Nkhumise & Marcelle Innovation in water mangement

Report
Making science and innovation
relevant: the case of a CSIR water
management project
Lesego Nkhumise and Gillian Marcelle,
CSIR and Wits University
Outline
• Concerns about societal relevance are
crucial and growing in significance lead to
application of new approaches from critical
innovation studies
• Case study
• Insights
• Concluding remarks
Specific Barriers at Community Level
• Context specificity poses demands on project
management
• Variation across communities
• Alienation, disconnection and mistrust
• Need for intermediaries and translators
• Difficulties in scaling up and replication
• Acute financing risk
• Knowledge gaps and capability gaps
CSIR in brief
• The CSIR is one of several science councils in South Africa
established in 1945 by an Act of Parliament.
• CSIR is responsible for scientific and technological research,
development and implementation for industrial application. The
Council is required to contribute to R&D output in South Africa by
undertaking integrated, multidisciplinary research across diverse
areas. Owns and or manages a number of specialist facilities of
national importance.
• It is a large well managed, professional organisation with a total staff
of 2300 of which more than 60% are scientists, engineers and other
professionals. Its annual operating income is R1billion.
• Works closely with tertiary educational institutions, other science
councils, research institutions, and private sector organisations in
South Africa and internationally.
Research Methodology
• Users (Community members)
– Focus groups and observations
• Formal STI organisation (CSIR project managers,
scientists and executives)
– Elite interviews using semi-structured questions
• Triangulation with expert commentators, policy
officials stakeholders in the water industry.
• A total of 8 interviews were conducted
• Interviews were conducted over 3 weeks in line with
the availability of participants
EMPIRICAL STUDY: WATER MANAGEMENT CASE 1
• The Accelerated Sustainable Water Service Deliver (ASWSD 1),
launched in 2009 in the Eastern Cape, South Africa in Cwebe village.
• Aimed to demonstrate how to expedite the provision of reliable safe
drinking water to underserviced, or unserved, communities living in rural
areas through the application of science of technology.
•Conceptualised by a national task team of various government
departments and role players and funded by the DST
•Implementation through 2 science councils: HSRC & CSIR
• As a pilot, it was intended to test for sustainability and to develop a
replicable implementation process for water services delivery in remote
rural areas (not replacing municipal water service delivery).
EMPIRICAL STUDY: WATER MANAGEMENT CASE 2
• The Accelerated Sustainable Water Service Delivery (ASWSD II),
launched in 2009 in the Limpopo, South Africa in Dresden village.
• Aimed to demonstrate how to expedite the provision of reliable safe
drinking water to underserviced, or unserved, communities living in rural
areas through the application of science of technology.
•Conceptualised by a national task team of various government
departments and role players and funded by the DST as a follow-up on
ASWSD I.
•Implementation through the CSIR as a science council.
• It was intended to implement a sustainable process for water services
delivery in remote rural areas (not replacing municipal water service
delivery).
The Cwebe Case Site
• Amathole is one of the seven districts on the Eastern
seaboard of South Africa.
• Over 90% of its 1,664,259 people speak Xhosa.
(Census 2001).
• Amathole district is further divided into eight local
municipalities, with each containing at least 1 urban
service centre.
• This is a rural location, ravaged by high levels of
poverty and unemployment
• There is great household grant dependence (66%) in
Amathole than the average of 64 % in the Eastern
Cape.
Case Site (Dresden)
• Greater Sekhukhune is one of the 32 municipalities in the
Limpopo Province, North of South Africa.
• It consists of five Local Municipalities with 7 urban centres
• Over 97% of its people speak Sepedi (Census 2001).
• Is found in northern-most part of South Africa. It covers an
area of approximately 13 264 square-metres - most of which
is rural and it lies to the North West of Mpumalanga and the
South of Limpopo. This is a rural location, ravaged by high
levels of poverty and unemployment
• The Sekhukhune economy is driven largely by agriculture,
mining and tourism activities.
Dimensions of Analysis
• Extent/ nature of involvement and
participation
• Project ownership
• Technological suitability
• Process of technology appropriation
• Environmental impact (intended and unintended)
• Alignment with societal values, and structure
and effect over time
Table 4: Stakeholders (Cwebe)
Stakeholders
Department of
Health
Municipal
Management
Roles Played in the Project
Informed the Municipal Management of the
Cholera outbreak in the district
Invited the HSRC to come and investigate
the problem and give advice on the relevant
solution
CSIR
Project implementation
Task Team
Coordination of activities
Gave permission for the stakeholders to work
in the village
Tribal Authority
Table 1: Three years of community
development projects Dresden
Project
Electricity
Frequency
Relative
Frequency
1
0.02
2
Bridge
6
0.12
12
RDP Houses
3
0.06
6
Fencing
12
0.24
24
CSIR Water
15
0.31
31
Community Water 12
Total
49
0.25
25
1
100
%
Table 2: Understanding of CSIR Water Project
scope in Dresden
Project Scope
Frequency
Relative
Frequency
Clean water
distribution
3
0.33
33
Bringing water
closer to homes
6
0.67
67
Totals
9
1
100
%
Table 3: Stakeholders (Dresden)
Stakeholders
Community
Members
Municipal
Management
Roles Played in the Project
District Office
Supplied JoJo tanks
CSIR
Water
Committee
Project implementation
Liaison between municipal management and tribal
authority
Task Team
Coordination of activities
Tribal Authority
Gave permission for the community initiative
Water distribution initiative
Stopped the community initiative and gave the
project to the CSIR
Figure 17: Alignment of project with user needs in
Cwebe
40
37.5
37.5
No of Respondents in %
35
30
25
25
20
%
15
10
5
0
Needs of users are Priorities of users are Some of the projects
considered
not addressed
are aligned with user
needs
Alignment of projects with user needs
Figure 18: Alignment with user needs Dresden
No of Respondents in %
60
48
50
40
33
30
20
19
10
0
Addressed the need Free access to water Clean water closer to
for clean water
home
Alignment of CSIR water project with user needs
%
No of Responses in %
Decision Making
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
43
28.5
28.5
%
Municipal
Community members Water committee was
Management decision demanded water in
only informed at
exchange of
implementation stage
participation in
municipal elections
Project decision making processes in Dresden
Figure 22: Understanding of the CSIR by
the users in Cwebe
No of respondents in %
60
56
50
40
28
30
20
16
%
10
0
Company that
provides water to
communities
Company that works
on community
projects
Water company
User understanding of the CSIR
Figure 21: Understanding of the CSIR by the
users in Dresden
No of respondents in %
60
56
50
40
28
30
20
16
%
10
0
Company that
provides water to
communities
Company that works
on community
projects
Water company
User understanding of the CSIR
Figure 23: Understanding of user expectations
by the CSIR in Dresden
57
60
No of Respondents in %
50
40
30
20
10
19
10
%
14
0
Work based on Work as per Understand the Do not work
their research agreement with needs but take according to the
municipal
too long to
priorities of the
management
deliver
community
members
Understanding of user expectations by the CSIR
Figure 24: How relevance of R&D work can be ensured
according to participants in Dresden
80
67
70
No of Responses in %
60
50
40
33
30
%
20
10
0
Check with the community on
their needs
Ask the community which are
their pressing needs
Ensuring relevance of R&D
Figure 25: How relevance of R&D work can be ensured
according to participants in Cwebe
76
80
70
No of Responses in %
60
50
40
30
24
%
20
10
0
Work on other needs as well and Ask the community what help do
not only water
they need
Ensuring relevance of R&D
No of Responses in %
Figure 26: Relevance of CSIR Built Environment unit
work according to participants in Dresden
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
43
28
19
%
10
Relevant
Relevant and Delivery takes Other priorities
very important
too long
should have
been addressed
first
Relevance of CSIR BE unit work to social needs
Figure 29: Ways to improve delivery on community development
projects according to participants in Dresden
No of Respondents in %
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
33
24
19
%
14
10
Involve
Adress the
Funding
Avoid or limit Municipality
community priorities of
should go project delays or District
members in
the
directly to the
office to do
identifying
community
tribal
site visits/
and
authority
inspections
prioritizing
after project
their needs
completion
Ways to improve delivery on community projects
Figure 30: Ways to improve delivery on community
development projects according to participants in
Cwebe
No of Respondents in %
40
36
35
30
26
25
20
18
20
15
10
5
0
Involve
Address the
Do site visits to
Provide
community
needs as
ensure that
maintenance of
members in identified by the
service has the resources to
identifying their
community
really been
ensure
needs
provided
sustainability
Ways to improve delivery on community projects
%
Summary of Findings
POWER: Decisions on the projects, timing, and scope of projects are
often taken without involving users, or even community leaders. Funders
are therefore in a position of power at the expense of users’ pressing
needs.
PROJECT FUNDING: There are no follow up site visits to ensure that
quality work has been done and that projects are completed as reported.
It is a common factor that politics influence access to R&D funding in
communities. An example here is funding being linked to government
elections.
USER INVOLVEMENT: Users are often not involved in the planning of
community development projects. Decisions on the projects, timing, and
scope of projects are often taken without involving users, or even
community leaders. Priorities of communities are therefore often ignored.
Summary of Findings (2)
RELEVANCE : While the R&D projects implemented in the two
communities happened to address as social need for access to clean
water, relevance was compromised as the need of the community
members at the time was not considered.
User involvement and priority assessment involving users were
highlighted as critical in ensuring relevance of R&D produced by science
councils.
CONCLUSION
• Demonstrates that the emphasise on knowledge is
important.....use and meanings attached to technological
interventions are critical issues and this has received
insufficient attention.
• Confirms that the innovation process and deployment of
technologies involved a number of actors in a complex
system. The actors have different characteristics. For
optimal effectiveness, they should be able to engage in
bidirectional knowledge flows or linkages. The results
indicate that effective interaction of public, formal
innovation actors with other actors and components
continues to be a challenge in developing countries.
Concluding remarks(2)
• It offers a caution against supply-pushbased approach to science, technology and
innovation policy and programming, and
suggests much more of a problem-solving,
developmentally aligned approach to
innovation. This approach is less aimed at
producing radical breakthroughs and more
on contributing to meaningful development
outcomes.
For follow up and further elaboration
Professor Gillian Marcelle
Ms Lesego Nkhumise
STS research programme
www.wits.ac.za/managinginnovation
THANK YOU

similar documents