Marriage remains one of the earliest forms of partnership (albeit institutionalized through tradition and a number of rituals and ceremonies) entered into by two consenting adults who decide to live together and raise a family.

“Partnering is easy to talk about but invariably somewhat harder to undertake. It requires courage, patience and determination over time. It is rarely a ‘quick fix’ solution to a problem…”Ros Tennyson (2003) The Partnering Tool Book

Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in the ICT4D DomainAn Indian Case Study

1. The Multi-Stakeholder Partnership Concept1.1 Why Partner?

“Man is a social animal by nature and necessity” (Aristotle); and barring a few exceptions (more

correctly, deviations), such as

recluse, hermits and the like, they

live in groups/ communities. Their

social existence implies cooperation

and collaboration because every

individual is special and different

and possesses some unique skills and competencies to complement the lack of it in another

individual. And, in this way, the community faces the challenges of everyday life and survives. In

other words, without even consciously intending, we partner with one another to accomplish our

everyday work, projects, missions and plans and even support our very existence in this world.

Partnering is based on a few assumptions, such as:

- The skill/ competency quotient varies from individual to individual, from community to

community and from sector to sector;

- The lack of it can be compensated through partnering with another person/ community/

sector that possesses that skill/ competency;

- Partnering implies more than joining hands to complete a job/ project;

- It presupposes mutual understanding and support;

- And leads to building a ‘partnership’ to achieve a goal.

1.2 What is Partnership?

To put it very simply, “partnership refers to a relationship between individuals or groups that is

characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, as for the achievement of a specified

goal.”1 This open ended definition leaves enough scope for conceiving partnerships at different

levels and in different forms, informal as well as formal, such as two players partnering to play the

men’s doubles in tennis; students partnering to do a Biology project; women partnering to form a

Self Help Group (SHG); and so on. All these situations also presuppose pooling together of

resources and skills, and sharing of risks, responsibilities and benefits at an informal level.

Partnership acquires a formal/ legal form when applied to the business sector. Business

partnerships, whether they are intra-business (two or more entrepreneurs coming together to

conduct business) or inter-business (business to business strategic alliances where two or more

businesses/ companies enter into a

contractual partnership to implement a project

where different kinds of core competencies

are needed, such as those involving

infrastructure development, for example, the

Delhi Metro Project), are regulated through a

1 Partnership. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/partnership (accessed: September 05, 2007).

ssharma Page 1 4/12/2023

“They (PPPs) enable governments to transfer construction and commercial risks to the private sector which is best suited to manage them.” Planning Commission, GoI (2006)Towards faster & more inclusive growth: An approach to the eleventh Five Year Plan

number of rules, code of conduct, which are equally applicable to all the actors constituting the

partnership. The wikipedia defines such partnerships as “a type of business entity in which

partners share with each other the profits or losses of the business undertaking in which all have

invested.”2

1.3 The Public Private Partnership (PPP)

The partnership dimensions widened when it was started being explored and formed across

sectors, albeit within the contractual framework. It was largely accepted that partnerships based

on cross sectoral collaborations “provide a new opportunity for doing development better by

recognising the qualities and competencies of each sector and finding new ways of harnessing

these for the common good” (Tennyson, 2003). Prominent among such trends was the Public

Private Partnerships or PPPs, which were seen as offering “a long term sustainable approach to

improving social infrastructure, enhancing the value of public assets and making better use of tax

payer’s money.”3 In general terms, PPP, or P3 as it is popularly known, refers to partnerships

between the government, public and the private sector, entered into through a formal procedure

for the delivery of public services or the development of infrastructure.

The examples of PPPs operating across the world suggest that the scope of such partnerships

can vary from completely privatizing the services or facilities to just employing the financial and

management techniques of the

private sector (McDonough, 1998),

thus encompassing the concepts of

‘privatization’, Private Finance

Initiative (PFI), Alternative Service

Delivery (Ford & Zussman, 1997)

and Municipal Service Partnerships

also within its ambit. Carroll and Steane (2000), taking into account the vast variations in PPP

typology and the circumstances in which these are formed, have defined them in the broadest

sense as agreed cooperative ventures that involve at least one public and one private sector

institution as partners.

While exploring the concept, Peters (1998) has identified five distinguishing features of any PPP.

These are:

(i) PPPs involve two or more actors;

(ii) in a PPP, each participant is a principal, capable of bargaining on its own behalf

without referring back to other sources of authority;

(iii) PPPs are about building enduring and stable relationship between the public and the

private sector participants;

(iv) each participant contributes ‘something’ to the partnership, whether material or non

material;

(v) Participants undertake some amount of shared responsibility for partnership

outcomes and activities.

2 Wikipedia contributors, "Partnership," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Partnership&oldid=182854679 (accessed January 10, 2008).3 Akintoye, Akintola; Matthias Beck & Cliff Hardcastle (ed) (2003) Public- Private Partnerships: Managing risks and opportunities. Blackwell Publishing, London. Pp. 3.

ssharma Page 2 4/12/2023

“In today’s world, the private sector is the dominant engine of growth – the principal creator of value and managerial resources. If the private sector does not deliver economic growth and economic opportunity – equitably and sustainably – around the world, then peace will remain fragile and social justice a distant dream. That is why I call today for a new partnership amongst governments, the private sector and the international community.”Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General,The World Economic Forum, Davos, 1997.

The above model presented by Peters is the ‘ideal type’. In actual situations, PPPs vary greatly in

terms of the extent of the roles and responsibility of both the public and the private sectors. It is

usually seen that the public sector invariably takes upon itself the responsibility for deciding on

the nature of the services to be provided, the quality and performance standards of these

services to be attained, and taking corrective action if performance falls below expectation (Smith,

2000). In a way, the Government (always) retains an upper hand, and rather than assuming a

joint responsibility for completing the project, the private sector is supposed to bear most of the

risks, responsibilities and, of course, appropriates the benefits. PPP enables the government to

transfer these to the private sector that can accomplish such tasks because of their unique skills

and work culture. The preferred areas for building PPPs are infrastructure development,

transportation, health and education.

Lately, the Indian government has also started taking a very positive approach to the PPPs. They

have realized that such partnerships have eventually become “the preferred mode for

construction and operation of infrastructure services, such as highways, airports, ports etc.”4

From the Government point of view, “PPPs offer significant advantages in terms of attracting

private capital in the creation of public infrastructure as well as in improving efficiencies in the

provision of services to users... (these are seen as a) “way of attracting private money into public

projects, not putting public resources into private projects.”5 At the same time, while conceiving

any PPP, the government has to ensure that it flourishes in a competitive environment where they

are able to select the best partner/s; and the same is also acceptable to all.

1.4 PPP’s entry into the Development Sector

At the international level, two events, the Rio Earth Summit (1992)6 and the Millennium Summit

(2000)7 greatly impacted the scope of the partnership model. While the former brought the Civil

Society Organizations (CSOs) in the wider international and United Nations (UN) arena, the latter

was instrumental in

elevating the status of

‘partnerships’ as a

power to reckon with

to achieve the targets

set in the Millennium

Declaration, popularly

known as the

Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs).8

4 Planning Commission (2006) Towards Faster & More Inclusive Growth: An Approach to the 11th Five Year Plan. Government of India, New Delhi: Yojana Bhavan. Page 41 (Box No. 2). http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/app11_16jan.pdf (accessed: September 05, 2007). 5 op. cit.6 http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html. 7 http://www.un.org/millennium/summit.htm. 8 “The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world's time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions- income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion-while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability. They are also the basic human rights-the rights of each person on the planet to health, education, shelter, and security.” Available online at: http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals/index.htm

ssharma Page 3 4/12/2023

During the Rio Earth Summit (1992), the CSO sector finally acquired a consultative status after

being excluded from the UN deliberations for several decades. Moreover, the Rio Declaration on

Environment and Development also talked about partnerships to achieve the goals of sustainable

development. Particularly, on partnerships, it noted that one of its goals would be, “… establishing

a new and equitable global partnership through the creation of new levels of cooperation among

States, key sectors of societies and people…”9 Following the recommendations of the Rio Earth

Summit on public-private collaboration, some of the projects launched by the UN, like the Public-

Private Partnership for Urban Environment (PPPUE) program (launched in 1994) expanded the

scope of their PPP model to include the CSO sector as well. Consequently, the PPPUE

“expanded into a network of governments, businesses, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),

members of the scientific and academic community, and other developed and developing country

institutions. Building on this collaboration, (they have established) sustainable models of public-

private cooperation…”10 Without such broad based tripartite partnerships with the government,

business and the CSOs, it was challenging for them to implement their projects in different

countries.

Thereafter, the inclusion of ‘partnership’ as one of the eight Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs) by the United Nations11 provided further impetus to PPPs in the development sector,

particularly with the proactive involvement of the CSOs. Its credentials as a sector to reckon with

and forge partnerships with for the competency it possesses in reaching out to the community

and addressing their issues was finally established during the Johannesburg Earth Summit

(2002).12 The CSO sector finally arrived on the international scene, as it was recognized as a

partner in development by the UN and the wider international community after remaining on the

fringes for several decades.

This international trend motivated the governments and other sectors in developing countries to

explore and seek partnerships with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) that work closely with the

communities, thereby making way for the entry of PPPs in the development sector. Since then, its

importance as an instrument to accelerate development increased manifold, and it was also

accepted as such by the international community. Consequently, many of the government or

corporate sector initiated development projects that needed community outreach were

conceptualized around this model. But, the term PPP was not appropriate to acknowledge the

contributions of the CSO sector, as by definition it referred only to the private sector. Therefore, to

accommodate the CSOs within the partnership framework, the scope of cross sectoral

partnerships was further broadened to include multi-sectoral, tripartite or tri-sectoral partnerships.

These later evolved into Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships or MSP, an emerging paradigm

considered suitable to tackle the challenges of Information Communication Technology (ICT)

enabled sustainable development.

1.5 Introducing MSPs for Sustainable Development

9 http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163&l=en 10 http://www.undp.org/pppue/about/purpose.htm 11 It notes that “the MDGs call for a special focus on partnerships… (as) no one government or institution can achieve the MDGs on its own”. Available online at: http://www.undp.org/mdg/partners2.shtml. Last accessed on 10 October 2007. 12 http://www.earthsummit2002.org/Es2002.pdf & http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POI_PD.htm

ssharma Page 4 4/12/2023

“(As processes, MSPs) aim to bring together all major stakeholders in a new form of communication, decision-finding (and possibly decision-making) on a particular issue… based on recognition of the importance of achieving equity and accountability in communication between stakeholders… on democratic principles of transparency and participation, and aim to develop partnerships and strengthened networks among stakeholders. MSPs cover a wide spectrum of structures and levels of engagement. They can comprise dialogues on policy or grow to include consensus-building, decision-making and implementation of practical solutions. The exact nature of any such process will depend on the issues, its objectives, participants, scope and time lines, among other factors.”Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and ConflictMinu Hemmati (2001)

MSPs are increasingly being seen as an evolving, but potent development paradigm by

practioners as well as researchers engaged in promoting ICT led sustainable development. The

resilient nature of this approach, with its unique strengths, makes it as appropriate for a small

partnership comprising of merely two partners as for a huge partnership boasting of more than

100 partners. This partnership derives substance not from the number of partners, but from the

nature of relationship between partners and from leveraging upon their unique skills and

competencies.

As suggested earlier, building on

the strength of pre-existing

partnership approaches, such as

the PPPs or Multi-Sectoral

Partnerships (to which it traces the

closest affinity); its uniqueness lies

in the use of the term, ‘stakeholder’

that sets it apart from all other types

of partnerships. The use of this term

provided a new dimension to the

whole partnership paradigm, as

‘stakeholders’ are not mere partners

(active or sleeping), but …“(they)

have a ‘stake’ or an interest in a

particular decision either as

individuals or representatives of

groups. This includes people who influence a decision, or can influence it, as well as those

affected by it .”13 The incorporation of this term within the partnership framework brought in

concepts like equity, transparency, accountability and mutual risk and benefit sharing on which

such partnerships are supposedly built and sustained; and which also elevate it to a higher level

in comparison to the PPPs.

The emergence of MSPs and its relevance to ICT enabled sustainable development has to be

appreciated in the context of the prevailing debate around the concept of ‘development’. Over the

years, it has undergone a major paradigm shift from top down advocacy by classical Western

economists who equated it with economic growth, industrialization and capital formation, to the

ones that took into account general well being of people, improvement in their quality of life and

widening of their choices (UNDP, 1990) and capabilities (Amartya Sen). These approaches also

severed ‘development’s association exclusively with economic growth and capital formation; and

redefined poverty as denial of access to ‘information' or ‘knowledge’ (which is increasingly being

regarded as indispensable for development) in addition to denial of access to resources and

livelihoods. Thus, “international institutions, country donors and the broader development

community are rapidly coming to the conclusion that knowledge is central to development - that

knowledge is development”.14

13Hemmati, Minu (2001) Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict; London: Earthscan Publications. 14 World Development Report (1998/ 99) World Bank.

ssharma Page 5 4/12/2023

Differences between PPPs and MSPs

Public Private Partnerships Multi-Stakeholder PartnershipsTraditionally and literally, these are partnerships between the government and the private/ corporate sectors.

MSPs are essentially multi-sectoral partnerships with the CSO sector preferably being one of the partners. Other partners include the government, public/ private sectors, academia, donors, media, CBOs and others.

Although these claim to be based on equity, the government exercises an upper hand in deciding key issues.

Equity, transparency and accountability are the basic MSP premises.

The main idea here is a shift in responsibility and risk from one sector of society to another, usually from the government to the private sector.

These are based on mutual sharing of risks and responsibilities.

The benefits are appropriated by the private sector, the executing party.

It stresses on mutual sharing of benefits; thus creating a ‘win-win’ situation for all the stakeholders.

They are generally formed in the areas of infrastructure development, government service provision and the like.

These are suitable for any issues dealing with sustainable development and ICT4D, where multiple core competencies are required.

These are mostly time bound. MSPs operate for indefinite periods as well.These are, as a rule, executed under formal agreements, such as the BOT or BOOT agreements.

These are also built around informal agreements or without agreements as well, just by coming together for mutual cooperation.

MSPs and ICTs are central to the whole discussion around ‘knowledge for development’ and

‘knowledge society’15 since technology is inevitable for aggregating, creating, managing and

disseminating knowledge and facilitating these activities requires MSPs. It is based on the

assumption that no sector of the society, on its own, can initiate or contribute to the process of

sustainable development and establishing knowledge societies. The associated prerequisites for

achieving these are so diverse that partnerships based on the concepts of ‘equity’ and ‘sharing’

are extremely essential. In this respect, the MSP approach takes a big stride from the culture of

‘debate (that dominated the interaction between various sectors of the society so far) to that of

dialogue’ (Tannen, 1998).

1.6 How is MSP Different from the PPP?

The way the term PPP is used to refer to even tripartite and multi-sectoral partnerships engaging

the CSO sector, has almost eclipsed the MSP concept. It is important to recognize here that in

spite of a few obvious similarities, the MSPs are essentially different from the PPP. “They are not

conformist client-contractor relationships or outsourcing arrangements, where one party

unilaterally determines the actions of another, and where recourse to resolving problems or

realising emergent opportunities associated with the relationship, lies wholly within the terms of

the contract” (GKP, 2003:7). The salient differences between the MSPs and the PPPs are

projected through the following table, which derives from Peters (1998) and Hemmati (2002):

1.7 An Overview of Current MSP Thought

15 Knowledge society is a derivative of the concept, ‘information society’, a society in which the creation, distribution, diffusion, use, and manipulation of information is a significant economic, political, and cultural activity. The concept of ‘knowledge society’ is based on the recognition of knowledge as the most important capital in the present age, and hence the success of any society lies in harnessing it. With current technologies, knowledge societies need not be constrained by geographic proximity, as these offer much more possibilities for sharing, archiving and retrieving knowledge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_society

ssharma Page 6 4/12/2023

MSPs are largely all about providing a platform where dialogue can take place, “a neutral, free

and ordered space, where violence is replaced by verbal debate, shouting by listening, chaos by

calm” (Asmal, 2000). It is defined as an “alliance between parties drawn from government,

business and civil society that strategically aggregate the resources and competencies of each to

resolve the key challenges of ICT as an enabler of sustainable development, and which are

founded on principles of shared risk, cost and mutual benefits.”16

The MSP literature can be seen as an extension of the literature on partnerships in general,

whether the PPPs, Multi-sectoral or tripartite partnerships. Glancing through the MSP literature

available today, one can easily infer that this concept is still evolving and so is the literature

around it. It is still struggling for a strong theoretical foothold. Each MSP case study is enriching

its knowledge base by adding some useful tools or by refining its methodology. Instead of

contradicting and critiquing the issues addressed by others; different authors have only added up

resources to make this approach more relevant for sustainable development. Since it is a

relatively new approach, most of the MSP literature revolves around identifying issues for MSP

engagement and the MSP exploration, building and maintenance processes. It primarily focuses

on finding ways to identify issues and describe processes, around which partners from hitherto

unrelated and mutually opposing sectors of the society can negotiate, collaborate and cooperate.

For convenience, it can be broadly divided into two categories: a) those dealing with MSP

concept, methodology and tools; and b) those dealing with how to make the partnership

sustainable and successful through the intervention of partnership ‘broker’17, ‘third party facilitator’

or the ‘leader’.

Initially, those writing on the role of brokering in partnerships have attempted to analyze it for

optimizing the development performance of the corporate sector, especially under their Corporate

Social Responsibility (CSR) programs. The most notable writers in this context are Michael

Warner, Ros Tennyson, Luke Wilde who have contributed to developing rules of brokering that

are as applicable to and relevant for MSPs in the development sector as they are for the

corporate sector. In “The Guiding Hand” 18, Ros Tennyson and Luke Wilde find the ‘broker’

indispensable for facilitating partnerships. He carries the responsibility of building and continuing

a successful partnership till its objectives are met. They have identified seven stages of

partnership building. The broker plays an important role throughout this process till the partners

start thinking in terms of institutionalizing or sustaining the partnership.

The same argument is put forward by Michael Warner in his short novel, “The New Broker:

brokering partnerships for development”19, where MSP is explained from the private/business

perspective. He uses the narrative format to discuss how MSPs can be effectively used to add

value to the development programmes of the private sector, what are the major constraints to the

partnership building process and how these could be resolved through the mediation of a ‘third

16 GKP (2003) Multi-Stakeholder Partnership Issue Paper. GKP Secretariat, Kuala Lumpur. Available online at: www.globalknowledge.org/gkps_portal/view_file.cfm?fileid=1589. Last accessed on 23 October 2007.17 The term ‘broker’ is not accepted very enthusiastically by the development sector because of its inherent highly business specific connotations.18 Tennyson, Ros & Luke Wilde (2000) The Guiding Hand: Brokering Partnerships for Sustainable Development. London: Prince of Wales Business Leader Forum & the United Nations Staff College.http://www.odi.org.uk/pppg/guiding_hand.pdf     19 Warner, Michael (2003) The New Broker: Brokering Partnerships for Development, London: Overseas Development Institute.

ssharma Page 7 4/12/2023

party facilitator’ or broker. The same concern is echoed in another Issue Paper written by him on

‘Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Do We Need Partnership Brokers’20 and his latest

short novel, ‘The New Broker: Beyond Agreement’21, where he probes the issue further for

establishing the indicators for post partnership tracking and evaluation.

In ‘The Partnering Tool Book’22, Ros Tennyson analyses all aspects of partnership building for

sustainable development after establishing the rationale for using this approach over the others.

Prominent among those establishing MSP as an alternative development paradigm on the

conceptual plane are Minu Hemmati and Global Knowledge Partnership (GKP) Issue Paper.23

Minu Hemmati’s book, “Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond

Deadlock and Conflict”24 takes an eclectic approach to understand MSP processes, which she

considers as a major shift from the ‘culture of debate to dialogue’. Her book discusses the

‘building blocks’ that are essential for sustaining multi-stakeholder processes in different

situations/contexts.

All the ongoing discussions on MSPs are synthesized in the GKP Issue Paper, prepared by the

‘Overseas Development Institute’ and the ‘Foundation for Development Cooperation’. With

reference to MSP case studies carried out in different parts of the world under different socio-

cultural and geographical contexts, it analyses its relevance for the business, government and

civil society; their role in the partnership; and the resources, skills and competencies contributed

by them to make it successful.

These studies lead to the inference that there is no ideal model of MSP that can address all the

challenges. It is not a panacea for all problems, but in certain conditions, it can be applied very

effectively. At the same time, rather than presenting a theoretical framework in the strict sense of

the term, it is more like a tool, presenting a methodology to facilitate the implementation of a

project/ program where various kinds of core competencies are required, or for ICT led

development, which is very resource intensive. This is reflected through the literature also that

focuses more on issues like why MSPs, when to use them, for what and how to use and sustain

them and so on. Although the MSP community of practice exists, there is lack of interaction

among them, which limits sharing and dissemination of best practices.

In an MSP since the stakeholders are drawn from varied backgrounds with different

competencies, skills, work cultures and values, it is extremely important to engage an individual

(in case of small partnerships) as facilitator or broker or develop an institutionalized mechanism to

support and maintain large partnerships. This is why the facilitator or the broker is so crucial in

MSPs and much of the MSP literature also focuses on the role of the broker. Such an

20 Warner, Michael (2003) Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Do We Need Partnership Brokers, Issue Paper, Programme on Optimising the Development Performance of Corporate Investment, London: Overseas Development Institute.21 Warner, Michael (2007) The New Broker: Beyond Agreement (Brokering Partnerships for Development), London: Overseas Development Institute.22 Tennyson, Ros (2003) The Partnering Tool Book, London: The International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF) and the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN).23 GKP (2003) Multi-Stakeholder Partnership Issue Paper. GKP Secretariat, Kuala Lumpur. Available online at: www.globalknowledge.org/gkps_portal/view_file.cfm?fileid=1589. Last accessed on 23 October 2007.24 Hemmati, Minu ed. (2002) Multi-stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict. London: Earthscan.

ssharma Page 8 4/12/2023

arrangement becomes indispensable for maintaining huge partnerships like the GKP and the

National Alliance for Mission 2007 (henceforth referred to as Mission 2007), both of which have

‘Secretariats’ to manage the partnership. The broker not only facilitates all the activities related to

partnership exploration and building, but also enables communication between the partners. In

short, he is responsible for enabling ‘networking’ between the partners, so that they remain in

formal/ informal contact for mutual support and assistance and do not drift away either from the

partnership itself or from their goals.

One area that has been so far neglected by the MSP literature is about managing huge

partnerships with hundreds of partners and where the partnership acts as a platform for

converging and synergizing similar initiatives to contain the duplication of efforts. This is an area

that needs deeper probe in the context of emerging MSPs for telecentre25 scale up in the South

Asian and other developing countries.

1.8 Fundamental MSP Premises

Seen in the above light, MSPs are more about “processes that engage partnerships and networks

to address different issue areas” (Hemmati, 2002). The MSP model can be used for initiating a

multi-stakeholder consultative process, collaborative decision influencing and/ or making and/ or

collaborative implementation of a project. Such case studies undertaken in different parts of the

world also corroborate the fact that it is resilient enough to suit different contextual demands. Still,

there are certain fundamental premises underpinning any MSP study (GKP Issue Paper, 2003).

- It applies to more than one sector partnerships with the CSO sector preferably being one

of them.

- The partnership operates in a given issue area requiring multiple competencies and

resources; thereby necessitating the involvement of various sectors of the society.

- The partnership derives strength from the unique core competency of each of the

partners.

- It operates around the notions of equity, transparency, accountability and mutual sharing

of responsibilities, risks and benefits.

Further, there are two inter-related and complementary aspects of any MSP:

a) one being the issue area around which the multi-stakeholder processes are planned and

organized; and

b) the other being the MSP itself with its constituents/ partners.

While the former deals with the identification of the issue area around which the partnership can

be formed, establishing the goals to be achieved and all the processes therein to achieve these

goals, the latter deals with the partnership itself, like the partnering process covering partners

exploration, identification, partnership building, etc., the entry and exit points for partners,

partnership sustainability and the dissolution of the partnership once the goals are achieved as in

the case of short term partnerships, and so on. The strategies to engage the stakeholders vary

drastically. There is no single model for partnership exploration, building or maintenance and

these differ from context to context and based on these, the MSP typology also varies drastically.

25 “A telecentre is a public place where people can access computers, the Internet, and other digital technologies that enable people to gather information, create, learn, and communicate with others while they develop essential 21st-century digital skills. While each telecentre is different, their common focus is on the use of digital technologies to support community, economic, educational, and social development...” Wikipedia contributors, "Telecentre," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telecentre&oldid=187652537 (accessed February 2, 2008).

ssharma Page 9 4/12/2023

1.9 The MSP Typology

Being a very flexible and adaptable approach, MSPs differ enormously in terms of their purpose,

scope, time frames, complexity, level of engagement (local to global), size and diversity of

partners, their unique core competency and resources (Hemmati, 2002; Carmen, 2004). In

addition, the partnering process, i.e., the way such partnerships are explored, formed and

maintained till the end objectives are met, also determines the MSP typology. Based on these,

there are:

a) Long term, evolutionary and dynamic partnerships with a huge partnership base for

example, the GKP.26 It traces its origin to the outcomes of the 1997 Global Knowledge

Conference, backed by the Canadian Government where a large number of stakeholders

from various sectors entered into a partnership to achieve predefined goals. This is a

complex and evolving form of partnership where new partners can join according to

specified membership criteria. Its aim is to promote access to, and effective use of,

knowledge and information as tools of sustainable development, by sharing information,

experiences and resources to realise the potential of ICTs. International MSP forums like

the World Bank’s Business Partners for Development Program and the PPPUE27 program

of the UN, which is essentially an MSP because of its tripartite nature with the active

involvement of the CSOs, business sector, are other such examples.

b) There are partnerships formed on the basis of two or more stakeholders entering into a

formal partnership agreement and setting up broad objectives and then within that

framework addressing emergent situations and exploring local partners who can best

contribute towards meeting these objectives. Within the broader framework, they build

short term, static and small partnerships with clear cut objectives to be achieved within a

time frame. The lead in this kind of partnership formation is generally taken by the

organization/s that conceive the idea and set the objectives. One example in sight is the

Ericsson Response Programme,28 a formal partnership between private sector, Ericsson

and humanitarian sector, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent

Societies (IFRC), focusing on disaster telecoms to address emergent issues, such as

disaster mitigation and risk reduction and harnessing cutting edge technology to tackle

disaster related challenges. These are localized MSPs to address any emergent

challenges. They enter into partnership arrangements with other agencies according to

the specific emergency situations and demands. Through this partnership, they have

managed complex emergencies, for example, providing communications for the

Afghanistan humanitarian response work in 2002, natural disasters, e.g. the Gujarat

earthquake, 2001, and support to the handling of refugees, e.g. western Tanzania, to

increase operational efficiency and staff security.29

c) Partnerships formed for converging and synergizing sporadic, but similar initiatives for

national scale up of the telecentre initiative, like the Mission 2007,30 which is driven by the

shared vision of establishing a knowledge centre in each of the 600,000 villages of India.

26 http://www.globalknowledge.org/ 27 http://www.undp.org/pppue/about/purpose.htm 28 http://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/corporate_responsibility/ericssonresponse/29 http://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/corporate_responsibility/ericssonresponse/actions/index.shtml 30 http://www.mission2007.in

ssharma Page 10 4/12/2023

It is a partnership composed of smaller sub partnerships and/or networks. These

partnerships are formed with a dual purpose: for containing the duplication of efforts and

for influencing policies and regulatory reforms, which are essential to create an enabling

policy environment for the scale up. Here, the partnership building strategy involves

converging and synergizing all existing telecentre and information kiosk initiatives. Based

on this, Mission 2007 has created a huge partnership base to realize its vision of national

scale up.

d) Similarly, there are design oriented and implementation oriented partnerships and in

some cases, the MSPs address both (GKP Issue Paper, 2003). Multi-stakeholder

partnerships formed primarily for creating an enabling environment for ICT access and

use through policy influence and regulatory reforms are essentially ‘design-orientated’

partnerships, such as the GKP, Mission 2007; while those dealing with enhancing ICT

access and use; and training for the same, promoting e-health, e-government, e-

education, e-commerce, etc. are basically ‘implementation-orientated’ partnerships.

The various types of MSPs, as outlined above, are not essentially water-tight compartments;

there are considerable overlaps between them in practice. It also suggests that MSPs are

indispensable for any ICT driven development initiative, more so for the telecentres emerging

during the ‘Telecentre 2.0’31 phase.

2. MSPs for Telecentre 2.02.1 What are Telecentres?

As defined earlier, telecentres are public ICT access centres that enable the rural and poor

people to appropriate value added information, knowledge and services for their development

without any gender, class, caste, religion or race based discrimination. After their success in

European and North American countries as ‘telecottages, they spread to the developing countries

of Africa, Latin America and Asia under various nomenclatures, such as Village Knowledge

Centres (VKCs), Community Multi-media Centres (CMCs), Community Information Centres

(CICs), Infocenters, Community Technology Centers (CTCs), Multipurpose Community

Telecentres (MCTs), Common/Citizen Service Centres (CSCs), or school-based telecentres. This

strong telecentre movement sweeping across the globe further strengthens the argument that

access to information and knowledge is essential for the holistic development of the society; and

telecentres, by providing unopposed public ICT access, help in bridging the digital divide and

leading to the creation of ‘knowledge societies’.

Initially revolving around the idea of enhancing rural community’s access to computers, Internet

and other basic ICT facilities, over the years, the scope and scale of its activities have increased

manifold. In addition to encouraging communication through traditional as well as emerging ICTs,

31 “Telecentre 2.0 is a general model of a mature telecentre that does away with the need for any further piloting of telecentres as a development mechanism. Now that several countries are forging ahead with national telecentre programmes, those that lag behind can learn from the early international experiences and they can implement national telecentre programmes without conducting further experimentation… Telecentre 2.0 exists in the telecentre ecosystem, a network of telecentres, information providers and support institutions that serves to strengthen the movement towards widespread enjoyment of the benefits that telecentres bring.” Harris, Roger (2007) Telecentre 2.0: beyond piloting telecentres, APDIP e-Note 14/ 2007. Bangkok: UNDP-APDIP.

ssharma Page 11 4/12/2023

it includes local knowledge and content generation and dissemination; capacity building, not only

in terms of imparting computer literacy, but also enabling people to use traditional media, such as

community television and radio to empower themselves; provision of a number of services and

information related to government schemes to promote micro-financing and micro-enterprises;

community development and awareness generation; etc. Their introduction in the developing

countries has transformed them from telecentres to knowledge centres.32 The prime objective of

setting up these telecentres is not only taking ICTs to the deprived and underserved; but also

ensuring its actual appropriation by them to access value added information, knowledge and

services and use the same for their overall advancement.

All the above mentioned telecentre activities presuppose the involvement of various stakeholders

and MSPs hold a special place in this regard. MSPs are essential for establishing the telecentres,

creating appropriate services and content for them, creating backward and forward linkages for

them, making them sustainable and so on. In other words, such an ambitious program requires

the collaboration of all sectors of the society for creating the ‘telecentre ecosystem’, an enabling

environment in which telecentres can take root and grow. An ecosystem is “a community of

organisms together with their physical environment, viewed as a system of interacting and

interdependent relationships…”33 and when applied to the telecentres, the community of

organisms/ actors comprise telecentre managers and operators, service providers and content

developers, software developers, Global and local IT companies, donors, Civil Society

Organizations (CSOs), the policy makers and the government, and above all, the community.

2.2 Creating a Space for ‘Networks’ Within the MSP Dialogue

The MSPs, especially in the telecentre context, are not only about partnerships between the

various actors of the ecosystem, but also about creating networks and enabling networking

between the partners to sustain the ecosystem. A network is primarily “an extended group of

people with similar interests or concerns who interact and remain in informal contact for mutual

assistance or support.”34 These are mechanisms for supporting and sustaining any partnership.

They are more communication focused, so the MSPs benefit and become more sustainable

through effective and appropriate networking. In fact, networking adds value to it and at a later

stage, MSPs, especially the long term ones with a huge partnership base, like Mission 2007,

have to focus more on networking to keep all the partners engaged and derive the maximum

benefits from the partnership.

Of late, telecentre networks have started appearing in different parts of the world. Together, they

strive to solve the emergent problems and challenges, make the telecentres viable social

enterprises and consolidate the overall telecentre movement. A telecentre network refers to “any

group of people working in telecentres whose members come together to learn from each other

and cooperatively access services. Some networks are informal groups, simply using an e-mail

32 “The term Knowledge Centre was used to stress the need for converting generic information into location- specific information and for training local women and men for adding value to information. Value-added information is appropriately referred to as knowledge and hence the title “Knowledge Centre”, Page 6 in MSSRF (2004a) ‘Mission 2007: every village a knowledge centre- a roadmap’. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/Mission%202007.pdf. 33 Ecosystem. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company. Available online at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ecosystem (accessed: November 07, 2007).34 Network. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/network (accessed: February 01, 2008).

ssharma Page 12 4/12/2023

list and occasional meetings to connect people working in telecentres. Others are more formal

associations, offering concrete services that help their members with day-to-day telecentre tasks,

such as business management, technical troubleshooting, and service delivery. The common

thread is that networks are about telecentre people working together to make their centres more

effective, sustainable, and valuable to the communities they serve” (Fillip & Foote, 2007: 149).

The above definition talks specifically about networks of telecentre managers, which is essential

for learning and sharing of best practices. But to ensure the sustainability of these telecentre

networks, another type of network is required, i.e., that of the service providers, technical support

groups, academia (curriculum developers for capacity building), organizations with content and

services, government agencies, donors, etc. It is important to establish two way linkages between

these networks.

Moreover, telecentre networks have to be understood in two ways: as a network of individual

entrepreneurs owning a rural telecentre or information kiosk, such as the Rwanda Telecentre

Network (RTN)35 and other networks in Africa; and as a network of organisations, like the Mission

2007, which has partners like MSSRF, TARAhaat, ITC’s eChaupal, NASSCOM Foundation,

Microsoft, and so on, having their respective telecentre initiatives (sometimes with their trademark

telecentre models, evolved over a period of time). The primary aim of this network is to scale up

the telecentre program at the national level. While the former network acts as a support system

for the individual telecentre managers, the latter helps in curbing the ‘reinventing the wheel

syndrome’ and limiting the duplication of efforts by encouraging sharing and learning among

organisations having their own telecentre networks and their own telecentre ecosystems. Apart

from the Mission 2007 telecentre network of India, such networks are gradually emerging in other

South Asian countries, like Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, as well.

3. MSP Application in Mission 20073.1 Envisioning the National Scale up

Around “the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 21st century many debates at the

international, regional and national levels concluded that access to information through ICT would

directly eliminate poverty and allow low income countries to leapfrog to the level of rich industrial

countries” (Weigel and Waldburger, 2004:16-17). The national scale up envisioned by Prof. M. S.

Swaminathan36 under the aegis of a ‘National Alliance for Mission 2007: Every Village a

Knowledge Centre’ or Mission 2007 tried to reaffirm this hypothesis. Mission 2007 is defined as a

“coalition of the concerned” to “facilitate and accelerate the spread of Village Knowledge Centre

(VKC) movement” 37 in India for enhancing the livelihood opportunities of rural communities and

aid their overall development. This movement did not aim only to create a physical structure like a

telecentre in every Indian village, but aimed higher, at a seemingly platonic plane, to transform

35 The Rwanda Telecentre Network (RTN) was launched in 2006 through the efforts of Paul Barera, the manager of Nyamata telecentre (one of the first telecentres set up in Rwanda in 2003) and telecentre.org. While its counterparts struggled to survive, it emerged as a successful model primarily because of the tireless efforts of its manager. Read more at: http://community.telecentre.org/en-tc/node/30403; http://community.telecentre.org/en-tc/node/30172; http://community.telecentre.org/en-tc/node/28594 36 Prof. Swaminathan is a world renowned agriculture scientist and social activist. After successfully spearheading the Indian ‘Green Revolution’, he is now keen to convert it into the ‘Ever-green Revolution’ through knowledge connectivity in the Indian rural areas, and by ensuring digital inclusion for all.37 MSSRF (2004c) National Alliance for Mission 2007: Every Village a Knowledge Centre (Mobilising the Power of Partnership)’. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Page 10. Available online at: http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/Naional%20Alliance-Mission%202007EVKC.pdf

ssharma Page 13 4/12/2023

‘every Indian village into a knowledge centre’, thus paving the way for the emergence of

‘knowledge societies’ across rural India.

The prelude to the national scale up was the Information Village Research Project (IVRP),

supported by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC)38 and implemented by the

M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF)39. The IVRP, in turn, was conceptualized

around a larger initiative called the ‘Bio-Village’ project initiated in 1991 by MSSRF.40 Next year,

in 1992, MSSRF organized an interdisciplinary dialogue on information technology, ‘Reaching the

Unreached’.41 The main recommendation of this dialogue was that ICTs have a major role to play

in promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development in the developing world. It,

consequently, led to the implementation of the Information Village Research Project (Bhatnagar

et al, 2003:1).

Starting small in 1998 with the establishment of knowledge centres in three villages of

Pondicherry, the IVRP project extended this facility to a few more villages, taking the total to

twelve. After overcoming initial hiccups and improving the programme along the way based on

these, presently, the project has attained an iconic status among ICT4D and telecentre initiatives

across the world and serves as a model for upcoming telecentre programs. The experience

gained from the pilot inspired the implementers to use ‘social inclusion’, ‘reaching the unreached’

and ‘voicing the voiceless’ as the guiding principles for replicating this model in other regions.

They also realized that the information needs of the people vary in terms of a) geographical area,

b) gender and c) physical disabilities, thus requiring a knowledge base capable of catering to

such specific needs and demands. It gave them the opportunity to experiment with a variety of

communication technologies for transferring (and disseminating) information (voice, data, image,

etc.) between the knowledge centres; and connectivity options, such as Internet, VHF two-way

radio, spread spectrum, WorldSpace Radio, satellite communication using C and Ku bands and

low-cost wireless (208.11) technology.42 It also brought about some fundamental transformation

in the thinking around ‘Community Informatics’ (CI)43 in general and telecentres in particular.

3.2 The Paradigm Shift Engineered by IVRP

Projecting telecentres as knowledge centres

38 IDRC is a Canadian Crown corporation that works in close collaboration with researchers from the developing world in their search for the means to build healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous societies. www.idrc.ca 39 Founded in 1988 as a non profit trust by Prof. M. S. Swaminathan, the Chennai based M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation strives to achieve employment oriented economic development in Indian rural areas to address the problems of poverty, gender discrimination and environmental degradation. It believes that socially equitable and environmentally sustainable development can be accomplished through the application of Science and Technology. www.mssrf.org40 The Bio-Village project was implemented in 19 villages in the Union Territory of Puducherry (formerly known as Pondicherry). It aimed at enhancing the living conditions of people by offering multiple livelihood opportunities, improvement in sanitation, development of inland aquaculture, and integrated pest management.41 Swaminathan, M. S. (ed.) (1993) Reaching the Unreached: Information Technology- A dialogue. Chennai: Macmillan India Ltd. 42 MSSRF (2004c)’National Alliance for Mission 2007: Every Village a Knowledge Centre (Mobilising the Power of Partnership)’. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at: http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/Naional%20Alliance-Mission%202007EVKC.pdf43 Community Informatics (CI) has emerged as a framework for systematically approaching information systems from the community perspective. It refers to the “application of information and communication technology (ICT) to enable and empower community processes. The objective of CI is to use ICT to enable the achievement of community objectives including overcoming “digital divides” both within and between communities.” Gurstein, Michael (2007). What is Community Informatics (and why does it matter)? Milan: Polimetrica. Pp 11.

ssharma Page 14 4/12/2023

Among all the contemporary projects, the IVRP was a trend setter in several ways. This project

also brought about a paradigm shift in the prevailing Western thinking on telecentres as ICT

access and training centres, helping the poor and the marginalized living in remote and

underserved areas to access information and equip themselves with the skills required to

compete in the emerging job market, which had become very IT skills intensive.44 In addition to

corroborating this thinking, the Indian experiment also projected the telecentres as ‘knowledge

centres’ providing the village communities value added information and knowledge, which is

location specific, need and demand based, timely and relevant for the community.

Recognizing and respecting traditional knowledge

Another important breakthrough made by the IVRP was reclaiming due respect for the local/

traditional knowledge available within the village communities, which was gradually dying out in

want of recognition and acceptance when pitted against stiff competition from the scientific

community and knowledge. Even scientific knowledge was not readily available to them when

they needed it the most due to lack of efficient transfer/ delivery mechanisms. Thus, in addition to

providing access to and training in the use of ICTs, the knowledge centres have another dual

agenda: taking the scientific and modern knowledge to the rural people and at the same time,

aggregating and archiving the local wisdom or the ‘dying wisdom’ residing with the villagers.45

Ensuring vertical and horizontal accumulation and transfer of knowledge

This way, the knowledge centre facilitates not only vertical transfer of knowledge, but also its

horizontal accumulation for future transfer and use. This is based on the premise of bridging not

only the ‘digital divide’ but also the gap between the ‘lab’ and the ‘land’. Through the years, the

communication between the lab and the land was mutually exclusive, although between

themselves, they had enough opportunities. Wherever such linkages were present, they were

predominantly one sided with the scientific community providing top down solutions without taking

into account the local conditions. To fill in this gap, the knowledge centres seek to create two way

linkages between the lab and the land.46

Infusing a participatory and bottom up approach to local development

At the same time, they infused a ‘bottom up approach’ to development at the grassroots level to

make it more responsive to the local necessities and demands, and to everything dealing with the

village communities. They involved the community as a stakeholder in their own development and

promoted the participatory approach to address local challenges. The whole process of launching

the telecentre model experimented upon and presented by them is also highly community based

and participatory. This included need assessment at the community level and aggregating

services and information based on these findings, and entrusting the management of the

telecentre in the hands of the community.47

44 Murray, Bill; Cathy Murray and Simon Brooks (2001) Training Telecentre Managers, Staff and Users. Available online at: www.col.org/colweb/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/docs/chapter%2018.pdf (in Perspectives on Distance Education- Telecentres: Case Studies & Key Issues- Management, Operations, Applications, Evaluation, edited by Latchem, Colin and David Walker, Commonwealth of Learning, 2001. available online at http://www.col.org/colweb/site/pid/3337).45 MSSRF (2004c)’National Alliance for Mission 2007: Every Village a Knowledge Centre (Mobilising the Power of Partnership)’. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at: http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/Naional%20Alliance-Mission%202007EVKC.pdf 46 op cit 47 Bhatnagar, Subhash; Ankita Dewan, Magui Moreno Torres, Parameeta Kanungo (2003) ‘M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation’s Information Village Research Project (IVRP), Union Territory of Pondicherry’. World Bank. Available online

ssharma Page 15 4/12/2023

‘Collaboration’ as the key to making the telecentre sustainable and relevant

Moreover, the implementation of the IVRP also led the implementers to believe that such a

resource intensive initiative cannot be conceived in isolation and requires the collaboration of all

the sectors of the society including the government. It taught the necessity of mobilizing the

‘power of partnership’ at various levels to realize the goal of setting up the VKCs.48 Thus, the

implementers forged a number of crucial partnerships with the local people, hospitals, veterinary

college and hospital, local administration, local service providers, Corporate Social Responsibility

(CSR) units of the IT sector and so on to enhance the relevance of the knowledge centres and

ensure its success.

Identifying and empowering local champions (grassroots academicians) to manage the

telecentres

Another point emphasized by this project was the development of the human capital to take up

the challenge of converting every village into a knowledge centre. The Jamshetji Tata National

Virtual Academy for Rural Prosperity (NVA)49 was set up to realize this objective. It aims to select

one woman and one man from each Indian village and train them to take forward the knowledge

revolution in rural India.50 They are people with extraordinary skills and leadership qualities who

strive to change their own and their community’s life. In the words of Prof. Swaminathan, they are

the ‘grassroots academicians’. On their selection, they are conferred with the title of NVA fellows,

the torch bearers of the knowledge revolution in rural India. The President of India has also

felicitated them as “the celebration of our rural core competence.”51

3.3 The Enabling Environment for Telecentre Scale up in India

Apart from the MSSRF-IDRC initiative, several other government agencies, state governments,

district administrations, CSOs and private sector enterprises were experimenting with e-

governance, e-commerce and social entrepreneurship in the rural areas. Together, these

initiatives helped in reaffirming the faith in the catalytic role of ICTs in bringing about sustainable

development in rural India. They experimented with various innovative ICT tools (with varying

degrees of success) to empower the rural people. Prominent among such initiatives were:52, 53

at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEMPOWERMENT/Resources/14654_MSSRF-web.pdf 48 MSSRF (2004c)’National Alliance for Mission 2007: Every Village a Knowledge Centre (Mobilising the Power of Partnership)’. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at: http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/Naional%20Alliance-Mission%202007EVKC.pdf49 The Jamshetji Tata National Virtual Academy for Rural Prosperity (NVA) was formed in August 2003 through the collaborative efforts of MSSRF and the Tata Trust. Its fellows are local champions, who, regardless of their educational status (some of them having education up to the primary level only!), have shown leadership qualities and have dared to do something different to empower themselves and the community around them. They have also motivated development practioners to look at grassroots realities from their point of view and make such information more objective and unbiased. They are the repositories of traditional knowledge; therefore, they are recognized as the ‘grassroots academicians’ and honoured with NVA fellowship. www.mssrf-nva.org 50 MSSRF (2005) Jamshetji Tata National Virtual Academy for Rural Prosperity, Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at: http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/NVA-Fellows-2005.pdf 51 Read the speech online at: http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/July%2011-2005/President%20of%20India%20%20Speech-%20Lecture.htm52 Most of these projects are described in great detail with their positive and negative aspects in: Harris, Roger and Rajesh Rajora (2006) Empowering the Poor: Information and Communication Technology for Governance and Poverty Reduction. New Delhi: Elsevier. 53 A description of key e-initiatives in India is also available at IT For Change’s Bridging Development Realities And Technological Possibilities portal that can be accessed at: http://www.itforchange.net/ict4d/display/146.

ssharma Page 16 4/12/2023

Computer aided administration of registration department (CARD), Hyderabad, Andhra

Pradesh (1998) - This project sought to provide encumbrance and valuation certificates and

other registration services online to the consumers.

Warana Wired Village Project, Warana, Maharashtra (1999) - Launched by the IT Task Force

of the PM’s Office and NIC, Pune, Maharashtra, its main objective was to demonstrate the impact

of ICTs in accelerating the development of 70 villages around Warana by establishing

computerized facilitation booths (info kiosks) linked to the Central Computer Network at Warana.

Bhoomi, Bangalore, Karnataka (1999-2000) - This digitization of land records project was a

trend setter among e-governance initiatives.

Gyandoot, Dhar, Madhya Pradesh (2000) - It was one of the most hailed initiatives in e-

governance and went on to receive the Stockholm Challenge Award.

e-Chaupal, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh (2000)- Launched by a private sector company, ITC, this

project was designed to streamline the company’s dealings with farmers, initially to procure farm

produce directly from the farmers. Over the time, other social services were also integrated into

this model.

TARAhaat, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh (2000) - It was started by Development Alternatives with a

number of partners in a few north Indian states. It aimed to provide information based and

entertainment services to the underserved rural markets.

Fast, Reliable, Instant and Efficient Network for the Disbursement of Services (FRIENDS),

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (2000)- This one stop service centre was created to provide public

services, esp. those related to the payment of various bills and taxes, such as electricity,

telephone, property tax, etc. to the citizens.

Akshaya, Mallappuram, Kerala (2001)- It started off as a joint venture between local bodies,

such as panchayats in rural areas, municipalities in urban areas and private entrepreneurs in the

Mallappuram district of Kerala to set up Community Technology Centres (CTCs) for bridging the

digital divide by providing community access to computers and Internet.

Mahitishakti, Panchmahal, Gujarat (2001) – Here was another step towards e-governance

through telecentres. It provides information on various e-governance services, updation on rural

development work and some Global Information System (GIS) related functions.

Community Information Centres (CIC), Sikkim (2001)- This DIT and NIC joint venture was

piloted in seven North Eastern states in 2001 and sought to provide e-governance, e-health, e-

education, e-business and other services through telecentres called CICs.

e-Seva, Hyderabad and Secunderabad (2001), Andhra Pradesh- an initiative to issue birth and

death certificates and driving licenses online in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.

Sustainable Access in Rural India (SARI), Madurai, Tamilnadu (2001)- This project was

launched in collaboration with nLogue Communications to provide telemedicine and a number of

other services to the rural community.

Gramdoot, Jaipur, Rajasthan (2002)- Implemented by the Rajasthan government in partnership

with a private sector company, Aksh Optifibre limited, this project sought to provide e-governance

services to the rural community. It also provides high speed non dial up Internet connection to

rural households.

Janamitra, Jhalawar, Rajasthan (2002) - This was a joint venture of UNDP and the Indian

Government. Based on rural intranet, it provides e-governance, e-education, e-health and other

information services to rural community in the Jhalawar district of Rajasthan.

India Agriland, Nellakuppam, Kerala (2003) - the EID Parry company set up rural information

kiosks for sugarcane farmers in association with the nLogue communications Pvt. Ltd. It provides

ssharma Page 17 4/12/2023

all informations relevant for the farmers, such as market information, weather forecasts and other

services. (Also see the attached table and map)

3.4 The Mission 2007 MSP Model

The IVRP and its contemporary ICT4D initiatives demonstrated that an enabling environment for

the scale up was already present in India. The only thing missing was a common platform to

share and learn from the successes and failures of each other. All these experiments were being

carried out mostly in isolation, oblivious of other similar initiatives. Mission 2007 sought to bridge

this gap by bringing together these and a number of other partners essential for embarking upon

a national telecentre or knowledge centre movement.

The idea of the national scale up was developed around the ‘Scalability, Sustainability and

Collaboration’ or SSC framework54 that defines the contours of its conceptual and operational

framework. Here, ‘collaboration’, particularly a multi-stakeholder one, stands out as the most

important factor determining both the scalability and sustainability factors. Therefore, among

other things, the scale up was seen as an experiment bed for exploring, building, and maintaining

partnerships and collaborations/ alliances between different sectors of the society. Since the idea

of conceiving anything so ambitious within the traditional PPP approach was considered to be

highly unrealistic for the very survival of Mission 2007, it leveraged upon the MSP paradigm.

Reflecting the MSP spirit, Prof. Swaminathan made it explicit that “the need to map the skills and

strengths of the 41 members of the National Alliance on ICTs (as on July 9, 2004) was

recognised within the strategic framework. The commitment from all these members was also a

reflection of the fact that while each player would continue to have an individual agenda and that

individual strengths may vary, collective strength would be considerable. It appears thus that all

the players need to establish links among each other for addressing problems ranging from

connectivity to content.”55 Being a very resilient approach, it was adopted and adapted by Mission

2007 in a very unique way, complementing the uniqueness of the MSP approach. The collective

strength of MSP was also leveraged upon to overcome the ‘forever pilot syndrome’56 from which

most of the ICT4D and telecentre initiatives continue to suffer.

3.4.1 Deviating from the ‘ideal type’

The uniqueness of the Mission 2007 MSP approach lies in envisaging an alliance of not only

mutually opposing sectors of the society, but also creating sub alliances at different inter-sector or

intra sector levels, such as policy makers, planners, social investors and practitioners and

grassroots champions. It is more like an assorted combination of MSPs at different levels, going

down the ladder to the states, districts and villages. This movement also enjoys the mandate of

an International Support Group (ISG), created specially for strengthening and generating

54 MSSRF (2004b) Mission 2007: The March Towards a Knowledge Revolution- Needs, Challenges and Mechanisms. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at: http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/Policy%20Makers%20Workshop2004.pdf55 Op cit56 The ‘forever pilot syndrome’ refers to the inability to move from the pilot study to program expansion at the regional or the national level. This is constrained due to the challenges of the scale up. To understand the concept, see Stuart Mathison (2003) ‘ICTs and Human Development in Asia: on overcoming the forever pilot syndrome’. A discussion paper prepared for the Asia-Australasia Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society, Perth, Australia, 22-24 June 2003. Foundation for Development Cooperation. Available online at: http://www.ict4development.org/Approaches/piloting/foreverpilot_FDC_2003.pdf. Last accessed on 27 September 2007.

ssharma Page 18 4/12/2023

awareness about it at the international level. The distinguishing features of Mission 2007 as an

MSP are:

CSO led MSP platform: The lead in envisioning this alliance was taken by a CSO, the M. S.

Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF).

Leadership driven alliance: This alliance is formed around the charisma of a leader/ visionary,

Prof. M. S. Swaminathan, who played a crucial role in envisioning the alliance and bringing in

all the partners, particularly the Indian government.

MSP with an all inclusive agenda: Unlike other MSPs functioning in different parts of the

world, it has an all inclusive agenda that spans across policy advocacy, resource mobilization

(development of innovative and appropriate technology, creation of knowledge database,

capacity building of the telecentre workers, etc.), overseeing the implementation of the

program and finally, working towards making it sustainable.

Alliances at various levels and for various purposes: In addition to developing a multi-

stakeholder alliance at the national level, for operational purposes, the Mission 2007 has also

promoted collaborations at various levels to address the challenges of ICT4D. These include

creating institutional mechanisms at the state level to coordinate the implementation and

synergisation of various programs, for example, constituting the Rajasthan State Steering

Committee. It has also advocated for the creation of multi-sectoral content consortiums and

capacity building programs in partnership with academic institutions, like the Indira Gandhi

National Open University (IGNOU) and telecentre.org57.

Flexible and dynamic organizational structure: The organizational structure of Mission 2007 is

modeled after the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). So,

this partnership is not even institutionalized, except the Secretariat, which acts as the

facilitator for Mission 2007 alliance. This is a deliberate arrangement to allow flexibility to this

MSP. It also allows enough scope to mould itself to address emergent needs. This very

characteristic of Mission 2007 has allowed its transition into the Grameen Gyan Abhiyan

during its 4th convention58.

Flexible and dynamic approach towards partnership building: Mission 2007 is an evolutionary

MSP with an ever expanding partnership base. Any organization, which can identify with the

broad objectives of Mission 2007, can join it through an informal procedure without being

bound by any formal legal partnership agreements. But, in spite of having no formal, written

agreement, all the partners are expected to contribute from their core competencies. Its huge

partnership base is responsible for the hierarchical arrangement of stakeholders into a core of

key stakeholders, surrounded by secondary and tertiary ones. This informal MSP is in the

process of creating similar stakeholder engagements at various levels, with policy makers,

planners, social investors, practitioners and grassroots academicians, to address issues

related with ‘overcoming the forever pilot syndrome’.59

Convergence of various initiatives: The principles of convergence and synergy are at the core

of Mission 2007’s MSP approach. Driven by the vision of converting India into a digitally

inclusive society, Mission 2007 sought to converge all the sporadic, but similar initiatives

under its umbrella and built a huge partnership base to realize it. It does not intend to start

57 telecentre.org is a social investment initiative implemented by IDRC and funded by Microsoft, Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC) and IDRC. www.telecentre.org; www.idrc.ca58

MSSRF (2007) ‘Fourth Convention of the National Alliance for Mission 2007: Every Village a Knowledge Center, 1-3 August: Statement’. Available online at: http://www.mssrf.org/events_conferences/content_events/august_2007/nva_statement.pdf59 http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/Mission2007_report_July_convention_2005.pdf

ssharma Page 19 4/12/2023

anything afresh or go into the implementation mode; rather its strategy has been to build

upon not only various ongoing telecentre and ICT4D initiatives, but also upon Indian

government’s National Missions, such as the National Rural Health Mission, National Rural

Employment Guarantee Plan, Education for All, and other such programs.60 This is essential

to contain any duplication of efforts and wastage of resources.

Community as one of the main stakeholders, not beneficiary: Most of the partnership models

tend to see the community as a beneficiary. They don’t foresee any role for them except this.

But Mission 2007 considers them as one of the main stakeholders, since they are going to be

influenced by the end results of the partnership. Therefore, it has always advocated for the

participatory and bottom up approach, which helped in transforming the status of the

community from ‘beneficiary’ (without any control over or stake in their own development) to

that of one of the stakeholders (with equal stake in decision making concerning them and

their development). This is reflected through all the Mission 2007 conventions as well, which

have served as interfaces between the policy makers and the knowledge workers. It has also

influenced the government and private sectors to adopt this approach.

3.5 Understanding the Mission 2007 MSP

At the conceptual level, Mission 2007 can be interpreted as a combination of design as well as

implementation oriented MSP. It can be analysed around its two inter-related and complementary

aspects, which are:

c) the development aims around which all Mission 2007 multi-stakeholder processes are

planned and organized; and

d) the Mission 2007 MSP with its constituents/ partners.

3.5.1 Development Aims

This initiative is inspired by the vision of transforming Indian rural area into a digitally inclusive

knowledge society. Its roots can be traced to the vision of Professor Swaminathan who brought

about self sufficiency in food grain production through the Indian ‘Green Revolution’. Presently,

he is keen to transform it into an ‘Evergreen Revolution’61 by increasing human productivity

through knowledge connectivity,62 which is considerably lacking in the rural areas. His knowledge

connectivity concept is driven by i) pro-poor, pro-women and pro-nature emphasis; and ii)

demand-driven, need-based and people-centric model to development as opposed to supply-

driven, technological magic wand to solving problems in society.

Initially, the development aims of Mission 2007 were described as promoting rural communities’

access to knowledge, thereby enhancing their livelihood opportunities. Its other objectives

included ‘reaching the unreached’ and ‘voicing the voiceless’, transforming knowledge receivers

into knowledge creators; developing user friendly applications and connectivity and creating a set

of easily accessible databases at various levels for imparting knowledge to the poor and

marginalized communities. In other words, these are the design parameters of Mission 2007 or

the 5Cs,63 of the Mission 2007 ecosystem.

3.5.2 The Mission 2007 Ecosystem

60 Read the story at: http://community.telecentre.org/en-tc/node/19632 61 Swaminathan, M.S. (2004) “The country should move to ever green revolution.” http://www.hinduonnet.com/2004/03/31/stories/2004033103161400.htm. (March 31)62 National Commission on Farmers (2005) Serving Farmers and Saving Farming, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Available online at: http://nac.nic.in/concept%20papers/ncf.pdf.

ssharma Page 20 4/12/2023

The 5Cs refer to: connectivity (which also implies appropriate access devices), content (and

services which are appropriate for the local community), capacity building (of both the telecentre

operators or ‘knowledge workers’, and the user community), care and management (of the

telecentre) and coordination (at various levels as well as with various agencies providing the

services and content, thereby emphasizing the ‘infomediary’ role of the knowledge workers).

63 Initially, Mission 2007 identified seven areas that required attention to implement the telecentre programme at the national level. These were: connectivity; content; space applications; organization, management, monitoring and evaluation; training, capacity building and the election of fellows; resource mobilization; and policy issues. Since some of these areas overlapped, Professor Swaminathan developed the five ‘C’ formulae for Mission 2007 in consultation with other Mission 2007 stakeholders. MSSRF (2003) ‘Village Information Centres: Harnessing local knowledge via interactive media’, MSSRF. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at: http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/policy%20Makers%20Workshop2003.pdf

ssharma Page 21 4/12/2023

Coordination

Care & Management

Capacity Building

Content & Services

Connectivity & Access Devices

The 5Cs of Mission 2007

Ecosystem

Coordination is the most critical component of the Mission 2007 ecosystem since it strengthens

and supports all the other Cs as well. It is essential to influence government policies, establishing

proper connectivity and procuring appropriate access devices by negotiating with service

providers and hardware developers; to create a central database of content and services at

various levels with the help of the academia, relevant government agencies and departments and

the grassroots communities, who possess traditional knowledge and establishing linkages with

the

content generators and providers; for engaging stakeholders to develop open curriculums for the

training and capacity building of the telecentre managers; and for setting up suitable mechanisms

for the general care and management of the telecentres by establishing linkages with the service

and maintenance providers. All the Mission 2007 stakeholder processes are planned and

organized around the achievement of these 5Cs.

3.6 The Partnering Process

The process of Mission 2007 partnership formation began around the idea of using ICTs as tools

for the collation and dissemination of knowledge (value-added information) through Village

Knowledge Centres. A number of policy makers’ workshops, national consultations and steering

committee meetings were organized to help in building its partnership base. The foremost among

these was the Policy Makers Workshop organized in October 2003 to discuss MSSRFs’ IVRP

ssharma Page 22 4/12/2023

experience. During this workshop, the policy makers made several general recommendations to

make the resource center experience more relevant in the Indian as well as global context. Based

on these recommendations, Prof. M.S. Swaminathan first articulated the need for a National

Alliance in order to take the benefits of ICT enabled knowledge to resource poor families in other

parts of the country. The main recommendations for policy makers were related to locally relevant

content, community media, gender inclusion, financial sustainability, job-led economic growth and

political commitment.64

This workshop helped in creating a consensus around using ICTs for rural development. At the

same time, it provided an opportunity for exploring appropriate stakeholders or partners for the

scale up. It was followed by the first MSSRF-NVA Steering Committee meeting in February, 2004

that provided some concrete ideas on setting up the knowledge centers. The launch of the ‘every

village a knowledge center’ movement was decided during this meeting. NVA, IGNOU, 11 state

universities, OWSA, NASSCOM Foundation, IITs, MICROSOFT India, ITC and other government

and non government organizations were the main collaborators along with MSSRF.65

In May 2004, MSSRF and NVA held a National Consultation on forming a National Alliance for

Agenda 2007: Every Village a Knowledge Centre.66 It was followed by the formal launch of

Mission 2007, the improvised name for Agenda 2007, during a two day Policy Makers’ Workshop

organized by MSSRF and One World South Asia (OWSA) that ensued a discussion on the

introduction of an ICT enabled knowledge revolution in rural India and the organizational structure

to facilitate it. OWSA and NASSCOM Foundation were given key positions on the Steering

Committee along with MSSRF and ‘Task Forces’ were created to take care of the 5Cs of Mission

2007. Two important events preceded this launch: a) MSSRF and OWSA conducted an online

discussion on info kiosks on the dgroups platform.67 b) Parallel to the workshop, a video

conference was organized in collaboration with the British Council in which participants from four

metros exchanged their views on the feasibility of an info kiosk movement in India.

By this time, the number of Mission 2007 stakeholders had increased from the 41 founding

partners (MSSRF, 2004a) to 89 (MSSRF, 2004c). Being an open and evolutionary partnership

platform, currently the number of Mission 2007 partners is about 400.68 Mission 2007 follows a

very informal partnership policy without compelling the partners to enter into any kind of formal

agreement with the alliance. It is a hierarchically arranged MSP platform with a core of key

stakeholders, surrounded by secondary and tertiary stakeholders. In spite of having no formal,

written agreement, all the partners are expected to contribute from their core competencies.

Although the concept of equity is questionable in the context of such a broad based and evolving

64 MSSRF (2003) ‘Village Information Centres: Harnessing local knowledge via interactive media’, MSSRF. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at: http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/policy%20Makers%20Workshop2003.pdf65 MSSRF (2004a) Towards a Rural Knowledge Revolution: Mission 2007- Every Village a Knowledge Centre- a roadmap’. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/Mission%202007.pdf.66 MSSRF (2004a) Towards a Rural Knowledge Revolution: Mission 2007- Every Village a Knowledge Centre- a roadmap’. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/Mission%202007.pdf.67 OWSA (2004) Information Kiosks in Every Village by 2007: Myth or Reality. New Delhi:OWSA68 MSSRF (2007) ‘Fourth Convention of the National Alliance for Mission 2007: Every Village a Knowledge Center, 1-3 August: Statement’. Available online at: http://www.mssrf.org/events_conferences/content_events/august_2007/nva_statement.pdf

ssharma Page 23 4/12/2023

M2007 Founding Stakeholders Composition

29%

27%

5%

22%

17%

Academia International Funding AgenciesPublic Sector Orgs. Private SectorCSOs

partnership, transparency is ensured in goal setting, decision making and implementation through

its non institutional organizational structure.

3.6.1 Mission 2007 Stakeholders Composition

Mission 2007 envisages partnership between the government, civil society organizations,

international funding organizations, academia, and the private sector. The Mission 2007

stakeholders can be categorized into five stakeholder/interest groups—International funding

agencies, government organizations, private sector and academia, with the CSOs being the most

diversified group, representing research & development, capacity building & training and

implementation organizations. Following is the distribution of the founding stakeholders of Mission

2007.

Mission 2007 Founding Stakeholder composition

Sr. No. Stakeholders

No. of Founding Members

Percentage (%)

1 Academia 9 22

2International Funding Agencies 2 5

3 Public Sector Orgs. 11 274 Private Sector 7 175 CSOs 12 296 Total 41 100

Currently, it looks something like this, although because of the dynamic nature of this partnership,

it is not easy to establish the exact distribution. But there is no doubt that the number of CSO

partners has increased dramatically over the years.

ssharma Page 24 4/12/2023

Present M2007 Stakeholders Composition

10% 11%

12%

18%

49%

Academia International Funding AgenciesPublic Sector Orgs. Private SectorCSOs

3.6.2 Partnership Drivers

Identification with Mission 2007 overall objectives is the main driving force for partnership

building; although hidden drivers/motivations are also operating at different levels, e.g., the

private sector, especially the IT industry foresees the opening up of a huge rural market as a

consequence of this initiative. Several of its partners had already experimented with different e-

initiatives in Indian rural areas. They joined to pool in their resources and competencies; and

synergize their efforts. As perceived by different stakeholders, the key “drivers” that encourage

their participation in Mission 2007 are:

Civil Society: An analysis of Mission 2007 partnership composition reveals that most of the civil

society partners of Mission 2007 have been using ICTs for development and to empower rural

communities socially and economically in rural India. As their aims synchronized perfectly, they

shared the same platform to realize their objectives.

Private Sector: Although, the involvement of the private sector in Mission 2007 has been driven

by social responsibility concerns, the motive of the expansion of their product market through

rural penetration cannot be ruled out. This can be regarded as the hidden, but very strong

incentive to join Mission 2007. Some of the private sector mission 2007 partners are also

engaged in promoting e-trade in rural areas to integrate the local market with the global one.

Since they are buying products directly from the farmers and local producers, they are

empowering the people economically. With the abolishment of the middleman system, the

farmers and local producers are able to make maximum profits. They are also strongly committed

towards developing rural needs and demand specific softwares, ICT tools and techniques to

enable the implementation of the VKC project.

Public Sector: As the public sector in India has realized the potentials of ICTs in increasing its

reach, effective implementation of development policies and services to the rural areas; and was

ssharma Page 25 4/12/2023

actively engaged in various rural IT projects supported by the National e-Governance Plan

(NeGP), its partnership in Mission 2007 was imperative. The key contribution of the public sector

lies in enacting pro-poor ICT policies and regulations to create the necessary infrastructure to

enable ICT led development in Indian rural areas. Without the support of this sector, the

developing and Third World countries cannot envisage any ICT4D initiative. Garnering support

from the government and the public sector is Mission 2007’s most important achievement, since

the Indian government happens to be the most resource rich and influential sector of the society,

having considerable control over finances, infrastructure and connectivity.

3.6.3 Partners’ Contributions

Following are the main contributions of different sectors:

Government Organizations: policy enactments, changes and regulations related to ICT

infrastructure development; funding and implementation through the state and local government

structures.

Private Sector: equipments, appropriate software technology, managerial capacity, training and

capacity building.

Civil Society Organizations: vision and charting the roadmap to achieve Mission objectives, social

mobilization, appropriate content development, capacity building, facilitating implementation and

monitoring at village level

Academia: research and development; distance learning programs; developing non formal

educational modules.

International Funding Agencies: technical assistance through capacity building and financial

support.

Media: publicity and ally to outreach using traditional communication tools, such as community

radio and newspaper.

3.6.4 Mission 2007 Secretariat: the partnership facilitator

With the formation of its Secretariat, the function of partnership building was entrusted to it.

Besides playing a key role in the expansion of Mission 2007 partnership base through

negotiations, it also manages its web site, coordinates its media coverage, organizes meetings

and workshops, facilitates the implementation of its state chapters, etc. The Secretariat of Mission

2007 is based at MSSRF, Chennai. The main officials who help in running the Secretariat are:

Coordinator, content editors and web manager. As a facilitator that executes the work plan under

Mission 2007, it performs the following functions:

a) Building and expanding the partnership base of Mission 2007;

b) Providing support services to the Steering Committee;

c) Supporting and coordinating the work of the Mission 2007 stakeholders;

d) Convening periodic meetings of the National Alliance and the Steering Committee;

e) Designing and launching Mission 2007 web site (www.mission2007.in) to provide detailed

information about the objectives of the Mission, its roadmap and major milestones in its

relatively short history and all relevant resources that conceptualize and define it. The site

is updated regularly with news and stories about the progress of the Mission.

f) Facilitating media coverage and communication on Mission 2007 through publications

like Frontline, i4d and other portals, such as www.telecentre.org.

g) Setting up mailing lists for National Alliance members and task forces to facilitate sharing

and exchange of knowledge among stakeholders.

ssharma Page 26 4/12/2023

h) Documentation of National Policy Makers’ Workshops, Steering Committee Meetings and

other relevant meetings.

3.6.5 Engaging the Community as Stakeholders

The first national Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), organized by MSSRF, OWSA and NVA

under the aegis of M2007 in July 2005, was an important exercise in understanding grassroots

workers’ perception towards the use of ICT tools for rural development; and engaging them as

Mission 2007 stakeholders. Most of these workers were already conversant with the use of

various ICT tools and were using them to access and disseminate value added information to

enrich the rural life. In sync with the MSP spirit, M2007 made an effort, the first of its kind, to

involve the beneficiaries as stakeholders and provided them the opportunity to participate in the

decision making process of M2007, which was, earlier, the onus of the policy makers and the task

forces.69 It positioned them at the centre of:

Identifying rural development needs,

Suggesting solutions in this regard, and

Establishing and managing telecentres at the village level.

Respecting indigenous knowledge and acknowledging it at par with the scientific knowledge

Participatory Rural Appraisal, as a research methodology, believes in comprehending and using it

for development initiatives through the participatory approach. It treats beneficiaries not merely as

knowledge receivers, but as potent knowledge creators. As mentioned, prior to the involvement of

grassroots workers in decision making, the task forces and policy makers were primarily

responsible for identifying major hurdles in the way of an ICT enabled rural knowledge revolution

and suggesting ways to resolve them. These discussions, consequently, revealed that besides

other infrastructural and organizational requirements, effective implementation of M2007 at the

village level presupposes:

• Collation of region specific need and demand based knowledge;

• Its dissemination through a suitable ICT model, supported through locally available

infrastructure and resources; and

• Establishment, care and management of VKCs at the village level.

Realizing that these inputs can be provided by grassroots workers only, the National PRA

comprised a general discussion on grassroots development issues and their categorization in the

plenary session, followed by focus group discussions (FGDs) on each one of them. In a similar

vein, they were also asked to provide suggestions regarding the 5Cs of M2007 and their opinions

on the preferred model of VKC.70 Interestingly, although Policy Makers’ Workshop and the PRA

convention were organized simultaneously with several parallel sessions that hindered face to

face interaction between task force and PRA FG members, several of their suggestions had

similar overtones. Moreover, without having any inkling about the MSP development paradigm,

they suggested that the VKC should be community owned, operated and managed, and

private/public funded (including infrastructural development and provision of essential resources).

69 Sharma, Shipra. Notes taken during the first National Participatory Rural Appraisal on – July 2005 70 OWSA (2005) National Participatory Rural Appraisal of NVA Fellows: A Report. New Delhi: OWSA.

ssharma Page 27 4/12/2023

These relevant and thoughtful PRA FG recommendations suggest that for the effective

implementation of any people/community centric MSP, like M2007:

The involvement of community or the people as stakeholders holds greater promise for

its success, since they are experiencing all the problems that the MSP seeks to address.

It also necessitates face to face interaction between major stakeholders and community

representatives. M2007 PRA Convention lacked it.

It requires respect for their viewpoint and accordance of proper place to them in the

decision making process. Since a number of Mission 2007 stakeholders, like MSSRF,

OWSA, Datamation Foundation, are already engaged in Open Knowledge Network

(OKN) initiative, they understand the importance of indigenous knowledge.

It should not be top down; rather a bottom up, participatory approach should be preferred

to arrive at possible solutions, selection of appropriate ICT for development and

implementing the project.

ssharma Page 28 4/12/2023

Table1: Telecentres & e-Governance Pilots in the Pre Mission 2007 Period(1998-2003)71

Project & Initiator Year Services State Model ConnectivityInformation Village ProjectMSSRF, IDRC

Jan.,1998

e-information, weather forecasts local content generation

Tamilnadu Community(Telecentre)

Combination of available options, VSAT

BhoomiState govt.

Mid 1998

Digital Land records Bangalore, Karnataka Public(Govt. offices)

Digitization initiative

Computer aided Administration of Registration Department (CARD) State govt.

Nov.,1998

Online registration & certificate issuance

Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

Public(Govt. Offices)

Digitization initiative

Warana Wired VillageCentral and state govt. & village community

1999 Agri-business, agri & market information, e-health

Kolhapur, Maharashtra

Public(Computer communication network)

WAN through dial up connectivity and CorDECT, VSAT technology

GyandootDistrict Collectorate, NIC

Jan.,2000

e-governance & grievance redressal

Dhar, Madhya Pradesh

Panchayat/ EntrepreneurialCommercial(Telecentre)

Wireless in Local Loop (WiLL)

e-ChaupalITC

June,2000

e-marketing & agri information

Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

EntrepreneurialCommercial(Telecentre)

Wireless VSAT network

TARAhaatDA & other partners

Aug.,2000

e-information & entertainment

Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh EntrepreneurialSocial(Telecentre)

Internet

India AgrilandEID Parry & N-Logue Communications

Nov., 2000

Agri- informations, e-health, telemedicine

Nellakuppam, Kerala Entrepreneurial(Telecentre)Parry’s corners

Internet, CorDECT technology

FRIENDSState govt. & BSNL

2000 Online bill & tax payment

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

Public(Govt. offices)

Internet

AquachoupalITC

Feb.,2001

Information related to aqua culture & marketing

Andhra Pradesh Entrepreneurial(Telecentre)

AkshayaState govt.

2001 e- & adult literacy & information

Mallappuram, Kerala Public(Telecentres)

Internet

MahitishaktiDistrict Collectorate & state govt.

2001 Govt. schemes and services information

Panchamahal, Gujarat

Public(STD/ ISD info kiosks)

STD/ PCO booth based network

Community Learning CentresState govt. & APF

March-July, 2001

Computer literacy and classroom learning support

Karnataka Public/ private(School based telecentres)

Internet

Community Information Centres (CIC)DIT & NIC

Aug.,2000-pilot

e-information/ e-governance

North-Eastern states Public VSAT based network

Lok Mitra SoochanalayaState govt.

May,2001

Tenders, vacancies, market rates, matrimonial, e-mail

Himachal Pradesh Public/ panchayats(Telecentre)

LAN

e-SevaState govt.

Aug.,2001

Birth & death certificates & driving license

Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

Public Intranet on a WAN

Sustainable Access in Rural India (SARI)

2001 e-Learning, telemedicine, e-health

Madurai, Tamilnadu Entrepreneurial(Telecentre)

WiLL

71 This table is not representative of all the telecentre, info kiosk or e-governance initiatives. It maps only some of the key

projects implemented before the launch of Mission 2007. It is based on the facts given in the book: Harris, Roger and Rajesh Rajora (2006) Empowering the Poor: Information and Communication Technology for Governance and Poverty Reduction. New Delhi: Elsevier; and IT For Change’s Bridging Development Realities And Technological Possibilities portal that can be accessed at: http://www.itforchange.net/ict4d/display/146.

ssharma Page 29 4/12/2023

Project & Initiator Year Services State Model ConnectivityInformation Village ProjectMSSRF, IDRC

Jan.,1998

e-information, weather forecasts local content generation

Tamilnadu Community(Telecentre)

Combination of available options, VSAT

BhoomiState govt.

Mid 1998

Digital Land records Bangalore, Karnataka Public(Govt. offices)

Digitization initiative

IIT M, MLA, CfID (Harvard)GramdootAksh Optifibre Ltd. & state govt.

Jan.,2002

e-information/ e-Governance

Jaipur, Rajasthan Public/ private(Panchayat)

Optic Fibre Cable based

Grameen Sanchar Sewaks

Dec., 2002

Telephone facilities for rural families

National (Rural telephony)

Telephone handsets operating on WiLL using the BSNL network

JanamitraState Govt., UNDP

2002 e-information/ e-Governance

Jhalawar, Rajasthan PublicEntrepreneurial(Telecentre)

Intranet network with P III RAS linked through two modems connected to two dedicated BSNL lines

Vidyal Information Service Provider (VISP)

May,2003

e-health, matrimonial & other informations

Tiruchirapalli, Tamilnadu

Entrepreneurial Internet, Software developed by Drishtee Foundation

ssharma Page 30 4/12/2023

Telecentres & e-Governance Pilots in the Pre Mission 2007 Period

(1998-2003)72

72 This map is not representative of all the teleecntre, info kiosk or e-governance initiatives. It maps only some of the key projects implemented before the launch of Mission 2007.

ssharma Page 31 4/12/2023

TARAhaat’s Tarakendra, Jhansi, 2000.

Computer aided Administration of Registration Department, Hyderabad (CARD), 1998.

Lok Mitra Soochanalaya, 2001.

Gyandoot Information Kiosks, Dhar, 2000

IDRC-MSSRF Information Village Research Project, Puducherry 1998.

India Agriland, Nellakuppam, 2000.

Warana Wired Villages, Kolhapur, 1999.

Bhoomi, Bangalore (land records digitization) 1998.

ITC’s e-Chaupal, Ujjain, 2000.

FRIENDS, Thiruvananthapuram, 2000.

ITC’s Aqua-chaupal, 2001.

Akshaya, Mallapuram, 2001.

Mahiti Shakti, Panchmahal, 2001.

Community Learning Centres, APF, 2001.

Community Information Centres, North Eastern States, 2000.

e-Seva, Hyderabad, 2001.

Sustainable Access in Rural India (SARI), Madurai, 2001.

Gramdoot, Jaipur, 2002.

Grameen Sanchar Sewaks, National, 2002.

Janmitra, Jhalawar, 2002.

Vidyal Information Service Provider (VISP), 2003.

Mission 2007 Summary Matrix

Intended Development

OutcomesDesign Parameters Partners

Resources & Competencies

Promoting rural communities’ access to knowledge through ICT tools to enhance livelihood opportunities through:

Establishing Village Knowledge Centers (VKCs)

. ‘Reaching the

unreached’ and ‘voicing the voiceless’.

Developing user friendly connectivity

Transforming knowledge receivers into knowledge creators.

Generation of need &

demand based and user friendly knowledge database.

5Cs of Mission 2007:

Connectivity- Providing appropriate connectivity at the village level to facilitate the use of ICTs.

Content- Collation

and dissemination of relevant and need and demand based content.

Coordination- Facilitating the development of appropriate organizational structures at the state and village level.

Care &

Management- Setting up appropriate model of telecenters as per local requirements.

Capacity building-

Providing IT & managerial training to KWs.

Civil Society Organizations (94) like MSSRF, OWSA, NASSCOM Foundation, etc.

Government Organizations (22) like BSNL, TRAI, DoIT, Min. of Panchayati Raj, etc.

Private Sector (34) like Microsoft, HP Labs, HCL, etc.

International Funding Agencies (20) like DFID, IDRC, WB, etc.

Media

Academia (18) like IGNOU, MIT, IIT, etc.

Grassroots/Community

Vision and charting the roadmap to achieve Mission objectives, social mobilization, appropriate content development, capacity building, facilitating implementation and monitoring at village level

Appropriate ICT policy enactments, regulations and policy changes to facilitate the use of ICT4D; funding and implementation through state and local government structures.

Provision of appropriate ICT tools, development of user-friendly software, IT training and capacity building.

Technical assistance through capacity building; and financial support.

Publicity and ally to outreach using traditional communication tools, such as radio.

Research and development; distance learning programs; developing non formal educational modules.

Creating need and demand based knowledge databases, setting up and operating village telecenters.

ssharma Page 32 4/12/2023