When discussing the value proposition for our respective business models, a Ugandan participant offered the following story as food for thought.
...On visiting a rural village in Uganda, the world bank saw that women were having to walk 2 miles each way everyday just to fetch water. Seeking to lessen their work burden, the world bank built a bore hole for the women to access water from the convenience of their village. Returning some months later they were astounded to see the bore hole relatively unused, and the women still walking to fetch water. What they hadn't realised was that the 2 mile walk filled a function above and beyond the collection of water; it provided valued time in which women could talk freely, outside the confines of their huts and away from men.
While this story acted as a vivid warning against making rash assumptions, the development of each groups value proposal was based on assumed value factors that we had essentially plucked from the air by brainstorming. While local NGO partners formed the majority of each teams it would be incorrect to assume that they completely understand and can represent the values of the users and end-users of their product. Admittedly they stand a better chance than the world bank employees who made a quick day trip from Kampala in a white 4 wheel drive, but the local knowledge of an NGO worker is full of its own assumptions, and biases and is not infallible.
While our group had come up with some suggested value factors for the purpose of this workshop, a business model that based itself on these without verifying them first would be absurd. However, identifying the value factors of a group of people in the limited time the pepal groups were allocated (e.g 2 days) poses a great challenge. I warned the group about taking peoples answers at face value to, noting that answers change according to who is asking the questions. As recipients of aid have learned to frame their needs and desires in alignment with what an NGO or donor like the world bank is offering, it takes time and effort to get beyond those answers and to identify peoples actual priorities. However, it is also problematic to assume that these are somehow completely different and independent of the development projects and BCC campaigns that have come before.
Short of spending 6 months conducting ethnographic research to identify actual value factors, a pragmatic compromise might be to use tools like the participatory consensus workshop method taught by the Institute of Cultural Affairs. The beauty of this method is that it enables a group to reach consensus on an issue, whilst facilitating input from everyone present, regardless of the power hierarchies at play.
"The method involves a five-step process that guides people from generating and collecting ideas, through organising those ideas into meaningful groups, to reaching agreement on the question they are facing and identifying some next steps to move forward.The method generates new creative ideas, incorporates both rational and intuitive approaches to problem solving, and builds team spirit and consensus."
I was awarded a scholarship to attend the basic training in this method before I came to Uganda and feel that it will serve me very well here. I intend to run workshops with CSAs and PLWHAs to identify actual value indicators. This however, will require some creative thinking around how to adapt the tools to suit an illiterate group who speak another language. No doubt pictorial representations and a translator will be my best friends.
For more information on the consensus workshop method and ICA trainings, please visit http://www.ica-uk.org.uk/gfm-group-facilitation-methods/
No comments:
Post a Comment