Revolutionalizing Informal Meetings ( Second Stage)

I considered the first stage of this process as an opportunity for us (Rachel and me) to promote effective knowledge sharing in informal meetings. I strongly believe that this way, if all goes well, we would be able to formalize knowledge sharing across the organization and among our partners by introducing new KS methods and tools.

So, at the coffee meeting last week a big group turned up since all the big shots were there. The chairperson informed the big shots about the change people expected of the meeting. He then displayed his good facilitation skills by engaging members in an important exercise. The exercise involved each member writing on two cards (blue and yellow) one at a time, about;

i) What they liked about the meeting (blue cards) and
ii) What they would like to have changed (yellow cards)?

The rules were that;
i) everyone present would have to participate
ii) No cheating was expected ( for every member, one of the each card was expected)

All sorts of ideas and suggestions were made and all the cards were pinned up. The essence of this was to have everyone get to know what others felt and as a guide for planning in the next meeting.

A roster of chairpersons for the subsequent meetings was put up and by chance the next person in line is Rachel our M&E coordinator who attended both the online and F2F of the second KS workshop with me. Great isn’t it?

Revolutionalizing Informal Meetings ( First Stage)

At PABRA, we have always had Coffee/Tea meetings every Wednesday of the week for 30 minutes between 10.30 am to 11 am.

A fortnight ago, a few of us turned up but there seemed to be nothing to share let alone a particular person presiding over the meeting. This has happened quite a number of times since culture has it that it is the big shots who always have something new to share. This is not by making, but it's because they are the ones who usually represent the organization in major meetings and forums. So in most cases, updates revolve around outcomes of meetings and information from the administration such events, visitors expected, traveling schedule etc. As you can imagine, it has always been boring (at least for me) but people had to be there for formality. As they say, everything has a good side of it, and one thing that has always been good about the meeting is cakes and the beverages and I am sure my colleagues would agree with me.

Sometime early this year, it was raised that something had to be done about it and as usual some kind of bottom-up suggestion was raised but thank God the idea was not bought. The suggestion was that everyone had to get involved by sharing what goes on in their office!! One member in disagreement pointed out that it would be best if the meeting was taken as a social gathering, a moment to relax and mix up with the rest of the group since such an opportunity comes once in a week.

Surprisingly, nothing changed and the meeting kept as it had always been. Back to a fortnight ago, everyone was given a chance to suggest what they felt needed to change about the meeting. Having learnt tricks from the second KS workshop, I suggested that it would be best to make changes based on people's needs and preferences. My other suggestion was that, having identified what people want, the chairperson of the day would then have to stir up the meeting and make it lively as he or she felt or is able to. Another member raised that it was better still if people new in advance when they are to chair the meeting so they could prepare for it. I like this idea because not everyone can come up with ideas in an instant and therefore it was an important point to note.

So the meeting was not only to change its vibe, but also it was to change in terms of organization (before, someone would be selected randomly at the meeting).

There was a consensus that in the following week, discussions made would be shared with the big shots (as we were expecting them) and thereafter the chairperson would introduce 'change' based on the agreements made. A chairperson (another big shot) who was present then was requested to preside over the next meeting and he was willing to do so...

PABRA Social Network Map

Context of group interactions existing within the map;

As you would see in the 'PDF' attachment provided in the hyperlink, interactions exist between different groups and we have considered that to happen at 5 main levels.

At LEVEL 1 (GREEN arrows)

1. PABRA links with CIAT, donors, Sub-Regional Organizations (SROs) and the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS).

a) Interaction with CIAT involve
• Discussions about the bean research agenda
• Exchange of information and knowledge (research results, prospects etc)
• Exchange of germplasm
• Capacity building

b) Interaction with donors
• Development agenda
• Financial support
• Exchange of information and knowledge (accountability in terms of progress made, achievements etc)

c) Interaction with Sub-Regional Organizations (SROs)
i) SROs stemming from PABRA (ECABREN, SABREN and WECABREN representing bean research networks covering 18 countires in East, Central and Southern Africa. The Western Africa network is growing). Interactions involve;
• Regional priorities
• Allocation and disbursement of funds
• Coordination of implementation processes
• Exchange of germplasm
• Exchange of information and knowledge (research results, needs etc)

2. SROs with other SROs
• Wider regional agenda
• Exchange of information and knowledge (policy environment, trade etc)

3. NARS with SROs and government ministries of Agriculture

a) Interaction with SROs
• Implementation
• Exchange of germplasm
• Exchange of information and knowledge (research results, needs etc)
• Disbursement of funds
• Capacity building

b) Interaction with ministries of Agriculture
• National agenda
• Infrastructure support (hosts and technical resources )
• Human capacity
• Exchange of information and knowledge (policy environment, trade etc)

At LEVEL 2 (PINK arrows)

1. NARS links with farmer organizations and CBOs, NGOs, private and public sector, individual farmers, government ministries of health. Interactions with these groups involve processes that advance the development of bean based technologies that are demand-driven. Some of these include;

• Identifying needs and demands
• Exchange of information and knowledge (farmers’ indigenous knowledge, research findings, promotional materials etc)
• Participation in technology development processes (identification, selection, testing and adoption).
• Empowerment in use of technologies
• Wider distribution of technologies

At this level, there exists interlinks between farmer organizations, NGOs, private and individual farmers.

2. SROs link with academic institutions
• Identification of research needs
• Knowledge transfer through capacity building of NARS, scientist and students
• Exchange of germplasm

3. PABRA links with institutions

• Disbursement of funds.

At LEVEL 3 (RED arrows)

1. Wider dissemination of bean technologies (seed) involving farmer organizations and CBOs, individual farmers, private and public sector.
• Exchange of information and knowledge about technologies (promotional materials, market trends etc)
• Dissemination of bean technologies


At LEVEL 4 (BLACK arrows)

1. This level involves groups acquiring bean related information and knowledge from reliable sources.
• FAO obtains data from ministries of agriculture and avails it to the public (PABRA and CIAT as of our map). The NARS provide some of this information to the ministries.

At LEVEL 5 (YELLOW arrows)

PABRA, CIAT, donors, ‘other’ SROs inform the public through media (websites, BBC, regional and international meetings, parliament) about their efforts and achievements with the aim of influencing the global, regional and local policy environments.


The following insights and questions are raised by Rachel (PABRA's M&E coordinator) in light of the social network map;

Issue #1

Comments: Stronger links ( the green) ideally indicate emphasis in KS strategy.

Current situation : KS flow is centralized and limited, constraints of technology, skill and decentralized capacity

The first question that follows is: How necessary is it to decentralise the KS, what would be the expert advice on a strategy for decentralizing if this is viewed as an absolute necessity? What options exist ?

Issue#2

Comments: Its clear that the KS information flowing from the nodes requires a variety of strategies and tools adapted to the KS users.
Current situation: Strategies for delivery of information such as information to promote specific agricultural technologies ranging from publications, to professional meetings, to village information centers, and mass media are defined and carried out by the specific scientists involved. Hence within that particular project related to that technology there is KS flow of some sort.
The question that follows is: Would the development of a KS strategy not build on these experiences already in practice? determine the gaps? and then device means of upgrading as is necessary?
Follow up question is, Beyond the specific projects where KS of some sort exists, and one specific to the technologies, what would be the network agenda for KS ? is it an assembly of all that is happening in the distinct projects? What would be the role of the KS initiative being proposed at the PABRA node?

Issue#3
PABRA has this year laid out a proposal to set up a theme for knowledge management, capacity building for policy and advocacy theme for the whole network, in its next funding period for 2009 to 2013

the theme is driven by the demand for utilization of M&E generated research, studies and findings from the preceeding phase ( The past phase i.e 03-08 was characterized by a rigorous Monitoring against indicators, evaluation studies to deliver against outcomes and several information sets both published and non published ; We experienced a classic case of an informatin overload, halfway through the last phase we initiated a database to store this data, and we started a website for PABRA --both are still at the teething phase)

In moving forward we realized the need to effectively have the information coming out of the network available readily and utilized by users in the network.

KM was introduced to us, thanks to interactions with Simone staiger

In seeking to move forward in the phase ahead of us 09 to 013:

I realise the first step is to carry out an assessment, what I now know is called a KS/KM audit

Beyond that we need to have a clear strategy on how to proceed.

Your advice is therefore welcome on the basis of the information provided here.

Thanks!