So, are we saying that the information we share depends on our perception of who our target users are - if we are catering to a local audience, our information is primarily packaged to satisfy the information needs of that group; and we would be able to show the impact of the information 'service' we provide for our primary target. Now, with the ease of information sharing, through the web-enabled technologies, to a much larger audience,  we are faced with the question of how do now integrate our existing information system functionalities into that larger (national, regional, global) system.

Does that mean that we need to look at our information with new 'lenses' and label it with appropriate keywords so they can be 'found'. Does it mean that we have to repackage our information into different modular formats such that they can fit into the the larger information systems; or can the technology do all that for us? As we move into the discussion, the community will be looking to the CIARD initiative for guidance on these issues. Their question will be simple: "Tell me what I have to do next, to (a) share the information others need (b) be integrated?"

The answer to (b) will be dealt with under inter-operability

The answer to (a) seems to be coming down to the fact that there is no standard answer, but a set of generic principles that an information system should be composed of:

(i) information contents stored in as much a granular way as possible that it can be used to construct an information package for the user. (The granularity of the contents may have been determined by a prior assessment of the information requirements of the initial users, and finding an appropriate classification system that most closely matches these needs)

(ii) a set of predefined presentations of information packages that has been based on the perceptions of the needs of the intended users (synthesis reports that combine data and primary information into information and knowledge products, for the intented user)

(iii) a tool that enables the user to search through the granular contents to find those elements of what information package they are looking for, in case the predefined packages are not satisfying their demand (still an inelegant but practical way of providing information as a service, as compared to the predefined packages)

(iv) a mechanism for interaction between the information generator and the information user such that changing information needs can be formulated for new 'predefined presentations of information packages (this may be a facilitated interaction among the data producers, the information generators and the information user and may imply workflow adaptations, new definitions of the granularity of contents and new ways of packaging data into information)

Personally, I feel that today we have been able to move very far on (i) to (iii) mainly through ICT-mediated tools, but we are still stuck on applying these tools to (iv) because it relates to concepts.

Is Open-Linked-Data one of the tools we are developing to facilitate (iv) or is there more we need to be thinking of and be doing along those lines? Is a social-networking  tool sufficient to facilitate such negotiations? Do we need a new kind of online collaboration tool to enable the information/data producer and the information user to define the suitable information end-product?

Thanks for introducing this topic Sanjay. Just to provide some clarifications: the SADC Network of ARD Information Managers coined the term Agricultural Information, Communication & Knowledge Management (AICKM) Strategy development as a result of studying various documents about Information Management Strategies, Communications Strategies and Knoweldge Management Strategies and realising that they are all part of a contimuum of processes we are engaged in, and could not be treated separately. Thus, if you are staring from scratch, you may find a quick win with the development of a Communications Strategy, but very soon, as you start implementing your strategy, you will quickly find the need to work on the others too.

The matrix Sanjay mentions above consists of 13 questions (in columns) that we try to answer for each category of stakeholder (listed in rows). This matrix is used in the context of a workshop where all the stakeholders of ARD are present and in the end, as each stakeholder fills in their row, we end up with a rich picture of what is known, what is required and in what format and through which preferred channel, as well as who is expected to provide such information. At the same time, the challenges of making the information available are addressed, as well as challenges faced to access the information. Together with the stakeholders, the information providers can therfore discuss specific information requirements (at the intersection of rows and columns). This approach has been useful during face-to-face workshops with up to 30 stakeholder representatives in a room and helps define exactly what information should be exchanged and among whom. The matrix is then kept (as a large display in the hallway of some institutions) as a platform for further definition and refinement of the information needs of the stakeholders.

The result of the matrix-based information needs assessment then becomes the basis of the development of the AICKM strategy. This approach is being tried out in the Southern African region, but we are still at the stage of drafts of the AICKM strategies at national level.

More information about the development and application of the approach at:

http://www.sadc.int/fanr/agricresearch/icart/meetings/ICARTREGIONALWORK…

and

http://www.sadc.int/fanr/agricresearch/icart/inforesources/SADCNetARDIn…

Krishan Bheenick here, with some experience in the countries of the SADC region over the past five years. I have enjoyed all the posts so far and I see we are enriching the discussion with the diversity of target audiences and their perspectives.

I see that we have not only different categories of stakeholders, but also stakeholders who differ in terms of the resources and skills to tap the information being shared. Researchers and Information Managers in the developing world will surely understand and appreciate the potential of the visions we have of how these tools can help us in our work, but these are far from their reality (sepecially in terms of connectivity and the tools). At times,  we may have programmes/projects that come in with funds to start off the process and then fade out, leaving the user alone with the tool which might rely on a more sophisticated connectivity option than the institution can no longer afford. Connectivity is often one of the major problems, but we also have high turnover of staff in such institutions. So how do we cope with the situation where the person who benefited from skills development during a programme or project moves on, leaving a newcomer to take up the challenge?

In the field of ARD, we could now move from the traditional triangular Research-Extension-Farmer linkage model to one with  four categories of stakeholders: the researcher, the extension agent, the information manager and the farmer. In this case, the 'Information Manager' sits in the middle of the triangle and has to play the role of the linkages among the three other stakeholders. This may not necessarily mean that we have a new breed of ARD worker, but we first need to define the role of that 'Information Manager' and the interfaces that they facilitate. We can then decide whether in the local context, we need a new person to play that role or its a collective responsibility of these traditional stakeholder groups.Would it help to define the functional role of such a position? Is that role, the key to the implementation of the CIARD framework at a local level?

From my perspective, the CIARD framework has to cater for the whole range of ARD stakeholders for it to remain relevant at a global level - its a daunting task, a bit like a Prime Minister trying to form a government after tight (democratic) elections - trying to satisfy everyone and finding the right balance to get started. In a way, that's what this forum is attempting to conceptualise. I guess many of us have also been in such a position where we finally decide that we have tried to have as much consultation with the parties involved and its time to start somewhere, with a proposed strategy, and then do our best to keep an open mind, consult on regular basis to adjust the strategies. This approach will require collective efforts such as devolving responsibilities (rather: assuming distributed responsibilities), coordination and collaboration.

Having said that, we have to acknowledge that the CIARD framework will not be able to give us the solutions, but instead give us the guidelines, 'practices that worked well elsewhere', an insight into the new development and tools/technology in the sector, such that it helps us make the right decisions that match our context.  Therefore, we will need to see how the information needs that we are asked to satisfy by our local stakeholders, also fits in the global framework, and document the process we are going through so that we can facilitate the process of harmonising our procedures, formats etc.

So when it comes to sharing information - we are currently sharing what we 'perceive' to be what is required of us by our stakeholders while what we should be sharing is what is 'required' by our stakeholders. Now the key is how do we know what our stakeholders expect from us - and what are the dynamics of our stakeholders needs! I will come back to a tool that we have been trying in the SADC region as a matrix for information needs assessment with our stakeholders and as a platform for capturing the changing needs (already mentioned by Sanjay)