Kentaro 2009 02 11 CooperacióN Toyama

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

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
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

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

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

Outline
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
Methodology Sample Projects
Immersion Microfinance & tech
Design MultiPoint
Evaluation Digital Green
Key Lessons

Thank you!
http://research.microsoft.com/research/tem
[email_address]

Kentaro 2009 02 11 CooperacióN Toyama

by COOPERACION 2.0 2009

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 7

Statistics

Kentaro 2009 02 11 CooperacióN Toyama Presentation Transcript