The Knowledge Share Fair for Agricultural Development and Food Security : an unqualified success for FAO!

This is a summary of the Share Fair, written for FAO Senior management :-)
***
From January 20 to 22, FAO was the stage for an innovative event called the Knowledge Share Fair for Agricultural Development and Food Security. This initiative was co-organized by Bioversity International, the CGIAR ICT-KM program, FAO, IFAD and WFP.

700 registered participants roamed the building, taking part in the numerous activities on offer. The 112 sessions covered various agricultural development and food security issues but focused on the knowledge sharing aspects of the initiatives. The sessions also used innovative and interactive means of presenting projects, focusing on experiences and lessons learned, as well as engaging other participants in discussions. Overwhelmingly, the sessions elicited a positive response from both presenters and participants. This alternative way of organizing an event struck a chord and is completely in line with the cultural change that is currently underway at FAO.

The Share Fair also proposed a variety of trainings on tools for sharing knowledge, such as blogs and wikis. The trainings were completely booked even before the Fair started, so the organizers acted quickly to add extra sessions to fill the need. There is definitely scope for organizing more of this type of training, due to the incredible enthusiasm and curiosity expressed by participants. Already, FAO has received requests for more trainings. In all, 400 people participated in the 20 tools sessions.

The Atrium turned into the nub of the Share Fair, was the place to meet people. The Bar set up for the occasion greatly contributed to creating a convivial atmosphere, conducive to starting dialogues. In the 12 booths, Fair participants found all types of informative materials but also, and perhaps most importantly, they found people eager to talk about their project experiences. Over 50 people took the "90 second challenge", explaining the value-added of knowledge sharing in a short digital video, which are available on the Share Fair website. The Tree of Knowledge stood majestic in the Atrium, each leaf representing ideas and thoughts on knowledge sharing, handwritten by the participants themselves.

A team of social reporters documented the event in a variety of tools, such as the Share Fair blog and Twitter. Through these means, thousands of people were following the Fair at a distance, in real time. Over 250 photos were put on a photo sharing website called Flickr.

Overall, the Share Fair garnered incredibly positive feedback. Participants felt they had a better understanding of knowledge sharing, concretely saw the benefits of interaction and dialogue, established new contacts and networked, shared experiences with others and learned a few new things, all the while having fun.

The Share Fair over but this is just the beginning for FAO!

Who made the Knowledge Share Fair possible?

Well, it looks like all our efforts and hard work of the last 10 months was worth every bit of it. The Share Fair seems to have been a positive and rewarding experience and has created a certain buzz. On Friday my colleagues came up to me saying: "The Share Fair was great, I learnt so many new things, met interesting people and caught up with old friends and colleagues".

We are running a survey to assess the impact of the Share Fair and to find out the overall perception of the participants so that next time we can do a better job.

Many colleagues, facilitators and volunteers worked hard and long hours to make the Share Fair a success. A big thank you to each and every one of them (see slides 7-9).

And then there is Gauri Salokhe alias "Share Fair Mother Teresa" who made it all possible. Without Gauri we would not have made it. She is an amazing lady. I learnt so much from her. I was amazed how she never lost her calm, how she always had a smile on her face, how she continuously reached out to everyone, how she was always tactful and understanding with everyone, how she did what she could to please everyone, how she never shied away from taking on new tasks, how she took charge, how she never said "no", how she was there for everyone, how she had an innovative solution for every challenge and how she never lost her wonderful sense of humour. For the last 10 months Gauri was our beacon. We all have a lot to learn from her. A very special and heartfelt thank you to GAURI SALOKHE.

At the end of the day, the Share Fair provided us not only an opportunity to learn and share rural development experiences but also to learn from colleagues such as Gauri and others how to effectively work and collaborate with others.

So, now that we all feel enriched, when shall we start planning the next Share Fair?!

Session Report: Role of KM in Rural Development Projects

Session on Role of KM in Rural Development Projects, 23 January, 2009, 10.45 to noon at facilitation room

Comments by Cristina Sette

Session had four presenters, Emerson Ndovisai Zhou (IFAD - PAMA), Danilo Saavedra (FUNICA), Adrian Marbaniang (NERCORMP), and Kevin Gallagher (FAO).

Emerson (IFAD) presented a work he is involved in Africa, with market chain and support to farmers. The KS activities his project is currently carrying out are:

• Disseminate what they were doing
• Bring stakeholders together
• Document lessons
• Record what goes inside the project
• Use consultants
• Workshop
• Printed documents (e.g. policy briefs)
  
• Reflection
• Disseminate what is working
• Media (radio, video/tv) to bring awareness; publish stories (newspaper) at national and IFAD level
• Training
• Local workshops
• Forums
• Reach farmers
• Platforms (national level) for discussions
  

Lesson: when to introduce the instruments of KM?

• There isn't a KM department or a focus person for KM
• Right KM tools
• Involve stakeholders (local stakeholders)
• Web as repository
• Project implementation team (consultants)
• One department taking the leadership
• KM is important to improve project; feeding into M&E cycle
  

Danilo from FUNICA in Nicaragua presented a project related to food security in Nicaragua. He emphisized that the project had the incentives they had for KM were the following:

• Resources/investments
• Technological assistance
• Improve the organization

The methodologies for KM were:

• Farmer field school
• Farmer to farmer (lead by National farmers organizations. They have their own methodologies)
  

Some of the lessons were:

• Involve other institutions to support the project
• Each institution look at KM to reduce poverty
• Work with farmers

Adrian from NERCORMP in India presented a project they call "Systematization" which is a participatory tool for evaluate projects, which builda pool of knowledge and documents lessons learned. Website: www.enrap.org.in
The project phases are:

• Preparatory
• Grounding
• Documentation (achieved through field visits, reporting, and post documentation)
  

The project activities are:

• Identify areas/topics
• Facilitators for each topic
• Team assigned to an area
• Team plan activities and present for feedback
• Field visits by the team where they interact with the community
• Reporting/documenting (it is a challenge)
• Look at all resources (other types of reports)
• Present
• Pos documentation
• Policy briefs

Some of the lessons were:

• Participatory tool. Community evaluate themselves
• Disseminate to other project areas
• Identify topic must be done carefully
• Sometimes we sounded too vague and we were not sure what to do
• Make people write is difficult
• Timing must be planed carefully
• Having a KM specialist is good
• Communication must be linked with M&E
• The topics are chosen at district level
• We asked ourselves if after the project if has been any changes
• Doing this exercise requires time and funds

Kevin from FAO presented his work with farmer field schools in Sierra Leone.
The project consisted of introducing different methods with the FFS approach, build confidence/groups, and transfer knowledge.
Kevin's expereince with KM were as following:

• Farmers own the knowledge
• Farmers build business schools (agricultural business center)
• Takes time to develop the processes and to build confidence
• Focus on integrated pest management
• FFS is a group of people who meet in the field
• Farmers facilitate the procecss
• Experts can present
• Self organized
• Cost
• Radio
• Up taking low in some countries (no promotion at international level, e.g. FAO and World Bank)
• Info available but documentation expensive

Session Report: Making Networks Work Within Institutions

Session on Making Networks Work Within Institutions, 23 January, 2009, 9.00 to 10.15 at Queen Juliana Room.

Comments by Cristina Sette

After three presentations (The Bluebar Group, FAO; IFAD Communities of Practice; Informal Commercialization and Agri-Business Interest Group, CABIG), a member of the audience asked presenters how senior management sees these initiatives, according to their perception.
Bluebar thinks that the informality is the success of this initiative. They don't need to interact with senior management for meeting once a month to interact and learn from each other. But they do need a facilitator to bring people together and carry on the interactions. IFAD is also informal but the group has a terms of reference. It is an output oriented group and their resources are very limited as they have no funds to cover costs with face to face interactions and no time for meeting. The CABIG group is also informal group.

The difference between the Bluebar group and the others is that the first is a network related to common interests and functions individuals perform in their units/departments. The others are related to a theme. Those groups are moving from an informal interaction to a formal network, however they have no funds to operate, using funds from other projects or sources.

Let's build on the Share Fair energy and momentum to bring about change

Seven hours ago the Share Fair came to end. As of 5pm today we have approximately 700 people more colleagues who have a better understanding of knowledge sharing and see the value-added of knowledge sharing. 700 people established new contacts and networks. 700 people learnt something new and shared something with others. And most importantly 700 people had fun.

I commend my colleagues for having proactively participated in great numbers. I commend my leadership who despite their busy schedules set aside at least half a day to come over to the Share Fair to visit the booths, talk to people and see for themselves the organization's knowledge in action. I commend senior colleagues and directors, who over the last three days visited the Share Fair more than once and spent considerable amount of time going to sessions and learning something new. I commend all my colleagues who spent many hours attending sessions and taking an active part in the Share Fair.

Kudos to all members of senior management, the Executive Director of our Change and Reform programme, our directors of HR, IT, policy, communications, technical advisory division, chief of staff and regional divisions directors.

Thanks to the Share Fair, we've increased the number of KM champions within the IFAD and converted some cynics. We've strengthened our partnership with the other agencies and built new networks, made new contacts and new friends.

Three days ago in my blog I said: "The fair's inauguration coincides with President-elect Obama taking oath of office. While history is being made across the Atlantic, in Rome, we too are taking an important step to bring about change by demystifying knowledge management and showing that KM is not a fad but a fact and a way of living." And YES we did it!!

We should all go proud of our achievement. The challenge is to keep the momentum and build on the positive energy. The closing ceremony may have closed the Share Fair but the real work starts now. And we are in a better position to do it, because thanks to our expanded networks we have more opportunities to draw on each other's knowledge.

Session Report: Demystifying Knowledge Management: The Naked Truth

Session on Demystifying Knowledge Management: The Naked Truth (facilitated by Geoff Parcell), 22 January, 2009, 9.00 to 10.15 at Iran Room.

Comments by Cristina Sette

In this session we learned the process of self assessment on knowledge management. The session had a great attendance with the room almost full. After Geoff presenting a matrix with the levels of assessment and a sample of topics to be assessed, such as KM strategy, leadership behavior, networking, etc), the participants divided themselves into groups, according to their organizations. Those without colleagues from the same organization formed a group as well. Self assessment table presented below:

After 30 minutes of group discussion, Geoff asked us to place our organization within the ranking of levels given, 1 to 5, indicating where staff felt they are. Additionally, Geoff asked us to indicate which level we would like to be, as an organization.
He, then, demonstrated where each organization is on the river diagram. Based on where each topic appears on the diagram, they can seek improvements with the existing knowledge within the organization (as appeared in the self assessment) or, it the topic falls 'outside the water', it is likely that the organization needs external consultants to help them improve the topic. More on self assessment is at Geoff's book 'Learning to Fly'.
According to participants, the exercise was very useful and they had an overview of the process of self assessment.
Geoff commented that this self assessment also help individuals to learn from each other and how their perceptions from KM within their organizations may change after hearing the experiences of other colleagues.

Session Report: Leveraging Geographically Distributed Expertise through KS

Session on Leveraging Geographically Distributed Expertise through KS, 22 January, 2009, 10.45 to noon at Gabon Room.

Comments by Cristina Sette

The session was presented by German Escobar (IFAD - RIMISP), Tawfiq El-Zabri (IFAD - IDRC), Chase Palmeri (IFAD) and Huyen Tran (FAO).

German presented a network in Latin America which is currently in its 4th phase. The network involves the public and private sector, promotes learning and innovation, search results for problems and policy application, and value information. There is a part-time coordinator and am assistant involved in coordinating the network. The activities related to knowledge sharing and knowledge management happening at this project are the following:

• KM analysis at National level
• Bulletin (‘hosted’ independent from IFAD website)
• Electronic conferences (designed with farmers and developing programs, 1-3 years)
• Website library
• Communication Tools (evaluate each method/tools every 3 years; qualitative indicators).
• Field work to capture information
• Training facilitators

Chase presented the activities she is involved in Asia and the Pacific. The KS activities going on depend highly on connectivity and the commonalities between the several projects and are as following:

• Website
• Email
• Disseminate Info
• Face to Face
• Open to all members to participate

She mentioned the language constraints and the need to improve the network.

Huyen presented the global forum on food security which was created in October 2007. The forum is open to any user and has daily facilitated discussions (with invited subject matter specialists). It serves as a repository of information and also a way of involve people.
Some of the constraints are as following:

• connectivity
• involve more people (including FAO staff)
• improve the visibility of the forum

Asked about the quality control of the information posted, the group mentioned that the moderator of the forum does the quality control, who also summarizes the discussion and translates into Spanish and French. Two full time staff are involved in moderating the forum. Recent evaluation showed that the forum is considered very useful

Tawfig presented the network called Karianet and his experience on building a regional network. The motivation of people to participate in the network are related to learning and improving performance.The way the network works focus on processes, practionaires, documenting knowledge and working with pilot projects. The lessons:

• sustainability of the network:ownership, interest, symbolic membership fees, validate, involve private sector and rural communities.
• in 2004 a needs assessment was carried(ownership) together with activities on capacity building targetting project managers to help them reflect. The process was supported by a knowledge facilitator and activities were carried out face to face to build trust and confidence. Participants learned about their own projects, beginning a change in culture.
• The network concentrates on themes (e.g. M&E)
• Documents (Reports)- K products
• Demand driven
• Sustainability after end project:
• Topic relevant (views on it, stakeholders, share experiences)
• Thematic and Regional Network

Patterns from Session Feedback

As part of the facilitation team, I was asked to gather some form of feedback after each session. As I did not want to take too much time away from the session itself, I was fishing for a useful and generative feedback mechanism. Here is what I came up with today. At the start of the session I asked why people picked the session (as they had a LOT of choice) and what they expected to get out of it. This works well for smaller sessions. I capture these ideas on a flip chart page. At the end of the session, we do a "reality" check and give a +, - or +/- for each of the "wish" items. Then I asked what they wanted to learn or do next.

The reason this is feeling useful is because the breadth of the Fair give people a tiny tastes of many Knowledge Sharing flavors. It introduces possibility, but it is much harder to go deeper or develop skills in many of the new methods and tools. This gives us some good suggestions about "what next" after the Fair, both for individuals, organizations and the group of sponsoring organizations as a whole.

So as we go into day three, what do YOU want to do next? What would you like to see happen to deepen and further your KS competency going forward?

Session Report: Keeping Institutional Memory - Part 1

This session really made me think on two fronts: first, about the methodology used (the fishbowl. See a brief description on the kstoolkit site); and second about trying to approach institutional memory systematically.

The content: we started talking about several initiatives, including a collaboration platform for Human Resources staff, an online country brief intranet platform, and a manual for designing and implementing projects (see: I1004a, F1070 and X1030).

They, and other initiatives that came up, were quite different from each other in various ways (technologies, users, institutional contexts, etc.), but the conversation began to converge on some of the most difficult nuts to crack: how to generate enthusiasm and understanding of potential and actual benefits, how to ensure the content providers you depend on actually provide the content, how to ensure those who do share feel they are appreciated, etc.

I may be wrong, but I felt a real coming together among many participants around these issues and I certainly had a deeper appreciation not only of their importance, but more crucially of the importance of consciously integrating these issues into the design and implementation of knowledge sharing initiatives (in a project context, institutional context, network context, whatever).

We also talked about the fishbowl methodology itself: having a conversation within a group of about 25 people can be difficult, but a fishbowl can keep it manageable so only a few people talk at once, but everyone gets a chance to provide input if they want to. It also helps to get you physically out of the people around a u-shaped table scenario into one that is much more informal and relaxed, and where the energy is focused on the people as they face each other. It reinforces my belief in getting rid of tables as much as possible, and in the power of physical layout to promote interaction and participation. All in all, it was time well-spent :-)

Session Report: Knowledge Sharing and Good Water Governance

Session Report: Knowledge Sharing on Good Water Governance
Room: Facilitation Room
Time: 21 January 2009, 15:30 - 16:45


When I reviewed the submissions for the last panel I was facilitating today (Knowledge Sharing Methods on Good Water Governance), I was struggling to imagine the "hook" for the conversation across the projects. There is this interesting tension in many of the sessions, which is how much focus should we put on the domain/content (in this case governance in water issues) and how much on the theme of the fair, knowledge sharing? Because we all value the practical application of KS, this balance is important. We want to increase our KS skills, but not in some theoretical vacuum. So the hook between the content and the KS issues is important to me.

Well once Moses started talking about the application of Net Mapping to a dam project in Northern Ghana, the use of Knowledge Profiling in identifying knowledge as a product of a project and Frank shared the application of contests in a water governance initiative in Bolivia, I had a little aha. It should have been obvious, but sometimes we need to hear stories of use to see the light.

This was a really useful case of seeing various methods as not just the methods themselves, but as knowledge sharing methods. Why is this important? I think when we look at our work with a KS "lens" we see some different things. For example, in the NetMapping story of Ghana, Moses stated they used it initially at the close of a project as more of a post evaluation method. But as they used and deepened their knowledge of the method application, they saw that not only did they gain social network analysis data, but they observed how the method influenced the communication in the work, and how people begin to see new possibilities through this very visual method. Moses noted that they now see the method as something they can use at any phase of a project and that while it requires trust, it also generates some deeper communication. So this very act of knowledge sharing, as I understood it, changed the dynamics of the work.

We had less detailed information about the profiling method from Rudolph. My sense it was a more structured and detailed process, but again, it helps the participants "see" the learning in a different way. And thus share it in a different way. They noted that the Knowledge Profile results were useful in an academic setting and more formal evaluation. While the NetMap addressed the social and power aspects of the work.

Finally, Frank observed that using contests was both a well documented method useful in many contexts and domains, but a real insight for me was his suggestion that it is a good starter method to uncover knowledge that can be more formally assessed with the Knowledge Profile and to help guide the design of work.

How do we pick these methods? What is a good mix or sequence? Does the selection vary widely by context or are there some useful use practices we can uncover?

We can't know this unless we continue to swap stories as we did this afternoon. So for me the hook is to add a layer of learning while doing about methods and process, then share that learning outside and across our work to see if we can surface the range of methods and their applications for knowledge sharing in agriculture and food security.

Session Report: Leveraging Connections Among Networks by Nadejda Loumbeva

Leveraging Connections Among Networks
Facilitator - Nadejda Loumbeva
Day 2 at 13.45 in Espace Gabon


Process:
15 people (excluding the facilitator) participated in the session. 3 of those were presenters. We started off with describing the initiatives (ESCORENA network, e-Agriculture network, IMAWESA network). Then we moved onto a discussion. In the process of this, we used some of the computer and projector to show the websites of the featured networks.

Challenges to the process were:

• All three initiatives were incredibly complex and we had to struggle with ensuring these are being shared concisely and ''to-the-point'', in ways that encourage people to see linkages among them and discuss.
• Some of the presenters were taking a long time giving the background to their initiative. I had to work with them so that they focus more on the mechanisms underlying the network. It was a question of reinforcing them whenever they talked about mechanisms and gently stopping them when they would give away details that were (in my opinion!) distracting the discussion.
• The Espace Gabon room is difficult in terms of 1. having a few flip chart sheets written on at one and the same time (there is no where to put them but stick them to one of the walls) and 2. having all people see those sheets (all would sit in an oval around a big table and so some people would always have their backs on them). This was making difficult the synergy between notes I would take on these sheets (one for each network and a fourth one for challenges and lessons learnt) and the actual discussion. I guess it would have been good to enable the session in a way that is more holistic (i.e., people seeing all notes, and making connections among them whilst participating) however I do not think this worked.

Summary of some of the discussion:

IMAWESA network
http://www.asareca.org/swmnet/imawesa/home.php?LinkID=d3b978ca3a065922cf7c2c6e5d14aca4
http://www.asareca.org/swmnet/imawesa/downloads/20070524-648am-IMAWESA%20Brochure%20Final.pdf
This initiative aims to influence policies, attitudes and investment priorities in agricultural water management. This is intended to happen via different stakeholders (ministries and other public institutions, people on the ground, researchers) being brought together in the context of process documentation, dialogue, learning assessments, capacity building initiatives, peer reviews, amongst others. Such would create linkages between different stakeholders in agricultural water management to encourage and build upon. A few different organisations have joined in support of the initiative, one of which is IFAD. The initiative currently spans 23 countries. It has no online platform to more interactively connect the participating stakeholders and leverage their connections, however it is understood this may need to change in the near future.

ESCORENA network
http://www.escorena.net/
This network was established in 1974. ESCORENA is a network of 14 other networks, each of which is focused on researching and raising a particular crop (i.e., walnut network, flax and other bast plants network, olive network) or animal (i.e., buffalo network). The networks that are members of ESCORENA are all Europe-based but beginning to expand to other regions as well, in addition to being thematically focused quite specifically. The purpose of ESCORENA is to enable linkages among the participating networks that would be in terms of joint projects, sharing of knowledge, etc., in ways that add to these networks. It is also to enable a bigger body of research and agricultural knowledge to be continuously developed that would in itself represent an interest to outside parties (such as the European Commission). A challenge behind making the network work has been the lack of consistent and appropriate communication among all members (so far, this has been mostly during face-to-face meetings with an otherwise permanent email-based contact being maintained via a Coordination Centre) . The intention is to overcome this via an ESCORENA online platform (already created).

E-AGRICULTURE network
http://www.e-agriculture.org/home
The purpose of the e-agriculture network is to bring forward the use of ICT in rural development and food security and enable a dialogue on this within and among different groups. The network was officially launched in September 2007 by a few co-sponsoring organisations who believed in the importance of this issue. Individuals are able to join the network via the network's online platform. So far, there are about 4300 people from 154 countries who have joined the network. A challenge has been to keep the focus of the network clear, while at the same time meeting the variety of interests of those who are part of it. A critical part of the community is having face-to-face meetings (as part of larger events organized by other organizations), as well as the intention to support the establishment of regional e-agriculture communities in order to keep local issues and interests synchronized. In the meantime, e-agriculture.org would remain a global platform. The network frequently engages in on-line discussions and e-forums on issues related to ICT in agriculture. The demand for what topics to dialogue on comes from the network itself, and when necessary, expertise is brought in from outside the network. Some of this can lead to in-country interventions where local expertise is brought to the service of a local problem through the action of the network.


OVERALL

• Lack of continued and appropriate funding may hurdle any network and especially initiatives as complex as the ones part of this session; financial support, as well as other in terms of coordination and facilitation, are crucial.
• In some cases, it may be good to get people to give something back to the community in return for learning and thus ensure there is continued practical support underlying the network.
• Sometimes network membership may grow way too quickly (when the network is open to everyone) and difficult to keep in synchrony and synergy; this may be overcome by keeping a good balance between supporting demand from within the network and providing some guidance and formats for different network activities.
• In other cases, despite there being many members to a network, there may not be involvement and participation in the network; in such cases leveraging the use of web platforms may be helpful.
• Is it possible to and how can we measure impact of such initiatives? the discussion seemed to agree on using secondary rather than primary indicators for impact, such as referencing the network in publications and other research centre activities.
• How can we monitor and evaluate? it would be better to focus on monitoring and evaluating the process underlying the network rather than its thematic focus and content; this would be more indicative of whether and how the network is a healthy environment for collaborative learning.
• A question on the importance of substance was raised, to pinpoint the importance of a clear purpose driving complex networking initiatives such as the ones featured in the session; unless there is a clear purpose to drive the dialogue, there is the danger of the network becoming a dry framework with no real substance to it.

Session Report - Leveraging Geographically Distributed Expertise Through Knowledge Sharing (Part I)

Session Report - Leveraging Geographically Distributed Expertise Through Knowledge Sharing (Part I) Day 2
Espace Gabon
Facilitator: Nadejda Loumbeva



Process:
About 15 people participated in the session. 3 of those were presenters. We started off with telling each other about the initiatives being presented (EastAgri network, Biotechnology Forum, SolutionExchange network). Then we moved to a discussion focused on making geographically distributed expertise through knowledge sharing work. In the process of this, we used some of the computer and projector to show the websites of the featured initiatives. I also took notes on several flipchart sheets, one for each network and one for the overall discussion and conclusions. Despite that the Espace Gabon room does not allow all participants to face several flip chart sheets all at once (you need to stick the flipchart sheets to the walls and so some participants would have their backs on them), we had no problem with participating in a shared discussion and following on notes being taken. This was because all participants were very willing to suit with a discursive and flexible session format. In the process of the session, this took a tendency towards a peer-assist, with the SolutionExchange and the Biotechnology Forum presenters offering insights to the EastAgri presenter on starting off and maintaining network online discussions. If I could do this again, I would spare some of the time we spent on telling each other about the initiatives being presented and cut straight to challenges and opportunities.

Summary of some of the discussion:

EASTAGRI network: http://www.eastagri.org/

EastAgri is a network of financial institutions investing in agriculture and agribusiness in Central and Eastern Europe. Currently, the network has 24 institutional members, of which some are international organisations (i.e., IFAD, FAO), some are private sector organisations (i.e., Rabobank), some are bilateral organisations, and some are international financial institutions (i.e., European Investment Bank). Country ministries are also part of the network. EastAgri is intended as a flexible and informal platform via which good practices and lessons learnt in institutional investment in agriculture and agribusiness in the region are shared and institutional synergies are found. So far, members of the network have come together in the context of several annual meetings. There have also been the opportunities of study tours within member countries to learn about a specific agribusiness aspect. The coordinators of the network have been using google analytics to track EastAgri website visits and thus judge about the popularity of the website and its underlying initiative; the number of website hits has been steadily increasing. In addition, the EastAgri website has a password-protected member section; it has nevertheless been difficult to get network members to communicate/participate in online discussions. A next step would be to explore online communication opportunities with the network members.


BIOTECHNOLOGY FORUM: http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp

The FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture (FAO Biotechnology Forum) was established in March 2000 with the aim of providing quality balanced information on agricultural biotechnology in developing countries and to make a neutral platform available for people to exchange views and experiences on the subject. It has hosted 15 moderated e-mail conferences so far on biotechnology and topics such as bioenergy, water or genetic resources. Membership of the Forum is currently about 3,000 people and is open to everyone. Greatest participation in its conferences is from people working in universities and research institutes, although all other relevant stakeholders are also involved in the discussions, and they are more or less evenly distributed worldwide (for example 1/4 of messages have come from Europe and 1/4 from Asia). Normally between 10-20% of Forum members subscribe to any one of the e-conferences. The e-conference topics are chosen by the FAO Working Group on Biotechnology and the choice is motivated by factors such as the actuality of the topic and potential interest for FAO member states. Prior to each conference, a document summarising the latest scientific research and background on the chosen topic is sent to all Forum members. Each online conference is moderated, to ensure the messages posted are clear, understandable and follow acceptable standards for an e-mail discussion and to allow the moderator to add relevant explanations and scientific information. There has, in general, been little need to reject messages. After each e-conference, a summary document is sent by email to all Forum members as well as put on the Forum website. The Forum has a very well organised structure and process which has apparently worked very well with the nature of the Forum's membership. At least in part, this may also be due to the very clear purpose behind the Forum.

SOLUTION EXCHANGE: http://www.solutionexchange-un.net.in/en/Food-&-Nutrition-Security/introduction.html

Solution Exchange, an initiative of the United Nations Agencies in India for the harnessing the power and passion of Communities of Practice to help attain India’s development objectives and the Millennium Development Goals. There are 11 communities with a total of 15,000 members as part of Solution Exchange. The Food and Nutrition Security Community of Practice is facilitated by FAO and co facilitated by Nutrition Foundation of India. The purpose of this community is to enable sharing of experiential knowledge that helps meeting of the respective Millennium Goal. The main principle underlying the Solution Exchange communities is ''knowledge on demand'', i.e., what is discussed within the community is driven by its members. Members send email-based questions to the moderator of the community, which is then circulated to the members via an email distribution list. Anyone can join the community and participate in e-discussions (which aim to answer questions being asked to the community by community members). Face to face discussions are also organized to facilitate further collaborations and knowledge sharing among members. During those meetings, methodologies such as fish bowls, knowledge café, open space, appreciative inquiry, AAR and peer assists have been used in order to get people to know each other better and develop a sense for their community.

OVERALL:
- Ensuring participation in online discussions can be very challenging - important to identify a strong case for members to seek to know about and learn from each other (what's in it for me?) as well as be aware of good practices in online facilitation.
- It is important that network/community activities, discussions, etc., are driven by incentives and demand. This would make them effective at leveraging the knowledge of network/community members.
- For networks/communities to work well, it is important to develop their face to face aspect in addition to their online aspect. This would be via workshops, round tables, and informal meetings.
- When starting an online discussion, it is important to ensure the issue of discussion is topical and one in which at least most members are interested in. In addition, circulating a document summarising background research, if appropriate, can help to get members involved in the topic. The participation of a known expert in the online discussion can help, too, as well as network/community members leveraging their own networks to participate in the discussion.
- It is good to keep e-conferences 2 to 4 weeks long.
- It may be challenging for network/community members to share failures, despite that sharing failures is good, too!
- It may be challenging for network/community members coming from different sectors (public vs. private) to communicate and exchange, either face to face or online. Overcoming sector barriers is important, by building strong incentives for collaboration and then building on this with online facilitation and community building activities.
- The fact that network/community members may speak different languages and not always English can be a great challenge. This can be tackled by enabling sub-communities form driven by different languages, then cross-fertilising among them as much as possible.
- Liability disclaimers can be a good way of enabling open and free discussion on somewhat sensitive issues (more generally, so long as a specific issue is not being debated, there may not be the need for a disclaimer)
- When networks/communities have a broad membership, it may be difficult to keep them focused when a topic/issue is being discussed. In such cases, it is good to work as closely with the network/community as possible in order to keep the focus of the discussion clear and explain to individual members why a certain post may be inappropriate, etc.
- Often, community/network moderation/facilitation is a full-time job, especially when it has an e-conference component. A considerable part of this may be taken by ''IT management'', or the management of information related to the network, online moderation, discussion summaries, etc.
- Monitoring and evaluation are important for keeping track of progress. It may be better to base those on community process rather than on content; however, depending on how clear the network/community objectives are, it may be good to also monitor and evaluate for content in addition to process.

After the Share Fair - Session Report: Developing Sustainable Knowledge Networks - Peer Assist

Developing Sustainable Knowledge Networks - Peer Assist
Assistee: Walter Klemm, FAO.
Date: January 20th 2009
Facilitator: Nadejda Loumbeva

Problem:
The Cashmere Forum is an initiative to connect cashmere producers in Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Northern India with high end cashmere product sellers in richer countries such as Switzerland or Northern Italy to enable exchange of good practices, learning and better promotion of local cashmere products. Although a website with some non-sophisticated discussion forum features has been developed in support of the initiative, there is still a lot room for deploying the idea. One aspect is that, eventually, local cashmere producers/associations would have a focal point who speaks English and works with the website and forum, through which he or she would connect his village and association with other villages and associations, countries and continents. Clearly, though, this is just one aspect to get right. There are others who should be carefully planned, too. The idea also raises some difficult questions which need to be confronted.

Assisters: Huyen Tran, FAO; John Preissing, FAO; Jan Lundivs, Expert on Culture and Development; Kristin Kolshus, FAO




Summary of points and suggestions:

The discussion led to a number of points and observations. Looking at them now almost two months after the Share Fair, myself and the assistee, Walter Klemm, greatly appreciate them for their depth, as well as broad and constructive perspective.

Enabling the network:
- Is there a business case? Why do we need this network ...? Who would provide financial support?

- Are we sure there are no similar networks already existing on the ground? If yes, then why re-invent the wheel? Or, how would ''competition'' from other initiatives be addressed? In what way would the Cashmere Forum address a need which has not been met, so far ...? In what ways would it compete with/work together with already existing national and international networks ...?

- Provided that there is clearly a case for the Cashmere Forum, how would the initiative be marketed? How would the network be set up? How would buy-in for using the tools be got?

- The fact that there would be a website, and a forum, does not mean that people will use it, and especially people who are not familiar with information and communication technologies -> How to breach that barrier? By first and foremost carefully examining the needs of the target communities, then creating momentum, identifying champions who are passionate about making the idea happen and providing training. Working with local governments and other interested institutions in order to provide a web of multiple and all-sided support(s) would be important, too.

- How would language issues be addressed? Would people contribute directly online? Would there be translation of their inputs? What about get-togethers of members of the community/communities? Would there be interpretation as part of such ...?

- How would people connect with each other? How would each feel a valued part of the initiative ...? How would the communication and exchange framework (in terms of each community having a focal point ...) ensure all views are represented adequately ...?
How would a common ground be established ...? What would be the incentives behind being part of the Cashmere Forum network and leveraging it and growing it?

- Is the online (web) modality the best one? What about rural radio which has shown highly effective in supporting community formation and development at grassroots ...?

- If there were to be an online system and forum, would it not be a good idea to ask its primary users about how it should be ...?



Developing the rationale behind the network and initiative:

- How would a strong and convincing business case be articulated? Would this relate to local religions, cultures and fair-trade, at all ...?

- How would cashmere shawls be marketed in order to generate higher income for the target communities? Would these shawls be luxury products? Would these shawls be fairly traded? What would be their quality and should this be improved in order to pass for luxury?

- Would any of this frame under climate change?

- Would it be a good idea to contact the FAO IDWG on specialty products ...?

- Should there not be some research done on including goat-breeding aspects in the interaction framework (i.e., breeding specimens from India and China)...? Perhaps this may be one aspect the network members and participants would exchange on ...? (i.e., work with extensionists and technical experts)

- Should retailers be part of the network, as well? After all, they would know about consumer demand and so would be able to properly feed this into cashmere production communities for these to take into account as they develop their products.

- Should wool producers also be part of the network ... ? Should there not be different perspective incorporated, all aimed at improving the livelihoods of the main stakeholders...?

Session on Working Across Geographically Distributed Environments

Session on Working Across Geographically Distributed Environments, 20 January 13.45 - 15.00 in Flag Room

Comments by Cristina Sette

Jamie Watts and Cristina Sette presented an activity that the Institutional Learning Change Initiative has implemented, called Laboratory for Learning: new approaches for facilitating innovation for poverty reduction. The laboratory was formed by a group of professionals (manly from the CGIAR) who knew each other and have been working with collaborative research. The group members are located in several parts of the world and is composed of 7 cases and those cases are linked with numerous other networks. Each case/project has their own funds and research agenda or workplan. The knowledge activities happening within the group, promoted by ILAC, are as following:

• Face-to-face meetings
• Participatory impact pathway analysis (PIPA) to bring diverse partners together under a common planning framework
• Interactive website (with blogs, project pages, intranet, etc)
• Selected and targeted online resource center
• Training workshops
• Publications
• Learning oriented participatory monitoring and evaluation
• Small grants to each project
• Email discussions (DGroup)

The Learning Laboratory activity started with a face-to-face meeting, where trust was built. However the group has been interacting virtually, the face-to-face interaction is important and is planned for once a year, together with other opportunities for interactions during visits and training workshops.
The website was developed based on an assessment made during the first planning meeting. Cristina assessed the participants (and future users of the website) what information would be relevant for them to have available at the website, additionally their familiarity with technology and connectivity. Based on that, the more appropriate technology was chosen, web development companies contacted and the website was developed. The majority of the content for the resource center within the website came from the Learning Laboratory members themselves. The next step is to plan guiding sessions with each member of the Learning Laboratory (about 20 people) and take them through a virtual tour to the website. This activity is planned for the month of February 2009.
As part of the knowledge sharing and learning activities, ILAC plans an annual reflection exercise, where participants will be asked by a facilitator several questions to stimulate the discussion and capture the lessons learned during the first year of the initiative. The survey will be applied within the next few days.
More information about ILAC and the Learning Laboratory can be found at the ILAC website www.cgiar-ilac.org

The session was attended by the following people:

• Adrian Marbaniang, NERCRMP, buggieblues (at) yahoo.com
• Cristina Sette, Bioversity, c.sette (at) cgiar.org
• Elizabeth Goldberg, Bioversity, e.goldberg (at) cgiar.org
• Jean Louis Blanchez, FAO, jeanlouis.blanchez(at)fao.org
• Jorge Chavez-Tafur, ILEIA, j.chavez-tafur (at) ileia.nl
• Helene Fournols, FAO, helene.fournols (at) fao.org
• Helen Schneider, IDS, h.schneider (at) ids.ac.uk
• Jamie Watts, Bioversity, j.watts (at) cgiar.org
• Lottie Erikson, FAO, lottie.erikson (at) fao.org
• Oonagh Darby, Bioversity, o.darby (at) cgiar.org
• Patricia Weaver, IDLO, pweaver (at) idlo.int
• Simon Chapter, GreenInk, s.chater (at) greenink.co.uk

The Share Fair opening plenary and keynote

Lots of food for thought in Geoff Parcell's keynote. I'm not a big fan of trying to define knowledge management but I do agree that is it somewhat of an oxymoron. You cannot really manage knowledge but rather, as Geoff quoted from Arian Ward, "managing knowledge is about keeping track of people who know the recipe".

Some points really apply to the experiences of one of the Fair's organizers, who have focused on knowledge capture in the past. For example, when he mentions his BP experience, he says there were no shortage of databases but no one was making use of them. You can't always capture knowledge, but if you do try to capture it, it is only of use if you have networks of people and knowledge sharing to move it around. Just wondering out loud if at times knowledge isn't captured just for the sake of it, for no apparent reason or actual application...

Another relevant point relating to culture change: to change an organization's culture, you need to reinforce the wheel of learning and do it systematically. He mentioned that at BP, over the course of 5 years, culture change did occur. Good leadership behaviours are needed as well, in order to affect change.

Geoff says an event like this Share Fair is really an opportunity to adjust your model of the world, to make sense of things and to come up with a common way of sensing. Here's hoping that in the next few days we can all come away with, if not a common way of sensing, at least increased sense making.

Observations from the Opening Ceremony

I think a number of us are "social reporting" today - since I'm facilitating or running trainings, this is one of my few opportunities to listen, report and reflect. It is a bit of a cognitive challenge to have an opening ceremony about the vibrant, often messy and very human processes of knowledge sharing being "presented" in the highly formal Plenary room of the FAO. It is an apt metaphor for the challenge we face in trying to weave together living processes with the slower moving structures of large, international organizations. And it is indeed this challenge that I think will be at the core of the next three days. How do we find the mix of processes, tools and underlying values to enable complex, diverse networks to achieve the lofty goals of making sure everyone in the world has safe and sufficient food to eat.

The various organizational representatives are talking about "Why share knowledge -- what are the practical applications" in their organizations. They mention the challenge of large staffs, many of whom are in the field. Diverse national partners in every corner of the world. The representative from WFP (I apologize, but I can't hear well at the back of the room and have not caught all the naems - I'll come back later and fill in names.) is mostly in the field - can you imagine how you keep the knowledge flowing when people are out working on emergency food relief? The complexities of cross sector work. Knowledge sharing is crucial. And complex.

For example, how do we support "bottom up" and horizontal work in traditionally hierarchical organizations. It involves everyone, top, bottom and in between. It requires a culture to sustain and support KS. At Bioversity, there is a planning week to bring distributed staff together and it includes "Speed Dating" - bilateral interactions between every department and group. There is no excuse not to connect with others. It has created energy, buzz and has been very successfull. KS has also been crucial to setting up the organizational research priorities. Finally, engaging with other organizations and networks to connect beyond the organization.

At CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) - a network of research centers around the world with 8000 staff focused on finding agricultural solutions to real problems. While the CG operates more on the knowledge generation side, they have recognized that knowledge generation alone is incomplete - knowledge needs an application. One of the most important comments Enrica Porcari made was the resistence people have to KS based on "I am too busy." She noted that when we share knowledge, we can actually work better.

IFAD's representative said KS is a requirement, not a "value add" -- essential for applying IFADs knowledge and leveraging the rural partners who deliver development processes. He went on to give some examples in agricultural finance policy and referenced the work being shared in the Fair booths.

Anton Mangstel from FAO talked about the need to provide FAO staff with an enabling environment for staff for networking and knowledge sharing. They started this initiative with a web space and the development of thematic knowledge networks.

As an "outsider" I notice a question that comes up for me - what are the partners and stakeholders of these organizations experiencing? How do we make their voices on KS visible here? One answer is some of the 160 people who are presenting at the Fair. But the challenge is significant. Knowledge sharing is never one way. But organizational power dynamics, the difficulties of distance and fractureded communications infrastructure (i.e Internet access, electricity, cost) will always ask us to do more, to keep trying to think outside of our own organizational realities. Again, looking at the room, with fixed chairs, all facing a podium at the front, we are reminded of the tension between structure and flow, between institutions and networks. We have a large and ongoing challenge/opportunity in front of us!

Adding value with knowledge sharing?

As part of this week's 'sharefair' in Rome, participants are recording short 90 second video responses to the question: "What's the added value of knowledge sharing to your work and your organization?"

FAO's Michael Riggs starts us off:

Click To Play

More video responses

When we prepare... more questions

Today was a day of preparation for many involved with the Share Fair. Those of us leading sessions or trainings tomorrow were briefed and continued to reach out to the amazing 160+ people who are sharing the lessons of their KS work. The steering committee and their staff, friends, colleauges (and I suspect in some cases, families) were wrangled into set up duties, helping organize last minute details and convert FAO's huge atrium into the Fair "central" area.

As some of us gathered to prepare a fishbowl session tomorrow on "What is KM and Why does it matter?" we resurfaced so much of what makes knowledge sharing a slippery proposition. Where does it begin and where does it end. I suggested it is so pervasive - or could be pervasive - that it risks being too big to get one's arms around. And that it is easy to talk about in generalities, or worse, platitudes, but indeed when we strategically and intentionally build paths for KS, it can help us not only get our work done, but done better.

The reason?

We live in a complex, interconnected world. We are overwhelmed with data and information. So we need to use both strong and weak ties with others who share end goals to collectively work towards those goals. There is little we can do by ourselves anymore. So KS becomes the blood that pumps through our work. We rely on KS in very close and structured ways to get the work done in our teams. We rely on looser connections and practices to utilize KS across our overlapping networks. And we rely on both of these to stay informed in a fast changing world, filtered through those relationships and networks. I cover this little bit, you cover that little bit and together, we have a better view of the whole.

This truly asks us to rethink how we work. First of all

• We can't keep making KS "something else we add to the list." We need to take a hard look at what we should STOP doing, as well as new practices to add.
• We can't let our outdated institutional systems block KS, particularly old systems that may not have rewarded KS behaviors, strategic plans that have not yet included similar strategic evaluation and inclusion of KS, and the conflict between "taking credit" and the real-world need to work in a networked, cross organizational manner. This is not business as usual.
• We can work both in formal and informal challenges - this is particularly difficult in organizations which by nature are "political." Networks, one of the most powerful tools at our disposal, don't care about institutional boundaries and if our institutions throw up road blocks, networks simply work around the blocks.
• We are at a period of workforce shift and we have the opportunity to both embrace the new ways of those born in the digital era, and a deep (and quickly escaping) opportunity to bridge the knowledge of the large cohort of retiring baby boomers. We need both sets of talents. KS can be a key enabler.

I am looking forward to seeing who shows up at the fair, what questions are being asked and conversations are being had. I'm looking forward to seeing how many ideas are liberated from a project or even an institution and flow horizontally across the sector. I'm looking forward to seeing new connections being made.

Opening ceremony is tomorrow - On-site registration will take place at the Main Information Point.

On-Line Registration is closed. On-Site Registration will take place at the Main Information Point.

Opening Ceremony: Tuesday 20 January 2009, 10:00 AM, Plenary Hall (Building A, 3rd Floor).

Share Fair a unique event bringing about change and the gender dimension of KM

In about 27 hours the Share Fair show will start its 3 day journey. The fair's inauguration coincides with President-elect Obama taking oath of office. While history is being made across the Atlantic, in Rome, we too are taking an important step to bring about change by demystifying knowledge management and showing that KM is not a fad but a fact and a way of living.

The preparatory work of this event has been challenging, fun and rewarding. We've learnt a lot, connected with people, established and strengthened our networks. Over the last months I've been reflecting on the "gender dimension of KM". I've been asking myself why is that women are better at knowledge sharing and embracing KM fundamentals. I do not know the answer. I would like to be challenged on this point and if someone out there has done studied the gender dimension of KM I ask them to Share it at the Fair.

Hope to see you all tomorrow and I hope you will enjoy yourselves. Remember the Fair's mantra:

Get out of the Fair your Share of Knowledge

Reporting from the ShareFair.... a way to include the non-Rome based...

A flurry of activities! It is saturday evening, the end of a warm and sunny in Rome, 2 days to the opening of the ShareFair...e-mails travel fast and furious, the organizers are exchanging drafts, working on last minute logistical issues..."is the programme on-line yet?""Are the signs ready?" "Have the T-shirts arrived?"  ...nothing left to the chance...and in the middle of all of this we could not forget you, you who wanted to participate but for one reason or another could not! Many Rome-based colleagues will hopefully take the opportunity on 20, 21 and 22 January to visit the booths, participate in some of the over 100 sessions, attend the trainings...lots for everybody...but how about those who do not work in Rome? Or are not in Rome now?  Our organizations are highly decentralised, so many many colleagues work in other countries. How can we ensure they could follow and participate? Well, this is when technology lends us a helping hand! Blogging, Twittering, video streaming, podcasting...we will do it all, we will send reports, session summaries, interviews with presenters, photos, videos, blips, podcasts...as sessions take place to report what is happening in the ShareFair. Look at it as our attempt to democratize the Fair, to make sure you stay connected. To do this we have a number of volunteers who will be  your “reporters from the front line”.

So stay tuned and stay connected!