Digital technology means development is now happening outside the system | Media Network | theguardian.com

http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/mar/07/digital-technology-global-development-social-entrepreneurs


Sent from my iPhone

Solar Powering the Turnkey FrontlineSMS

The turnkey solution design is such that we want the simple click of the power button to activate a pre-configured system for use. This would be for Freedom Fone, FrontlineSMS, and Ushahidi software applications as per the low cost voice, text-ing, and mapping technologies used in the project, for knowledge mobilization.

In this instance our focus was on testing a FrontlineSMS 1.6.2  installation. It was installed on a 215 x 60 x 190mm 1.5Kg Mini-PC with a Intel Atom dual-core 1.86 GHz processor, 2GB DDR RAM, 8 GB SSD ROM. The Mini-PC draws a 20W load and requires a DC 12V and 5A of power supply.

Recently we tested the turnkey to run on Solar Power. We installed a 165 x 25 x 1.4cm solar panel on top of the RDS office roof in Kaddirweli, Batticaloa district. The panel can generate up to 130W of power. We used a 12V 35A car battery (not the recommended expensive deep cell solar power battery) to store that solar panel generated electricity. A 12V 10A Charger Controller regulates the current between the solar panel, battery, and the load (i.e. Mini-PC).

Since the Charger Controller load connectors deliver 10A and the Mini-PC (load) draws only 5A the surplus 5A would charge the battery. We expect a minimum 6 hours of strong sunlight (see weatheronline for Batticaloa monthly/daily average sunlight). During that the Mini-PC will run on direct solar generated electricity, during day time. The battery would supplement that with another 8 hours during night time, which gives us a total of 14hour, according to our calculation. The next step is testing expected power consumption patterns.

Of cause it is hundred times more economical to consume power through the main grid to simply power the 20W computer, if the infrastructure is available. The solar powered Turnkey's utility is higher when we offer options to power a couple of light bulbs and providing mobile phone charging outlets through the same system. Our thinking is that the Mini-PC does not need to run 24/7. The community can decide to run it at certain hours; thus, there may be a surplus of power to use for other purposes.

We are readying for a campaign in Verugal and Kaddirvelli belonging to the war torn area in the Batticaloa District, Sri Lanka. It will involve farmers from the two villages.

In October 2013, we consulted the two communities during an expedition in determining the information needs. They were particularly interested in trying three activities:

• sharing local crop prices
• alerting elephant attacks
• flash flood warnings.

A primary reason to power the Turnkey with Solar energy was because Verugal community does not have access to the main national power grid. We realized that shortcoming, among five others, during our first visit with the community. Nevertheless, a solar powered low-cost ICT system could always be handy during a long power outage, such as one caused by a disaster.

During our field tests we realized that starting up the Turnkey FrontlineSMS should include "auto detecting" the ZTE MF637U and then connecting to the Cellular network Short Message Service.

Unfortunately FrontlineSMS could "auto detect" the dongle. That would have been the final step for a ready to use FrontlineSMS Turnkey solution. Now we are back to the drawing board to figure out how to complete that step. Otherwise, a human operator has to navigate through a computer screen to click the FrontlineSMS "Auto Detect" button.

Yet another iterative community centric development cycle: design, build, test, and re-design. However, development cycles with our low-cost Turnkey text-ing technology is quite promising - being able to fully run a FrontlineSMS installed Mini-PC with a car battery charged by a solar panel.

Reflecting on the project and our objectives

The team had a productive meeting this morning and important questions were raised about the aim and outcomes of the project.  As with much research in its early stages, the process of working out details and answering specific questions is challenging but ultimately necessary to move forward.

The following is a set of notes I've prepared to summarize my thinking on the project overall, the key questions, and anticipated outcomes and contributions we can make as we look ahead to the next 12 months.

Here it is.  Let's consider this a centrepiece for discussion. Comments are therefore invited and encouraged.  Please remember that recommendations, alternative ideas, and possible solutions are always a welcome response when problems or concerns are identified.

Partnership Development means that research is carried out with the primary objective of building effective working relationships between Canadian and Sri Lankan team members.  

Ideally, one key outcome of project overall (aligned with SSHRC’s intent for the PDG program) is therefore to be able to demonstrate to future funders that we have developed the capacity, as a partnership, to carry out more focussed or more ambitious research activities at a subsequent stage of the project.

As per the article submitted to the NSF-Sri Lanka journal, we are working toward a per-poor, inclusive innovation model for knowledge mobilization.  Our project is focussed specifically on how this could benefit farmers engaged in sustainable agricultural practices, particularly those farmers residing at the base of the pyramid in terms of socio-economic classification.

We have carried out preliminary work and achieved a good working arrangement with Wayamba University and LIRNEasia.  This took a year from the start date of the project.  Given the exit of our previous partners from the project, the distance involved, and resource constraints, I would say we have made excellent progress, although it has delayed start of actual research.  Helen's group was able to collect data in the fall of 2013 and Nuwan and Chandana have made significant progress in building capacity to identify community groups and build technical capabilities and training necessary for conducting the campaigns.

Now that we entering into an empirical research phase of the project, here are some points of consideration based on an extensive review of ICT4D literature, two workshops in Sri Lanka, and several field visits and demonstrations:

• The literature points to inclusive innovation as a priority focus for ICT4D research today.

• Inclusive innovation is about giving the community itself the capacity to choose when, how, where, why to adopt and use digital technologies.

• This may happen on its own in some communities (e.g., we have an instance of this stemming from a previous workshop) but in other cases, it may require outside intervention to foster its possibility.  

• Studies on mobile adoption and use at the bottom of the pyramid in Sri Lanka, suggest that social influence is a key influential factor in adoption.

• Cost and simplicity of technology is another factor in terms of sustainability and practical value.

• Support from the wider context (e.g., government extension or NGO) is also a consideration.

• Prior experience with technology is also a consideration in terms of bringing attention to possibilities and building confidence in the community to do more with it.

From these observations, here is a set of questions that I believe can guide our work going forward:

• What are the most important social and technological considerations in promoting adoption and use of low cost ICTs for knowledge mobilization among Sri Lankan agricultural communities of practice residing at the base of pyramid?

• Do we find any significant differences when comparing across communities,depending on the particular circumstances of those groups? (e.g., type of agriculture, association with NGO or government program or department, geography, active participation of tech steward, prior experience with technology)

• Based on these findings, what is the likelihood that communities would be willing and able to undertake innovation themselves using low cost digital ICTs?   What other considerations might have been overlooked and could be brought to bear in future campaigns?

• Does the inclusive innovation approach offer a viable model to encourage and sustain adoption and use of low cost ICTs among agricultural communities of practice at the BOP in Sri Lanka?

Our campaign approach brings these elements together in a way that will allow us to more closely how they influence the adoption and use of digital technology within specific settings:

• The technology steward is an intervention to examine the influence of social intermediary in the adoption and use of a specific campaign.  

• The use of Free and Open Source Software has been chosen because it is low cost and relatively easy to use and maintain, especially with tech steward’s involvement.

• Sponsoring organizations are involved in the process of choosing and designing the campaign as part of the wider context within which adoption and use will happen and be sustained (or not).

• Prior/current experience with technology in the community is examined by asking community members questions about (and observing) how they use technology and how it is incorporated into their practices related to knowledge mobilization for agricultural activities.

Each of these factors are considered within the context of each campaign, then compared across campaigns to identify any patterns or influences that may be significant.  A multiple case study design with embedded units of analysis is proposed based on the range of variables and complex influences at work in each community (drawn from a review of Yin's work on case study design).

We intend that the results will provide useful insights as to the influential factors and considerations affecting adoption and use, and will contribute to an assessment of the viability of an inclusive innovation model in this setting.

There will clearly be many limits and challenges along the way.  Our goal is to remain focussed on optimizing the design and data collection within the constraints we face.  These factors will be accounted for in final reports and will be contextualized within the broader aim of the project. But we must continue to move forward with the project if we to maintain the interest and involvement of our partners.

We are building research capacity through the research activities. In so doing we aim to achieve promising, albeit preliminary, results worthy of future funding support.