KM Update in Asia Division

ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

Making a difference

Update on Knowledge Management 23 March 2010

Presentation Outline

• KSS Programme • KM in Supervision• KM in Project Design• Internet Platform

Part I

• KSS Programme

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

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 skillsMotivate: Platform, audience, benefits

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

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.

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

KSS Programme

• Questions?

• Suggestions with respect to selection criteria?

Part II

• KM in Supervision

Supervision & KM: 2009

• What we agreed to report on?

• How we performed in reporting?

• What we learned?

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

SupervisionAn Art of Knowledge

Management

What we agreed to report on?

• How Projects Are Learning and Sharing Knowledge

• What We Are Learning about Poverty Reduction

Agreed by PI in 2009

• Knowledge Management Section of Supervision Report …..

Project Performance in KM

Agreed by PI in 2009

• Knowledge Management Appendix Section of Supervision Report …..

Lessons Learned

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?

Agreed by PI in 2009

• Supervision as KM Process Prime Beneficiary = PMU

• KM Appendix, Lessons Learned COSOP Strategic

Objectives

How we performed in Reporting on KM in Supervision Reports

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008 2009

KM Section

0

20

40

60

80

100

2008 2009

KM Appendix

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

What we learned? about project level KM practices

• Little focus on knowledge sharing at community level

• Recommendations re KM systems very ambitious, when present

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Reminder

• Supervision Format on //desk

Workspaces Guidelines and Template

oSupervision

Reminder

Managing Knowledge during Supervision is an Art

Part III

• KM in Project Design

HOW ARE WE DOING IN DESIGNING

HOW TO MANAGE KNOWLEDGE

IN INVESTMENT PROJECTS ?

Review of Knowledge Management

in Project Design in 2009

• Methodology

• Findings

• Implications

Review of KM in Project Design Methodology

• Identified projects designed 2009

• Reviewed design for features explicity included to address knowledge management

• Consulted CPMs

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

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

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

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

Review of KM in Project Design Findings (-)

KM focus on beneficiaries:

• 42% Access old knowledge

• 25% Acquire new knowledge “lessons learned“

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

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

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?

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?