Re: monitoring and assessment

Hi Mira,

> Following my action points, I have re-written the objectives of the 
> roadmap. Hope I've managed to stay true to the content and the text  is 
> a bit clearer now.
thanks.
i find it greqt. i will put it online and see what are comments.

> I am including a copy of Heeks and Molla's compendium on impact 
> assessment. I agree that probably discussing M&E concerns in detail is 
> slightly beyond of the scope of the roadmap. But I think a reference to 
> the compendium is called for in the document.

in fact this is what i put earlier today in section 6.2.6. i agree. the 
section is still relatively small. but it might be enough.

> I've been reading section 6 a bit more closely and I have the following 
> comments:

great my comments below:

> 6.1.1, paragraph 1: I think the last sentence should be brought forward 
> as an opening of the accessibility section.

you mean the one starting with 87% or the next one ? i would agree on 
the 87% one, not sure the next.

> 6.1.1, paragraph 2: "in the following of this section" to become "in the 
> following section"
ok

> 6.1.2, heading. Currently the heading is "Using literate 
> intermediaries". The individual behaviour the section refers to is known 
> in the literature as "proximal literacy". I think we should use this term.

good, i didn't know that, will change that.

> 6.1.2, paragraph 2: The text is a bit unclear in describing 
> intermediation and proximal literacy as a barrier. I do agree that the 
> set up of organisations formalising such behaviour is costly and time 
> consuming. At the same time, if we look at it as an individual and 
> informal behaviour, it is one of the strengths of the tightly-knit 
> communities in developing countries. Leveraging the social networks of 
> the poor has been identified recently by UNDP as a strategy for growing 
> inclusive businesses. See UNDP, 2008, "Creating Value for All: 
> Strategies for Doing Business with the Poor".
what i'm trying to say is that this is a great model if it exists, but 
there are lots of case in which it is not existing, a potential user 
cannot rely on an intermediary litterate because is is out of his 
community, on the road or for whatever reasons. so this is a good model 
when applicable but not always applicable.

> 6.1.5, paragraph 3: This paragraph focuses on the trade-off between RoI 
> for end users, understood as measurable benefits such as increases in 
> income, savings, education etc. I agree that instrumental use of mobile 
> technology and its measurable impact on economic development are usually 
> the reasons behind project funding. Still, personally I am in favour of 
> a broader view of the impact of technology. Non-instrumental use of 
> mobile has a qualitative impact on human development which is much more 
> difficult to quantify. I think our roadmap should allow for as broad of 
> an understanding of the term "development", just as it allows for a 
> broad understanding of the term "mobile web".

sure. i agree with you. i took here the perspective of the service 
provider, who is trying to setup a service. i will add a sentence to 
mention this broader view which is more for the policy level

> As for the examples, I would be interested in contributing to their 
> write-up. One interesting USSD example I am aware of is 
> http://txteagle.com/ in Kenya. I'd be happy to contact them, find 
> details and writing something up if you would like me to. Please, let me 
> know by email as I shall not be able to take part in our next phone call.

sure this would be perfect. i know nathan eagle very well, let me know 
if you need an intro. i didn't know he was using USSD.

thanks for all the very good comments

Stephane
> Thanks,
> Mira
>  
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org 
> <mailto:boyera@w3.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Nicolas,
> 
> 
>         Related to 6.2, would it be also of interest to have a
>         sub-section on
>         how these services could be designed to capture the best the
>         end-user
>         requirements via co-design sessions and that sort of techniques?
> 
> 
>     i would be happy to add some links about that. I put some stuff
>     around participatory design in the section 6.2.5 (training
>     subsection), but i don't have yet good reference to put. Capturing
>     user-requirements is surely something we could add too either as a
>     specific 6.2.x or as a piece in the type of expertise needed (6.2.2)
>     Would you have any links to relevant resource in that area ?
> 
>     Thanks
>     steph
> 
>         Best,
>         Nicolas
> 
>             -----Original Message-----
>             From: public-mw4d-request@w3.org
>             <mailto:public-mw4d-request@w3.org>
>             [mailto:public-mw4d-request@w3.org
>             <mailto:public-mw4d-request@w3.org>]
> 
>         On
> 
>             Behalf Of Stephane Boyera
>             Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:34 PM
>             To: public-mw4d@w3.org <mailto:public-mw4d@w3.org>
>             Subject: monitoring and assessment
> 
>             Dear all,
>             while working on the roadmap, i reached the section 6.2.6
>             'monitoring
>             and assessment'
> 
>             i'm a bit dry on this section. i don't remember why we added
>             it. i see
>             in the note that we were supposed to mention to integrate user
> 
>         feedback,
> 
>              and monitor device and network performance.
>             but out of writing one short sentence to mention that, i
>             don't see
> 
>         what
> 
>             we should say, or recommend if anything ?
> 
>             If anybody as a suggestion to add some content, please let
>             me know.
> 
>         For
> 
>             now, i let the session empty, and see if anybody has some ideas
> 
>             Cheers
>             Stephane
>             --
>             Stephane Boyera         stephane@w3.org <mailto:stephane@w3.org>
>             W3C                             +33 (0) 5 61 86 13 08
>             BP 93                           fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
>             F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
>             France
> 
> 
>         This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at
>         http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Stephane Boyera         stephane@w3.org <mailto:stephane@w3.org>
>     W3C                             +33 (0) 5 61 86 13 08
>     BP 93                           fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
>     F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,        
>     France
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr Mira Slavova
> 
> ICT4D Consultant
> Mobile Market Design 4 Development
> mmd4d.org <http://mmd4d.org>
> ++44 (0)7734 408829

-- 
Stephane Boyera		stephane@w3.org
W3C				+33 (0) 5 61 86 13 08
BP 93				fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,		
France

Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 16:23:15 UTC