Social Media in Intl. Dev: Simone Staiger

Next in the podcast series on social media in international development is a dear friend and colleague, Simone Staiger discussing the design, technology and facilitation of a global e-consultation.  Simone is orchestrating 6 regional consultations for the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR)  in preparation for a major meeting next year. Listen as Simone talks about the technology, process and challenges of the consultation, as well as her unique addition of social media tools (Twitter and blogs) to provide a window “out to the world” on the progress of the e-consultations.

E-consultations seem to be a hot topic these days. I’ll add a few interesting links at the bottom.

podcast-logo Simone_Staiger_OnlineConsultations_15min

URLs Mentioned in the Podcast

About Simone

Simone Staiger-Rivas is a Knowledge Sharing specialist. She is a trained social communicator with 13 years’ experience in the coordination of international communications projects. Her interest lies in the enhancement of collaboration in institutional settings that contribute to organizational learning and change in agricultural research for development. Simone is based at CIAT, Colombia.

Previous & Related Podcasts:

Some interesting links on e-consultations

Social Media in Intl. Dev: Gauresh Rajadhyaksha

gaureshContinuing my series of podcast conversations about the use of  social media in international development, this week we have Gauresh Rajadhyaksh who works with the Development Prospects Group (http://www.worldbank.org/prospects), a central think-tank unit within the World Bank.  The unit monitors economic indicators, analyzes developments in real and financial markets and produces World Bank forecasts for the global economy (http://www.worldbank.org/globaloutlook)
Much of the group’s work relies on collaborating with colleagues situated across the world. This collaboration is much more than email exchanges — so they have developed a web-based system: “iSimulate @ World Bank” — http://isimulate.worldbank.org — that allows users to access and execute simulations on some of our simulation models. This is an attempt at leveraging Web 2.0 features to increase collaboration and create a “community of practice” of economists. They have a blog that has some more background information: http://isimulate.worldbank.org/blog. The blog is a great place to start to learn about iSimulate. I’ve also embedded their “how to” YouTube video below.

Gauresh’s role has been in managing this system creation and its strategic planning as a tool for collaboration and communication. He also build some of the actual economic models that have been added to the system.

In the podcast Gauresh talks about how iSimulate was created, adopted and plans for the future. As I reflected after the conversation, Gauresh has been serving as a technology steward for this community of practice of economists in and outside of the Bank, noticing what is needed, developing a prototype that blends with the way people are already working, then takes things to the next level. Take a listen!

podcast-logo Gauresh_Rajadhyaksh_Sept14 (about 18 minutes MP3)

“The opinions expressed in the podcast represent those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect the view of the World Bank Group, its Board of Directors or the governments they represent.”


Gauresh wrote in advance of our conversation:

We intend to use iSimulate in two ways:
1. Provide an environment for the creation of a global community of practice for economists.

Though we are currently focussing on an internal World Bank community, we hope to use all the “collaboration” features of the system to reach out to a much broader audience. We see this as an avenue to engage in a much more meaningful two-way dialogue with our colleagues and clients.

2. Provide real-time access to data and simulation models.
The iSimulate system is the first-of-its-kind in allowing users to execute “custom simulations” on World Bank models. While most systems provide simple data-access with some visualization features, iSimulate allows a lot of flexibility in experimenting with the assumptions, etc. We see this as a crucial step in increasing transparency and disseminating our work in a more effective manner.

Here is a video tutorial of the iSimulate platform.

Gauresh’s Bio

Gauresh Rajadhyaksha is a Research Analyst with the Development Economics department at the World Bank in Washington, DC. He is primarily involved with macro-economic modeling and manages some of the Bank’s development data systems. Gauresh has been a part of the team that set-up iSimulate @ World Bank and he is currently the Project coordinator / Program Manager for the initiative. Gauresh holds a B.E. in Telecommunications Engineering from the University of Mumbai and a M.S. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. He is also currently an MBA candidate at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

More podcasts!

I’ll have an additional podcast with Gauresh talking about how he got support for this project within the Bank, a large, fairly traditional organization. That will be part of my next series, “Why Web 2.0?” So stay tuned. The next podcasts in this series will be from Dr. Steve Eskow and  Sarah Blackmun on the cultural and gender related aspects to bringing external (web 2) technology to communities in development contexts and Simon Staiger on planning and facilitating online e-consultations. I was hoping to get transcripts of all of these, but ran out of time. So if anyone wants to transcribe….?

Previous & Related Podcasts:

FLNW09: What do we owe our networks?

Warning: long, rambly post that is more for the FLNW network than many of  you, dear readers. But it is something I owe, and because of the  nature of the network, I owe it publicly. This is not mine to hold close in an email thread.

I was hugely appreciative that Michael Coglan, Robyn Jay and Stephan Ridgway took some time to make a podcast with Michael about the August FLNW (Future of Learning in a Networked World) road trip here in the Pacific Northwest of the US.  It  put an item that had been languishing on my to do list higher in the queue – blog about the week. I did a quick post while on the road, but it took all my attention to keep the logistical wheels on the road trip “bus” (my minivan and Sylvia’s SUV), plus I had just gotten over a bug that I now think may have been a mild case of the H1N1 viruas. Go figure!

Anyway, the podcast and rereading this thread from our email list has me trying again to express what  I learned and what I am still feeling.  So much of that learning is still  half cooked. I don’t know if I can even express it at all. Some of it is intellectual. Some emotional and some may be or should be more private and personal. Oh well… worth a try.

I had a wonderful time with  Sylvia Currie, Leigh Blackall, Derek Chirnside, Sunshine Connelly, and Michael Coghlan, and loved, as always, the beauty of my region.  We traveled in two vehicles, me meeting the gang rolling down from Vancouver B C after the Open Ed conference. We hooked up in Mount Vernon, Washington, made the mad dash to the ferry on Whidbey Island to Port Townsend (after missing our reservation time… we were one of the last on a much later ferry!), and stopping the first night in Port Angeles. From there we went on to Forks and finally, Menlo, Washington, ending up in Seattle. You can see the travel bits on the wiki and Flickr pictures.

Somehow, I want to share what I learned from our conversations about learning in a networked world and what I continue to learn about group process in this little groups process (or sometimes lack of process!) It is in the latter that I’m still muddling and a bit uncomfortable. So I’ll start with the uncomfortable.

After listening to the podcast, particularly the observations and questions of Robyn and Stephan, i took time to comment. My comments on the podcast post start to surface my concerns and complicity. This was my very long comment on the podcast. Yeah, rambly. But I warned you, right?

Thank you so much for making and sharing this conversation. I’m in the midst of writing up a long-overdue blog post. This helps urge me forward. I have been resisting because I have some conflicting feelings and am concerned about how I express them – because they are all double edged swords. How much sweetness, how much sting and how much time to thoughtfully and honestly express both. I also realized that so many of our conversations were quite personal, and I have been cogitating on how to transfer the learnings of those conversations without trespassing on the beauty of some of the personal nature of the conversations and what should be maintained in that boundary. It takes a lot of time. I’ve been avoiding it.

First, it was pretty heartbreaking to hear the disappointment. Because   I personally feel I let you down, and also because I share some of that disappointment.  So the combo of responsibility, guilt … haha. You know how much fun that is!

At the same time, I don’t want to let that disappointment diminish the quality of the time together for those of us on the road. So there are clearly conflicting feelings in me.

I want to add one part here very specific around the end of the podcast around roles, responsibilities and decisions. Michael said Sylvia and I didn’t mind making the decisions etc.

I’d like to express that it was uncomfortable and at times I did mind. And certainly I worried about it. I felt I prodded and prodded with little response from the group, but Sylvia and I were the newbies in the group. Maybe we didn’t know something they experienced guys knew, eh? I can be a very pushy and action oriented person by nature. I was trying to be very careful not to “drive” things (and annoy the crap out of everyone!) Believe me, I can annoy the crap out of everyone. I have been given specific feedback from dear and close friends that I can also “take up too much space” in conversations etc. There were certainly moments where I was aware of this. (I;m writing this with a smile. I am hoping the others in the group read this with a smile!)

In July I told Sylvia I was concerned. I thought the rest of the gang were not concerned about substance or focus beyond Derek, and he let that go (I’m guessing because no one else took him up on his ideas?). Why were no other folks wanting to join in? Was the “sustainability” theme just hot air?  There seemed to be little engagement. It was “we’ll show up and it will happen. ” OK. that was not what I thought FLNW was about.

At some point  I was chafing because I didn’t want to be just a tour guide and I *did* want to be a host of a learning adventure/journey/conversations. I felt quite odd making so many decisions because, while local knowledge helps inform options, it does not privilege decision making.   I was truly happy to facilitate the logistics and help provide the transportation. Absolutely. But what about the ‘heart” of things? How would that happen?

I did not express that well, if at all. This is the sad sign of a facilitator facilitating facilitators. I said at one point to Michael that this is always a bad combo! LOL. We tend to ignore our own advice.

At that point, I made the personal decision to simply go with the flow. If there was no energy to plan, act, lead, decide, then it would happen as it would happen. Getting sick the week before only solidified my approach. There was literally no energy available.

This was an essential key for me to  be able to both a) go and b) enjoy it in any way. Selfish? probably. Realistic? absolutely.

I had to let go of guilt about not hooking in with the wider community (Sylvia made that happen w/ Marsha and I with Potluck farm – by the way, my sense of the conversations was that they were about learning, not about education under the guise of talking about organic farming. But wow, that was one of the places where the conversations were also VERY political.) It was where I personally let go of focus and thus any sort of scaffolding for reporting out, pulling in and engaging with the rest of the network. This is the key for me. To engage with the wider network, we need some minimal scaffolding. It can be VERY flexible, but it holds us accountable.

My experience was that there was a very strong message from Leigh that he felt we had no obligation and this WAS a vacation. He was not accountable. And Leigh, you know, has a strong voice. 🙂 The rest of us seemed to follow that like sheep, eh?

So as a fabulous trip with wonderful people with terrific conversations, beautiful scenery, lovely shared walks and meals – it was a total YES YES YES. As a node off of a wider network, as a contribution, not just a feast for ourselves, I think it was a NO NO NO. We didn’t make that work.

Do we need to grant ourselves slack to do something that was primarily (or all) internally focused.

At the least, we owe it to each other to be clearer about expectations on all sides (I did not hear too much clamoring from the rest of the network beyond 3 people if memory serves…), to be honest about what we are and aren’t willing to do (Leigh gets kudos for declaring he was on vacation), and the courage to speak up and hear each other deeply and thoughtfully.

A week later after that comment I feel a bit clearer in expressing my learnings. As usual, they come in the form of some questions for me around process  (yes, I’m a process queen):

  • When a subset of a loose network (FLNW) does a face to face roadtrip, what are the implicit and explicit obligations to report out and hook up with the wider community? Should this be negotiated? Or just let it happen? Is it “who speaks loudest” from both within the trip group and the wider network guide us? What about those in the wider network who did not speak up? How much reaching out should we do?
  • How much or how little  structure and process creates a fertile and enjoyable adventure like these road trips that accrues value beyond a fun holiday with friends?
  • What decisions need to be made, who should make them and what are the implications? Or does it matter?
  • What are our obligations to question process, and question each other when we think something ought to shift?

For me, this set of questions will be useful when I’m planning something similar in the future. I think it is totally legit to “let go” and just let things flow, but as I mentioned in my comment, it is useful when this is communicated to the wider network. Because I do feel an obligation, but that obligation must be balanced with the realities of any particular context.

URLs I did not have time to write about

I keep this little list of URLs that I open, find interesting, and have some hope of writing about. Bt the vast majority never get blogged. Here is my latest list. Maybe you will have time to read and write!

Backchannel Resources

CC on Flickr from Debs - thanks, DebsA DM Tweet today caused me to go and look and see what resources I’ve posted on the blog about back channel work.  For me,  back channel refers to a number of things that fall into two broad categories:

  • back channel as a text based channel used at live events for a way for participants to be in the conversation and potentially share it out to the wider world, and
  • back channel facilitation in online groups where you make a decision to address issues privately and not “in front” of the whole group.

After a bit of searching, here is what I came up with.

Conference Back Channel

Community Back Channel

Do you have any great back channel tips or resources to share?

Photo Credit: Flickr creative commons from Deb Schultz – thanks, Deb!