classes, we have to find the right balance in implementing ICT resilience solutions.  While the following great quote on this subject by a great man relates to the middle classes in developed countries, we must not reach a situation whereby it also relates to the 500 million empoverished smallholder farmers already suffering as a result of the economic inequalities of our world.

Stephen Hawking, November 30th 2016: “We’re at the most dangerous moment in history of humanity. The concerns underlying these votes [Brexit / Trump] about the economic consequences of globalisation and accelerating technological change are absolutely understandable. The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining. This in turn will accelerate the already widening economic inequality around the world.”