Conclusions and recommendations from the evaluation of GARNET

GARNET has been managed by WEDC since 1993, and between 1995-97 initiated a process that led to a fundamental shift in operational arrangements. Therefore, it is an opportune time to review its accomplishments and to identify areas in which further attention is required. The evaluation summarises views collected from GARNET’s users (actual and potential), its co-ordinators, and staff.

Some of the main conclusions and actions concerning GARNET’s current and future activities include:

General
Although there is widespread endorsement and support for GARNET’s terms of reference, there has been limited ‘buy-in’ to the philosophy of information sharing amongst a range of GARNET key groups.

ACTION: Seek wider strategic alliances with other networks in the sector, and key international organisations such as UNDP-World Bank Regional Water and Sanitation Groups.

More energy needs to be placed in demonstrating the value and benefits of networking - this is one way in which GARNET can create the right incentive structure for participation in the initiative. Case studies examples of how networking has made a difference (to research/development) would be a valuable starting point.

ACTION: (a) Abstract relevant examples identified during course of the evaluation; (b) Seek to identify one relevant case study example from each LNC; (c) Use GARNET’s listserv and website in an interactive fashion to elicit suitable examples;

GARNET must find more effective ways to inform its target groups of its activities, and results from applied research which may be of direct relevance.

ACTION: (a) GARNET must review the distribution and impact of its global network newsletters, moving to an annual ‘reference booklet’, and quarterly ‘information bulletins’; (b) The efforts made to disaggregate publicity material according to audience type must be completed and distributed widely; (c ) build alliances with similar initiatives and work in a complementary fashion wherever possible

Accessing information - GARNET needs to do more to allow users and co-ordinators to access relevant and timely information. Experiences with other initiative’s on-line databases show that this is a tool which is valuable not only in permitting access to information, but also in providing an incentive and format for participation.

ACTION: (a) It is recommended that GARNET explore the feasibility of using a reputable database software (i.e., ‘Cold Fusion’) and begin a process of logging data derived from the many information streams which the GNC manages or has access to. Existence of this database to be widely publicised; (b) records of dates on which information request received, and date on which reply sent needs to be established.

GARNET needs to enhance its public awareness activities and to promote ways in which users can contribute and participate in the initiative.

ACTION: (a) At a minimum, ensure that advertisements for GARNET appear regularly in Waterlines; and relevant IRC newsletters. (b) GNC, LNC, TNC staff could include the GARNET website address in their e-mail signatures;

GARNET should try to identify key personnel in a wider range of sector agencies so that communications can be better focused and directed.

GARNET should consider the idea of developing ‘think pieces’ that would identify areas of specific concern to its user groups, which would then raise awareness of the potential of the initiative to solve problems and present itself as a solution to a specific user group need.

ACTION: GNC to organise electronic conference(s) on applied research in the sector, including priorities in the sector.

Consideration could be given to establishing parallel listserv’s in different languages for those not fluent enough to engage in English.

Users
The issue of incentives at all levels needs consideration. Incentives for user participation are poorly defined. Examination of different levels of user participation may be one way to address this problem (i.e., full member; associate member etc. each with attendant levels of benefit and required input).

ACTION: Careful consideration should be given to the perceptions of GARNET which have been assessed during this evaluation, since these opinions affect what activities users may respond to with regard to participating in the initiative.

The users of GARNET need regular and timely information from the initiative, both topic specific and from the GNC. Updates, information flashes and electronic listserv need to be encouraged to fulfil user expectations for information sharing.

ACTION: GNC to approach each topic network with proposal to establish an electronic forum on their subject.

Topic / local networks
Incentives for topic and local network co-ordinators must be urgently addressed. Consideration to payment for co-ordination (i.e., wastewater management model), or to production of newsletters. At local level, is it more realistic to be flexible in setting network objectives?

ACTION: (a) In consultation with each of the co-ordinators, review the terms of reference for the topic network and establish what networking activities are now appropriate.

GARNET needs to provide ‘training’ for co-ordinators in networking (possibly on-line tutorials), and arrange meetings between co-ordinators to foster a wider sense of ownership of the initiative.

ACTION: (a) GNC to publish short keynote papers on management and maintenance of networks (i.e., ways to foster networking, how to run electronic conferences)

Updated 03/03/03

Maintained by f.o.odhiambo@lboro.ac.uk and j.fisher1@lboro.ac.uk