InSTEDD's efforts at coding in country...

[Robert Kirkpatrick - InSTEDD/OMC]

Neal,

I just wanted to state for the record that our team at InSTEDD is
fully behind this initiative and will work to support and promote it
however we can. CiC is completely consonant with our mission and our
organizational values. In particular, it resonates deeply with our
current work on the ground in our Innovation Laboratory in Phnom
Penh.

At InSTEDD, we realized early on that for technology to have a lasting
impact, what was required was a means to ensure sustainable
*innovation* within the communities we were trying to help. Through
our iLab, we're hoping to contribute to the discovery of broadly
applicable models for incorporating technology into global
development, under the assumption that both the technology and the
challenges communities face are constantly changing. In the end,
we're aiming to leave behind solutions not only coded in country, but
also designed in country. When theory encounters the realities of the
field, of course, it's good to keep a healthy supply of humility close
at hand. We've learned a great deal in the past year, much through
the process of failing fast and failing often, but the iLab is now
doing really solid work. If it would be useful in the months ahead,
we'd be glad to share lessons learned, and we'd love to compare notes
with others in the community.

I'm keen to figure out what the proper CiC certification criteria
would be. Clearly it can't merely be a matter of what fraction of
one's funding is spent "in country". Do you intend to have a fixed
list of countries, such as those in the bottom third on the Human
Development Index? Or is it something more relative, such as "must be
coded in the same country where we are running our development
programs."

And what about outsourcing models? If a tech NGO outsources
development of their latest PDA data collection tool to a high-end
Java shop in Bangalore, where world-class developers cost a third of
what they do in the US, that probably doesn't count, right? Yet
suppose the same NGO puts together a local development team in
Gujarat, mentors them in Eclipse, J2ME, etc., and pays them
appropriate and sustainable wages that are considered quite good by
local standards?

Also, how would we handle salaries for expats doing on-site peer
mentoring?

Food for thought. At any rate, we're completely behind this excellent
idea. Please consider InSTEDD fully on board, and let us know what we
can do to help promote the initiative.

Warm Regards,

Robert

------------------
Robert Kirkpatrick

CTO, InSTEDD
www.instedd.org
kirkp...@instedd.org

Chair, Open Mobile Consortium
www.open-mobile.org
kirkp...@open-mobile.org

[neal lesh]

Hi everybody.

Thanks for all your inputs!

It would be great to get a bit more feedback on the criteria and the
certification process. What do we think it should roughly be and how
should it be formalized? Should be some certification board? Does anybody
know of other useful models we might base this on? In addition to defining
standards and tools for computing CIC numbers, should individual projects
have to get certified on a case by case basis by this or another governing
body?

In terms of the criteria, there have been some good questions and points.
To highlight a few...

I think that salaries, transport costs, lodging etc for expats doing on-site
peer mentoring should be considered OUT of country. I think we are trying
to get away from model in which ex-pats fly in to do the work, even if that
work is mentoring or managing. This isn't to say we should fly in expats
for mentoring or management-- but just that this should be part of the
budget we are trying to reduce over time, and so it shouldn't count as part
of the the in-country costs.

Conversely, how about if a group flies junior developers from low-income
countries to Europe or America to attend a programming course. I think most
or many of the costs should count as IN country, and is consistent with the
goal of giving more people exposure to a wider range of environments. It's
probably a little more clear when the expense is to go to an international
meeting, but I think it still applies. (Also, I don't think we should
overly worry about boundary cases which stress our criteria--but they are
worth discussing...).

I think outsourcing shops do present a bit of a challenge. There are some,
at least in middle-income countries, that don't feel very CIC to me. But
I'm not sure a clear way to distinguish them.

I'm kinda like the idea of requiring that the "in country" work has to be
done in a country where the system being developed will be deployed. I
think we'd have to be somewhat lax in terms of not requiring that a
deployment or pilot is guaranteed, but I think it gets at the idea of
wanting to promote local ownership of these systems. But am curious if
there would be something problematic about this criteria.

Would love to hear more thoughts on what should count as in country or out
of country, as well as how to establish the certification process.

thanks again,
neal