Comms24Feb2012

= = Informal Communication Meeting 24 Feb 2012

=Aims and intentions=
 * To refresh all participants about the range of communication channels and platforms currently in use internally and externally for NBDC work;
 * To review the set of audiences that NBDC is aiming to engage with and to chart out what they would like to engage around;
 * To look into content that needs to be developed or capitalised on, to identify quick wins using existing activities and to find out how to engage with audiences externally.

=Process= After a short introduction, Peter gave a presentation about the existing communication tools and channels, organised around the engagement objective or else (e.g. presenting, meetings, disseminating etc.). A sheet was passed around for all participants to indicate which communication tools and channels they feel less comfortable with.

As some participants were not very sure why this meeting took place, we proceeded with a short mapping of the communication issues in NBDC (see 'outcomes'). A short discussion ensued about 'who do we (want to) communicate and about what'. A buzz between participants allowed to bring a number of issues to the surface.

Finally, a world cafe discussion focused on: A final short discussion zoomed in on the outputs and outcomes of this meeting.
 * What content do we need to develop more of / capitalize on?
 * How can we make use of existing activities to create more content a.k.a. quick wins (pictures, PPTs, notes, yammer etc.)?
 * How do we communicate that content with the external world?

=Outcomes=

Why communicate (and why this meeting)?

 * Why communicate, (why, about what, with whom, where, when and how)
 * Balancing outcomes and activity
 * How to avoid or deal with the overload of (internal) communication
 * What is the value of communicating (what's in it for me?) and what is the respective value of not communicating?
 * Why not provide more feedback to our audiences?
 * What to communicate (unfinished results? Process?)
 * How to communicate?

Mapping communication issues and what to communicate with whom?

 * For scientists: Tangible results
 * For anyone:
 * learning process,
 * what we're working on
 * Communication gaps with partners (e.g. because of internet)
 * Develop a database of partners and their communication preferences;
 * Use postal services, hardcopy, email attachments;
 * Where to communicate?
 * Via innovation platforms;
 * Using the platforms and channels supporting our audiences (not for joint dissemination);
 * It's about knowing our clients
 * There is a discrepancy between professional and personal practices: it's somewhat easier to use Facebook and blog personally than for NBDC or any project.
 * It's about engaging over time (internal communication changes behaviour)
 * There are transaction costs and efficiency issues;
 * Addressing the balance
 * Over emphasis so far on internal communication? and on digital communication (what about radio, SMS, phone, emails etc.)
 * Where is the problem with external communications?
 * There are different contacts with different needs (e.g. GIS folks have specific needs);
 * We need to map our partners (institutions and especially people)

What content do we need to develop more of / capitalize on?

 * NBDC comms work has started with some positive activities e.g. workshops and meetings (national platform) expanding to other spaces but: what next?
 * On the negative side, there has been a softcopy primacy that relates to internet/connectivity issues;
 * there is also too little follow up;
 * And perhaps there is no clear overview of roles and responsibilities to engage with comms activities;
 * We have to capitalise on:
 * Tools we've been using e.g. (social) media. videos etc.
 * but we also need to develop briefs etc. in different formats (print, video, CD-roms)
 * We should also share existing research outputs with partners (NARS, agricultural offices) more systematically
 * We can do a great job of using existing materials and targeting scientists on available research (e.g. GIS data)
 * We can target our information in packaged ways e.g. database for GIS specialists; and then expand interest from that targeted information. This is the job of every Nile project;
 * And we have to disseminate our materials in targeted ways towards e.g. comms officers in each institution, to channel our publications e.g. via a sort of 'VIP list'
 * We could also bring print copies and CD-Roms to the documentation centres of the institutions we are visiting;
 * What we have to develop more of:
 * Research findings (for scientists, NARS etc.) - even though we recognise that these are complex categories that further need unpacking (i.e. there's not one type of scientists);
 * We should reach out more to policy makers and our policy-influencing agenda. We are in a unique position or have a unique opportunity to do this (even though there is a high expectation from the government vis a vis our type of approach)
 * We should also think about NGOs and implementers, provide evidence for action on the ground and make them more aware of who we are, what we do and how our work can be relevant for them.
 * We have to recognise that our web of influence is limited
 * The content we are focusing on is fairly straightforward, it is:
 * Rainwater management technology and approach;
 * Facilitating change;
 * Identifying and filling gaps among partners;
 * But is this really clear and agreed ?
 * Are we really that good at internal commmunications?
 * Do we know what others in the project need?
 * Do we consider it is our role to communicate?
 * Are we not waiting for the end of the project before communicating?
 * Are we reconciling hard and soft science?
 * Before we capitalise on anything, should we not join up the dots (N1 to N5) and collaborate to develop better quality, integrated content?
 * There is currently a divide in our approaches, language used, something all the more bizarre as we are in a multi-disciplinary project by design;
 * Perhaps we should go back to our audiences and ask them what questions they have, and then tailor our information based on their needs.
 * We could take a look at the existing communication strategy and revise it;
 * We should recognise that different people have different needs at different times.

How can we make use of existing activities to create more content a.k.a. quick wins (pictures, PPTs, notes, yammer etc.)?

 * What are ways/forms we currently share and communicate?**
 * formal presentations
 * journal articles
 * photos [often not shared]
 * internal reports [wiki, email]
 * through innovation platforms; and national platform meetings
 * yammer
 * face to face meetings and events
 * PV project
 * data/models
 * NBDC publications, briefs
 * the web


 * Some challenges we encounter**
 * can 'my' work be stolen? should we share early work publicly?
 * do we have time to share?
 * do we know how to share specific things?
 * should we share, can we share, especially data?
 * 'juniors' lack confidence to post/share?
 * how best to sort 'rubbish' from 'gold'?
 * how do we link our formal reporting to our sharing/communicating? sharing versus reporting.


 * Some things we can do (better)**
 * set up a shared photo folder to capture better; need a way to capture, another to select what goes online
 * get smarter at following/sorting information and knowledge
 * make professional sharing as interesting as personal sharing [online]
 * hold regular 'speed date' catchups with coffee
 * produce/give very specific guidance on, eg, photo sharing, how, who with, etc
 * comms people connect with researchers in targeted 'coffee chat' to produce comms products. Proactive by comms people to scientists to schedule and generate comms content [better] eg, comms person chats to simon, regularly,to get updates etc and/or to stimulate him to document/share. 'go2r' - 'go to research' approach

How do we communicate that content with the external world and engage with them?
natioanl level staff Innovation platforms Farmers and farmer institutions || Results from N3 Planning tools and frameworks Lessons from the field to national level Interventions on RWM to farmers and linked technologies Livelihood information and paticipation messages to national level, like PV
 * Project || Who to influence (From OLM) || What to communicate, how to engage? ||
 * N2 || planners, implementers at the Wareda

More communication between N2 and N3 needed - monthly meetings or lunches to discuss collaboration || GIS trained in regional centers and extension staff || Regular updates on new data Trainees on new training opportunities feeding back information to N3 Maps happy strategies || planners cross basin institutions Farmer TWG on spatial modelling || Need to communicate approach and get feedback at thsi point, not much communication going on Models and methods Assessment tools RWM technologies - models for impact analysis || donors NGOs/Development actors/Regional orgs NARS universities Researchers/Internal || Evidence based Policy briefs reports RWM strategies, tools frameworks, Different formats for different audiences ||
 * N3 || Research partners, GIS specialists in regional research instiuttions
 * n4 || Researchers, modellers
 * N5 || Policy makers

Some key issues brought up:
 * Need to move beyond communicating only with ILRI and IWMI
 * Focus on RWM strategies and tools
 * Making complex information understandable in useful format, repackaging information for different audiences in different formats
 * Capacity building and relationship building beyond projects
 * Communicating and reaching out across basins and getting involved in TWGs is important - Livelihoods and SAM groups
 * Needs to be more engagement between the "N's". Not a vertical process but iterative and interactive. there is still a disconnect between disciplines.
 * More F2F discussions about science and cross disciplinary interaction

Outcome issues and pointers to bring back to the wider NBDC team
what is this status of this section? where did these come from? The points above came from the groups
 * A number of training/information needs have been raised on specific tools (guidance/training) which need to be addressed - can we do this (budget/time)?
 * We need to clarify the roles and responsibilities re: communication to avoid internal and external gaps
 * We might want to discuss our priority target audiences and see if e.g. we should prioritise policy makers etc. and what kind of materials they might need.
 * There is unclarity as to what we are really trying to communicate; [so there's unclarity about what the research and the projects are trying to do!]
 * A big discussion on hard vs. soft science is necessary to identify points of consensus and contention and align our heads; better at cpwf level
 * More integration across Nile projects is required (in iterative and interactive ways) - identify our mutual needs and how we can help each other, the language we use etc. this seems to be a coordination issue not necessarily a communication issue.
 * Need to move beyond communicating only with ILRI and IWMI [evidence?]
 * Other priorities:
 * Making complex information understandable in useful formats, repackaging information for different audiences in different formats
 * Capacity building and relationship building beyond projects
 * Communicating and reaching out across basins and getting involved in TWGs is important [ how important? in relation to other audiences? in relation to other activities? ] - Livelihoods and SAM groups [ assume this is a wider CPWF issue ]
 * More F2F discussions about science and cross disciplinary interaction

__Suggested action points__: to review and prioritise / time etc.
 * Map our partners and other relevant audiences - the table set up in the world cafe by Michael is a great step forward; [ this was done in the inception process and is mostly laid out in the OLMs ]
 * Review our communication strategy [ finalise and document it ] and OLMs and bring them together with Milestone plans;
 * Develop a database of our partners and their preferred communication channels [ the national platform has done some classification I think ];
 * Develop an outline of alternative (print and non digital) communication channels we can use: postal services, email attachments, hardcopy, radio, SMS etc. face to face, visits to the field, innovation platforms, ...
 * Share existing research outputs with partners (NARS and agric offices)
 * Look at each Nile project, identify what can be packaged (for whom) and do it!
 * When going on travel, bring copies of our outputs, CD-Roms etc. to documentation centres and libraries and specific comms or other people we trust will spread the word around;