Lasa UK sCircuit Riders Conference: Opening Session

Disclaimers apply to live blogging - will clean it up later.  Typos, mispelling, lapses of grammar.

I am at Lasa Circuit Riders Conference in the UK at the opening plenary session, Spectrogramme - Where do you stand?  Three Questions that will get you moving to take a stand.

Sarah Lordes welcomed everyone and introduced the other panelists, Terry Stokes, Marc Osten, and person from ICT Hub evaluation team. Paul TIcher

Sarah:
-circuit riding has continued to grow over the last year
-still finding people who do this work who aren't yet connected
-regions have embraced the concept of circuit riding and interested in setting up projects
-getting ict integrated into infrastructure workplans
-conference is an opportunity to meet with people doing similar work
-theme for this year's conference principles and practice came out of feedback and the following issues:-

• How can we practice what we do? 
• Where do we fit in the spectrum? 
• What is a circuit rider? 
• Who are we? 
• What is our practice? 
• What are our standards for carrying out our work?
• Are we a network?  What would we do if we continue the network?

-hope to draw some conclusions at the end of this session about our work

Terry Stokes - speaking about plans for next 12-18 years

-What is happening in practical terms and Lasa's contributions to the ICT Hub.
-Today the business plan was funded - and will continue to build on the work done in the past.  Looking at sustainability of the network.
-Training and accreditation are central -- a chance for today and the future to influence that and contribute to it.
-Would be happy to discuss in more depth what's going on

External Evaluation Team - half of the team

-Evaluating what difference does the ICT hub?
-Work of the ICT Hub has made a significant difference to organizations on the ground.   Trying to look at what has been done, what is the impact, and how it has made a difference.
-They are collecting valuable information that influences the improvement of the ICT hubs programs.
-ICT Hub has taken an active approach to evaluation
-Please contribute to what we have been learning - pointed to the evaluation forms in the packet
-Conclusions will feed into lessons learned - what works, what doesn't - if you have written anything about what works in practice - they need to know.   Demonstrates good practice of delivery of ICT.

Marc Osten, facilitator

Three statements: 
Do you agree or disagree?
Split up the room

Ask yourself what you think about it and don't give a knee jerk reaction.

There should be a set of standards that circuit riders should adhere too.

agree
-branding
-client confidence
-easier to get funding
-peer support and sharing
-balance power and responsibility
-baseline to operate from
-raising awareness
-accountability - responsible for the outcomes of those services

middle
-whose standards
-what standards - flexible
-relationship between the standards and the sector - confine growth?
-who is the body that inforces
-people outside the scope of standards
-can the standards keep pace with the field and change in the sector

disagree
-issue with the term circuit rider - too technical
-so many different client bases - can't have one set of standards
-guidelines is a better word versus standards - can't standardize your services to meet standards
-waste of our time, should be out there working

Dialogue needs to be in the center - from general support to sector

Without accrediation, Circuit Riders will not be taken seriously by those who they work for.

agree
credibility
clients don't understand ICT, the accreditaton would help client
help organizations focus their resources more effectively
accountability
professionalism

middle
-difficult to capture the range of technical skills
-map of whats there already many standards -- using what is available versus reinventing the wheel
-how does it account for experience
-start to get your reasons
-can help but not the only thing that helps increase trust
-question assumes crc not taken seriously
-how ICT is taken seriously
-the content of the accreditation -- language and definition

disagree
-already built up relationships
-respect is learned
-it's about your performance, not the accrediaton
-cr may not exist if they have to be accredited - not time
-how to build into work
-other volcom sectors taken seriously without accreditation
-may be long winded
-orgs understand what it means
-relative merits of quality standards - could confuse the issue more -
-reduce the work on the frontline too busy getting trained and accredited

The sector is not ready to pay for cr services  - frontline organizations that are being served - they aren't ready to pay.
agree
-ict not seen as a priority
-poor leadership
-free services aren't valued - tradition of getting free services
-not top priority for funders
-don't visualize future and understand potential causes
-don't appreciate the quality of paying
-organizations are cutting budget and not wanting to spend money on technology

middle
-assumes services are the same
-larger organizations ready to pay, smaller ones no
-funders don't recognize maintenance, training, etc. in costs in grant proposals
-some organizations in the sector doesn't see it as an important
-premature - orgs don't know what is available
-can't perceive any value - pay for what?

disagree
-no funds
-costs are disguised so they are paying but do not know it
-would like to pay - scared of taking up a free service
-free services can be devalued
-more and more are paying for ict
-not budgeting correctly - isn't about not paying
-changing role puts value on cr services
-subsidy would be necessary to get pay started

Summary:
Still trying to figure out how to professionalize ourselves outside of this room.

Will revisit these questions to see if there is any change.