Phase 1 repackaged materials review workshop in Bangkok, 4-7 Oct. 2011

1. Knowledge Management
and Repackaging
Phase 1 Repackaging Review Workshop, Bangkok, 4th Oct. 2011
By Michael Victor, Martin Van Brakel, Lalith Dassenaike, Julian Gonsalves,
Tonya Schuetz

2. Presentation Content
Knowledge management (KM) processes and
research and CPWF approach
Perspectives from Julian on
CPWF Research utilization and knowledge management
Development of the resource package, where we are
now
Stories to tell

3. Why KM is important
Research and development institutions are being
challenged to demonstrate a poverty orientation
(pro-poor), show impact and ensure results are
cost-effective.
Research generation is not more important than
research utilization: both are equally important.
Knowledge management makes the big difference.

4. Approach to KM
Processes Packaging
Partnerships
Power:
information
= power

5. We are here
5
Dr. Peter Ashton, CSIR

6. Networks & Partnerships: like a
value chain
Leverage networks and partnerships
Maximize opportunities within these networks to
establish relationships
Looks at impact pathways, who we want to
influence, what we want to change
Next End
Research
users users

7. From research to next users
Of importance:
the simplification of science
the breaking down of scientific results into easily
understood “information bits”
ensure relevance of information
Boil down the information to the “essence”: the
most important idea only needs to be shared.
Knowledge management is often a function of good
packaging or repackaging.

8. What does a trillion dollars look
like?
In $100 bills

10. Learning as we went along in the
repackaging effort
Julian F. Gonsalves, PhD

11. Knowledge management is about
research utilization and application
Desk reviews of research outputs to
identify relevant topics and messages
Value of evidence-based
recommendations
Ideas with potential for up-scaling and
wider uptake

12. Research utilization can be enhanced by
proper packaging and delivery (beyond
"extension“). Research reports are difficult
to read and use.

13. CPWF Phase One understood the need
for enhancing research-use (with
emphasis on uptake, up-scaling, impact
pathways, research into use, etc.).

14. CWPF Phase One: Classified some of the
projects as "legacy projects". Some were
identified for special attention for follow up
work.

15. Project reports were expected to report on
impacts, outcomes not just outputs.
Significant impact stories were collected. A
water and food global forum was
organized in Ethiopia.

16. The repackaging exercise built on this rich
background. We have only done partial
justice to Phase One outputs. That’s a
reality. Phase One is a treasure trove of
useful ideas.

17. We started with posters. Posters are
probably the most neglected mechanism
for conveying research-derived messages.
Bringing more attention to the value of
posters as a user-friendly attractive
mechanism.

18. Outcome stories not project summaries
not impact stories... even intermediary
outcomes, even processes and
partnerships are featured.

19. Source book articles: source book as key
mechanism to encourage people to further
explore available research resources.

20. Briefing notes: terminal reports might lend
themselves to this preparation of research
briefs.

21. Stories to tell
IRRI Rainfed Rice and RWC reports
Agrobio and Participatory Research
source books
ICRAF Shifting Cultivation and
Agroforestry source book
Lao Uplands Sourcebook

22. Lao Uplands Sourcebook
Challenge: Previously information
scattered and kept locked away.
Challenge was to make research
results and past experiences in
uplands resource management
available to field workers, students
and others.
Proposed solution: Develop
process to produce materials which
could
1. provide a menu of choices for those
working in the uplands
2. Bring key actors together to produce
joint materials on a continual basis

23. Lessons learned
This sourcebook served as
example for collaboration
between research-extension-
education
Use of materials:
Excellent use from students, schools and
teachers
Development professionals, planners
and researchers used quite extensively
Difficult to get used by extension agents
Used by Community radio
Less success in deriving further materials
(serialization, etc)

24. Work in progress (near completion)
Editing not undertaken
Focus on the value of an idea then shift to
editing and presentation
Gaps exist and opportunities for building on
(within limits)
Time to get outputs out and add on other
products or adaptations (e.g. basin specific) later
on.
Prototype value of products (e.g. CAPRI work)