kentaro 2009 02 11 cooperación toyama

Research for Developmentat Microsoft Research India

Kentaro ToyamaAssistant Managing Director

Microsoft Research India

Cooperación 2.0February 11, 2009 – Gijón

Outline

Introduction to Microsoft Research India

Methodology and Sample Projects

Key Lessons

Microsoft Research IndiaEstablished January, 2005

Seven research areas– Algorithms– Cryptography, Security & Applied Math– Digital Geographics– Mobility, Networks, and Systems– Multilingual Systems– Rigorous Software Engineering– Technology for Emerging Markets

Contributions to Microsoft:– MultiPoint, Netra, Virtual India

Currently ~60 full-time staff, growing

Collaborations with government, academia, industry, and NGOs in India

Microsoft Research IndiaSadashivnagar, Bangalorehttp://research.microsoft.com/india

http://research.microsoft.com/india

“Technology for Emerging Markets”

Understand potential technology users in developing communities

Design and evaluate technology and systems that contribute to socio-economic development of poor communities worldwide

Collaborate with development-focused organizations for sustained, scaled impact

Computer-skills camp in Nakalabande, Bangalore(MSR India, Stree Jagruti Samiti, St. Joseph’s College)

Research Group Goals

Multidisciplinary ResearchAishwarya Lakshmi Ratan

–Public Administration and International Development

Jonathan Donner

– Communications

Nimmi Rangaswamy

– Social Anthropology

Indrani Medhi– Design

Kentaro Toyama (Group Lead)

– Computer Science

Society

Group

Technology

Individual

Society

Group

Technology

Individual

Design

Understanding

Impa

ct

Understanding

Impa

ct

Rikin Gandhi– Astrophysics

Saurabh Panjwani– Computer Science

David Hutchful– Human Computer Interaction

Bill Thies– Computer Science

http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/~spanjwan/

Microsoft Confidential

Research Sites

- Other projects studied

- Our projects

ICTD Conference

Co-founded by MSR India, UC Berkeley, MIT, CMU, IIIT-Bangalore

Focus on rigorous academic work, with all papers double-blind peer-reviewed

Established a multidisciplinary community of academic researchers in technology for development

First: May 25-26, 2006, Berkeley (UCB)

Second: Dec 15-16, 2007, Bangalore (MSR)

Third: April 17-19 2009, Doha, Qatar (CMU)

IEEE/ACM International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development

UC Berkeley, site of ICTD 2006

Outline



Key Lessons

Our MethodologyImmersion

– Methodology: ethnography • qualitative social science

Design– Methodology: iterated prototyping

• design, engineering

Evaluation– Methodology: randomized control trial

• economics

Implementation– Methodology: partnership

• political science

( )

Par

tner

ship

NG

Os,

gov

ern

me

nts,

loca

l fir

ms,

com

mu

niti

es

4.114.56

3.73.76

2.93

4.53

3.6

2.8

4.44.3 4.54.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

ALL STUDENTS BOYS GIRLS

Aver

age

No.

of W

ords

Lear

nt

SS MS MM-R MM-V

SS

MS

MM

-R

MM

-V

Kelsa+

Microfinance & Technology

IT and Microentrepreneurs

Information ecology of very small businesses

Potential of technology to support microfinance

MicroenterprisePC + mobileMixed-method studyResearch only

Text-Free UI

Text-free user interfaces fornon-literate users

User interfacesPCDesignUser studiesGuidelines

MicrofinancePC + mobileQualitative studiesBusiness analysisResearch only

Sample Projects

Information accessPCQualitative studyUsage analysisPilot

Featherweight Multimedia

Paper and cheap electronicsfor low-cost multimedia

General educationElectronicsHCIUser studiesPrelim research

MultiPoint

Primary educationPCHCIUser studiesSoftware SDK

Warana Unwired

Digital Green

Video and mediated instructionfor agriculture extension

Substitution of mobile phones for rural PC kiosks

AgricultureVideoInterventionControl trialsPilot

Info systemsMobileInterventionRural kiosksPilot

Free access PCs for low-income office staff

Multi-user systems for computer labs in schools

Microfinance and

TechnologyMultiPoint Digital Green

Partnership

Pradan, Ujjivan, Sanghamitra, CCD, BASIX, Mahakalasam…

CLT, Azim Premji Foundation, local gov’t schools, etc.

GREEN Foundation, PRADAN, etc.

ImmersionAnalyze process flow and costs

Observe use of computers in rural schools

Understand farmers' needs and capabilities

Design None so far“One mouse per child”

Participatory video & mediated instruction

Evaluation238 students, against one PC per child

1 year, 20 villages, against classic extension

ImplementationCost analysis spreadsheet available online

New Microsoft product

Spin off independent NGO

Exploratory Studies Site visits:• Interviews with…

– Institution heads– MFI agents– Clients

• Participant observation• Accounts and records

Microfinance Institutions• Pradan• Ujjivan• Sanghamitra• CCD Mahakalasam• BASIX• Etc.

Microfinance and Technology

Work by Aishwarya Ratan

Classic banking, USA Microcredit, India

$22,000/yr $1200/yr $150*$1000*

10% increase in productivity

Is Technology Always Worth It?

$220010% increase in productivity $120

Cost of technology may outweigh benefit.

* Estimated amortized cost of device per annum including maintenance and support


Can technology assist microfinance?

Front-end IS1. Account creation (loan,

savings & insurance)1. Collecting client data2. Screening/ verification

2. Transaction data3. Processing claims (savings,

transfers & insurance)

E-paymentsEnabling e-cash transactions

1. Disbursal of amount (loan)2. Collection of dues/ payments (loan, savings &

insurance)

Back-end IS1. Aggregation of client

data1. Actuarial analysis2. Target offerings YES

MAYBE?

Difficult


Current Status

Costing spreadsheet available to assess relative value of technology intervention for MFIs

Aborted a mobile-phone tool for loan officers

Ethnographic study of mobile payment usage among low-income communities in four countries with CGAP

Ongoing research on optimal UI for non-literate users of mobile banking systems with CGAP

Ratan, Aishwarya. L. and Mahesh Gogineni. (2008, May). Cost Realism in Deploying Technologies for Development. Paper presented at the Conference on “Confronting the Challenge of Technology for Development: Experiences from the BRICS”, Department of International Development, University of Oxford, 29-30 May 2008.Ratan, Aishwarya. (2006, December). Deconstructing 4 Microfinance Myths. Microsoft Research Technical Report.


Microfinance and


Partnership














PCs in SchoolsSchools…

•Teachers under-prepared for computer skills•Financing for PC systems erratic

Parents…

•Happy to see PCs in schools; want children to learn. •Have little understanding of PC functionality•PC “mastery” believed by some to come quicker than English ability (though English ability more valued)

Strong anecdotal evidence that children attend school longer, if there are PCs at the school for student use.

If schools have PCs, their use is many students per PC.

MultiPoint

Work by Joyojeet Pal, Meera Lakshmanan, Kentaro Toyama

Invention

Provide a mouse for every student

– One cursor for each mouse, with different colours or shapes

– USB mice• Experimented with up to 20• (Theoretically works up to 128)

– Reduces per-student cost of interaction

– Content modified • Game-like environment

MultiPoint

Work by Udai Pawar, Kentaro Toyama, Rahul Gupta

Evaluation

After MultiPointBefore MultiPoint

MultiPoint

Average number of words learned during PC usage

4.114.56

3.73.76

2.93

4.53

3.6

2.8

4.44.3 4.54.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

ALL STUDENTS BOYS GIRLS

Aver

age

No.

of W

ords

Lear

nt

SS MS MM-R MM-V

SS

MS

MM

-R

MM

-V

Observations:

– Strong gender effects– Girls cooperate and learn

regardless of mode– Boys compete blindly without

cooperative structure

– Varying social engagement between students depending on mode

– Dominance– Collaboration

– Identification with cursor– MultiPoint with voting

appears most constructive

Number of words learned under MultiPoint roughly the same as with SS.

Current Status

Microsoft released free MultiPoint SDK, June 2007

Additional studies with MultiPoint around collaboration and creative software

Mouse Mischief: MultiPoint for the entire class (Neema Moraveji)

Split Screen studies continuing

New hypothesis: Better anywhere for primary education over one PC per child?

Pawar, U. S., Pal, J., and Toyama, K. (2006) Multiple mice for computers in education in developing countries, IEEE/ACM Int’l Conf. on Information & Communication Technologies for Development, ICTD 2006 .Pawar, U.S., Pal, J., Gupta. R., and Toyama, K. (2007) Multiple Mice for Retention Tasks in Disadvantaged Schools, In Proceedings of ACM CHI’07, ACM Press.

http://thescooterlounge.com/images/124IndianFamily.jpg

Sharing hardware not unusual in India

MultiPoint

Microfinance and


Partnership














Eight months over 2005 & 2007

• Participant observation• Structured interviews

– 200 farmers (users and non-users)

– 3 NGO leaders– 12 NGO staff

• Technical analysis• Surveys

Background knowledge of agriculture in several regions

Thorough knowledge of Indian agriculture extension

Ethnographic Investigation

Photo: Rajesh Veeraraghavan

Digital Green

Work by Rajesh Veeraraghavn, Rikin Gandhi

Digital Green

System Design

Participatory content production•Standard extension procedure•Rough “storyboarding”

– Repetitive pattern; easy to learn– Minimize post-production

•Local farmers on their own fields– Reduce perception of “teachers”– Promote “local stars”

Mediated instruction•Locally hired mediators

– Encourage discussion

•On-demand screenings – Choice time and place– Not “stand-alone” kiosk

Work by Rikin Gandhi, Vanaja Ramprasad

7 times more adoptions; 10 times more cost-effective, over classical extension

15 months: 13 villages, 3 nights a week, 1,000 regulars

Sustained local presence

Mediation

Repetition (and novelty)

Integration into existing extension operations

Social homophily between mediator, actor, and farmer

Desire to be “on TV”

Trust built from identities of farmers and villages in videos

Evaluation Results

Work by Rikin Gandhi, Rajesh Veeraraghavan, Kentaro Toyama

Participatory video and mediated instruction enables 10x increase in cost-effectiveness of traditional agriculture extension.

Gandhi, R., R. Veeraraghavan, K. Toyama, V. Ramprasad. Digital Green: Participatory Video for Agricultural Extension, in Proc. Annual Meetings of American Society of Agronomy, 2007.

Stockholm Challenge Award 2008

Now in 12 villages, impacting ~2000 households

Discussions with BAIF, PRADAN, others

Spinning off independent NGO to scale Digital Green:

Aiming to impact ~400,000 households in 3 years

Current Status

Microfinance and


Partnership














Outline



Key Lessons

Key Lessons

Development first (not technology first)

Time with communities (not with “experts”)

Multidisciplinarity of teams (not individuals)

Quality through great people (not processes)

Sustainability is case-by-case (not by magic formula)

Impact as the goal (not ideology)

Stronglyrecommended,but some successful counterexamplesexist.

Summary


Methodology Sample Projects– Immersion Microfinance & tech– Design MultiPoint– Evaluation Digital Green

Key Lessons

Thank you!http://research.microsoft.com/research/tem

[email protected]

http://research.microsoft.com/research/tem

kentaro 2009 02 11 cooperación toyama

Technology

microfinance technology

cost of technology

technology work

technology assist microfinance

virtual india

bangalore msr india

support microfinance

sample projects key