Kentaro 2009 02 11 CooperacióN   Toyama
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Kentaro 2009 02 11 CooperacióN Toyama

on

  • 2,490 views

Kentaro Toyama, Investigando en TIC para el Desarrollo Humano, para el II Encuentro Internacional TIC para la Cooperación al Desarrollo.

Kentaro Toyama, Investigando en TIC para el Desarrollo Humano, para el II Encuentro Internacional TIC para la Cooperación al Desarrollo.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,490
Views on SlideShare
2,483
Embed Views
7

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0

1 Embed 7

http://encuentro2009.fundacionctic.org 7

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Kentaro 2009 02 11 CooperacióN   Toyama Kentaro 2009 02 11 CooperacióN Toyama Presentation Transcript

  • Research for Development at Microsoft Research India Kentaro Toyama Assistant Managing Director Microsoft Research India Cooperación 2.0 February 11, 2009 – Gijón
  • Outline
    • Introduction to Microsoft Research India
    • Methodology and Sample Projects
    • Key Lessons
  • Outline
    • Introduction to Microsoft Research India
    • Methodology and Sample Projects
    • Key Lessons
  • Microsoft Research India
    • Established January, 2005
    • Seven research areas
      • Algorithms
      • Cryptography, Security & Applied Math
      • Digital Geographics
      • Mobility, Networks, and Systems
      • Multilingual Systems
      • Rigorous Software Engineering
      • Technology for Emerging Markets
    • Contributions to Microsoft :
      • MultiPoint, Netra, Virtual India
    • Currently ~60 full-time staff, growing
    • Collaborations with government, academia, industry, and NGOs in India
    Microsoft Research India Sadashivnagar, Bangalore http://research.microsoft.com/india
  • “ Technology for Emerging Markets”
    • Understand potential technology users in developing communities
    • Design and evaluate technology and systems that contribute to socio-economic development of poor communities worldwide
    • Collaborate with development-focused organizations for sustained, scaled impact
    Computer-skills camp in Nakalabande, Bangalore (MSR India, Stree Jagruti Samiti, St. Joseph’s College) Research Group Goals
  • Multidisciplinary Research Society Group Technology Individual Society Group Technology Individual Design Understanding Impact Understanding Impact Aishwarya Lakshmi Ratan – Public Administration and International Development Jonathan Donner – Communications Nimmi Rangaswamy – Social Anthropology Indrani Medhi – Design Kentaro Toyama (Group Lead) – Computer Science Rikin Gandhi – Astrophysics Saurabh Panjwani – Computer Science David Hutchful – Human Computer Interaction Bill Thies – Computer Science
  • Research Sites Microsoft Confidential - Other projects studied - Our projects
  • ICTD Conference
    • Co-founded by MSR India, UC Berkeley, MIT, CMU, IIIT-Bangalore
    • Focus on rigorous academic work, with all papers double-blind peer-reviewed
    • Established a multidisciplinary community of academic researchers in technology for development
    • First: May 25-26, 2006, Berkeley (UCB)
    • Second: Dec 15-16, 2007, Bangalore (MSR)
    • Third: April 17-19 2009, Doha, Qatar (CMU)
    IEEE/ACM International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development UC Berkeley, site of ICTD 2006
  • Outline
    • Introduction to Microsoft Research India
    • Methodology and Sample Projects
    • Key Lessons
  • Our Methodology
    • Immersion
      • Methodology: ethnography
        • qualitative social science
    • Design
      • Methodology: iterated prototyping
        • design, engineering
    • Evaluation
      • Methodology: randomized control trial
        • economics
    • Implementation
      • Methodology: partnership
        • political science
    ( ) Partnership NGOs, governments, local firms, communities
  • Kelsa+ Microfinance & Technology IT and Microentrepreneurs Information ecology of very small businesses Potential of technology to support microfinance Microenterprise PC + mobile Mixed-method study Research only Text-Free UI Text-free user interfaces for non-literate users User interfaces PC Design User studies Guidelines Microfinance PC + mobile Qualitative studies Business analysis Research only Sample Projects Information access PC Qualitative study Usage analysis Pilot Featherweight Multimedia Paper and cheap electronics for low-cost multimedia General education Electronics HCI User studies Prelim research MultiPoint Primary education PC HCI User studies Software SDK Warana Unwired Digital Green Video and mediated instruction for agriculture extension Substitution of mobile phones for rural PC kiosks Agriculture Video Intervention Control trials Pilot Info systems Mobile Intervention Rural kiosks Pilot Free access PCs for low-income office staff Multi-user systems for computer labs in schools
  • Microfinance and Technology MultiPoint Digital Green Partnership Pradan, Ujjivan, Sanghamitra, CCD, BASIX, Mahakalasam… CLT, Azim Premji Foundation, local gov’t schools, etc. GREEN Foundation, PRADAN, etc. Immersion Analyze process flow and costs Observe use of computers in rural schools Understand farmers' needs and capabilities Design None so far “ One mouse per child” Participatory video & mediated instruction Evaluation 238 students, against one PC per child 1 year, 20 villages, against classic extension Implementation Cost analysis spreadsheet available online New Microsoft product Spin off independent NGO
  • Exploratory Studies
    • Site visits:
    • Interviews with…
      • Institution heads
      • MFI agents
      • Clients
    • Participant observation
    • Accounts and records
    • Microfinance Institutions
    • Pradan
    • Ujjivan
    • Sanghamitra
    • CCD Mahakalasam
    • BASIX
    • Etc.
    Microfinance and Technology Work by Aishwarya Ratan
    • Classic banking, USA
    • Microcredit, India
    Is Technology Always Worth It? $22,000/yr $1200/yr $150* $1000* 10% increase in productivity $2200  10% increase in productivity $120  Cost of technology may outweigh benefit. * Estimated amortized cost of device per annum including maintenance and support Microfinance and Technology
  • Can technology assist microfinance?
    • Front-end IS
    • Account creation (loan, savings & insurance)
      • Collecting client data
      • Screening/ verification
    • Transaction data
    • Processing claims (savings, transfers & insurance)
    • Back-end IS
    • Aggregation of client data
      • Actuarial analysis
      • Target offerings
    • E-payments
    • Enabling e-cash transactions
        • Disbursal of amount (loan)
        • Collection of dues/ payments (loan, savings & insurance)
    YES MAYBE? Difficult Microfinance and Technology
  • Current Status
    • Costing spreadsheet available to assess relative value of technology intervention for MFIs
    • Aborted a mobile-phone tool for loan officers
    • Ethnographic study of mobile payment usage among low-income communities in four countries with CGAP
    • Ongoing research on optimal UI for non-literate users of mobile banking systems with CGAP
    Ratan, Aishwarya. L. and Mahesh Gogineni. (2008, May). Cost Realism in Deploying Technologies for Development . Paper presented at the Conference on “Confronting the Challenge of Technology for Development: Experiences from the BRICS”, Department of International Development, University of Oxford, 29-30 May 2008. Ratan, Aishwarya. (2006, December). Deconstructing 4 Microfinance Myths . Microsoft Research Technical Report. Microfinance and Technology
  • Microfinance and Technology MultiPoint Digital Green Partnership Pradan, Ujjivan, Sanghamitra, CCD, BASIX, Mahakalasam… CLT, Azim Premji Foundation, local gov’t schools, etc. GREEN Foundation, PRADAN, etc. Immersion Analyze process flow and costs Observe use of computers in rural schools Understand farmers' needs and capabilities Design None so far “ One mouse per child” Participatory video & mediated instruction Evaluation 238 students, against one PC per child 1 year, 20 villages, against classic extension Implementation Cost analysis spreadsheet available online New Microsoft product Spin off independent NGO
  • PCs in Schools
    • Schools…
    • Teachers under-prepared for computer skills
    • Financing for PC systems erratic
    • Parents…
    • Happy to see PCs in schools; want children to learn.
    • Have little understanding of PC functionality
    • PC “mastery” believed by some to come quicker than English ability (though English ability more valued)
    • Strong anecdotal evidence that children attend school longer, if there are PCs at the school for student use.
    • If schools have PCs, their use is many students per PC.
    MultiPoint Work by Joyojeet Pal, Meera Lakshmanan, Kentaro Toyama
  • Invention
    • Provide a mouse for every student
      • One cursor for each mouse, with different colours or shapes
      • USB mice
        • Experimented with up to 20
        • (Theoretically works up to 128)
      • Reduces per-student cost of interaction
      • Content modified
        • Game-like environment
    MultiPoint Work by Udai Pawar, Kentaro Toyama, Rahul Gupta
  • Evaluation After MultiPoint Before MultiPoint MultiPoint Average number of words learned during PC usage
    • Observations:
      • Strong gender effects
        • Girls cooperate and learn regardless of mode
        • Boys compete blindly without cooperative structure
      • Varying social engagement between students depending on mode
        • Dominance
        • Collaboration
      • Identification with cursor
      • MultiPoint with voting appears most constructive
    Number of words learned under MultiPoint roughly the same as with SS.
  • Current Status
    • Microsoft released free MultiPoint SDK, June 2007
    • Additional studies with MultiPoint around collaboration and creative software
    • Mouse Mischief: MultiPoint for the entire class (Neema Moraveji)
    • Split Screen studies continuing
    • New hypothesis: Better anywhere for primary education over one PC per child?
    Pawar, U. S., Pal, J., and Toyama, K. (2006) Multiple mice for computers in education in developing countries, IEEE/ACM Int’l Conf. on Information & Communication Technologies for Development, ICTD 2006 . Pawar, U.S., Pal, J., Gupta. R., and Toyama, K. (2007) Multiple Mice for Retention Tasks in Disadvantaged Schools, In Proceedings of ACM CHI’07 ,  ACM Press. http://thescooterlounge.com/images/124IndianFamily.jpg Sharing hardware not unusual in India MultiPoint
  • Microfinance and Technology MultiPoint Digital Green Partnership Pradan, Ujjivan, Sanghamitra, CCD, BASIX, Mahakalasam… CLT, Azim Premji Foundation, local gov’t schools, etc. GREEN Foundation, PRADAN, etc. Immersion Analyze process flow and costs Observe use of computers in rural schools Understand farmers' needs and capabilities Design None so far “ One mouse per child” Participatory video & mediated instruction Evaluation 238 students, against one PC per child 1 year, 20 villages, against classic extension Implementation Cost analysis spreadsheet available online New Microsoft product Spin off independent NGO
    • Eight months over 2005 & 2007
    • Participant observation
    • Structured interviews
      • 200 farmers (users and non-users)
      • 3 NGO leaders
      • 12 NGO staff
    • Technical analysis
    • Surveys
    • Background knowledge of agriculture in several regions
    • Thorough knowledge of Indian agriculture extension
    Ethnographic Investigation Photo: Rajesh Veeraraghavan Digital Green Work by Rajesh Veeraraghavn, Rikin Gandhi
  • Digital Green System Design
    • Participatory content production
    • Standard extension procedure
    • Rough “storyboarding”
      • Repetitive pattern; easy to learn
      • Minimize post-production
    • Local farmers on their own fields
      • Reduce perception of “teachers”
      • Promote “local stars”
    • Mediated instruction
    • Locally hired mediators
      • Encourage discussion
    • On-demand screenings
      • Choice time and place
      • Not “stand-alone” kiosk
    Work by Rikin Gandhi, Vanaja Ramprasad
  • Evaluation Results 7 times more adoptions; 10 times more cost-effective, over classical extension 15 months: 13 villages, 3 nights a week, 1,000 regulars Sustained local presence Mediation Repetition (and novelty) Integration into existing extension operations Social homophily between mediator, actor, and farmer Desire to be “on TV” Trust built from identities of farmers and villages in videos Work by Rikin Gandhi, Rajesh Veeraraghavan, Kentaro Toyama
    • Participatory video and mediated instruction enables 10x increase in cost-effectiveness of traditional agriculture extension.
    • Gandhi, R., R. Veeraraghavan, K. Toyama, V. Ramprasad. Digital Green: Participatory Video for Agricultural Extension, in Proc. Annual Meetings of American Society of Agronomy , 2007.
    • Stockholm Challenge Award 2008
    • Now in 12 villages, impacting ~2000 households
    • Discussions with BAIF, PRADAN, others
    • Spinning off independent NGO to scale Digital Green:
    • Aiming to impact ~400,000 households in 3 years
    Current Status
  • Microfinance and Technology MultiPoint Digital Green Partnership Pradan, Ujjivan, Sanghamitra, CCD, BASIX, Mahakalasam… CLT, Azim Premji Foundation, local gov’t schools, etc. GREEN Foundation, PRADAN, etc. Immersion Analyze process flow and costs Observe use of computers in rural schools Understand farmers' needs and capabilities Design None so far “ One mouse per child” Participatory video & mediated instruction Evaluation 238 students, against one PC per child 1 year, 20 villages, against classic extension Implementation Cost analysis spreadsheet available online New Microsoft product Spin off independent NGO
  • Outline
    • Introduction to Microsoft Research India
    • Methodology and Sample Projects
    • Key Lessons
  • Key Lessons
    • Development first (not technology first)
    • Time with communities (not with “experts”)
    • Multidisciplinarity of teams (not individuals)
    • Quality through great people (not processes)
    • Sustainability is case-by-case (not by magic formula)
    • Impact as the goal (not ideology)
    Strongly recommended, but some successful counterexamples exist.
  • Summary
    • Introduction to Microsoft Research India
    • Methodology Sample Projects
      • Immersion Microfinance & tech
      • Design MultiPoint
      • Evaluation Digital Green
    • Key Lessons
  • Thank you!
    • http://research.microsoft.com/research/tem
    • [email_address]