Evaluation of selected ICT related projects cum feasibility study concerning a transversal ICT programme ICT/OLL meeting 21 Feb 2007

Objective is to help VLIR-UOS: to draw lessons on ICT support activities to date to take decisions regarding policy on ICT support activities within the IUC programme and the feasibility of launching a transversal ICT programme to develop instruments / modalities to optimise ICT support including the pooling and deployment of experts in North and South, and the outsourcing of activities to position itself within the landscape of organisations and networks active in the field of ICT-support services

Conclusions will be based on e.g. VLIR-UOS documents (project related reporting, evaluation reports etc.) Interviews with VLIR-UOS stakeholders and partners including ICT/OLL members Selected country / partner visits (complemented by questionnaire) (Best) practices elsewhere Note: cross-cutting activities and partnerships are within the scope of the work

Timeline February 07: – Consultation ‘north’; preparation country missions March / April 07: – Country / partner missions in planning: Ecuador, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Zimbabwe – Survey (electronic / ) all existing partners May 07: – Synthesis/reporting – Feed into 29 May workshop (proposed date)

Who / where – Ecuador: Barbara Simaeys – Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania: Julie Carpenter – South Africa, Zimbabwe Oscar Struijve – (DR Congo - separate assignment in parallel): Laetitia Antonowicz Oscar Struijve

So far Kick-off & discussion with VLIR-UOS and ICT/OLL chair Meetings, interviews – ICT/OLL members; CTG; INASP; programme coordinators and project leaders. Drafting of research tools – Evaluation framework Contacting of South partners to arrange and plan evaluation visits

Evaluation framework Organized under 5 areas to ensure common approach: – Project performance of ICT projects related to infrastructure, research, policy, management and education – Transversal issues and management thereof, including preparation, implementation, follow-up and post-event effects – Needs and opportunity assessment: the needs of partners with a view to the potential of a transversally coordinated ICT programme or a range of activities – Positioning of VLIR-UOS as an actor among existing ICT support networks and organisations – Socio-economic assessment relating to the value of the expertise mobilised by VLIR-UOS over the lifetime of the full range of IUC activities.

Today – some issues for discussion and enquiry Not conclusions Based on documentation and input received To inform our team and shape the enquiry

Membership and remit: many programme coordinators and project leaders. A historic given? A necessity? How are members co-opted onto this group, and how clear is its remit? Dynamics of the relation with other bodies – e.g. the library expert group. Why separate? Reflection of reality in Flemish Universities? (Seems not necessarily a helpful separation to export to the South) Are there mechanisms conceivable to get the voice of the South partners more directly heard in a forum like this? ICT / OLL group

ICT in the IUC partnerships (1) Is there a danger that ICT components in individual IUC programmes get pulled into too many different directions? Research, teaching, support services (including core infrastructure), institutional management etc. With the new partnerships, is the preparation track better harnessed to identify ICT-related priorities and ensure an appropriate focus of proposed projects / activities?

ICT in the IUC partnerships (2) Did/do the IUC programmes ‘foster’ a view of university development which is research dominated … reinforcing a relatively low status for support and admin functions? (including those related to ICT) The experience of trying to combine in one programme – Academic research activity (including e.g. ICT research) with – Learning & Teaching and curriculum development and with – Basic infrastructure development, network support, (increased/improved) access to ICTs Does it actually work? (From an institutional / coherent policy or programme perspective) Do outcomes appear sustainable in South or in Flemish institutions?

Where is the student? Any research undertaken into student or user needs at partner institutions? Has any research been done in any of the project countries or programmes about exactly what ICT inputs would benefit the greatest number of students and staff or be considered best value for money by decision-makers? What about the new partnerships? Different?

Programme development / evolution Necessary emphasis on technology, infrastructure etc in the first phase of the original projects (those planned and begun in 1996/1997) With second wave of projects there might (should?) have been a greater awareness of what to do with ICT evident in the proposals and planning. Did we see this happening? Is it explicit? Would it be visible at programme level?

Contact Education for Change Ltd 17A Christopher Street London EC2A 2BS tel. +44 (0) fax. +44 (0)