The document provides an overview of knowledge management initiatives at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), including a Knowledge Sharing Skills Programme and efforts to improve knowledge management in project supervision and design. The Knowledge Sharing Skills Programme aims to train 400 field-level stakeholders in knowledge sharing skills over 18 months. A review found that most projects report some knowledge sharing activities but rarely identify key themes or link to objectives. The document discusses improving reporting on lessons learned and knowledge management in project design.

1. ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Making a difference Update on Knowledge Management 23 March 2010

2. Presentation Outline KSS Programme KM in Supervision KM in Project Design Internet Platform

3. Part I KSS Programme

4. Programme for Development of Knowledge Sharing Skills, (KSS) Implementing Agency: FAO Cost: USD 950 000 Effectiveness: April 2010 Length: 18 Months Training Course preparation, 6 months Implementation, 12 months

5. Knowledge Sharing Skills Programme Why are we doing this? Partners, highly competent in their field, but not in communicating their knowledge What do we hope to achieve? Empower: New skills Motivate: Platform, audience, benefits

6. Knowledge Sharing Skills Programme Who is the target group? Project Staff (IAs, NGOs, Govt) What are the components and activities? 1) Knowledge Sharing in Your Work 2) Writing to Share Knowledge Effectively 3) Participatory Methods for Field-level KS

7. Knowledge Sharing Skills Programme How will it work? Courses advertised, interested participants apply Participants selected a.t. criteria set by IFAD Courses 5-15 days, for 10-25 participants, in sub-regions at local host institutions or host projects. Selected participants, capable and interested, given opportunity to attend TOT to enable them to train in own country programmes or projects.

8. Knowledge Sharing Skills Programme What are the expected Outcomes? Some 400 field level stakeholders more effective in: Sharing knowledge face- to-face and on-line in their work Writing effectively to better transmit their knowledge Using fieldwork methods that facilitate increased knowledge sharing by project beneficiaries

9. KSS Programme Questions? Suggestions with respect to selection criteria?

10. Part II KM in Supervision

11. Supervision & KM: 2009 What we agreed to report on? How we performed in reporting? What we learned?

12. What is Supervision? A way for IFAD to acquire better knowledge about a project A Time to take stock of what is known A Process of face-to-face Knowledge Sharing An exercise that requires actors to capture what they learn about a project in a document An Opportunity for Projects to Communicate Knowledge they have Acquired A Chance to Reflect on what is happening: An Obligation to Crystalise Knowledge from experience A Time to Acknowledge what we don’t Know An Occasion to Share Knowledge we Acquire from One Project to Another

14. Supervision An Art of Knowledge Management

15. What we agreed to report on? How Projects Are Learning and Sharing Knowledge What We Are Learning about Poverty Reduction

16. Agreed by PI in 2009 Knowledge Management Section of Supervision Report ….. Project Performance in KM

17. Agreed by PI in 2009 Knowledge Management Appendix Section of Supervision Report ….. Lessons Learned

18. Agreed by PI in 2009 KM Appendix What has worked well? What have been the reasons for this? What has not worked well? What have been the reasons for this?

19. Agreed by PI in 2009 Supervision as KM Process Prime Beneficiary = PMU KM Appendix, Lessons Learned COSOP Strategic Objectives

20. How we performed in Reporting on KM in Supervision Reports

21. What we learned? about project level KM practices Most projects do knowledge sharing TV, Radio, Newspapers, Videos, Websites,Seminars About 1/3 report some kind of system for managing knowledge Rarely identify key themes or specify links to Project Objectives or M&E

22. What we learned? about project level KM practices Little focus on knowledge sharing at community level Recommendations re KM systems very ambitious, when present

23. What we learned? About poverty reduction Importance of working with local government, project activities integrated within govt programmes Synchronised availability of funds from IFAD and co-financiers Annual planning at village level allows changing priorities, add and delete activities according to changing conditions

24. What we learned? About poverty reduction Helps to specify capacity building by component and sub-component Capacity building has contributed to success of decentralised approaches Small homogenous groups functioning for self-development have influence in village policies

25. What we learned? About poverty reduction Microfiannce institutions can perform as well or better than banks in financing farmers in agricultural production It is important to link those who have credit to use of business services, and those who use business services to credit

26. What we learned? About poverty reduction Participation of the poor is generally better in initial stages, awareness raising and consultation, but diminishes during formation of Common Interest Groups Collective marketing arrangements and better information result in better outcomes for the poor

27. What we learned? About poverty reduction Barefoot tribal solar engineers trained in assembling solar panels, oriented village adults, maintained solar home lights assembled by engineers. Training and technical support enabled women to become successful hatchery owners, leading to adaptation and modification of technology for several different hatchery types

28. What do we want to do about reporting on KM in Supervision? Should we avoid stating the obvious? how? More detail? More focus on technical questions? Should we focus on COSOP SO’s? Or is this too broad? Should we disseminate more widely what we have learned? Or is it mostly for PMU and PI?

29. Reminder Supervision Format on //desk Workspaces Guidelines and Template Supervision

30. Reminder Managing Knowledge during Supervision is an Art

31. Part III KM in Project Design

32. HOW ARE WE DOING IN DESIGNING HOW TO MANAGE KNOWLEDGE IN INVESTMENT PROJECTS ?

33. Review of Knowledge Management in Project Design in 2009 Methodology Findings Implications

34. Review of KM in Project Design Methodology Identified projects designed 2009 Reviewed design for features explicity included to address knowledge management Consulted CPMs

35. Review of KM in Project Design Methodology: Projects Reviewed Bangladesh,CDSP Bhutan, MAGIP India, NERLD Mongolia, CDPM Nepal, HVAP Pacific, FSSLP Pakistan, CMSP Pakistan, CNADP PNG, PPAP Phil, INREMP Sri Lanka, NADeP Viet Nam, 3EM

36. Review of KM in Project Design Methodology: Staff Interviewed Nigel Brett Maria Donnat Sana Jatta Frits Jepsen Mattia Prayer Thomas Rath Ganesh Thapa Ya Tian

37. Review of KM in Project Design Methodology: KM features looked for Staff with KM responsibilities Costs to cover KM staff / activities M&E arrangements mention KM Provisions for use of existing knowledge by Implementers, by beneficiaries Provisions to generate new knowledge by Implementers, by beneficiaries Provisions for technology to support KM Provisions for KM feedback to IFAD

38. Review of KM in Project Design Findings (+) 100% include reference to KM 75% KM in connection with M&E 66% KM for IFAD’s benefit 58% Acquire new knowledge “lessons learned“ 25% Access old knowledge

39. Review of KM in Project Design Findings (-) KM focus on beneficiaries: 42% Access old knowledge 25% Acquire new knowledge “lessons learned“

40. Review of KM in Project Design Findings (-) 75% No mention of staff for KM 75% No funding for KM 92% No mention, technology for KM

41. Review of KM in Project Design Findings Awareness increasing Tendency identify KM with M&E IFAD-oriented, not beneficiary-oriented Lessons learned focus Still grossly inadequate with respect to KM staffing, funding, technology

42. Review of KM in Project Design So What? How important is managing knowledge at the project level? Do we know what we mean by knowledge management? Do our consultants know?

43. Review of KM in Project Design Implications What would be the best way to help? Add KM specialists? Include KM in TOR for all mission members? HQ Backstopping? Country Level backstopping? Reference materials?