Some take homes for me from the National Workshop on Developing a Roadmap for Agricultural Knowledge Management in India

I believe it was sometime in 2010-2011 when, along with other more prominent workers in information and knowledge management interested in agriculture, I was invited by the then Secretary, Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE) and Director General (DG) of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)  to discuss the future of information and knowledge management in Indian agriculture and, in particular, the ICAR.  One of the suggestions made then was to rename the Directorate of Information and Publications of Agriculture (DIPA) to something to do with Agricultural Knowledge Management. It was renamed the Directorate of Knowledge Management (KM) in Agriculture (DKMA). This was the first step ICAR took in formally recognizing the need for establishing structured knowledge management.

However, in my opinion, for the next 6 years, the change was only in its name. Even today the DKMA website (http:// http://icar.org.in/en/information-resources.htm) has no mention of managing knowledge in ICAR or Indian agricultural research and development establishment as one its primary function.  It mentions that “it keeps pace with current trends in knowledge diffusion” and is “the nodal centre for design, maintenance and updating of ICAR website along with facilitation of network connectivity across ICAR institutes and KVKs”.  This is where the first problem of managing knowledge in Indian agriculture starts. The Nodal agency, DKMA, has not identified with its core business.  To me, the core business of ICAR is generating new knowledge and it is the business of DKMA to manage it so that this knowledge is effectively used in innovating and developing agriculture in India.  The DKMA however should not forget that new knowledge could only be generated if it has strong roots in “old” knowledge. And India is very rich in its agricultural knowledge ancient, old and recent.

Since the core business of ICAR is generating knowledge and managing it, I was extremely disheartened that almost all its senior scientific leadership missed the first day of the workshop’s deliberation. I had expected the usual rhetorical speeches but was pleasantly surprised by the understanding of the subject under discussion by the State Minister for Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Shri Gajendra singh Shekhawat who bluntly put in that the farmer is a knowledge worker and farming knowledge work and that the India economy is rapidly transiting into a knowledge economy. Similarly, the ICAR Secretary and the Financial both spoke eloquently on the needs of ICAR to focus on KM.  The Union Minister Shri Radha Mohan Singh reiterated the same. So at least the political leadership and the ICAR bureaucracy knew of the issues and supported the activity of developing a Roadmap for Agricultural KM in India initiated by DKMA.

The onus was thus on the scientific and technical leadership of the ICAR and SAUs. And that is where I could not see any will to change. First, except for one or two Deputy Director Generals (DDGs) there were none present. I understand that more than two months had gone in preparing for the Workshop and there had been preparatory meetings for the Workshop and yet the top leadership excuses itself from attending the workshop. The people who were deputed to present the KM related activities of their respective ICAR divisions presented everything about what they did except on what knowledge they generated, how it was managed and shared, how it was used and what its impact was! So not only was the top leadership not exhibiting any interest in KM but they were also indicating that they had very little understanding of what actually ICAR should do as its “real” business, of what the country expected from them and what was to be their divisions contributions to that expectation and India’s agriculture! And we blame the “system”, politicians and bureaucrats but never the science leaders and scientists for all ills afflicting our agricultural scientific establishments.

There was almost complete focus on "published" documents rather than information, data or knowledge sharing. If our indicators for reward professionally are scientific publications, we will only focus on these documents.  The presenters used the terms “data”, “information” and “knowledge“ very loosely and as being interchangeable. Yes data, information and knowledge are related, though not linearly, and that from good data analyzed properly we can get information that when used effectively can become knowledge. But this does not happen automatically. All these need management. Data management is different from information management and information management is different from knowledge management. Data needs context and structure to be used fruitfully. Information needs concepts, frameworks and models to be presented and used effectively. Information needs to be associated with experience to be converted into knowledge in the minds of the people. This knowledge is tacit and needs to be made explicit to be shared and exchanged. And this needs management, knowledge management. I had expected the ICAR divisions to inform the participants how it did all this but all I got were drab PowerPoint presentations on lists of their activities and projects.

In my presentation after introducing the topic, I focused on where and why organisations succeed or fail in their knowledge management. I used the examples of the World Bank, CGIAR, IFAD, FAO and GFAR. I have had first hand experience in at least 3 of the Organisations where success was less than expected. I include my presentation here (https://www.slideshare.net/AjitMaru1/knowledge-presentation-icar-ajm240917?qid=2ef9aee1-0bc9-4d0b-9cec-2d026d1c0b1f&v=&b=&from_search=1).

In the second session, after hearing a lot about how ICAR manages scientific publications with the aid of private agencies such as through CeRA, Dr. Gajendra Singh and I as Chairpersons opened up the discussions on the topic. One very important issue discussed in some detail was the need for KM skills. However, what I missed was a structured discussion on policies, strategies, regulations and regulatory mechanisms, infrastructure, organizational structures, safety, security, privacy and property rights issues in data, information and knowledge management and how to make effective use of all three in the Indian agricultural research, innovation and development establishment and in the larger Indian context. 

It was formally revealed by the Director General of ICAR the next day that there is no system in place to manage data even from the All India Coordinated Research Projects and Networks. He said this was a wastage of resources and time. Yes it totally is to me. But then the DG was probably not well informed. My colleagues at CSWRI and I developed the computerised system for AICRP on Sheep and Goats data and populated it by 1987, about 30 years ago. Later I learnt of of its continuance on Facebook. The knowledge of how the system was developed and managed could have been of much use. This also pointed to how we manage knowledge in science and technology in our Institutions. At one end there are successful initiatives that are continued and at the other total ignorance. And thus nothing is learned.

In the corridors, I heard a few remarks on the cost of KM in an organization. Yes, there will be costs but most in reskilling core KM staff. Most of the other costs are already absorbed in current activities and infrastructure. KM is an organizational culture and not only an activity or process. Yes, there will be a lot of organizational changes needed especially in structures such as accountability, reward, monitoring and evaluation, reporting etc. KM is very difficult in pyramidal hierarchy driven organisations. Knowledge organisations are not only informally flat (ICAR somehow had this character where the DG and DDGs knew a lot of the line scientists and their managers) but also formally flatter in function and reporting relations.

One of the key take home point for me was a state of mind of many present "Oh, nothing can be done in this system!" Why? In Gujarati we have a saying that if someone goes crying, he will only bring the message of death. If nothing can be done in this system, we are wasting money, time and intellectual capacities. We have literally taught the world how to use information technologies in the last 40 years and some of the prominent leaders of information organisations globally are Indians. Then, again, why not in agricultural research, innovation and development Institutions and Organisations, including the ICAR? And I do not believe in that despondency that nothing can be done in this system! It can be done. I showed it can be done, whether in animal health or in agricultural informatics. And I am very proud to say the system gave me the opportunities and environment to do it. Today, the "System", and the ICAR in particular can do it. It will only need to be open about learning and realising that if it does not it will be rendered obsolete before it realises as many of the organisation that failed becoming knowledge organisations in a knowledge economy did.

I developed a draft Roadmap for Agricultural Knowledge Management in India as a suggestion to ICAR/DKMA. I present its Executive summary below:

Knowledge, awareness gained by experience, is in the minds of people.  In essence, knowledge management is managing people’s access to information and associated experiences and enabling their sharing, exchange and effective use. 

For Agriculture and Agri-food systems of India, its management is related to tacit  (internalized) and explicit (externalized) knowledge in agricultural communities related to farming, food, agricultural commodities, agriculture and agriculture related processing, storage, transport, consumption, use and recycling of materials and resources related to it. 

The challenge for managing agricultural knowledge is in consolidating and preserving its past as a heritage for future generations, effectively using the present for sustainable development and planning its management and use for the future. Effective agricultural knowledge management can contribute to:

1.     Rapid development of sustainable and resilient farming and Agri-food systems in the country

2.     Reducing the cost and time and improve quality of research, innovation and development

3.     Enabling the country to participate more effectively and profitably in International and Domestic agricultural commodity and technology trade

4.     Contributing enormously to national and global development such as through managing biodiversity, use of natural resources especially soil and water and management of spread of trans boundary diseases and pests

5.     Enriching socially the country and enabling the country in its diplomatic and international influence.

The benefits to the country and its agriculture related Institutions through better knowledge management are:

·     Better and faster decision making especially for emerging challenges such as climate change, environmental damage, use of natural resources, loss of biodiversity and management of trans-boundary diseases

·    Enabling faster, easier, economic, more effective access to existing, relevant information, experience and skills

·       Reusing concepts, ideas, documents and expertise, avoiding duplication and redundant efforts and repeating mistakes

·       Making the organizations’, system’s and country’s best problem solving experiences and capacities reusable

·       Communicating important information and experience widely and more rapidly

·       Promoting and enabling standardized, repeatable processes and procedures

·       Providing easier access to methods, tools, templates, techniques, examples etc.,

·       Making scarce expertise widely available

·       Showing users how knowledge available across the system benefits all

·       Leverages the organization, the system and the country’s technological and innovations capacities and size at home and abroad

The driving forces for structuring and organizing knowledge management in agriculture are:

·    Urgent need to improve efficiency of agricultural development institutions, organisations and systems

·       Retaining knowledge at risk of loss

·       Need for rapid innovation

·       Need for increased efficiency and economy in research and innovation

·       Need for Organizational and System development and growth

The major milestones in developing a roadmap for knowledge management for agriculture in India includes the following:

1.     Evaluation of the existing infrastructure for data, information and knowledge management

2.     Aligning the knowledge management strategy with the “business” strategy for agricultural and Agri-food systems development

3.     Designing the KM architecture with integration of the existing infrastructure

4.     Auditing and analyzing the existing knowledge in terms of Institutions and Organisations, their data and information content and their management systems, their expertise, their activities and outputs

5.     Designing, creating and developing the core team of Knowledge Managers with appropriate leadership to develop and implement the KM blueprint and system

6.     Developing the Integration, Coordination and Monitoring system with appropriate Institutions and Organisations for Knowledge Management at the Systems and Organisation level

7.     Extending the core team of knowledge managers for developing capacities in the system, its Institutions and organisations

8.     Developing the leaders needed at Institutional and organizational level for integrating and managing knowledge in the agricultural and Agri-food system

9.     Monitoring and periodic evaluation of knowledge management in the agricultural and Agri-food system

The full document can be provided by writing to me.