I was in Ethiopia in February for an event run by my
organisation. We had a day for business people and a day for developers (web
developers). At the end of the business day was a business panel with 4-5 rich
businessmen, half of them foreign, half of them Ethiopian. When the panel had
finished speaking, the floor was opened to questions. One man’s hand shot up
and a facilitator walked to him and handed a mic.
“What’s the point of creating a website and putting ads on
it if there is no one to click on the ads?”
When I returned from that trip I talked to my team and
especially my manager. I pushed us to be more relevant to people in these
countries with great need. I explained that no one in disaster response work
questions the value of our crisis response tools because it’s obvious. A crisis
response company gets a crisis response tool, a tool that helps the company
meet the need it was created to meet. But if you go to a farmer who meets
agricultural needs, it’s very difficult for the farmer to see the importance of
email since email doesn’t necessarily help meet the need the farmers business
was created to meet. In these countries struggling with such major issues there
are so many government agencies, non-profits, social enterprises, and
for-profits that have formed to address these needs. We do better for them when
we show them products directly relevant to the business they do. So why not
show a water-scarce country tools that GPS imaging of underground water? Why
don’t we give food insecure places weather pattern tools so farmers know when
it’s best to plant what plants? Why not give transparency tools to countries
with corrupt government officials so citizens can help track aid money and
commodity money and report when their district has received no benefit?
I was told by my manager that any 20% project must be
approved by your manager (yes he was talking about managers as if he wasn’t my
manger). He said the best project is one that mixes with your current work. So
I suggested created disaster response educational curriculum to help train
governments and NGOs in how to use Internet and communications technology in
disaster risk reduction work and in disaster response work. He said no because
he was afraid that I would like my 20% project more than my 80% work. I was
shocked because it was the very thing I needed in order to be able to continue
doing the 80% work that I don’t feel was relevant or impactful.
Well, he quit the company. My mentor suggested I take
advantage of his exit by telling my 2nd manager (only an interim
manager) about the project. The interim manager was happy with it (and really
happy not to be bothered) and even approved of funding for me to take the
technology for emergency management class with my intern. We had a great time.
So now I have a potential project I like with one catch. It
needs a home. There needs to be some group within our organization that will be
in charge of disseminating the information and holding trainings. The reason is
that the original person under whom I asked to do the project left the
philanthropic part of the company. She asked me to ask my group. My group said
no, of course. So I had to email the philanthropic part of the company and I’m
currently waiting for an answer.
Even if they say no, I’ve decided to go ahead and work on it
since a colleague has a few governments that are interested in having the
training. I pray it won’t be a one-time thing, but we shall see. Hopefully that
will happen sometime next year in 2013. We’ll see where that leads.
No comments:
Post a Comment