1 / 10

TechFit Group 2

TechFit Group 2. Framework development. Collect context measures to link to technology attributes – find the link between decision steps 1 & 2 Determined categories & measures: Land & NR base (e.g. wage/land, %grazing, tlu /ac) Labour & markets (e.g. labour/milk, % milk sold)

berget
Télécharger la présentation

TechFit Group 2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TechFit Group 2

  2. Framework development • Collect context measures to link to technology attributes – find the link between decision steps 1 & 2 • Determined categories & measures: • Land & NR base (e.g. wage/land, %grazing, tlu/ac) • Labour & markets (e.g. labour/milk, % milk sold) • Inputs & services (e.g. ext contacts, credit, suppliers) • Complementary technologies (%crossbred, mech.) • Capacity (e.g. schooling, mobile phones, groups) • Tradition & culture (e.g. gender, openness to change)

  3. The village (1) • Collected data to determine context measures • Mason village near Nainbagh bazaar • N30.5662; E78.05044, 1211m • Rainfed intensive cropping • Livestock mainly dependent on grazing, cut & carry (CPR) & crop residues • Increasing labour shortage (schooling, jobs) • Improving market access • Livestock numbers (cattle) have declined • Milk sales have recently increased

  4. The village (2)

  5. The village (3) • Few key informants (well exposed) • NGO representative supported • Many quantitative measures seemed sufficiently easy to achieve (market linked) • Framing questions was critical (wheat bran feeding was initially overlooked) • Required level of detail not easy to determine (cows & buffaloes) • Difficult to follow logical thread while going through check-list

  6. The process • What we did with what we found in the village • Collected context data validated context measure check list • Collapsed measures into scores to enable matching • Setting up our matching system • Determined correlated technology scores (land requirement, labour requirement, novelty) • Deduced that thresholds are more than matches • Found two types of scores: resources & requirements

  7. Is feed the issue? Do something else All possible feed technologies (74) Technology attribute measures (1- 74). Globally constant Location specific Context measures • Thresh hold reached? • Does context resource score equal or exceed technology requirement score? • Does technology supply score equal or exceed context requirement score Score - (Scale 1-5) Score - (Scale 1-5) Technologies ranked by fit to context (Tech FIT index) Short list of contenders (<5) Cost benefit, gender, culture Participatory social-economic assessments Assess biophysical requirements The TECH that FITs ®

  8. Our example

  9. Gaps • Data • Quantification of use and management of CPR • Seasonal feed composition • Bio-physical requirements of interventions (apply to short-list • Integration with Feast • Reflection on audience (Which capacity is required to collect context data and to determine scores)

  10. Next steps • Refinement and testing of context measures • Improve the link between context attribute measures and context scores • Expand list of technologies • Improve link between technology attribute measures and technology scores

More Related