Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

Many thanks for carrying this consultation.

I’d like to offer some reflections which pertain not only to this current week but also previous key questions.

There has been tremendous progress in the recent past to make knowledge sharing and learning as inherent part of all organizations to improve the quality of the programs and increase impact for the ones we serve: the vulnerable men, women, boys and girls.

Overall, I think we need have a better informed on the push and pull factors around KM for resilience. I think someone already touch on that point. 

Here at the USAID Center for Resilience which supports resilience across the agency we are utilizing a variety of external platforms which include Agrilinks, the Food Security and Nutrition Network and the USAID learning labs as well as some internal tools. As, Greg Collins, our director, mentioned in previous post, USAID also has participated in the FSIN resilience measurement working group.

I also would like to bring your attention on other relevant platforms such as the the upcoming https://www.globalinnovationexchange.org and  such OCDE and World Bank platform on innovations.

We should ensure that the RECs’ needs and existing initiatives are also considered and involved  (i.e. IGAD has developed its resilience KM strategy which should be considered as well and include the IGAD Resilience Analysis Unit which has an important role in KM and learning including capacity building component for the member states).

Other global initiatives such as the Global Resilience Partnership should be also strongly involved as it already covers a wide and growing range of partners and initiatives.

Capacity development learning material and activities would be a good feature of the platform- could include link to existing trainings by partners, keep track of upcoming in person trainings and events. We can share with you the "introduction to Resilience at USAID" a Primer e-learning module which we released mid last year on Agrilinks. We are also working on Thematic Series on Resilience for USAID and partners which should be ready later this year.  

In terms of measuring the success of the knowledge sharing platform, I would recommend consulting this well done Guide to monitoring and evaluating knowledge management in Global Health programs which can be applied to other KM area.

These are some initial thoughts and I am happy to further engage. 

A regarder de près, la problématique de la résilience n’est pas nouvelle pour les sahéliens, leurs gouvernants, leurs institutions et leurs PTF. En effet depuis plus de 40 ans, ils ont par la création du CILSS matérialisé leur volonté et leur solidarité à combattre ensemble la sécheresse et la désertification. Les initiatives de sortie durable de l’insécurité alimentaire, de la  malnutrition  et de la pauvreté qu’ils ont pour ce faire créées, se sont articulées autour de deux orientations essentielles :

-       une réponse à court terme pour prévenir et gérer les crises alimentaires et réhabiliter les zones à risque ;

-       une réponse structurelle à moyen long terme pour réduire la pauvreté et l’insécurité alimentaire des ménages par l’amélioration de la productivité agricole, l’accroissement de la  production et l’amélioration de l’accès au marché

Malheureusement, les processus d’opérationnalisation de ces orientations étaient cloisonnés voire concurrentiels notamment dans la mobilisation des ressources.  La présente montée en puissance de la problématique la résilience ces dernières années, avec les populations vulnérables et la sécurité alimentaire comme focus, donne par conséquent la formidable opportunité de créer des liens forts entre les efforts humanitaires et de développement et ce, de manière visible et concrète. Ce rapprochement est synonyme entre autres (i) de plus de synergie entre urgence et réponse structurelle, (ii) de mutualisation des efforts voire des ressources financières, (iii) de programmation concertée et de meilleure appréhension des effets et impacts des interventions, (iv) de meilleure identification des cibles.

C’est pour cette raison qu’en 2012, les responsables des organisations régionales Ouest Africaines (CEDEAO, UEMOA, CILSS) et l’Union européenne ont convenu de fédérer leurs efforts autour d’un partenariat international pour la résilience à travers une initiative baptisée « Alliance Globale pour la Résilience -AGIR- Sahel et Afrique de l’Ouest. Elle ambitionne d’harmoniser les réponses aux situations d’urgences et  aux causes structurelles de l’insécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle.

Par conséquent, pour minimiser les risques d’éparpillement des initiatives non porteuses de résultats, d’émiettement des ressources financières, de refus de mutualisation des ressources et des efforts, les porteurs de AGIR prônent certaines exigences et conditions préalables :

1.              L’existence d’une volonté politique affirmée des Etats, des institutions et des acteurs concernés nationaux et régionaux. Elle est nécessaire et se matérialise entre autres par :

a)     des investissements structurants visant l’utilisation durable des ressources disponibles et l’accroissement non moins durable de la productivité et de la production agricole au sens large du terme et ;

b)     une réponse appropriée et efficace aux pénuries alimentaires – ce qui implique une assistance alimentaire permanente - par la réhabilitation des infrastructures de soutien à la production et la restauration rapide des capitaux circulants dans les zones affectées par les crises.

2.              La disponibilité d’un cadre stratégique et des programmes structurants nationaux de résilience. Le cadre stratégique en tant que référence pour les interventions aussi bien régionales que nationales sera décliné dans les pays en projets et programmes. Le processus de formulation desdits programmes se fera à travers des dialogues nationaux participatifs et inclusifs durant lesquels, il sera procédé à un « mapping » des politiques, programmes et cadres de dialogues existants à l’aune de la résilience. Ce «mapping» permettra d’identifier les priorités pertinentes contribuant au renforcement de la résilience des ménages, familles et communautés vulnérables. Le caractère inclusif des dialogues nationaux est crucial pour favoriser la mutualisation des efforts et surtout éviter la cacophonie aussi bien dans la formulation des projets et programmes que leur mise en œuvre et leur mesure. Cette dernière requiert non seulement des données fiables mais également consensuelles.

3.        La disponibilité des moyens et capacités nécessaires pour mesurer les impacts investissements faits sur la résilience. Ce qui passe par la mise en place d’une Plateforme technique pour évaluer, analyser et mesurer la résilience. Cette Plateforme sera structurée et régie par des textes qui règlementent son fonctionnement. Elle devra fonctionner suivant une approche participative et inclusive mobilisant l’ensemble des acteurs ayant participer aux dialogues nationaux de formulation des programmes résilience. Compte tenu de la multiplicité des initiatives, une de ses tâches serait aussi de concevoir et faire appliquer un outil consensuel d’évaluation, d’analyse et de mesure de la résilience à tous les niveaux (national, communautés, familles et ménages).

Enfin créer de la synergie entre les initiatives autour de la résilience et harmoniser et partager les connaissances en la matière me poussent à exprimer quelques préoccupations :

-        Beaucoup de définitions et de concepts de la résilience existent encore aujourd’hui. Lesquels prendre ? D’où la nécessité d’adopter une approche pragmatique pour aborder la problématique de la résilience. Il est de ce fait nécessaire de prendre en compte les aspects entre autres liés à la programmation, aux compromis à faire et au coût-efficacité des interventions.

-        Il faut aussi pouvoir se mettre d’accord sur un certain nombre de principes à savoir : la compréhension du contexte de la résilience, le renforcement de capacité des acteurs pour participer à la construction de la résilience, la prise en compte des institutions qui  y contribuent, bâtir autour de l’atténuation des risques, la prise en compte de la nutrition.

-        La résilience porte certes sur 4 types de capital : le capital humain, le capital institutionnel, le capital social et le capital politique. Mais, il est essentiel d’investir en premier lieu dans le capital humain qui est le fondement des autres capitaux.

-        il est nécessaire d’impliquer les petits producteurs dans la planification, la mise en œuvre et le suivi évaluation des politiques de résilience.

-        La nécessite de prendre de plus en plus en compte la dimension régionale de la résilience dans nos réflexions me paraît évidente. Les communautés vulnérables frontalières à cheval sur deux pays ou plus devront nécessairement harmoniser leurs initiatives pour investir dans et mieux exploiter les ressources partagées.

One of the better options for this type of platform is the Drupal Content Management System (CMS). Its abundant set of features makes it the ideal platform. I will highlight a few features. 

Organic Groups - This features helps to organize content around groups or sub groups.

Taxonomy - Categorizing content around tags, taxonomy terms helps users find information easily but it also creates a richer user experience

Faceted Search - Building content around facets helps users find information very easily using a combination of filters, tags, terms

Messaging - Instant messaging between users or groups

Interactive maps, Views(Query Builder), 

While working on a World Bank project, understandrisk.org we incorporated some of these features. 

The other powerful aspect about Drupal is that it has matured beyond simply being a CMS and has evolved into a framework which means that you can build anything with it, interface with external applications based on your unique requirements.

Kind regards

Cavin Mugarura

Technical Lead - Blue Node Media

Dear all,

thanks for opening this up - I think it is great to raise the issue of ICT & Knowledge management in the early stage of platform development.

First of all, I think it is critical to define who the target users of this platform will be. They are the one who we expect will be engaging with it and ultimately make it grow and flourish. The more we know about them, the better we will be able to build a platform responding to their information and knowledge needs through the information and communication channels they already use.

To "ensure that knowledge products and other platform contents are used, useful, adopted and upscaled" the first step is design knowledge products with the users - as stated by the principles for digital development adopted by various sister UN agencies, among others (e.g. UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR, WHO).

There is indeed a huge difference in the information required and the ICT tools used by policy & decision makers, researchers, humanitarian operators, and vulnerable communities: this doesn't mean that the platform cannot serve more than one of these groups. By making the platform agile, as recommended by Joel, it will be easier to add/remove modules dynamically.

Another possible idea is to channel some of the interaction on external platforms that target user groups may be already using. If the Platform will be hosted in-house, it will provide the chance to have only verified information and knowledge products on the platform while leaving the community freely able to share knowledge outside. With ad hoc facilitation, the knowledge generated in this community could also feed the platform itself after validation. For the more, if the community is hosted on a platform included in zero-rating packages (such as that offered by Facebook in many countries of the developing world) this would allow having knowledge available for free to a larger user base.

I definitely agree with the point made by Andrew Nadeau. Especially if Sub-Saharan Africa is a major target of this platform, it is clear that we should make it mobile-friendly. Mobile is the present and future of the region. Out of the existing 400’000, 60% of African villages already have access to mobile network coverage (Orange Telecom). For the more, the percentage of the population using the Internet is rising thanks to the growth of mobile broadband subscriptions (17.4% of population in 2015). Since 2013 it is more likely to find Internet access in an African households than a computer.

I also think it is good to think about the features this Platform may have.

No matter who the users will be - I am positive that they will be hungry for information, knowledge and training. Learning tools, as recommended by Fabiana, are a great way to engage users. They can also be instrumental in attracting users to the platform - especially if training courses provide participants with simple certificates. Monitoring the way people does tests would also provide with relevant information about the knowledge gaps of key stakeholders.

Finally, I think that investing into facilitation to provide the users with access to information and the tools on the platform will be critical. Should I choose between investing more in technology or facilitation I won't have any doubts: facilitation can transform the platform into a community, the other way around is unlikely to happen.

Hope it helps for now!

Andrew, I wanted to pipe in and agree with you on this.  I think that we need to think about this type of application as being driven by web searches, rather than someone coming to a destination portal.

In other words, a user might go to their browser and type in what they are looking for, and then expect to get directly to that page.  This is the most common model nowadays for people seeking information---things like portals and paywalls and other 'hidden content' are not how people find information.

Of course, there may be a concept of a community or a collaborative exercise where people come together to discuss, work on ideas, and refine thoughts.  But I think that your vision of how people will address Internet applications in the future is absolutely correct.

Joel

Hi Everyone,

I just wanted to note the issue of scalability of the platform to accommodate mobile/table only users, as well as users that have a preference in communicating and conducting knowledge searches using these devices. These platforms are becoming ubiquitous in many parts of the world, and we will see the same in Africa if you consider the statistics provided by Justin and Paul as part of the opening statement in this discussion. I think the platform should be designed with a forward looking approach in terms of web and mobile based technologies with at least a 5 year timeframe. 5 years may be hard to gauge in terms of emerging technologies, but smart phone access and contributions to the platform need to be considered, as well as a strategy to incorporate social media into the platform design.

Regards,

Andrew

C. Andrew Nadeau

Senior Capacity Development Officer

Head, Capacity Development Unit

Office for Partnerships, Advocacy and Capacity Development

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Dear Dr. Snyder,

Thank you for your contribution.

I like the idea of you providing "guidelines that might apply no matter who the end-user is", and the possible approach to building the proposed platform.

The need for incentives to encourage users to use the platform is also very critical.

Let us hear what others say about your guidelines, or possible alternatives.

Regards,

Justin

Some thoughts on a platform…

I think that it's good to throw something out here to get started from the IT side of the house, so here are five requirement that I think go along with this platform.

From a user point of view, it's not clear exactly what class of users you're talking about.  I don't think you're trying to support the affected population, although the paragraph about mobile phone subscribers and Internet penetration suggests you are.  In any case, I think we can come up with some guidelines that might apply no matter who the end-user is.

First, there is a clear direction for web-based applications to be the base for everything nowadays.  In the case of the directions in the earlier consultations, there is nothing here which would require a heavy-weight client or massive amounts  of client programming.  So from a technology point of view, you'd have these basic design requirements:

1- built to run in browsers, without unnecessary plugins (ActiveX, Flash, Java, Silverlight)

2- responsive interface (Responsive is a term of art for web designers that indicates a web site that "knows" it is being looked at on a small screen such as a tablet or phone and behaves differently; everyone reading this should have encountered this phenomenon already as they switch between well-known sites on laptop, tablet and phone)

Within the platform, it seems like you will want to have multiple sub-applications.  These, I think it is obvious, should be able to be plugged (and possibly unplugged) easily without re-engineering the system.  For example, one 'sub-application' might be a discussion forum where people can pose questions and get help from the community to answer them.  Another might be a calendar sub-application where participants can share information about events, conferences, webinars, etc.  Over time, it might be discovered that the calendar is not useful, and so it should be easy to unplug.  And over time it might be discovered that there is a need for some sort of collaboration/training piece (as has already been mentioned), so this should be easy to plug in.

I think that the designers will find this simpler to deal with if the whole project is thought of as modular, rather than monolithic.  In other words, let's not have an extended debate on exactly what modules have to be there on day 1, but come up with different options and use rapid prototyping to get things going, then add as the user community finds needs for additional modules.  Think of this as an extended and permanent development project, rather than a one-time development process that ends and is static for all time.

Thus, requirement 3:

3- agile framework, easy to expand to add new internal applications

In general, we find that platforms like this are all competing for the attention of the end-user, and the sense of community will be hard to create.  We absolutely cannot depend on people coming to this web site on a regular basis unless they are being 'pulled' to it by other forces.  So a key part of the core will have to be creating an entitlement system and linking to some sort of authentication/user profile. (Entitlement is a term of art here which can also be used to indicate subscriptions, interest areas, privilege levels, etc.  In this sense, entitlement is a generic term for all of these things.) Folks like Facebook and Google are happy to act as authentication service providers, and it's not unreasonable to use those open systems to both eliminate your need to handle authentication but also to make it easy for people to link up.  (Some folks will insist on a separate identity, but this is likely to be a fringe corner case)

Once entitlement/authentication is handled, then the system can provide push content to the end users to pull them back to the platform when there are updates in areas they are interested in, when questions they have posed are being discussed, and periodically just to give updates on new content (i.e., monthly or weekly digests).  This is really critical to building and sustaining a community; without it, the user population will inevitably devolve into a small set of non-representative people who spend all their time shouting at each other.

Thus, requirement 4:

4- assumption of a "push" model from web site to users, rather than expecting that users will be coming by to participate without prompting

One final requirement comes from the need to ensure that the system meets the needs of the users.  In a system like this, there is always a combination of "evergreen" content (i.e., white papers, technical and non-technical resources, documents) and "collaborative" content (i.e., discussions, Q&A, open forums).  Collaborative content tends to decay quickly over time, as the topics being discussed become old or the discussion itself is too long to be interesting to a consumer.  Thus, any sort of collaboration has to be combined with moderation and, more importantly, curation.  There must be participants in the system who have some incentive to overcome the entropic decay and work to winnow content, create summaries, and so on.

The key here is "incentive," as without it, this will inevitably fail. Now, this is definitely not a technical requirement, but technology can help with this.  For example, most readers will have noticed "badges" that are constantly being given out by web sites (everyone from Amazon on down) to their high-volume contributors.  Some of this will need to be dealt with out-of-band (i.e., someone will be paid to be a "gold contributor"), but the technology has to support this by providing tracking to recognize valued contributors.

5 - internal measurement system to provide feedback to users who are valued contributors about their status (and to report this externally as needed)

Thanks Fabiana.

Indeed a learning needs assessment of the target users will be needed if the platform is required to integrate learning.

Regards,

Justin