Akvopedia structure thoughts 2010

March 1 addendum to yesterday's post: i am so sorry. that was such a weak attempt at actually doing productive work it's not even funny! i'm doing some stuff for CAWST this week and would like to get a bit of a start on it. i'm going to do that for this evening and then do a more comprehensive summary of what we've talked about for the approaches landscape tomorrow. i'll see what i can do about sorting out the information according to Toolbox for NGOs and Toolbox for Government. till tomorrow! Hi lady and gentleman, right! time for decisions. I propose: Implementation Toolbox for NGO's Implementation Toolbox for local government yes and yes. that would allow for some of that good governance stuff i was banging on about at the beginning of this process. and that makes me happy. :) i'm doing a quick copy paste of some of the stuff we've already talked about. let me know if this is just too much. 'cause i just finished cutting and pasting and it looks like a lot. feel free to take a red pen to what i've compiled below. cut, paste, delete, add.

Toolbox for NGOs

• individual consumer what do we mean by consumer? do we mean like someone who is looking to improve only their own water supply/access? • village community community member? • small business

Community-Based

• Community-Controlled • Self-Service and Self-Improvement • Regional Schemes - Regional Companies (this may also cross over with Private) • NGO and Donor-Supported (this may also cross over with Finance) • School Sanitation (not sure where this fits... micro? issues-based solutions?)

Private

• Small Private Water Provider • Micro Enterprise (might also fit in community-based) • Social Businesses • Private Utility • Subcontracting by Government Ministries • Regional Schemes - Regional Companies

Finance

Is there a way to tie in recommendations based on setting? IE recommend Revolving Funds if someone has indicated they're working in a Peri-Urban area? Or if they're wanting to focus on a Community-Based Approach?

Top Down

• Full Capital Investment • Loans-Credit-Guarantees • Grants • Microfinance • Social Development Funds • Cross Subsidies • Vouchers System • Output-Based Aid • Internet-Based Donations

Bottom Up

• Fundraising • Self-Financing • Cost Sharing • Cost Recovery • BOOT • Revolving Funds • Revenue Financed Expansion

then the user picks a way to get the project off the ground...

Hows

Media and Marketing

• Social Marketing • Media • Market Development (what does this even mean?) • Traditional Marketing

Hands On

• Participatory Approaches • Smart Tech Centers • Demonstration Projects

Whats

• Hygiene and Health • Multiple Use • Sanitation Re-Use • Gender-Sensitive Water Use (shouldn't Gender Sensitive Approach be incorporated into all of the approaches? too optimistic?) • Demand Responsive

---

> and then there's Community-Led Total Sanitation...

then the user picks a means of maintaining the project once it's running...

Support Systems and Enabling Environment

Users

• Community Approaches • Water, Sanitation and Health Advocacy • Capacity Development • Networking for Capacity Development

Learning Alliances

• Institutional Support • Knowledge and Information • Joint Learning

Providers

• Legislation and Control • Market Creation • PPP • Association of Service Providers • Supply Chain Organization • Franchising

Toolbox for Local Government:

• municipality ...okay wait i see where you're going with this now. you mean like the user either the individual or is reading the site on behalf of the village, municipality, etc... • government federal? state? provincial? etc...

Government

• Municipal • Central Government • Decentralized Government Management • Departments of Ministries

Governance

• What is good local governance for WASH services • Presentation material • Good governance themes: (What she calles 'the fuzzies') o Gender o transparency o capacity developemnt o communication, advocacy o strategic participatory planning o alliances, sector collaborations, multi-stakeholder alliances o sector knowledge sharing o HIV AIDS o Promotion / demand creation

All these themes are really overarching themes, which can be applied to all the 6 sectors in the above picture

1) policies and laws

• What is the importance of policy and policy process • examples of policies (South Africa has a good one) • Presentations

2) Planning, monitoring, reporting

• Paper on what water services planning, monitoring and reporting is • Planning tool • Examples of plans

3) Finance

• Tarrifs • capital • etc

4) Infrastructure

• What do we mean by infrastructure • MDGs general document • roles and responsibilities • policy • Presentations • project cycle • technology options • levels of service

5)Water services providers

• What is a water service provider? • presentations • community--based WSP's • How to decide appropriate WSP arrangements

6) Regulation

• What do we mean by regulation? • regulation frameworks

---

hi gents, so what i'm seeing here is a difference of opinion in how best to approach the approaches page. :)

mark, from what you described, the roles-based approach felt more geared toward ground level folks, or those who would be reading the site looking for information. arun, your focus on setting and your reasoning felt more geared toward experts, or those contributing information to the site. (and by this i don't mean to imply that ground level folks can't be experts and vice versa!) i like mark's suggestion -- the two landing pages. perhaps as an entry into those two landing pages we could use two icons side by side. have one icon for "users and learners" and one icon for "experts and contributors." that way folks who have come to the site specifically to contribute can go directly to the setting layout while those who are looking for information on how to start their own project can go directly to the roles layout. the icons could be buttons or gateways. two down sides: 1 - it doesn't solve the problem of how to arrange the icons once the user has entered his or her gateway, but it at least gets us started. 2 - it creates more work for us because we'll have to design two layouts. ;) -- side note regarding writing the articles themselves -- i have some great material on gender and water in india from SOPPECOM. also grabbed a bunch of great stuff from the world water week in stockholm last august. though most of it is in hard copy format i'm hoping to start using it to draft articles. once i've surfaced from my LSAT prep! thanks guys. - penny

---

12 jan (mark) ----------

Hi Arun! A happy new year to you as well!

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I think there is a lot of truth in what you say. Some comments:

1) in a previous mail, you use these settings: 'urban', 'peri-urban', 'informal urban (slum)', 'rural', 'camps'. I guess those are the right ones to try, right? I think it would be good to try to list a number of articles underneath these settings, to see if it does help to structure. I will try to make a rough list of articles, and try to structure them in both the 'users' way and the 'settings' way, and see what makes more sense.

2)It is actually extremely difficult to get people to contribute materials. The water and sanitation parts I have mostly filled with content myself, and after that, people change details. But adding actual articles, is rather rare. My strategy for enlarging content is to hunt for large bodies of articles or other materials which I can use and transform to Akvopedia articles. So, a lot depends on the actual materials we can get our hands on

3) another option is to combine the two ways of structuring information. There is no problem in having two 'landing pages', one for users and one for settings, with the material structured in both ways.

cheers, mark

---

1 jan (Arun) -----------

Dear Mark and Penny,

Sorry to be so slow in responding, the holidays have been full of family and food. Happy New Year to you both.

I have thought about what Mark has written and had a look at the document for Penny's comments, as well as the Akvopedia site to add my opinion.

I would say that the approach which is selected is a question of flavour, whether you start with the setting (let's call this 'settings') or with the type of user (let's call this 'users'). Each has its advantages and disadvantages, as would other approaches.

To me, I prefer the 'settings' approach for the following reason: -The main issue at the current time is getting content onto the approaches portal, and I think that it would be easier achieved when content is divided into settings. For example, if I was an expert in rural water supplies, I could update a number of sections under the rural water category (pricing, O&M, ownership etc.) easier and faster than if I had to parse through the user sections and find out the different places I could put my expertise -I think that getting relevant content in the 'users' section would be more difficult, as describing the skills Mark wrote about (how to lobby etc.) may prove difficult in a Wiki article. -I see the settings as being better for the browsing public, those who want to educate themselves on the WatSan issues of the world and simply want to read and learn about it. I would think it would be more likely that you'd find topics of neighbouring/organic interest when organized by setting

On the other hand, I agree that the 'user' approach would be a good organization model once there is richer content. Perhaps it could be scheduled as a change once the content has filled in?

So those are my thoughts, I like the 'user' approach as well, but somehow just can't imagine it being the best way to lay out the content right now.

Best, Arun

---

23 december (penny) --------

first off, often times the best epiphanies happen in the shower! mark -- i'm highlighting the stuff in your most recent two updates that i totally agree with. comments will be in blue.

---

23 december (mark)-------

While pondering this further, I realised (in fact, it was this morning, under the shower), that all these approaches are about people, and the decisions they make. (I know, sounds trivial, but bear with me). not trivial at all! it's all about knowing your audience and figuring out how best to deliver what they need. the simplest answer is usually the best. I found these definitions of water governance: • "The term water governance encompasses the political, economic and social processes and institutions by which governments, civil society, and the private sector make decisions about how best to use, develop and manage water resources." • "Governance addresses the relationship between organsiations and social groups involved in water decision making." • "Governance systems determine who gets what water, when and how, and decide who has the right to water and related services and their benefits." • "Governance is about making choises, decisions and trade-offs." You can visualize this as a web of actors with different roles, each trying to influence the others in a number of complex ways. For the Akvopedia approaches portal, it them seems logical to ask the question first: "who are you and which role do you play ?". This could lead to a division of types of roles, such as: yes! this is a much clearer way of saying what i think i was trying to say in my original rearrangement of the approaches articles. • individual consumer what do we mean by consumer? do we mean like someone who is looking to improve only their own water supply/access? • village community community member? • small business • municipality ...okay wait i see where you're going with this now. you mean like the user either the individual or is reading the site on behalf of the village, municipality, etc... • government federal? state? provincial? etc... The good point of focussing on people in their various roles is that it is much clearer what it is the Akvopedia approaces portal is trying to accomplish: it is to support individual people function in their role of individual consumer, member of a village community, starter of a small business, employee of a water municipality, government official. This means, for example, that if you are an individual consumer, you might find information on what kind of small systems you could choose from, what advocacy tools you could use to influence policy makers, how to form a water user group, etc. For a government employee, you might find information on the governance framework sketched below, on national water policies, etc. It is along the lines of the Approaches study for Gates Foundation, which differentiates between three levels of 'drivers': self-initiated, Opportunity driven, and Externally initiated (including governement) i really like the idea behind the Gates foundation categories but the language is way too dense for the average user. i had trouble deciphering what they meant and i was an english student! why not include the "who are you and which role to you play?" question included right at the top of the page followed by the options you have listed above? users could click on the option that most closely matches themselves and be moved to their section of the page/site. then comes the puzzle of structuring the icons, but i think once the roles have been defined that shouldn't be too too hard. It is a bit like the 'Choose your setting' Penny introduced, but then for 'Choose your role'. let me know your thoughts on this. cheers, mark

---

22 december (penny) -------

just want to note this before the thought flies out of my head -- what about having government and legislation as a separate section? something that's more for theoretical types and researchers as opposed to people doing the work on the ground?

---

22 december -------------

have been pondering about the approaches section all day, with your inputs and other docs as basis.

Looking a the thoughts we have gathered up to now, I particularly like the idea of 'settings' to guide the user through the knowledge, and the trials to cut the lists up in to threes, such as the Governement, Community based, Private in the Service delivery approaches, and the top-down and bottom-up in the Finance section.

One of the things I realised is indeed approaches is such a vast area, that it is very important to reduce scope, and focus on something usefull. As Akvo is mostly about reducing poverty through improved access to low-cost water and sanitation technology, for me the community level and the private level are the most important, with less emphasis on the Government level. If you go to the government level, everthing tends to become completely intractible, with all the differnt stakeholders, policies, regulations, etc. Important, but tough. my personal interest always goes toward governance but it became clear pretty early that that kind of focus wouldn't work so well for akvopedia. from a new person's perspective the site seems directed more toward people who are or are wanting to set up their own water projects. i think it's important to have information on governance available, though, (and not just because i'm a total policy nerd), which is why i suggested separating the governance stuff out. that said, if governance winds up on the cutting room floor, i won't cry too much. :)

On the community level, NGO's and the private level, on the other hand, approaches tend to be a little more well-defined and tractable.

Having items grey-out based on user choices: that is something that we are actually working on within the sanitation portal, where we are developing a decision support system, using the answers to 9 questions to establish the situation of the user, on which then a number of technologies can be excluded. Perhaps something like that could be done here as well.

However, that will take a while to accomplish, and I would like to first create a good structure for all the articles. An option could be to make a hand-picked selection of some of the articles for the different user categories. cheers, mark

---

Hi all, Thanks for all the good ideas! I had a good conversation with Jean de la Harpe of IRC, and I will just try to reproduce below her thoughts on this. She comes from a governance background, so her focus is mainly on government/service providers. I will just dump her thoughts now, next week I will try to think more about what all of the stuff we have gathered means... cheers, mark Jean's contribution: From the government point of view, this is what they have to think about: Infrastructure, Finances, Planning, Policy and laws, Water service provider, and Regulations.

Jean is working on a structure for putting information in this structure (not necessarily at the Akvopedia website, she is working on a different repository, but she would like to work with akvopedia as well)

This is the structure she is thinking of:

Governance

• What is good local governance for WASH services • Presentation material • Good governance themes: (What she calles 'the fuzzies') o Gender o transparency o capacity developemnt o communication, advocacy o strategic participatory planning o alliances, sector collaborations, multi-stakeholder alliances o sector knowledge sharing o HIV AIDS o Promotion / demand creation

All these themes are really overarching themes, which can be applied to all the 6 sectors in the above picture

1) policies and laws

• What is the importance of policy and policy process • examples of policies (South Africa has a good one) • Presentations

2) Planning, monitoring, reporting

• Paper on what water services planning, monitoring and reporting is • Planning tool • Examples of plans

3) Finance

• Tarrifs • capital • etc

4) Infrastructure

• What do we mean by infrastructure • MDGs general document • roles and responsibilities • policy • Presentations • project cycle • technology options • levels of service

5)Water services providers

• What is a water service provider? • presentations • community--based WSP's • How to decide appropriate WSP arrangements

6) Regulation

• What do we mean by regulation? • regulation frameworks

• • • Penny's thoughts on Jean's ideas ***

I like how Jean has listed issues of good governance first. It seems that often times governance gets left until projects are up and running and those doing the implementation have had some time to breathe. Listing it as a framework to start from helps get good governance instituted in the project right away... at least, I assume it would. :)

It also looks like the two lists would merge pretty well. I won't have enough time to mash them up before the weekend and I'm far too tired for an eloquent explanation of what I'm thinking right now. That said, I'll see if I can't give it a try some time on Saturday or Sunday just to see if it might work out.

Also -- why do the headings in the image progress counter clockwise? Any reason?

approaches page

initial thoughts: • the linear lists work really well for the Water Portal and the Sanitation Portal but not so well for the Approaches Portal. o I agree. The idea of using the columns in the water and sanitation portal is that these are systems: if you think about sanitation for example, you have to think about a toilet, a way of storing faeces, a way to transport them, treat them, and reuse them. So in those cases, a systems approach works. With Approaches, I tried to implement this as well, by using the Landscaping study done for the Gates Foundation (which I will share with you, but it is better if first you get a chance to think for yourself). But I keep finding things that don't fit. (quick note: I checked out the Landscaping study (I think?) but found it a bit long and heavy... is that the document cited as a source at the bottom of the Approaches page? but you're right, I want to take more of a look for myself before diving in to other documents.) • Yes, that is the one. It is long and heavy, but contains some good thoughts. But yes, I want to explore our own thoughts first. • AS: An initial thought is that the water and sanitation pages are similar to each other (they provide accessible introductions to technologies used in the field) because they are structured and have content aimed at the person who would conceivably be interested in implementing one/more of these technologies. I agree that this layout (as is currently used) doesn't really work well for the approaches section. • AS: I would say that the starting point could/should be the 'service delivery approaches' column as it is the first thing which will dictate which approach you choose. • AS: Alternatively, one level up from 'service delivery approaches' are settings, which are unchangeable by the practitioner, but would dictate much of what approach should be pursued. I would suggest the following settings: 'urban', 'peri-urban', 'informal urban (slum)', 'rural', 'camps'. • AS: Another alternative would be to structure alternatives under the different potential Akvopedia users - funders, NGOs, water user associations/community groups, practitioners... They would be interested in different items, and perhaps these items could be presented to them based on their selection... o I really like the idea of grouping the service delivery approaches by setting (urban, peri urban, etc) -- see thoughts below. • approaches are nebulous, they can't exist independently of each other and always encompass many of the items listed in the Water Portal and Sanitation Portal • there must be a visual way to represent that -- for example, designing the page to look more like clouds and less like rows • i hate to suggest something like a word cloud because it seems so trendy right now, but if it's a way to start at least visualizing the layout of the icons then it's worth a look. o Yes, absolutely. I will talk today to Jean de la Harpe of IRC (http://www.irc.nl/page/38375) who also has good thoughts about approaches. She works in South Africa professionalising water companies. • have to design it in a way so as not to confuse the user but still indicate that all the approaches are interconnected • there are also a few over-laps in the list that can be taken out even if we choose not to pare the list down

Approaches Portal

flow chart? anyone?

the user chooses a setting:

Settings

• Urban • Peri-Urban • Informal Urban (slum) • Rural • Camp

then the user chooses a service delivery system that is suited to each setting from the following categories. not sure if there is a way to make options that don't suit the setting invisible to the user? is that asking too much?

Service Delivery Approaches

Government

• Municipal • Central Government • Decentralized Government Management • Departments of Ministries

Community-Based

• Community-Controlled • Self-Service and Self-Improvement • Regional Schemes - Regional Companies (this may also cross over with Private) • NGO and Donor-Supported (this may also cross over with Finance) • School Sanitation (not sure where this fits... micro? issues-based solutions?)

Private

• Small Private Water Provider • Micro Enterprise (might also fit in community-based) • Social Businesses • Private Utility • Subcontracting by Government Ministries • Regional Schemes - Regional Companies

then the user picks a means of financing the project...

Finance

Is there a way to tie in recommendations based on setting? IE recommend Revolving Funds if someone has indicated they're working in a Peri-Urban area? Or if they're wanting to focus on a Community-Based Approach?

Top Down

• Full Capital Investment • Loans-Credit-Guarantees • Grants • Microfinance • Social Development Funds • Cross Subsidies • Vouchers System • Output-Based Aid • Internet-Based Donations

---

>Improving Financial Efficiency applies to all of these, doesn't it?

Bottom Up

• Fundraising • Self-Financing • Cost Sharing • Cost Recovery • BOOT • Revolving Funds • Revenue Financed Expansion

then the user picks a way to get the project off the ground...

Promotion/Demand Stimulation

---

> Promotions List needs to delineate between WHAT is being promoted and HOW it is being promoted...

Hows

Media and Marketing

• Social Marketing • Media • Market Development (what does this even mean?) • Traditional Marketing

Hands On

• Participatory Approaches • Smart Tech Centers • Demonstration Projects

Whats

• Hygiene and Health • Multiple Use • Sanitation Re-Use • Gender-Sensitive Water Use (shouldn't Gender Sensitive Approach be incorporated into all of the approaches? too optimistic?) • Demand Responsive

---

> and then there's Community-Led Total Sanitation...

then the user picks a means of maintaining the project once it's running...

Support Systems and Enabling Environment

Users

• Community Approaches • Water, Sanitation and Health Advocacy • Capacity Development • Networking for Capacity Development

Learning Alliances

• Institutional Support • Knowledge and Information • Joint Learning

Providers

• Legislation and Control • Market Creation • PPP • Association of Service Providers • Supply Chain Organization • Franchising

---

>should Fighting Corruption be its own thing? It's a bit like Gender Sensitive Approach. Overarching...

AS: A few thoughts on the above. • Flowchat - I like the process described in the flowchart, I would suggest that we encourage users to pursue this path (choose the setting, service delivery etc.) but lay it out such that it isn't 100% necessary to follow the process in exactly the correct order. This would mean designing something so that if a user wanted the guidance, they could follow the step-by-step process, but it should also be possible to browse all sections 'out-of-order' • Groupings - I like the groupings and agree they would be helpful. Having items 'grey out' when they don't apply to a chosen setting would be great, no idea of the technical complexity of it. -- ooh, that's neat. i like that idea. • For Gender and Corruption, perhaps they could go under a separate heading of 'Special Topics' as they are both highly relevant, impact all stages of the process and don't fit well into any other category. • For the 'step-by-step' approach, I had a quick look at a number of different automobile manufacturer websites, most of which do a pretty good job of getting customers through a lot of complex information whilst allowing them to choose what they want. VW USA's approach was the neatest I found so far, have a look and perhaps it would raise some ideas http://www.vw.com/lineup/en/us/