M-governance project - NRBuzz presentation by A.Salim, A.Orwa & H. Moraa
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

M-governance project - NRBuzz presentation by A.Salim, A.Orwa & H. Moraa

on

  • 188 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
188
Views on SlideShare
188
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

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
  • iHub Research is the research arm of the iHub. *iHub_ is Nairobi’s Innovation Hub for the technology community. It is is an physical space for the technologists, investors, tech companies and hackers in the area. This space focuses on young entrepreneurs, web and mobile phone programmers, designers and researchers.Positioned here at the center of this tech community, iHub Research drives local tech research in Africa. We bring information on the impacts of technology to the technology community, enabling entrepreneurs and developers to make better decisions on what to build and how to build it.
  • ICTs and Governance-governance projects and initiatives have had mixed results and limited success. In 2003, it was estimated that over 70-80% of e-governance projects in developing countries were total to partial failures. E-governance is also limited in developing countries where the majority of populations do not have access to computers, Internet infrastructure, or even electricity. Mobile Phones: Mobile phones have been cited by many as the best technology for interacting with citizens due to its widespread user uptakeCitizen view: Mwololo and Muthama [8] reported that 49.2% of Kenyans had used their mobile phones to access government websites. This was in spite of factors such as poor feedback from the government and outdated information on the government websites
  • I will briefly expound on the challenges which may end up leading to poor sanitation etc
  • Also add about blogs, presentations, being part of ICT4Democracy in East Africa Network
  • Partnership with UX Lab, stakeholders,

M-governance project - NRBuzz presentation by A.Salim, A.Orwa & H. Moraa Presentation Transcript

  • 1. NAIROBI RESEARCH BUZZ
  • 2. Use of Mobile Technology inPromoting Transparency Issues inWater GovernanceNairobi Research Buzz PresentationAnne Salim, Albert Orwa and HildaMoraa
  • 3. Outline• Background– Briefly talk about iHub Research: our goals and vision– Mobile Telephony in Kenya– M-gov Field research overview• Research Objectives• Methodology• Findings• Considerations• Next steps• Limitations• Conclusion
  • 4. • African research community• Creating new and impactful knowledge• Research skills buildingwww.research.ihub.co.ke
  • 5. Governance in Kenya70-80% of e-governance projects in developingcountries= total to partial failureWhy? Limited access to computers, internet andelectricityMobile phones have been cited as the besttechnology for interacting with citizens due towidespread user uptake
  • 6. Mobile Usage Patterns in Kenya• 74% of all Kenyans own amobile phone (RIA 2011);• 60.5% of Kenyans earning lessthan US$2.5 per day (BOP)own a mobile phone (RIA2012);• All mobile phone owners makeand receive phone calls and atthe same time send andreceive SMS (text messages)(RIA 2012, iHub Research2012).• 35.5% of Kenyans currentlyaccess Internet services (CCK,June 2012)
  • 7. MGovernance Project• Began in September of 2011 from SPIDERfunding• Aim: to evaluate how mobile technology can beused to improve Kenyan Governance• Research is thematically focused on Water• Channels- by enhancing Transparency andAccess to information
  • 8. Past Activities• Exploratory research: Exploratory Survey onKenyan Service Delivery and GovernmentInteraction• User Experience pretest on mgovernanceapplications –Mzalendo, Huduma, Msemakweli• Workshops with stakeholders• Fieldwork
  • 9. Initial findings of the research• Citizen’s understanding of Governance
  • 10. Additional findingsAfrican Institute13.5% demanded right at one point23.9% in water related issues71.6% of citizens stating they had aproblem when trying to access rightsTISDA (2011)reports that most residents ininformal settlements suffer acuteshortages of water because somelandlords have illegally continued tocontrol access & cost of waterwithout approval from WSPTenants in low income areas paymore for water for example averageconsumption per household is78.7litres per day translating to2.4m3 per monthIssues Demanded Rights For0 5 10 15 20 25RoadsAgricultureLandEducationLicenses/permitsGovernanceOthersHealthSecurityInfrastructureJusticeWater
  • 11. Research Objectives• Investigate the type of water information citizensdesire;• Understand the gaps faced by different stakeholders inaccessing water info;• Identify the tech platform that citizens andstakeholders would prefer for receiving and sendingwater information;• Evaluate how mobile phone tech can be used as a toolfor improving the gaps faced by the differentstakeholders in the access of water.
  • 12. Methodology• The project has employedboth quantitative &qualitative methodsincluding:• in-depth interviews withstakeholders, structuredquestionnaires withcitizens in 3 Kenyancounties, (900) and deskresearch on existingliterature.
  • 13. Methodology contd..• OTHERS…TO COME• Workshops: designthinking• Mock ups• Focus groups• WHY we did not use ODKfor this field work?• Challenges with ODK inhuge data collection
  • 14. Field Pics
  • 15. 61%55%95%69% 68%39%45%5%31% 32%0102030405060708090100Kiambu Migori Makueni Urban RuralHave you or any of your household membersfaced any challenges while trying to access yourmain source of water?YesNo
  • 16. Some of the challenges facedWhat are the challenges faced?*County Cross tabulationKiambu Migori MakueniFailed to get water for a couple of weeks 43% 30% 24%Hiked water bills 12% 3% 7%Price exploitation by the water vendors 14% 4% 25%Water from the main source is not continuous 35% 9% 37%Received/bought dirty water for a couple ofweeks11% 55% 28%I can’t remember 1% 1% 0%Other (long distances to the main source ofwater)8% 42% 36%
  • 17. Did you or any member of your household complain to anyone about theproblem?County Area of interview TotalKiambu Migori Makueni Urban RuralYes % within County 38% 41% 37% 46% 35% 39%No % within County 58% 59% 63% 54% 63% 61%Total % within County 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
  • 18. who did you complain to*county Cross tabulationCounty TotalKiambu Migori MakueniMinistry of Water & Irrigation % withincounty39% 10% 14% 22%Public administration officer(e.g. Chief, D.O)% withincounty8% 32% 26% 21%Friend/relatives % withincounty0% 3% 3% 2%Youth/women groups % withincounty0% 3% 15% 6%Media % withincounty0% 1% 1% 1%Religious leaders % withincounty0% 3% 0% 1%I cant remember/i dontknow% withincounty2% 1% 0% 1%Other % within 59% 68% 42% 55%
  • 19. 3.8 What were your reasons for you not complaining?Reasons County Area ofinterviewTotalKiambu Migori Makueni Urban RuralI dont know who/whereto complain48% 58% 78% 57% 62% 61%Am always busy 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%We have alternatives 14% 5% 5% 7% 10% 9%I cant complain toanybody; its a naturaldisaster1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%No one listens/acts; soits needless to complain14% 26% 7% 16% 14% 15%Am used with theproblem2% 3% 1% 3% 1% 2%I have no ability/courageto complain19% 3% 5% 14% 9% 10%People we can complainto are far away0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1%Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
  • 20. What kind of information do you currently access?County Area of interviewKiambu Migori Makueni Urban Rural TotalGovernment water projects inthe region18% 29% 27% 32% 20% 23%Prices of water in the region 18% 1% 10% 7% 12% 11%Water availability updates (e.g.from vendors)51% 10% 17% 24% 35% 32%Invitation to give opinion onwater issues in the area3% 4% 14% 8% 5% 6%Water supply services in theregion19% 17% 35% 26% 20% 22%Complaints raised on water 1% 6% 6% 8% 3% 4%Other information accessed 18% 57% 22% 25% 31% 30%I dont know 0% 5% 0% 0% 2% 2%
  • 21. What would you like to access or be informed of regarding water?County Area of interview TotalKiambu Migori Makueni Urban RuralRationing of water/water shortages 26% 3% 3% 19% 12% 14%Any valuable news 1% 16% 6% 5% 7% 7%How to treat and make water safe forconsumption25% 38% 33% 34% 29% 31%Information on water related diseases 19% 4% 1% 13% 9% 11%Water projects in the region 9% 21% 11% 8% 14% 13%Progress on complaints raised 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1%None 14% 8% 5% 11% 10% 10%Where to get clean water 29% 17% 40% 27% 29% 29%Where to raise complains on water issues 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2%Water charges/bills 6% 0% 4% 4% 4% 4%I dont know 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%Percentages and totals are based on respondents.
  • 22. 57%36%6% 6%1%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%Talking face-faceTV/Radio Sending SMS Making phonecallInternetWhat communication medium do you currentlyuse to access information on water in your area?
  • 23. 4%7%9%9%15%56%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%VictimizationFailure to get response/actiondoneLong distanceTime/financial constraintsMissing out the targetedpersonMissing out the news/meetingChallenges currently faced in trying to accessinformation using the different channels ofcommunication
  • 24. What technological platform do you think would be best in information dissemination between you and the concerned parties in the watersector?County Area of interview TotalKiambu Migori Makueni Urban RuralUse of phonecalls23% 55% 33% 27% 38% 35%Use of Internet 1% 5% 4% 5% 2% 3%Use of USSDshort code10% 3% 0% 6% 5% 6%Use of SocialMedia e.g.Facebook,Twitter0% 1% 2% 0% 1% 1%Use of SMS 63% 33% 52% 57% 49% 51%Other 2% 3% 6% 4% 3% 3%I dont know 0% 0% 3% 1% 1% 1%Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
  • 25. Reasons for choosing a particular platformReasonPlatformTotalUse of phone callsUse ofInternetUse of USSDshort codeUse of Social Mediae.g. FB, TwitterUse of SMSOther(Radio/TV)Easy to send/receive information 40% 13% 32% 0% 25% 7% 29%Cheaper in Sending/receivinginformation5% 8% 7% 0% 11% 4% 8%It is faster/instant 9% 17% 0% 0% 6% 3% 7%Can engage the respondent 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 6%Direct in conveying information 7% 0% 12% 0% 3% 11% 5%Can reach a large group of people 1% 16% 2% 50% 7% 48% 8%Convenient/effective 9% 46% 45% 50% 44% 4% 30%I dont know/no reason 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 2%Most Kenyans have access tophone1% 0% 2% 0% 2% 3% 2%No skills to use other platforms 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 3%Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
  • 26. Preferred technology * Foreseen challenges in using the technologyPlatform TotalUse of phonecallsUse ofInternetUse of USSDshort codeUse of Social Mediae.g. FB, TwitterUse of SMS Other (Radio/TV)Expensive 9% 0% 2% 0% 35% 0% 45%Delays/failure to respond 3% 0% 1% 0% 11% 0% 15%Missing out the call/information 12% 0% 0% 0% 3% 5% 20%Inability to use the platform 2% 1% 2% 0% 8% 0% 13%Inaccessibility to the platform e.g. Internet 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%People may fall prey to conmen 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 2%i dont know 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%Fear of being tracked down 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%Receiving so many SMS that becomesnuisance0% 0%0%0% 1% 0% 1%Total 27% 3%4%0% 60% 6% 100%
  • 27. What measures would you recommend so as to avoid problems in future with the platform you would prefer to use?Measures PercentI be sent SMS when my phone is off 4%Cost of sending/receiving should be cheap/free 37%Ill ensure phone is charged and available all the time 11%People should be assisted/educated/sensitized on water/technology issues 21%I dont know 4%Immediate response to be guaranteed 3%Network boosters to be improved 5%Nothing can be done 1%Face-to-face chat to be done 1%Calls to be made at known specific time 1%Decentralize information nearer to the people 1%Local language to be used 1%SMS to be made brief 3%
  • 28. Reports• Documenting findings in three reportsSeries 1: Role of technology in promotingtransparency to citizens in water governancesectorSeries 2: Role of technology in promotingtransparency with local stakeholders in thewater governance sectorSeries 3: Understanding communication anddecision making process in the watergovernance sector
  • 29. Next steps• Water ideation Hackathon in April –working with stakeholders• GAP: Needs identified by citizens VSalready existing solutions• Partnering with stakeholders• Design thinking to come up with POVs thatcan be developed into solutions
  • 30. Conclusion• Need for clearly understanding the role oftechnology in solving real needs of the citizens• TRANSPARENCY is a huge problem. NoTransparency = no democracy• Sustainability: applications and collaborations• No need of reinventing the will- focus onuntapped areas
  • 31. ThanksEmail:anne@ihub.co.kealbert@ihub.co.kehilda@ihub.co.keTwitter:@anny320@albertorwa@hildamoraa• @ihubresearch|@ihub