Forum: "Mobile Information Services" November, 2011
Question 5: What are the methods for sourcing appropriate content to be delivered to farmers, what standards...
18/11/2011
Question 5: What are the methods for sourcing appropriate content to be delivered to farmers, what standards should be followed when disseminating information to farmers, and who is best placed to manage quality assurance?
I will begin by saying that one mistake that we continue to make is ignoring content from farmers themselves - farmers' local knowlege and innovations (FLK/I). So before we jump into methods for sourcing technical/scientific content for farmers, I will like to suggest we also explore FLK/I.
If we agree that FLK/I could be useful for farmers, then we could start exploring some of the ways that ICTs could be used in sourcing this knowledge domain.
-Primarily, we could use face-to-face meeting with farmers to help identify FLK/I and "validate" it together with them.
-Mobile vans with the necessary recording equipments could be used to source content from farmers.
-Radio in combination with mobile phones could be used to source FLK/I from farmers. Radio "Phone-In" program in most parts of Africa is an excellent method. Currently, this innovation is only one-way - delivering technical information to farmers. It can also be used to allow farmers to share their local knowledge and innovations with researchers and development professionals. But in this case, since we are in need of this content, we can use "toll-free" numbers to allow farmers to share their knowledge without paying for it. That also could come from some of the partnnerships that we have discussed in the earlier questions.
-Also farmers could be trained with basic documenting tools so that while they are engaged in their local farming activities, they can also be recording these for researchers to use later in their research to improve these innovations.
And we need people who are trained and have the skills to source this type of content from farmers.
A very good point made by Benjamin.
Looking forward to others' thoughts on this.
I cannot agree more with Ben. local knowledge is critical, and ability to spread this knowledge and prevent its death by recording it through technology is also essential.
On a very close topic, I tend to believe that the myth that it might exist a standalone good content that could be pushed to farmers is a close to an utopia.
One of the reason of the success of helplines is related to the fact that farmers are getting answers from their questions, and not global information on a given topic. A sustainable and scalable approach should, imho, focus on setting up a process to build a base of content that is relevant to a group of farmers instead of defining apriori what is needed. Technology should support the connection between experts and farmers and provision of content more on-demand than apriori. It is vrey likely that what is useful for one farmer, is going to be useful for another one. So having a way to grow the content base is more important that focusing on having a content that fits all needs. In the best world, and related to the previous post, a system where farmers can both receive support when they need it, and provide supports to other when it is in their area of expertise is the ultimate solution. Obviously, building a knowledge base system that grow overtime also means that efficient search interface are required to enable farmers to take advantage of previously answered questions.
steph
Exactly, Stephane. That is the most interesting part of the mFarmer Initiative that I liked so much - the shared database of digital agricultural information. If the initiative can ensure that this content development does not follow the traditional ones by several international organizations and research institutes that are lying down idle, then I believe farmers will find it useful.
Again, Stephane! We need a dynamic database of agricultural information. Not only the growth of the database but efforts to make it up-to-date to meet the current information needs of farmers.
Ben
I think another question when considering sourcing content is what type of content? Is it information only, which expects farmers to assimilate that into their knowledge base? Or is the content knowledge? Knowledge can be tacit or explicit. Explicit knowledge can be codified and documented, while tacit knowledge is internalized unconsciously in the human mind (Hess 2006). Much of the content work in ICT in agriculture handles explicit knowledge and information, which means it is seen as an ‘object’. But an important approach is a personalization strategy for sourcing content. This strategy instead sees knowledge as tacit and therefore closely tied to the person who developed it and is shared mainly through direct person-to-person contacts. This type of strategy is more time consuming because tacit knowledge has not been codified and relies instead on networks. Mobile phone helplines are a good example of this where the farmer talks directly with an expert, who has tacit knowledge from their experience, as well as perhaps explicit knowledge available through an online database. How can we encourage a balanced content approach between a strategy that shares knowledge through networks as well as having databases of explicit knowledge and information? And then how do we keep this content dynamic spatially and temporally? What incentives are needed? Claire
Ben points out that knowledge from farmers is important to remember. Point taken, but I would argue that the bulk of content farmers need to improve their cropping techniques is from known sources including public and private extension services, R&D units (both private and public), and universities. One big challenge is that the content from these sources is in diverse formats. We have seen that several of the first m-extension services have faced the same challenge, trying to tackle moving this content into compatible digitized formats that can relatively easily be delivered via multiple "channels", including text messages, voice messages, call-ins to call centers staffed with AG-savvy staff, and even radio programs.
We are hoping that the shared AG content engine (part of the mFarmer initiative) now being tested in prototype by a few of these services proves useful. Roughly 70 percent of such AG content is useable across regions. The intent is to digitize the bulk of the AG content and share it across services. Services can then differentiate themselves by localizing the content, translating it into local languages and more. (If you want to learn more about this approach, see mid-way through this mFarmer intro webinar from 11/8/2011: http://vimeo.com/31808085 ).
Will this shared content database work well? The jury is still out.
Judy
Sure Judy!
My point is that utilizing farmers' local knowledge and innovations will help make the content coming from public and private extension services, R&D units (both private and public), and universities more relevant.
Most of the time we (donors, researchers, and extension workers) think we know what is best for the farmers but in reality, these farmers know what works best based on their years of working on these crops and animals.
While interviewing a cocoa extension service supervisor in Ghana in 2009, he cited an example where extension officer tried to transfer or share his technical knowledge of "planting in rows" with a local farmer. The approach is great and uesful to the farmer but its application makes it too complex for an individual farmer to use - remember Rogers Diffusion of Innovation.
Instead of using long ropes with planting distance marked on it, (with at least two required individuals to plant his maize farm), the farmer knows that by taking a step he is able to get the recommended distance and thereby reducing all the complex processes by the extension officer. That is a farmers' local innovation.
So what can we learn from that to improve content on planting?
So to tie it up with Judy's comment, there is the need to take this scientific/technical content and convert or repackage it for the farmer. It goes beyond language. But to successfully do that, we need to listen to the farmer and understand how he has been doing it all these years.
My experience with cotton farmers in Northern part of Ghana is that, they know what insecticide works best for their crops. But the Outgrower Company through its research will supply a different insecticide which the farmer will accept, take it to the market, sell it and use the money to buy what works for him.I am not sure who is the winner here though.
The issue of content is more complex on the ground than 'we' think.
Ben
Here is a mobile phone application in India that allows local farmers to post questions and for other farmers to provide answers to support peer-to-peer learning (Awaaz.De): http://awaaz.de/news/ and http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29582486/mAgri%20Working%20Group-%20Cape%20Town-%20Presentations/AwaazDe.pdf
Digital Green (www.digitalgreen.org ) also taps the power of peer-to-peer learning by using local farmers as "stars" in its AG learning videos.
Judy
The World Cocoa Foundation (WCF) in collaboration with International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) also has Video Viewing Club (VVC) in Ghana. Local farmers use these clubs to document their own practices and share with other farmers.
An example of sourcing content from farmers through ICTs.
Ben
Very good point Ben. I would like to make two comments:
1. I think its healthy to differentiate between feedback loop from the farmers on what info/ content was useful and relevant or what other type of info is required on the ground, AND actual user-generated content. With feedback actually being incredibly useful to increase the relevance of the service, content itself, content sourcing methods and understanding of the on-the-ground needs by the research units, the quality of user-generated content is a separate issue.
2. If you as a service provider take user-generated approach, its good to remember that the quality of the advice given by users to other users inevitably affects the percieved quality of the service itself. This brings us to the question of how quality assurance should be structured for user-generated model, so that it increases the value and doesn't become a bottle-neck for the scaling up of the user-generated model.
Thanks Natalia for pointing out this difference. I agree with you and as I stated in my original post, the farmers local knowledge and innovation is just one source of content that could be used. And again, needs to be "jointly validated" - I hate using the term validation but... That takes care of the quality assusrance aspect.
With regard to quality assurance, I like the structure being used both by M-Kilimo and IKSL where they have frontline staff, supported by subject matter experts/specialist and again independent evaluators. I only hope that the structure is operational, not only on paper.
Also the use of CABI with the IKSL is a plus.
Another strong content provider that I will recommend is The Essential Electronic Agricultural Library (TEEAL) at Cornell University. TEEAL already has strong presence in most of these low income countries through its "library in a box" services.
My question, however, is to what extent are we using the national agricultural research institutes and universities? And what kind of collaboration are we expecting to have with these publicly funded institutes? This is because most of these institutes and universities already have rich raw materials that can be repackaged into useful content for farmers to use through mobile services.
I already cautioned the national agricultural extension services (NAES) in my post at GBI website and believe that something needs to be done to revive both the publicly funded research institutes and extension services or they die.
Ben
Method of Sourcing Content
- Printed literature and website information that are authentic and are available in public domain
- For information not available in the public domain, special tie-up with appropriate organizations to enable content enrichment and broadening of the knowledge base
- Feedback and success stories from the customers
Standards to be followed while disseminating information to farmers:
- Protocol of information dissemination is required to be developed for each category of information.
- Requirement in respect of the following should be well defined in these protocols of information dissemination
- Source
- Adequacy
- Accuracy
- Relevance (location specific)
- Clarity
- Sensitivity to the Socio-cultural aspects
Who is best placed for quality assurance
Quality assurance can be by
- In-house content personnel for developing content plan and protocol
- Experts who will be Vetting the content for messages
- In-house content personnel for carrying out regular internal audit
- Obtaining Feedback from farmers through participatory appraisal to improve the services
- Periodic audits conducted by external agencies
Ben is making a very valid point about local knowledge and technologies, but also about the role of national agricultural research institutes and universities as valuable source of locally adapted and validated knowledge.
I think we all agree that there is a lot of useful information out there, but often not accessible. At TECA, we found that a lot of highly relevant knowledge about successful agricultural practices and technologies for small producers comes from projects. When a project ends, the lessons learnt are often not documented in a way that could be useful for extensionists, local NGOs and farmer cooperatives in the project area and beyond. We encourage all those organizations working at field level with smallholder producers to document their experiences and share their successful practices for example on a platform to make them widely accessible for the benefit of small producers. For rural users it will be beneficial to have one or few entry points for accessing practical information from different sources, in different formats (audio, video, text and images), across issue areas and regions rather than having to search on highly specialized platforms, focusing only one format or one specific topic.
Of course, documenting and collecting information is only one step. As you have discussed above, the next step is to disseminate this information in a format that is useful for rural people. In the case of TECA, we partnered with organizations such as the Grameen foundation, which use information from TECA, among other sources, for their farmer help line and community workers.
Andrea
I have been following this discussion with much interest. When question #5 was posted regarding content I was hopeful I would learn something relevant to what I have been working on; a SMS based solution for farmers called Next2.us. When I saw bkaddom's post and the terrific feedback I thought I would take the opportunity to introduce myself and talk about what we are doing with Next2. I was excited to read the discussion that in my mind validates our approach and focus.
Next2 system that allows people to discover, share and communicate around location and common topics of interest using SMS on even simple feature phones.
Next2 is a "geosocial" network that allows people to automatically connect around location and by common topics of interest or concern. By sending a text message, a Next2 subscriber can signal what they have, want or would like to learn or talk about and Next2 automatically matches and then exchanges text messages between users based on similar location and overlap of sharing "circle" without revealing a user's mobile phone number.
Subscribers can discover others nearby and communicate using their Next2 identity and our free SMS shortcode. Subscribers can exchange both public and private messages. Public messages appear at their Next2 web page (example http://m.next2.us/next2) Private messages are only exchanged between users and do NOT appear on the interent. In essence, Next2 takes simple feature phones with out data connection and through use of SMS puts those phones on the Internet. By going to a Next2 subscribers web page and clicking on a link you can send the subscriber a message. Then message appears on the subscribers mobile phone as a new text message. The subscriber can reply by text message and the Next2 software routes it back to the sender as SMS or email.
I do not mean for this to be a commercial plug for what we are doing but to describe a system that we have built and deployed in Kenya and soon in Nigeria that is built to exchange user generated content so farmers can discover, share and communicate to mobilize local solutions to local problems.
We have over 450 beta users of our geo-message match technology in Kenya and the USA. In speaking with NGOs and others interested in our solution we have come up against the chicken or the egg dilemma. There is much interest but really no value when participation is low. We believe we have a way to bring immediate value to users, add a very important service to help build a user base for the message match technology.
The new feature addresses some of the points raised here about providing research and other non-user generated content to farmers. The new feature is a SMS keyword auto-messaging service that is very easy to use. A next2 user can send a text message "get Next2 subscriber name" and next2 immediately returns a list of topic words the subscriber makes info available about. The farmer can then just text "get name keyword" to get that topic's content. NGOs, government agencies, suppliers, researchers and others can easily create a Next2 name (identity), login and create their keyword list and keyword messages by just using an internet browser. Currently we allow unlimited number of keywords and 800 characters (5 text) per keyword message (we can increase it to 800+).
All the features of Next2 are available by SMS and also via mobile web version and we have created our first mobile app for Nokia Symbian phones that has easy-to-use menus for subscribers to post geo-match messages. The Next2 Nokia App can be branded and customized so Next2 identity and keywords can be embedded right in the App to make it even easier for farmers to request information by SMS. We are speaking with number of NGOs in Kenya about creating a Nokia App for farmers.
We are also testing in Nigeria right now a way for us to quickly deploy the Next2 solution in other emerging markets. The solutions is similar to how FrontlineSMS works but instead of plugging a SIM card into a personal computer, we plug a SIM card into a in-country hosting provider that then connects the SIM card to our cloud solution on Amazon server. This allows us to use a longcode to provide Next2 solution to all farmers in a country. We believe this will allow us to quickly deploy Next2 in other markets in Africa, Asia and Central and South America.
Please visit our web site at http://www.next2.us as we try to move to better one at http://wp.next2.us. Brian Puckett
I think we need to discuss in depth the aspect of “what standards should be followed when disseminating information to farmers”? We have not discussed enough the role of the intermediary here. To me a knowledge worker or a call centre operator is a critical part of the value chain. S/he has access to a vast repository of knowledge and in majority of cases (human call centre based / time delay model) this entity takes the final decision on what content to push to the farmer. Experts are usually one step removed from this process. E.g. farmer helpline in India has a provision of tagging multiple answers to a question. Does one size fit all? Can we cite few examples of managed quality assurance process in place or are we still learning by doing when it comes to managing and assuring quality content?
Good point, Aman.
That also brings issues where we need to look at the option where the experts will need to visit farmers field to be able to do the right diagnosis to the problem. Do we have provisions for that? Are there examples of situations like that?
Those of us from the field will agree that not all problems can be solved through phone calls or sms. We tried in some cases for farmers to take pictures of the infestation and send to experts but... Sometimes, the expert need to see the infestation, disease, etc. on the ground to be able to recommend a solution. Farmers may try their best to describe the situation but who knows.
Do we have some "failed" or "unsuccessful" stories of expert advice. Those on the ground should be honest and share situations where their recommendations led to disaster probably because the right diagnosis was not done. I believe if we have farmers on this forum, we would hear some counter arguments.
Ben