Crowd-programmed initiatives:       Facilitating the development of       beneficiary-led aid programmes         Dr. Adria...
Setting the scene• Participation has conceptual & operational limits and has not delivered all it  promised.• A lot of hyp...
Beneficiary determined             programmes• Beneficiary defined programmes: The idea that affected people materially  d...
Problems with Participation• Accusations of ‚Quick & Dirty‛ needs assessments (R. Chambers 1981: p.95)• Riddled with probl...
The good news…•   There are approximately 6 billion mobile-cellular subscriptions in the world    today.•   More people ha...
The bad news…•   Harnessing the ‚wisdom‛ of crowds is about more than improved mobile    technology & roll-out•   Question...
Is this ‚game changing‛?•   We now have the tools to be more needs and beneficiary led than ever.•   If structural and pol...
Let’s do it right…•   It’s too easy for ICT-led strategies to become an end rather than a means to an end    (‘technovelty...
Let’s do it right…•   Better needs assessment includes     o Constant listening     o Open access and Open use     o Not a...
Let’s do it!•     12 month long concept phase to:-       o Underpin theoretical concept       o address in detail politica...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Crowd-programmed initiatives (Dr Adrian Flint, Uni Bristol, and Chris Meyer zu Natrup, consultant)

545 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
545
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
39
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • A lot of rhetoric about paticipation and benefits, not necessarily practical BLA is a democratising thoughts, “Agencies are given a clear manadate to act on behalf of beneficiaries” Talk about 1) Problems of Participation2) Problems of the debate (IT crowd, IT as a means to an end. Is not just a technical problem. There are political agendas to take account of.3) Structures and Apporaches more important to give beneficiaries a real stake in what is done where and when
  • A lot of rhetoric about paticipation and benefits, not necessarily practical BLA is a democratising thoughts, “Agencies are given a clear manadate to act on behalf of beneficiaries” Talk about 1) Problems of Participation2) Problems of the debate (IT crowd, IT as a means to an end. Is not just a technical problem. There are political agendas to take account of.3) Structures and Apporaches more important to give beneficiaries a real stake in what is done where and when
  • Chambers: proposed proportional accuracy. Increase participation to be accurate enough…user committees, focus groups. too latetoo localised (Land-Rover based Expert)too few voicestoo inefficienttoo narrow thematically (Agency dispatches experts addresses agency defined questions_institutionally facilitated (expected results influencing actual)
  • First time we have the tools to see a bigger picture.We can actually do it, as opposed to dreaming of it.
  • : In rural Ghana, 42% of men own mobile phones as opposed to 15% of women. (GSMA 2013) Mini conclusion: Yes, we have the technology, but do the have the way to really engage and listen and speak to affected people
  • Benefits of BDA
  • Crowd-programmed initiatives (Dr Adrian Flint, Uni Bristol, and Chris Meyer zu Natrup, consultant)

    1. 1. Crowd-programmed initiatives: Facilitating the development of beneficiary-led aid programmes Dr. Adrian Flint Chris Meyer zu Natrup, CA, MScLecturer in Development Politics Director University of Bristol MzN | International
    2. 2. Setting the scene• Participation has conceptual & operational limits and has not delivered all it promised.• A lot of hype about how ICT can address this.• Advances in ICT now permit beneficiaries to potentially define responses & interventions
    3. 3. Beneficiary determined programmes• Beneficiary defined programmes: The idea that affected people materially design a response/intervention.• Attributes of beneficiary determined programmes • Establish feedback and open listening processes receptive for all comments • Analyse and correlate non-interaction data (migration, use, frequency) • In addition, not instead: mobile, web & traditional forms of data gathering • Open source and open use• Different from participation as there is no upfront design of the listening process (‚crowd driven‛) and donors/agencies are called to act upon what is heard
    4. 4. Problems with Participation• Accusations of ‚Quick & Dirty‛ needs assessments (R. Chambers 1981: p.95)• Riddled with problems • logistical challenges (late, narrow spotlight (local and few voices) • too few voices (gender hierarchy, local power structures, age bias • too inefficient • too narrow thematically • legitimizing agendas? • institutionally facilitated/managed• Crowd sourced information designed to capture more, quicker, broader.
    5. 5. The good news…• There are approximately 6 billion mobile-cellular subscriptions in the world today.• More people have mobiles than electricity.• By the end of 2011, nearly one third of the world’s population had access to the internet (2.3 billion people).• Basic handsets now cost as little as US$20.
    6. 6. The bad news…• Harnessing the ‚wisdom‛ of crowds is about more than improved mobile technology & roll-out• Questions infrequently asked: o What power structures needs to be considered? o ‚Do no harm‛ (social fabric, data security) o What donor and agency agendas need to be considered? o To what extent can the crowd be ‚trusted‛ (needs vs. wants?) o Issues of data ownership, protection, privacy and security
    7. 7. Is this ‚game changing‛?• We now have the tools to be more needs and beneficiary led than ever.• If structural and political challenges are addressed, a genuine, direct and more democratic form of designing interventions and responses can be developed.• If applied effectively… o It is needs driven as opposed to agency driven o It should increase impact and value for money o It’s more ‚unmanaged‛, helping to overcome the agenda-led problem o Democratizing force o Generates better data (automatic baseline, constant feedback loop, etc) Yes, CAN be a “game changer”, if done right
    8. 8. Let’s do it right…• It’s too easy for ICT-led strategies to become an end rather than a means to an end (‘technovelty’). o Drive towards VfM and more Impact channels investments into technology, but….• Key questions are not technological in nature: o True beneficiary engagement works on trust only. o Beneficiaries need to feel they are not just listened to, but acted upon. o Donors/Agencies need to be willing to accept outcomes o This is more of a political, then technological issue• We think this is a game changer, because it requires a change in the way we assess needs (and wants) • Listen without designing the listening process… • …and accept the outcomes.
    9. 9. Let’s do it right…• Better needs assessment includes o Constant listening o Open access and Open use o Not agency facilitated/managed o larger spotlight…leading to…• Crowd programmes initiatives done right can help towards o Better, more robust, needs assessment o Overcomes the agenda-bias as listening process is totally undesigned o Cost effective way to establish baseline and build an open body of knowledge o Leads to more effective programmes
    10. 10. Let’s do it!• 12 month long concept phase to:- o Underpin theoretical concept o address in detail political and sector structure questions, o use MzN Development Experts in over 15 countries to consider local differences and harness knowledge network o Involve political decision makers where possible o Start a pilot project in needs assessment Join us & keep up to date. Register by email to office@mzninternational.com Thank you!

    ×