Social Audit of Karnataka Knowledge Commision

A Stakeholder Audit of the Karnataka Jnana Aayoga

Submitted to Karnataka Jnana Aayoga

Government of Karnataka

 

Public Affairs Centre

Bangalore, India

 Public Affairs Centre (PAC) is a not for profit organization, established in 1994 that is dedicated to improving the quality of governance in India. The focus of PAC is primarily in areas where citizens and civil society organizations can play a proactive role in improving governance. In this regard, PAC undertakes and supports research, disseminates research findings, facilitates collective citizen action through awareness raising and capacity building activities, and provides advisory services to state and non-state agencies.

Public Affairs Centre

No. 15, KIADB Industrial Area

Bommasandra – Jigani Link Road

Hennagara Post, Anekal Taluka,

Bangalore 562106, India

Phone: +91 80 2783 9918/19/20

Email: mail@pacindia.org

Web: pacindia.org

© 2011 Public Affairs Centre

ISBN 978-81-88816-13-2

Some rights reserved. Content in this report can be freely shared, distributed, or adapted. However, any work, adapted or otherwise, derived from this publication must be attributed to Public Affairs Centre, Bangalore. This work may not be used for commercial purposes.

Research team members – Dr. Shweta Gaur, Ms. Nivedita Kashyap, Dr. Meena Nair, with inputs from Mr. R. Suresh, Director, PAC

 Executive Summary

The Karnataka Jnana Aayoga (KJA) is a high powered commission constituted on 5th September 2008 by the government of Karnataka under the aegis of the Chief Minister’s Office. The mandate of the KJA is to transform the state of Karnataka into a knowledge society. The Commission is independent of the Government and works with and for the Government in policy making and implementation.

The KJA was set up with 6 key focus areas aligned with Karnataka's 2020 vision document. It is the first and the only state level knowledge commission which takes on a role above and beyond that of a recommendatory body. In its three years of existence the KJA has submitted 60 recommendations and has initiated action plans for certain recommendations as projects.

The KJA stands out as the only commission of its kind in India to have worked with multiple government departments to implement its policy recommendations. In this way, the KJA has the unique position of not only generating a policy idea but also accompanying it in its initial stages of implementation.

Public Affairs Centre.s work has focused on governance as experienced from an average citizen’s perspective. This stakeholder audit aims to marry PAC’s experience with user experience of public delivery services with the analysis of a quasi-government system. Hence the approach developed for the study included a stakeholder workshop with focused group discussions, meetings with stakeholders in their workplaces, intense discussions with the KJA team, and PAC.s own internal deliberations and background research.

The KJA established 6 working groups on literacy and social education, vocational education, higher education, humanities, law and management, libraries and knowledge networks, and health. Each working group generated ideas for specific studies and action in their respective area. After a short validation process across stakeholders, in just under a year of its constitution, the KJA submitted the first set of 26 recommendations spread across the 6 focus areas to the honorable Chief Minister of Karnataka.

The KJA aimed to create a knowledge ecosystem and ambience that would impact the status quo in the system. By allowing knowledge to be created, facilitated and expressed in new work arrangements, which hitherto had not been possible because of the structural and systemic constraints of typical government setups, KJA’s pilots and studies offered scope for the expression of latent talents within government systems. The working groups were well aware of the changes that needed to be done and developed seeds of ideas into actionable recommendations.

Three examples of KJA’s innovative approach in pilot design are: the Jnana fellowships, that enable exceptional individuals from other walks of life to contribute their time and talent to bring about excellence and quality in the working of a government department, the establishment of the Karnataka Innovation Council to streamline and support all creative activity in Karnataka’s many institutions of enquiry, and the Kanaja portal which makes knowledge available in Kannada mainly targeting students, farmers and homemakers.

The overwhelming praise for the KJA’s work by project leaders as well as heads of government units indicate the degree of release and excitement that these projects offered them in contrast to their regular work. In spite of their construct as facilitators and consolidators of knowledge, research units in universities across the state did not play an important part in the expression of recommendations, or in the support of on-ground projects. There is much scope for KJA to initiate student internships and other forms of knowledge support to projects from universities.

The KJA also commissioned independent research studies to supplement its work of attaining its stated mandate. This enabled the KJA to collaborate with various other stakeholders and explore new and innovative ideas for transforming Karnataka into a vibrant knowledge society.

The following best practices have been followed by KJA:

·         A flexible approach to resource support from teams such as iSOL who are subject matter specialists, has allowed the team to respond to changes in the governance and institutional environments in a meaningful manner.

·         The approach of Trial-Error-Evolve has worked well given the context that KJA is the first successful commission of its kind

·         The KJA has effectively brought together different departments to work in alliance and has acted as a lubricant in inter-departmental projects.

·         Making a space for itself within the government system by sensitizing the bureaucracy and running workshops for people working in Vidhana Souda were important steps to involve government personnel steeped in conventional methods of designing and managing projects, and to gain their trust.

·         The KJA plays a low-profile role in the projection of projects after their start up. This has enabled departments to take the credit for successes arising from them, and to further garner support to institutionalize and mainstream them.

·         Meticulous follow-up with departments on the status of recommendations and projects, with a stress on actionable outputs were critical factors in driving project managers to result-based thinking. .

For the continued holistic working and impact of the KJA, the following suggestions are made:

·         Strengthening the KJA team internally to incorporate a more comprehensive understanding of government protocol and financial flows, as well as of the technical details of each project.

·         Peer review and audits of projects to gauge results or see how the lives of the end stakeholders have been affected.

·         As a public agency, the KJA needs to be periodically measured by audits etc. 

The selected departments with whom PAC interacted have had a fruitful working experience with KJA and are unanimously are of the opinion that KJA needs to have another term to bring all joint efforts to logical conclusions to be able to do justice to their vision of creating a knowledge society in Karnataka. The success of KJA lies in the Aayoga’s capacity to:

·         Stimulate data aggregation in new areas (pharmacopeia, libraries)

·         Generate fresh structures for more effective delivery (Innovative universities, Innovation Council) which effectively is information development

·         Begin fresh analyses of knowledge society in Karnataka (aspirations of youth)

·         Develop measures of knowledge in Karnataka, thereby de-mystifying the process of knowledge development

·         Disseminate a larger learning approach by involving a bigger change management group through Jnana fellowships, which effectively leads to Knowledge creation

In order to achieve its vision of a knowledge society for Karnataka, the KJA’s unfinished mandate lies in the following areas:

·         Scoping and scaling up the small experiments developed in Phase 1 to create a critical mass of knowledge experiments

·         Gradually shift the focus from information generation to knowledge creation through the commissioning of more studies that are inter disciplinary and mass based

·         Consolidate the work of Phase 1 through a determined effort to mainstream all lines of work hitherto done by the KJA into departmental budgets and policies

·         Spiral lines of work outwards to include larger and larger constituents of the knowledge society beyond universities such as corporate and research agencies, nongovernmental agencies, and purveyors of traditional and community wisdom

·         Outreach of all work done by KJA to larger fora who will assume ownership of these efforts

·         Regular social audits of knowledge creation processes and outcomes within Karnataka led by civil groups and interested and qualified teams

All stakeholders who have been consulted in this audit agree that the KJA has provoked and stimulated them to contribute to the review of current knowledge generation and application in Karnataka, and to add value to the effort so that the vision of a knowledge society in the state by 2020 is realised.

Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1. Introduction to Jnana Aayoga ................................................................................. 1

1.2. Overview of Jnana Aayoga.s mandate ................................................................... 1

1.3. Introduction to Public Affairs Centre ...................................................................... 2

2. Methodology & approach of audit of PAC ........................................................................... 3

2.1. Outline of the study ................................................................................................. 3

2.2. Aim of the study...................................................................................................... 3

2.3. Objective of the study ............................................................................................. 3

2.4. Audit dimension ...................................................................................................... 4

2.5. Methodology ........................................................................................................... 4

2.6. Limitations of the study .......................................................................................... 7

3. Audit of KJA .......................................................................................................................... 8

3.1. Structure .................................................................................................................. 8

3.2. Systems ................................................................................................................... 9

3.3. Strategy ................................................................................................................. 11

3.4. Staff ....................................................................................................................... 13

3.5. Style ...................................................................................................................... 13

3.6. Synergy ................................................................................................................. 13

3.7. Independent Studies .............................................................................................. 14

3.8. Projects .................................................................................................................. 15

3.9. Best practices ........................................................................................................ 19

3.10. Strengths of KJA ................................................................................................. 20

3.11. Areas for improvement ....................................................................................... 21

3.12. Shared values ...................................................................................................... 21

4. Department as implementers ................................................................................................ 22

4.1. Synergy between Department and Jnana Aayoga ................................................. 22

4.2.Value addition of KJA ........................................................................................... 23

4.3. Summary ............................................................................................................... 25

5. Path ahead & recommendations ........................................................................................... 26

5.1. Where the six chosen recommendations stand ..................................................... 26

5.2. Recommendations from PAC for KJA ................................................................. 28

5.3. Recommendations from PAC for KJA from the point of view of 7S ................... 29

Structure ........................................................................................................... 29

Systems ............................................................................................................ 29

Strategy ............................................................................................................ 30

Staff .................................................................................................................. 30

Styles ................................................................................................................ 30

Synergy ............................................................................................................ 30

5.4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 31

ANNEXURE 1......................................................................................................................... 32

ANNEXURE 2......................................................................................................................... 47

ANNEXURE 3......................................................................................................................... 48

1. Introduction

 1.1. Introduction to Jnana Aayoga

The Karnataka Jnana Aayoga (KJA) is a high powered commission constituted on 5th September 2008 by the government of Karnataka under the aegis of the Chief Minister’s Office. The mandate of the KJA is to transform the state of Karnataka into a knowledge society. The Commission is independent of the Government and works with and for the Government in policy making and implementation.

The KJA was inspired by the National Knowledge Commission (NKC). The NKC was a recommendatory body and submitted around 300 recommendations in 27 focus areas to the Prime Minister's office during its three and a half year term, many of which fell within the purview of the state government. During the last few months of its term, the NKC started state consultations aiming to create state knowledge commissions which take on NKC's unfinished agenda for states.

The KJA was set up with 6 key focus areas aligned with Karnataka's 2020 vision document. It is the first and the only state level knowledge commission which takes on a role above and beyond that of a recommendatory body. In its three years of existence the KJA has submitted 60 recommendations and has initiated action plans for certain recommendations as projects.

The KJA stands out as the only commission of its kind in India to have worked with multiple government departments to implement its policy recommendations. In this way, the KJA has the unique position of not only generating a policy idea but also accompanying in its initial stages of implementation.

1.2. Overview of Jnana Aayoga’s mandate

 The establishment of the NKC at the national level has brought about a paradigm shift in the outlook towards education. In fact, the approach and recommendations of the NKC point to the convergence of various fields and sectors towards building a knowledge society.

The knowledge infrastructure in Karnataka, namely the educational institutions, universities, institutions of national importance, scientific establishments, R & D institutions and knowledge-oriented industries, is very robust and has expanded in the recent years. In this context, the Karnataka Jnana Aayoga was constituted to respond to the knowledge era in a proactive manner.

 The following are the Terms of Reference of the Karnataka Jnana Aayoga:

1. Build excellence in the educational system to meet the knowledge challenges of the 21st century and increase Karnataka's competitive advantage in fields of knowledge.

2. Promote creation of knowledge in all formal and non-formal educational, scientific and knowledge institutions of Karnataka

3. Improve the leadership and management of educational and knowledge institutions of Karnataka.

4. Promote knowledge applications in agriculture, rural development, health, industry and other areas.

5. Enhance the use of knowledge capabilities in making the government an effective service provider to the citizen and promote widespread sharing of knowledge to maximize public benefit.

6. Promote inter-sectoral interaction and interface with the objective of preservation, access, creation, application, dissemination, outreach and services relating to knowledge.

These six focus areas were then chosen to address the terms of reference.

1.3. Introduction to Public Affairs Centre

Public Affairs Centre (PAC) is a not for profit organization, established in 1994 with a mandate to improve the quality of governance in India. The creation of PAC was perhaps the first civil society-led institutional initiative to mobilize a demand for good governance in India. The focus of PAC is primarily in areas where citizens and civil society organizations can play a proactive role in improving governance. PAC undertakes and supports research, disseminates research findings, facilitates collective citizen action through awareness raising and capacity building activities, and provides advisory services to state and non-state agencies. The Centre is globally known for its pioneering Citizen Report Cards, benchmarking studies used to improve public services, as well as their work on electoral transparency, public works quality monitoring tools and approaches and the recently launched audits of the Right to Information Act and the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in India.

 PAC.s uniqueness lies in synthesizing research and action in its activities and approaches. Its research aims to provide a stimulus for action. And, its action in turn is powered by knowledge derived from research. PAC.s work is primarily organized around the premise that an informed and active citizenry is the key to improved governance. While conventional policy research concentrates on policy issues and administrative processes, PAC.s work has focused on governance as experienced from an average citizen’s perspective.

 

2. Methodology & approach of audit of PAC

2.1. Outline of the study

 KJA was commissioned for a period of three years in 2008. Now, in August 2011, nearing completion of its term KJA undertook an assignment to get their work audited by an external agency, which can understand the complexity of their work and at the same time would have the competence to conduct such an audit. Hence, KJA approached Public Affairs Centre (PAC) to conduct an audit of the commission so as to benefit from an outsider's perspective about the work they have done so far. However, keeping in mind the limited time frame in which to conduct the study, it was mutually decided that PAC would systematically gather information from as many stakeholders as possible with the support of the KJA team, and utilize this information base to derive conclusions.

2.2. Aim of the study

In the past three years, KJA has explored various methodologies to develop a framework which led to the formulation of three sets of recommendations for various departments. The aim of this audit was to understand the strengths and gaps of KJA’s approach and to provide them recommendations to help evolve a better structure. This audit also aimed to highlight the innovative techniques or methodologies adopted by KJA to develop Karnataka into a knowledge society.

2.3. Objective of the study

The objective of this study is to obtain and consolidate stakeholder opinions and ideas that would contribute to an improved understanding of KJA’s working, and to extract from these useful concepts for incorporation into a future strategy and plan for KJA. This was planned to be done by the following steps:

1. Conduct an analysis to understand the idea genesis, process and relevance of the recommendations made by the KJA for a particular department.

2. Identify the different facilitating and impeding factors (budgetary, human resource and other infrastructural issues) faced by the concerned department in implementing recommendation/s made by KJA, thereby arriving at an understanding of whether the recommendations were implementable or not.

3. Study whether the recommendation made by KJA did help in bridging certain gaps and help move towards knowledge enrichment for the concerned sector. Also, to find out whether the recommendation made was the most needed one under the given situation or circumstances. 

2.4. Audit dimension

The short duration of this analysis meant that fresh analytical frameworks needed to be applied or adapted for the study. With the approval of KJA, PAC has used the following approaches.

1. The McKinsey 7S framework

2. A transformational picture of data-information-knowledge

These are detailed in the methodology section.

2.5. Methodology

Social audit of KJA was a great challenge for PAC as there was no one particular method of satisfying the objectives of the study. The nature of work done by KJA in the past three years is diverse and yet difficult to capture in a ready- made methodological approach of qualitative or quantitative work. Hence methodology for this research involved collection of data both through primary and secondary research. The study is based on qualitative research methodology, and involved in-depth interactions and discussions with different stakeholders, the KJA team, and other officials involved with KJA to perform their tasks.

The primary premise that underlies our analysis is:

Knowledge creation aimed towards the creation of a vibrant knowledge society in Karnataka is founded upon:

Data aggregation

This base activity ensures the validation and codification of data elements from different sources, their aggregation into sets that are useful, and codification for multiple access. Data may be sourced from diverse social origins – traditions and practices, folklore, formal and informal research through personal, private and public efforts, etc.

Information systems development

Information is created from data sets through the infusion of meaning, which is achieved by relating the data to the functions and work of an agency such as a government department or university. Beyond aggregating data, information also carries the seeds of potential action within it.

Knowledge creation

This step is achieved once the information generated is incorporated into the planning and thinking frames of those who use this information, and ownership is generated among the users. This finds expression in terms of financial ownership and sustainability of the activity, reflection in policy documents and mission statements, and when it becomes part of the induction of fresh persons into agency teams.

The study was divided into two phases: Phase I and II.

Phase I:

KJA was commissioned as a task force, and hence was time bound and lightly staffed, with the aim of using existing manpower and knowledge resources as much as possible. In view of these constraints, an effort was made to understand the challenges faced by KJA as an organization to fulfill its objectives of “making Karnataka a vibrant knowledge society”.

To have a clearer picture of KJA as a task force we applied the McKinsey 7S Framework, which is a tool for ensuring that, all parts of the organization work in harmony. Developed in the early 1980s by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, two consultants working at the McKinsey & Company consulting firm, the basic premise of the model is that there are seven internal aspects of an organization that need to be aligned if it is to be successful[1].

A 7S framework is most appropriately applied to a formal organization, which the KJA is not. However, being a task force mandated with important functions, it assumes organizational stances with regard to various functions, most notably, the design of interventions that facilitate the creation of the knowledge society, and the monitoring of its own work and that of the departments who work with the KJA. The framework is useful to obtain an initial understanding of KJA performance and insights into points of improvement. In this phase, the KJA was approached with an aim to understand the systems, staff, structure, strategy, style of functioning and finally synergy within the organization. In depth interviews were conducted with the staff of KJA to understand the above mentioned focus areas of functioning of KJA.

After developing a clear understanding of 7S within KJA, PAC conducted a brainstorming session with members, expert group members and different stakeholders of KJA to get an idea about their vision for KJA and their perspectives on certain key areas of the working of KJA. This session enabled PAC to involve external stakeholders who were part of KJA in one form or the other (Annexure 1). The flowchart above mentions the 7S framework, which refers to the following 7 themes to measure the performance of the organization:

1. Structure

2. System

3. Strategy

4. Staff

5. Styles

6. Synergy

7. Shared values

Phase II:

KJA is a two tiered structure. The first tier is the KJA as a think tank (along with members, working groups and expert and core groups) and the second tier, the government departments, which implement the recommendations made by the think tank.

Hence, phase II involved selection of recommendations, which were considered as a reference frame for the further process of study. A structured questionnaire was prepared for selected stakeholders. Selection of sample respondents was primarily based on three criteria: those who were involved in the inception of the idea for the recommendation, KJA members who recommended and also pursued it with the government departments and finally the government officials who were involved in implementation of the recommendation.

Finally separate sets of questionnaires were prepared for respondents associated with KJA at different tiers of its structure. Respondents were members of KJA and the working group members of KJA, government officials, and other stakeholders (Annexure 2).

The data thus collected was finally used to understand the process involved in developing the recommendation and its relevance contribution towards achieving the goal of KJA. The analysis helped in developing recommendations for KJA for evolving a better structure.

2.6. Limitations of the study

As the functioning of KJA was a complex process and it involved tracing of three years of their tasks performed, a time period of two months was not sufficient to conduct this research. The audit involved in-depth interviews with experts from varied backgrounds, who were associated with KJA at different points in time. An important part of the study was to contact and connect with the primary list of resource persons who could have contributed to the study with their insights. Many of these persons were unable to spare the necessary time for a short interview, and this is a major limitation of the study. However, it was possible to obtain a cross-section of views from the persons on the list. The list of persons contacted is available in Annexure 2.

The initially planned methodology of the study involved a „Brainstorming Workshop and a Gap Analysis Workshop. This was meant to bring in all the people involved with KJA to a common location to discuss the challenges faced in implementing the recommendations made and how KJA has leveraged the departments in the implementation of the recommendations.

To bring all the implementers for a half day workshop seemed to be a tough task during the process of study. Hence, some alteration was made in the proposed methodology and the officials involved in implementation were approached individually. This gave us a good sampling of ideas but a lack of focused discussion which an analysis workshop would bring prevented us in achieving the results in the desired format.

3. Audit of KJA

3.1. Structure

The KJA consists of 28 members - 11 members by name and 17 ex-officio members drawn from National Institutes, Universities and various government departments. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education is the Convener. The commission currently has six focus areas, and each focus area has a Working Group comprising of experts and experienced practitioners in that specific field. A desire to help and make a difference was a big criterion in choosing the members. A Working Group can form a smaller sub-group of experts called the Study Group, when a need for a deeper understanding of an issue is felt and can consult stakeholders and experts other than members for their views and opinions.

The six working groups are: .

·         Working Group on Literacy and School Education

·         Working Group on Vocational Education

·         Working Group on Higher Education

·         Working Group on Humanities, Social Sciences, Law And Management

·         Working Group on Libraries and Knowledge Networks

·         Working Group on Health Sector

The KJA chairman and members nominated the working group members. Each of these working groups acted like think tanks for their area of concentration. The working groups met frequently, especially during the first year of the KJA, and the focus was on producing a set of actionable recommendations. The working group members themselves came up with action plans for implementing their recommendations.

The KJA team consisting of 3 research associates who joined in April 2009 was assisted by a very efficient administrative staff and was praised all around as hard working, motivated and devoted. The team holds all the Aayoga activities together, from arranging expert committee meetings to following up with the departments. The concept of pilot projects was developed as a sandbox to implement the new ideas in the form of recommendations within the departments. The KJA collaborated with the departments in facilitating the implementation of these pilot projects. The KJA organization is structured in the following manner.

3.2. Systems

The KJA can be seen as having three functional areas:

The idea genesis process or the process followed to arrive at recommendations is as follows:

The working groups acted as a think tank for their focus areas. During the initial months of their setting up, the working groups met frequently. The members had experiences in diverse disciplines, knowledge of recent changes and knew how certain sections of society may be reached. The working groups meetings were called by the KJA.

 

 After analyzing and prioritizing the requirements, a report was submitted to the KJA members. The chairman of the working groups participated in the KJA member meetings. The KJA team then held extensive consultations amongst stakeholders across the board, commissioned research studies for an in-depth analysis to create a final list of recommendations for each focus area. In just under a year of its constitution, the KJA submitted the first set of 26 recommendations spread across the 6 focus areas to the honorable Chief Minister of Karnataka.

3.3. Strategy

Summary of strategic approach

The KJA wanted to create a knowledge ecosystem and ambience that would impact the status quo in the system. Even if it was the first effort of its kind, the Aayoga was able to quickly adapt its methods and approaches to achieve its goals. This was done by allowing knowledge to be created, facilitated and expressed in new work arrangements, which hitherto had not been possible because of the structural and systemic constraints of typical government setups.

There is a need for greater flexibility and a change in the existing methods. The working groups were well aware of the changes that needed to be done and developed seeds of ideas into actionable recommendations. Considerable effort was made to build a sense of ownership within the departments for the pilot projects.

There was also an effort to develop self sustaining models which would have enough impetus to drive themselves. Some examples are of such models are highlighted below:

The Jnana Fellowship

The Jnana Fellowship was constituted in response to a KJA recommendation to increase meaningful and sustained interface between public system and citizens. The objectives of the fellowship are:

1. To collaborate with young minds in addressing current critical issues

2. To bring in fresh and innovative thinking into the existing system of Government.

3. To increase interface between public system and citizens.

4. To facilitate and add vigor to the efforts carried out by various Government departments.

Jnana fellows would be exceptional individuals who would want to contribute their time and talent to bring about excellence and quality in the public systems. There was a very positive response from the departments who responded with key areas in their departments where the Jnana fellows would contribute.

The Karnataka Innovation Council

The Karnataka Innovation Council was constituted in response to the KJA recommendation to “establish a State Innovation Council (on the lines of National Innovation Council) to drive and channelize all pervasive innovation for the development of the State”. The innovation council with a mandate to formulate a roadmap for innovation and initiate policy measures to encourage innovation consists of 20 members who are eminent leaders of their field.

The Innovative University bill is an example of the sustained and coordinated effort by KJA towards policy formulation.

Grassroots level issues have been addressed to reduce knowledge divide. The following three projects illustrate this.

Kanaja

Kanaja is a Wikipedia type portal in Kannada. Kanaja is created to compile all the data available in Kannada and disseminate knowledge in Kannada, mainly targeting students, farmers and homemakers.

Arivu

Arivu equips 10% of Government high schools in every educational block of Karnataka with effective and functional audio-visual libraries. This gives students, especially in rural areas, access to books and materials otherwise not available to them.

Odhu Putani

The Project Odhu Putani is aimed at upgrading Indira Priyadarshini Children.s library located in Cubbon Park, Bangalore. It is envisioned as a “Model library” which proactively engages students in the form of competitions and workshops and offers free access to the internet, encyclopedias and dictionaries.

3.4. Staff

Overall, the KJA team structure is efficient but lean. There is a need for subject matter specialists within the team which would bring in domain expertise to the KJA team. To address this deficiency, experts can be brought in from the government departments on deputation. This would also add to the team’s knowledge of government protocols. This latter element will help project teams to develop work lines within the conventional ambit of government project management systems.

3.5. Style

The KJA is a very action oriented body. Beginning from the idea genesis state itself actionable ideas are selected and an action plan is drawn up. The KJA brings in a refreshing alternative to the government departments as the team was always available to all levels of project staff and responded to their requirements with minimal bureaucracy.

The KJA team was very open and was always available for feedback. The KJA website, for example, is used effectively as a platform to reach out to a wide audience.

3.6. Synergy

The KJA was able to utilize the leadership and stature of its chairman to create good synergies between itself and the departments and also across the departments to execute the recommendations. In fact, because of its close association with the implementers in project systems the Aayoga was able to develop timely recommendations to speed up certain processes caught in a limbo. The overwhelming praise for the KJA’s work by project leaders as well as heads of government units indicate the degree of release and excitement that these projects offered them in contrast to their regular work.

Synergies across project teams were less evident, and there was little occasion for them to interact and exchange ideas because each team was quite sincerely involved in their own efforts.

In spite of its construct as facilitators of knowledge creation and its consolidation, research units in universities across the state did not play an important part in the expression of recommendations, or in the support of on-ground projects. There is much scope for student internships and other forms of knowledge support to projects from universities.

3.7. Independent Studies

Research studies

The KJA’s objective of commissioning independent research studies was to supplement its work of attaining its stated mandate as reflected in its vision and Terms of Reference. Further, this enabled the KJA to collaborate with various stakeholders and explore new and innovative ideas for transforming Karnataka into a vibrant knowledge society.

PAC has not evaluated the quality of the independent studies.

Study group reports

Study groups were constituted by working groups to produce in depth reports on a particular subject. The working group on health constituted two study groups to evaluate the current status of medical education and delivery of health services. The study groups consisted of experts who were thoroughly familiar with current developments in the health sector in Karnataka and at the national level. They held wide-ranging consultations with stake holders in the public and private sector in the State besides conducting deliberations on their own to produce the following comprehensive status reports:

·         A status report of the study group on Medical Education in Karnataka

·         A status report by study group on delivery of health services

3.8. Projects

The KJA has initiated action plans for various recommendations as projects, some of which are on a regular basis and some on a pilot basis. At the initial stages of the KJA, it was decided to outsource the management and administrative details of the projects to KVTSDC (Karnataka Vocational Training and Skill Development Corporation). KVTSDC then hired iSol for the administration and management of projects. The need for a project management team was felt because the core team of KJA does not have such skills, and KJA being a temporary body did not want to hire such experts and chose to outsource the administrative work. The iSol team working on KJA’s projects consists of 3 people: .

·         Field expert

·         Finance expert 

·         Expert who takes care of the qualitative aspect of the project

The KJA however, takes the final decisions on all aspects of the projects. KJA also develops contacts within the departments and gives a ready list of contact points to work with along with a concept note or a blueprint of the project. The execution and the implementation of the pilot projects are done entirely by the departments in collaboration with the KJA.

A project advisory committee is constituted by the KJA for every project for oversight of its implementation. This expert committee consists of experts with a specific interest and passion in that project for example, an expert committee to select books and other materials thereby help develop libraries in government high schools was constituted.

A Project Review & Monitoring committee under the chairmanship of the Principal Secretary of Higher Education, Government of Karnataka monitors the status of all the projects. A summary of the various projects taken up by KJA follows.

Project	Recommendation	Status
ARIVU: ‘OPEN LIBRARY’ IN SCHOOL	To have a functioning and an effective school library with appropriate books and audio-video materials for the use of students and teachers in at least 10% of the government schools in every educational block of our state during the year 2009-10.	Project carried out in 225 government schools under the department of Primary and Secondary Education Open library manual published
SAHAYOG:COLLABORATION	To impart skill training in retail business, communication skills, life skills, data entry operation, entrepreneurship etc. to the present students pursuing BA course on an experimental basis in two districts of Karnataka. This training could be imparted along with their course in their respective colleges at no extra cost to the students.	First phase of project in 2009 -10 where nearly 7000 students from 112 Government colleges of the state were trained.Second phase of the projects reached 15,000 students from 223 government first grade colleges of the state
KANAJA: A STORE HOUSE OF KNOWLEDGE	Create Wikipedia type of portal in Kannada which will become the encyclopaedia of all information in Kannada. The farmers, rural students, backward classes, homemakers (house wives) etc., will be the beneficiaries in addition to researchers and academicians	Wikipedia type portal www.kanaja.in was launched on 5th December. The task of developing and maintaining the project for the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 has been handed over to International Institute of Information Technology, Bangalore (IIITB).
SAMARTH: STRENGTHEN AND EMPOWER	To strengthen and empower DSERT, DIETs, BRCs and CRCs in the state of Karnataka for becoming decentralised lead resource institutions. These resource institutions need to be given necessary autonomy for catering to the unique needs of a district, block or cluster as the case may be	Project proposal of seven DIETs are supported by the KJA with the active cooperation of the Dept. of Primary and Secondary Education and DSERT. Visioning workshop was organized with the DIET’s. C-LMPS and RV Education Consortium are dentified as the resource institutions to mentor DIET in their projects.
. ODHU PUTANI: COME ON AND READ, MY DEAR CHILD	To upgrade Indira Priyadarshini Children‟s library presently located in Cubbon Park, Bangalore into an invaluable resource centre for the children of various schools of Karnataka in the fields such as Science, Technology, Mathematics, Music, Culture, History, Inventions, Innovations etc. In Collaboration with Department of Primary and Secondary Education	It has been recommended to convert Indira Priyadarshini Children‟s library located in Cubbon Park as a “Model library” with varieties of books, educational toys, science kits and audio/video equipments etc. Department of Primary and Secondary Education,Public Libraries, Department of Horticulture, Department of Women and Child Welfare are engaged and involved in this project.
DRAVYA KOSHA: REGIONAL PHARMACOPEIAS	To develop regional pharmacopoeias for all districts which can be put to community use and also be used in educational institutions, which strengthen the community and folk healer associations	Department of AYUSH is working on implementing the project in Shimoga and Tumkur districts with the cooperation of Ayurvedic colleges like Government Ayurvedic medical College B‟lore and few NGOs. A project advisory committee has been formed under the chairmanship of the Secretary, Health and Family welfare Department.
DAKSHA: DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP	The project aims at empowering lecturers and other administrative staff, Vice Chancellors and Registrars of Universities and Principals of Government degree colleges through leadership training.	Seventy five batches of 40 Assistant Professors will undergo training in divisions like Bangalore, Mysore, Mangalore, Shimoga, Gulbarga and Dhaarwad. Training Need Analysis (TNA) has been undertaken and completed in consultation with stake holders like lecturers, principals, joint directors and Department of Collegiate Education (DCE). The TNA forms the basis to prepare the modules and content for the training programme. Discussion with Indian Institute of Management Bangalore is in progress to train the Vice Chancellors and principles.
MAHITI: E-MIS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION	Project Mahiti is envisaged by the KJA to cover the entire spectrum of higher education from UG to Ph.D level under one platform through effective information management and Technology solutions.	This project is carried in collaboration with Department of Collegiate Education to help ensure faster, accurate information at its regional offices A Pilot study on two colleges is initiated, and Azim Premji foundation has come forward to evolve parameters for the project and create e-MIS solution application. KJA is working with technology providers and departments such as DCE to implement the pilot project.
MANAVA BHANDARA: ‘REPOSITORY OF HUMANITIES	To make available to all undergraduate college libraries and others in Karnataka select video-taped lectures of experts in Humanities and Social Sciences for the purposes of generating more interest and enthusiasm. This will also serve as training material for the teachers of Humanities and Social Sciences, who require upgrading and continuing education	ISEC, Bangalore has been supported to conduct „Social Science Talent Search Examination‟ (S.S.T.S.E) with the main purpose to identify talented students. Examination will be conducted every year for the students studying in PUC (class 12). KJA will offer scholarship for the students who get through the examination and ISEC will provide professional training. Initially the examination will be conducted for the students of Bangalore University and later it will be extended to other Universities.
JNANAVAHINI: MOBILE INTERNET VAN	To develop and depute one mobile Internet Van in every district of Karnataka for the purposes of creating awareness and interest in online availability of knowledge resources. This mobile unit could visit all the Block Resource Centres (BRCs) of that district as per a fixed timetable, which will be disseminated to all people through mass media and others. This effort could also explore Public-Private partnership model.	The project is undertaken in collaboration with Department of Public Instruction, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and KJA . Agasthya International Foundation will be managing the project.

3.9. Best practices

Summing up, we can identify the following best practices:

Innovative steps by KJA

·         The KJA team has evolved very well in response to challenges. Over time the team has sought support for specialized project work (iSoL), and brought on board subject matter specialists to back its projects. This flexibility allowed the team to respond to changes in the governance and institutional environments in a meaningful manner.

·         The approach of Trial-Error-Evolve has worked well given the context that KJA is the first successful commission of its kind

·         Inter-sectoral alliances:The KJA has effectively brought together different departments to work in alliance and has acted as a lubricant in inter-departmental projects.

·         Making a space for itself within the government system: Sensitizing the bureaucracy (with a lecture by Sam Pitroda) and running workshops for people working in Vidhana Souda were important steps to bring onboard government personnel steeped in conventional methods of designing and managing projects

·         Such activities also helped in building contacts and gaining trust

·         The KJA usually has played a low-profile role in the projection of projects after their start up. This has enabled departments to take the credit for successes arising from them, and to further garner support to institutionalize ad mainstream them.

·         There was a buy-in from the Chief Secretary and he played an important role in driving the implementation through stock-taking meetings etc.

·         Meticulous follow-up with the departments regarding the status of the recommendations and projects

·         Aiming reasonably for pilots and focus on making them work well The stress on actionable outputs was a critical factor that drove project managers to result-based thinking

Even so, with the best of planning, there have been instances when not much action has happened on recommendations because of unforeseen departmental constraints. For example, recommendation number 50, which asks for an increase in budget for health sector, has not moved ahead because the state government needs more budget allocation from the centre in this sector.

3.10. Strengths of KJA

The KJA so far has provided a creative outlet for domain experts, practitioners, academicians and researchers in the state. Under the dynamic leadership of Chairman Dr. Kasturirangan, with help from visionaries who were part of the National Knowledge Commission, and equal buy-in from people from within the political system, the KJA has been able to design and provide a robust framework for the expression of ideas generated by these experts. The Aayoga has been proactive in identifying and harnessing their energies to meet the requirements of the knowledge society.

The KJA team’s stress on action was evident in their initiation of a number of pilot projects as sandboxes for implementing the recommendations. The blueprint for the implementation was prepared by the KJA and the administrative and maintenance was outsourced to a third party given that the core KJA team was very lean and did not have project management expertise.

The KJA has been very effective as a lubricant for various departments working together. The KJA has also worked on creating a balance between working with the political leadership and the bureaucracy to get things done.

3.11. Areas for improvement

In addition to suggestions made above, the following are also necessary for holistic improvement in the working of KJA:

·         Strengthening the KJA team internally to incorporate a more comprehensive understanding of government protocol and financial flows, as well as of the technical details of each project

·         Peer review and audits of projects to gauge results or see how the lives of the end stakeholders have been affected.

·         As a public agency, the KJA needs to be periodically measured by audits etc.

·         The KJA keeps an eye on overarching issues of national and state importance thanks to its body of expert advisors but the priority is to give recommendations that are implementable. Hence, an effort has to be made to continuously review and connect the narrow vision of each project with the larger developments in the context of the project that happen at state and national levels.

3.12. Shared values

Remarkable leadership has played an important role in the success of the KJA. The importance of KJA's interventions at critical junctures in the life cycles of recommendations and pilots, and in the team.s availability at all times to those involved in downstream activities associated with the recommendations have been very important factors in developing a sense of common purpose among all stakeholders in the expression of knowledge elements within their work spheres.

The work of the KJA team has been described as “excellent, engaging, collaborative, energetic, and transparent” – this is testimony to the energy that has gone into fostering a common spirit of change. Yet, it is clear that one more layer of domain experts is needed within the team. These experts can be drawn from government departments on deputation. This will also assist in expanding the research base and capacities of the KJA. The working groups themselves worked intensely towards their own recommendations, but rarely interacted with other groups. Much synergetic possibilities might have been overlooked because of these. In a future phase, this needs to be addressed structurally (cross-representation of members across groups) or systemically (meeting points in all schedules) so that many minds can be brought to bear across the silos of government department work.

One minor shortcoming of the work of the groups derives from the fact that, in spite of the transparency of the system by which the groups worked, it was still a complicated process. There are different people involved in one process. For example, the vision is set by one group of persons and the recommendation is made by someone else, while others review the process and yet others implement it. This complicates the whole process. There should be better continuity for the people involved in the lifecycle of the process from visioning to implementation and then review of the same.

Most respondents desired that the work of the KJA could be presented more prominently in the public domain so that larger support can be garnered for it. There is enormous potential for synergies between government departments, NGOs and the private sector towards this.

4. Department as implementers

4.1. Synergy between Department and Jnana Aayoga

 The responsibility of implementing the recommendations given by KJA through the Chief Minister.s office lies with the line departments. Therefore, as part of this exercise it was important to understand the synergy between these departments and the KJA for the smooth implementation of the recommendations; interviews were carried out with persons from those departments that implemented the selected six recommendations. The findings from the same are as follows:

Understanding of vision of KJA

KJA’s vision of working towards a vibrant knowledge society in Karnataka seems to have found resonance with the departments as well. Some of the departments already had nurtured similar ideas but were not able to implement them as projects due to paucity of funds and lack of a motivational impetus. Other departments had not conceived such ideas due to their respective workload of lack of thinking space within the same. This platform came from KJA who willingly provided adequate spaces in the form of opportunities to think, plan and implement the recommendation.

Relevance of the recommendations made

Though most of the departments were not involved at the time of the conception of the recommendations as prepared by the Working Groups, they were accepted enthusiastically because of their understanding of the relevance of the same and that they were well within the ambit of the activities of the departments. The departments also realised that the departments were to be owners of these recommendations and that KJA was only playing the role of facilitators and hand-holders through certain aspects of the implementation process. This was a great motivational factor for them to take it along with other programmes and schemes of the departments.

4.2. Value addition of KJA

Most of the departments felt that the KJA’s contributions had provided richness to their work and enhanced the scope of their existing responsibilities. The outputs from the departments in the form of courses, handbooks and training programmes reflected the willingness of the departments to widen the scope of spreading knowledge within the state of Karnataka.

The departments felt that though there were challenges that had to be faced while implementing the recommendations which were either internally generated, between line departments, political motivations and bureaucratic interventions, these were generally smoothened out by KJA leading to efficient implementation.

The departments were of the opinion that since most of the recommendations were yet to be fully implemented it was important that the KJA continues to be there as a recommendatory body till they have been internalized within the departments. Some pointers that came from the line officials of the department who implemented the pilot projects include:

·         KJA should continue its endeavor to create a knowledge society in Karnataka by taking the recommendations to end user and also harvesting community knowledge from the ground and pass this on to the entire system. Their scope of work should thus be enlarged ensuring that knowledge that already exists within communities are documented and not lost.

·         The initiative can be taken by the heads of universities, people belonging to religious institutions, politicians, a hub of IAS officers who can form a group and play a pivotal role because of their managerial experiences, and teachers as they are the creators of knowledge.

·         KJA should not only focus on education but on health and rural development as well, mainly those issues that have a huge impact on potential social change. Their orientation needs to change a bit accordingly.

·         Principals of colleges are the actual ground level workers with their ears close to the ground. Identification of challenges that impede dissemination of knowledge should be done by inviting them to such thematic workshops so that solutions can also be immediately sought.

·         There should be a holistic approach with regard to ensuring dissemination of knowledge which means involving other related bodies as well such as student bodies and parents bodies as well.

·         KJA needs to play a role in the reorganizing of government departments as most departments do undergo some kind of uncertainty when top level officials are transferred. This can be minimized if KJA plays a role in ensuring that these top officials are briefed on these recommendations so that they are able to appreciate their value and contribute to their smooth implementation accordingly.

·         There is currently a 3rd party evaluation in the pipeline and also a proposal for a need analysis which could have been done by KJA to ensure objectivity. A proper assessment of the programme through proper documentation by the KJA would carry more weight as their suggestions for better implementation would be taken more seriously.

·         KJA needs to continue to play its role as facilitator and mediator to reduce any inter-department frictions and also ensure that there is good synergy between the conceptual and the practical.

·         KJA should continue and provide guidance so that projects can be expanded to all the districts of Karnataka.

·         KJA’s role should now change. Their role as law maker should now end, and they have to play the role of an implementing agency, making sure that the recommendations are managed to their true letter and spirit. For this they may have to find people who can take the recommendation to its logical conclusion.

·         KJA has its own special brand value. Therefore they should used that to expand their scope to include traditional knowledge and continue to source contributions from the Working Group members so that the right people are there in the right job at the right time.

·         The KJA should not dissipate as they have not completed their tasks. A small criticism was they have not done a very good process documentation of the efforts that went into the formulation and implementation of the recommendation. This should be done diligently.

·         Relevant citizen groups should also get involved into the whole discourse to ensure that such recommendations reach out to more people.

Some pointers that came from the decision makers in the department that PAC interacted with include:

·         The KJA helped the departments to reflect, assess and pick up threads of some of their own ideas again which had been kept aside due to other priorities.

·         The KJA played its role as a think tank extremely well. It adapted well to the ground realities of the department, modifying its recommendations to suit the need of the departments based on their inputs.

·         The pilot projects model used as a sandbox for implementing new ideas was invaluable to the departments in getting quick feedback. The management and administration of the pilot was done by the KJA and the implementation was done by the department, thus the department was not burdened.

·         The KJA should continue to work with the departments as a think tank and should not change to an “authority” over the departments.

4.3. Summary

It is quite clear that the selected departments with whom PAC interacted have had a fruitful working experience with KJA and are unanimously are of the opinion that KJA needs to have another term to bring all joint efforts to logical conclusions to be able to do justice to their vision of creating a knowledge society in Karnataka.

5. Path ahead & recommendations

5.1. Where the six chosen recommendations stand

If we locate the selected recommendations on the basis of primary process focus, within the framework of data     information     knowledge. we arrive at the following understanding:                

 

It is clear that KJA has prepared the ground well for the development of knowledge creation systems through the route of recommendations to projects and pilots. However the focus of the next phase should be to:

·         Consolidate data generation projects that exist as a foundation (for example, strengthen the development of pharmacopeia in more subject areas).

·         Move information generation work to knowledge creation spheres by seeking laboratories for the application of the information generated (for example, the empowerment of the SERT systems need to find clear expression in the reform of the educational system)

·         Actively promote a larger group of knowledge creation pilots within government and research systems – these are efforts that will actively links knowledge creators with knowledge users, which should lead to demystification of these processes, and making available the richness of academic discourse to subaltern life and work situations.

5.2. Recommendations from PAC for KJA

The success of KJA lies in the Aayoga’s capacity to

·         Stimulate data aggregation in new areas (pharmacopeia, libraries)

·         Generate fresh structures for more effective delivery (Innovative universities, Innovation Council) which effectively is information development .

·         Begin fresh analyses of knowledge society in Karnataka (aspirations of youth)

·         Develop measures of knowledge in Karnataka, thereby de-mystifying the process of knowledge development .

·         Disseminate a larger learning approach by involving a bigger change management group through Jnana fellowships, which effectively leads to Knowledge creation

In order to achieve its vision of a knowledge society for Karnataka, the KJA’s unfinished mandate lies in the following areas:

·         Scoping and scaling up the small experiments developed in Phase 1 to create a critical mass of knowledge experiments

·         Gradually shift the focus from information generation to knowledge creation through the commissioning of more studies that are inter disciplinary and mass based.

·         Consolidate the work of Phase 1 through a determined effort to mainstream all lines of work hitherto done by the KJA into departmental budgets and policies.

·         Spiral lines of work outwards to include larger and larger constituents of the knowledge society beyond universities such as corporate and research agencies, nongovernmental agencies, and purveyors of traditional and community wisdom.

·         Outreach of all work done by KJA to larger fora who will assume ownership of these efforts .

·         Regular social audits of knowledge creation processes and outcomes within Karnataka led by civil groups and interested and qualified teams.

5.3. Recommendations from PAC for KJA from the point of view of 7S

Structure

Overall, the structure of the KJA was ideal for getting a lot of work done in a short period of time. Some recommendations for an improved structure of the KJA in an extension phase are:

·         A conscious effort should be made for the optimum utilization of the members and working groups of the KJA, to draw upon their unique skill sets and experience for the benefit of projects.

·         The roles and responsibility of the ex-officio members in the Commission and working group members should be made clear.

·         A committee should be set up within the KJA to monitor all the work done by third parties within the KJA.

·         Experts from all domains should be included so that KJA becomes a reflection of all sections and forms of knowledge.

Systems

The KJA systems and processes were praised all around as open and transparent. Some recommendations that emerged during stakeholder consultations include:

·         Effective internal monitoring of the progress of the recommendations exists. However, only internal monitoring is insufficient to develop effective tools for future implementation of the projects. Peer review and audits by external agencies is recommended.

·         A life cycle should be defined for the people involved with KJA so that they can contribute more effectively. Currently, different people contribute to different stages of a recommendation such as its visioning or to its implementation which complicates the process.

·         The KJA team is understaffed; the team needs more people to execute KJA’s work in an efficient manner. More critically, knowledge of important functional area skills such as government protocol, financial flows in government projects need to be in house.

Strategy

The KJA’s strategy was very flexible and adapted well with lessons learnt during the course of the Commission. This was good as the KJA is the first commission of its kind. Some recommendations based on the lessons learnt include:

·         The KJA should focus on more outreach in the form of publications.

·         A greater participation of all KJA stakeholders at many stages in the process of expression of recommendations would add to the reach and expertise of the commission

·         The KJA should reach for more NGO, civil society and private sector partnership

·         There should be deputation of people from different government departments into the KJA so that there is a stronger 'buy-in' from the departments.

·         KJA’s recommendation should become a program within the department so that the department can be allocated funds for the program.

·         Cross fertilization of the ideas at the implementation process should be encouraged. A best practice for the pilot or model project should be documented and shared.

Staff

It emerged in the brainstorming session that it is necessary to define a minimum period of work, as the situation demands, to avoid the lack of continuity when a team member leaves. Also, another layer of domain experts in the core team would help in expanding the scope of research capacities of the KJA. Experts can be brought in from the government departments on deputation. This would also add to the team.s knowledge of government protocols. The Working group has to be associated with KJA with some terms and conditions.

Styles

Much of the success of the KJA past three years can be attributed directly to the charisma of the Member Secretary and his energy to move matters within the realms of government. However, for a future phase this element needs to be institutionalised in some way, i.e. the factors of personal charisma need to be identified and a close team schooled to work in similar ways to achieve similar success in the future.

There is very low public awareness about KJA's work. An effort should be made to reach out to the various knowledge centres existing in Karnataka.

Synergy

The synergy that the KJA has with the government was praised by all stakeholders. During our discussions it came through clearly that the synergy across the working groups should be exploited more. New focus areas can be touched upon and new people can be included in the working groups to introduce fresh ideas.

5.4. Conclusion

All stakeholders who have been consulted in this audit agree that the KJA has provoked and stimulated them to contribute to the review of current knowledge generation and application in Karnataka, and to add value to the effort so that the vision of a knowledge society in the state by 2020 is realised.

KJA’s continuing presence in the intellectual polity of Karnataka is critical to the sustenance of knowledge creation as a process and outcome, in contrast to the maintenance and data aggregative work of research institutions in the state. The relationship of the knowledge so created to the common man at the grass roots becomes central to the purpose and focus of the KJA in the coming phase.

This can be achieved either through an institutional route (e.g. district level knowledge centers or universities) as well as through supporting citizen groups who promote a knowledge culture in all their activities. This necessarily will require the support and holistic contribution of larger sections of the population who will work in close consonance with current research leaders (universities and think tanks) and innovation implementers (government departments).

Specific recommendations to support this change in the KJA’s approach and functions have been detailed in the relevant sections above.

ANNEXURE 1

KJA Brainstorming Session (NIAS, June 11, 2011)

Background for the workshop

Introduction to KJA

The Karnataka Jnana Aayoga (KJA) is a high powered commission constituted in September 2008 by the government of Karnataka. The mandate of the KJA is to transform the state of Karnataka into a knowledge society. The Commission is independent of the Government and works with and for the Government in policy making and implementation.

The KJA was inspired by the National Knowledge Commission (NKC). The NKC was a purely recommendatory body and submitted around 300 recommendations in 27 focus areas to the Prime Minister's office during its three and a half year term, many of which fell within the purview of the state government. During the last few months of its term, the NKC started state consultations aiming to create state knowledge commissions which take on NKC's unfinished agenda for states.

The KJA was set up with 6 key focus areas aligned with Karnataka's 2020 vision document. It is the first and the only state level knowledge commission which takes on a role above and beyond just a recommendatory body. In its two and a half years of existence the KJA has submitted 60 recommendations and has initiated action plans for certain recommendations as projects. The KJA stands out as the only commission of its kind in India to have worked with multiple government departments to implement its policy recommendation. In this way, the KJA has the unique position of not only generating a policy idea but also experiencing hands on in its initial stages of implementation.

Need for this workshop and its structure

At the end of its first phase, the KJA has requested Public Affairs Centre (PAC) to conduct an audit of the commission so as to benefit from an outsider's perspective about the work they have done so far. The session was organized in the following manner:

As part of this audit, PAC conducted a brainstorming session with key members of the KJA to get an idea about their vision for KJA and their perspectives on certain key areas of the KJA. This session also enabled PAC to involve external stakeholders who have been part of KJA in one form or the other. The above flowchart mentions the 7S framework[2], which refer to the following 7 themes to measure the performance of the organization.

1. Structure

2. System

3. Strategy

4. Staff

5. Styles

6. Synergy

7. Shared values

Along with 'Vision' the session was centred on gathering ideas structured around these 7 themes.

Minutes of Meeting of the workshop

Introduction: 9:30-10:30 AM

The day started with people going towards the lecture hall after having breakfast. The first activity was registration of the participants. In all twenty people were present for the workshop.

Prof. Shridhar initiated the introductory session and all the participants were introduced to each other (see Annexure I for list of participants). He gave a brief description of the need for social audit of Karnataka Jnana Aayoga and the role PAC is going to play in the audit. PAC team was also introduced to the participants.

After a brief introduction, the Director of Public Affairs Centre (PAC) took over and gave a small introduction of PAC.s work and an insight into the objectives and overview of the workshop. He shared the study design and explained the 7S Model to the audience. This was followed by a small discussion on the methodology and inputs from the people. A few of the questions were raised on the structure of the workshop, whether the sample chosen for a brainstorming session of this kind was appropriate, the audience of the workshop and who it was addressed to. Suresh answered the queries and said that since PAC is doing this data collection exercise with KJA and its stakeholders, PAC team is the audience and the rest are all participants.

Group work: 10:30-11:30 AM

After discussion on the structure of the workshop all the participants were asked to split into three groups, A, B, & C (see Annexure II for details of group members). Each group was asked to analyze the functioning of KJA as per the 6S model and share their ideas about the vision of KJA. They were handed over different cards to write and express their views for each of the S.s. Each group was given one hour for discussion and another few minutes for the presentation.

Initiation of this activity stirred strong objections. It was suggested that only KJA members were the right people for such kind of discussion forums or workshops. It was also suggested that the participants of the workshop were not the right respondents as they have been associated with KJA for a very short period of time (e.g. for a case study or research study etc) hence they were not the right sample to gather information for KJA.

Suresh promised to meet with the members of KJA separately. He also assured that each group has got one member from the core KJA team, and that groups can leave those cards blank on which they do not feel like commenting.

After much hesitation the participants got into their respective groups. Within a few minutes we could hear the discussions taking shape within each group. With the passage of time everyone got completely involved in the activity and the participants where brainstorming for ideas. We had to remind them twice about the time limit that they had crossed.

Presentation by group members 11:30 AM -12:30 PM

The group session was wrapped up with Suresh asking each of the group to share their findings on the vision of KJA. This was followed by discussions on new ideas and suggestions

Ideas Generated

The details of all the groups on each of the 6S and vision of KJA have been discussed group wise below.

VISION

Group A:

KJA has a clear vision

Vision can be divided into a narrow vision and a broad vision

Narrow vision: Involves day to day activities to work towards and reach its target.

There is more clarity on the narrow vision as it is more visible. For example, the vision on education, library etc.

Broad Vision: More monitoring is required. As it involves abstract & broad issues like transformation of society into a knowledge society, it needs to be articulated well.

Need to continuously dove-tail the narrow vision with the broader vision (got 5 votes)

Learning/Suggestions

Monitoring and evaluating oneself with regard to the broader vision is essential.

Narrow vision keeps getting tested every day by the performance of projects, case studies etc.

Group B:

KJA has a clear vision but its realization in three years is not possible.

It has to be made a permanent body, as the kind of tasks that has been initiated by KJA cannot be sustained in its absence.

Vision is very big and hence to achieve it, there should be clear milestones which could also guide the action plan. It is always a work in progress.

Vision needs to be supported  

Learning/Suggestions

For proper implementation of the recommendations, KJA should exist for a longer period of time, or as a permanent body, otherwise the vision with which the initiative was taken will be lost.  

Group C:

Vision is clear and good.

When KJA was visualized the main approach was „Out of the box thinking., and KJA has worked towards it and tried to succeed as much as possible. However, this approach is constrained by systemic realities.

KJA has demonstrated an approach where they worked from outside the system and showed feasibility of implementation of the recommendation by the department. Hence it could be considered as an implementation model. KJA has engaged the existing system and then developed ownership within the system for the recommendation to be implemented.  

Learning/Suggestions

KJA should continue to work as a body outside the system. If it becomes part of the system, then the very idea of „Out of box thinking. will be diluted.

STRUCTURE

Group A:

KJA has a large number of members which include (a) Members by Name and (b) Ex Officio Members. There should be more clarity on the roles and responsibilities of the members by name and working group members. This will also streamline the contribution of the ex-officio members (got 2 votes).

The members by name should be spread across all the task forces and working groups so that there is clarity of thought and vision in the group.s approach.

Members of Civil society should also be included in the KJA. Wider cross-section should be represented within the members.

Deputation should be a more exhaustive process.  

All working groups are comprised of experts from different domains and they all worked at a different pace. The performance was diverse and they looked at different dimensions also.

At several occasions there was a third party involvement and they contributed the best they could in their capacities, but there is a need for intense monitoring of the work done by a third party.

Learning/Suggestions

A committee to monitor all the task force or third party work within the KJA

Clarity on roles and responsibility of ex-officio members and working groups. A conscious effort should be made for the optimum utilization of the members and working groups.

Group B:

The structure of KJA is good and it is because of this broad structure they have been able to succeed in their work till now.

Remarkable leadership.

The selection of working groups was good, and involvement of other stakeholders like NGOs, domain experts etc who were brought into the KJA ensured success.

Good process for staff selection but their number is less for the required work to be performed.

Composition is good and is reflective of all expert people from various domains

KJA has very low PR. Especially with respect to their pilot projects. If they plan to implement them on a larger scale later, then it is important for them to have a good PR attached to implementation. This will help in project expansion later.

Learning/Suggestion

KJA team is understaffed

Need to work on its PR

Group C:

Body of members is large hence it is difficult to have focussed thinking in one direction.

There is s bias towards higher education (Vice chancellors are default members of KJA) Institutional structure of KJA is good but lean i.e. understaffed. It is now involved in monitoring also, hence requires a larger staff for monitoring purpose.

There is a lack of continuity when a member of the staff leaves.

There has to be a minimum period of working for the working groups also.

Learning/Suggestions

Better defined structure is required for working groups and staff and also experts from all domains should be included so that KJA becomes a reflection of all sections and forms of knowledge.

SYSTEM

Group A:

Transparent system in place

There is an effective internal monitoring of the progress of the recommendations made and of the projects in implementation process.

There should also be a monitoring committee appointed for this purpose and sound documentation needs to be done by this committee.

This documentation will become a tool kit for future implementation of other projects. A small admin body is also needed in KJA

Learning/Suggestion  

There is a transparent system, but only internal monitoring is not sufficient to develop effective tools for future implementation of the projects.

Group B:

Highly transparent but a complicated system as explained below.

There are different people involved in one process. For e.g., vision is of different people and the recommendation is made by someone else, different people review the process and finally a different set of people implement it. This complicates the whole process. There should be continuity in the process from visioning to implementation and then review of the same.

People change during the process and this affects the progress

No lifecycle as different people perform different roles in the process.

Learning/Suggestions

Some kind of life cycle should be there for the people involved with KJA so that optimum usage can be guaranteed. For e.g. those involved in the research study can also be involved in monitoring of implementation etc.

Group C:

System is efficient but lean

Learning/Suggestion

KJA is understaffed, needs more people to execute the work in an efficient manner.

STRATEGY

Group A:

Well planned and designed strategy to make things progress as desired .

Engaging system into KJA's work is good

There should be greater focus on outreach

Learning/Suggestion

Good strategy but there should be greater participation of all the stakeholders

Group B:

KJA has a participatory approach which is good as it has developed a good synergy between the government and private system. This approach needs to be improved further.

KJA should be empowered to take it ahead in a larger way.

More NGO-Private partnership is required (2 votes)

Actionable ideas were identified and pilot projects were launched. This is a good strategy which led to remarkable results

As KJA is not a permanent body hence it develops a pilot program and leaves it to department to replicate.

Learning/Suggestion

There should be deputation of people from different department/ domain to implement the project to make the 'buy-in' from the departments stronger.

The strategy to develop ownership within the system helps greatly in its sustainability  

KJA’s recommendation should become a program within the department so that the department can be allocated funds/budget for the program.

Group C:  

Model followed by KJA (recommendation made and then implementation through

Pilot projects) does not leave enough time for long term strategies.

Involvement of government department for the implementation is a good strategy but hinders the evolution of the „Best Model.. Discussion: since the projects undertaken are pilot in nature then, the outcome should be best so that for other replicas the pilot project can act as the „Best Model.. But with the involvement of the department the dilution of the pilot project may take place and hence third/private party should be invited to implement the project, with involvement of the department official. Pilot projects do not have a long term vision

Learning/Suggestions

Cross fertilization of the ideas at the implementation process should be encouraged. A few people from the existing system/department should be attached to the external body hence the ownership will be in place and at the same time will exhibit the best practice for the pilot or model project.  

STAFF

Group A:

Under staffed hence certain tasks may be outsourced.

Engage more expert resources for a longer duration of time period.

Expand the research base and capacities of KJA

Group B

One more layer of domain experts is needed

These experts can be brought in KJA from the government departments on deputation

Dependency on working group is very high and their full time focus is not available all the time.

Working groups keeps no consistency in their constitution, as few keep skipping the meetings called by KJA as well as non availability of members when needed.

Learning/Suggestions

Staff strength needs to be addressed

Working group has to be associated with KJA with some terms and conditions

Group C

Working Group is very large as compared the number of staff at KJA

Staff has to multitask across various focus areas

Number of working group people can be reduced (library working group)

STYLE

Group A:

Focus on outreach to public. Publications can be one of the means for the same

Style of working in a participatory and collaborative manner

Group B

Intensive participatory approach

Very low public awareness about KJA's work. Can be addressed in II phase (2 votes)

Given the limited time, budget and staff, remarkable work has been done

Idea generation was encouraged across board areas, i.e. different committees, stakeholders and research groups were involved

Excellent leadership which involves and appreciates the team at every achievement

Group C:

Excellent, engaging, collaborative, energetic , transparent

Participatory and open

Provides platform for innovation.

SYNERGY

Group A:

Various stakeholders should be brought in for engagement i.e. entire line order of the department should be involved

Group C:

Synergy across the working groups should be exploited more (5 votes)

Synergy between the government department and the KJA is excellent

The way the KJA works with the departments is very good as it actually transform the entire system. During the study for the status of DIET.s across the state, KJA has created an environment (DSERT) where the entire line department has taken the ownership of the recommendation and is moving towards its implementation.

Once the presentation was finished a Suresh concluded the session by asking each member to prioritize the suggestions by putting dots (stickers) on priority suggestions. Voting for priorities at the end of the session was for the 7th S: 'Shared values' of the KJA members present in the session.

CONCLUSION

Lean structure and not enough domain experts in KJA

KJA is leading the society towards transformation

KJA is transparent

KJA’s work has never triggered any controversy, this was possible because of the low public profile maintained by KJA

Working groups exhibit drop outs during meetings etc. How does this effect KJA?

KJA has tried to exhibit the model of getting work done within the departments

No long term strategy

After implementation of the projects now KJA should be more focussed and a vision document for the Knowledge Society should be provided to the society by KJA

Vision: Synergy needed between the narrow and Broader vision

Make KJA more inclusive by involving Civil Societies and private partners and empower it to carry out the implementation process

Synergy across knowledge group should be exploited to the maximum

Discussion Points

1. Institutionalization of KJA

2. Political nature of knowledge

3. KJA's general PR and its general outreach to public

4. Definition of knowledge

Meeting with KJA Chairman Dr. K. Kasturirangan

We had a brief meeting with the chairman. Suresh conveyed Dr. Paul.s regards to Dr. K.

Kasturirangan, which he was happy to receive. We got to introduce ourselves and hear to his

vision of KJA’s functioning.

Way Forward

With these ideas in hand, PAC proposes the following course of action:

1. Speak with certain key members identified during the session in a one on one interview to talk deeper about their point of view and get and verify certain data points highlighted in the report.

2. Create a questionnaire/survey for external stakeholders of the KJA. For example, the government departments who have worked with the KJA, NGO's identified by KJA as stakeholders etc.

ANNEXURE I List of participants

1. Dr. M Muniyamma (Secretary of the Forum of Former Vice-Chancellors of Karnataka

State Universities).

2. Shri. Darshan Shankar (Advisor, Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health

Traditions)

3. Shri. Parminder Singh (Executive Director, IT For Change)

4. Shri. N.V Sathyanarayana (Chairman & Managing Director, Informatics (India) Ltd.)

5. Smt. Usha Mukunda (Founder Member, Center for Learning)

6. Dr. Sandeep Shastri (Pro Vice-Chancellor, Jain University)

7. Wg Cdr A. Raghunath ( Member, SGDHS)

8. Dr. Mythili (Director, RV Education Consortium)

9. Dr. Manasa (Consultant)

10. Shri D.M. Kiran (Managing Director, ISOL Corporation)

11. Dr. M.K. Sridhar(Member Secretary and Executive Director)

12. Dr. Vinayachandra B.K (Former Research Associate, KJA)

13. Dr. Padmavathi B.S (Senior Research Associate, KJA)

14. Smt. Soumya P.P. (Research Associate, KJA)

15. Shri Laxminarsimhaiah Shetty T.K. (Executive- Administration, KJA)

16. Shri Ravi K (Office Assistant KJA)

ANNEXURE II

Group A:

Dr. M Muniyamma

Sri. Parminder Singh

Dr. Sandeep Shastri

Dr. Vinayachandra B.K

Group B

Sri. N.V Sathyanarayana

Smt. Usha Mukunda

Dr. Mythili

Dr. Manasa

Smt. Soumya

Group C

Sri A. Raghunath

Dr. Padmavathi B.S

Dr. Darshan Shankar

Dr. Sreedhar

Shri D.M. Kiran

ANNEXURE III

PAC members present:

1. Shri. Raghavan Suresh (Director PAC)

2. Dr. Meena Nair (Head, Participatory Governance Research group)

3. Dr. Shweta Gaur (Programme Officer)

4. Ms. Nivedita Kashyap (Programme Associate)

ANNEXURE 2

ANNEXURE 3

Some thinking frames - 1

• The McKinsey 7S framework

To deconstruct the working frame of KJA and to obtain a more detailed understanding of success factors

 Ways of working - 1

• The KJA aimed to create a knowledge ecosystem and

ambience that would impact the status quo in the system.

• By allowing knowledge to be created, facilitated and expressed in new work arrangements, which hitherto had not been possible because of the structural and systemic constraints of typical government setups, KJA’s pilots and studies offered scope for the expression of latent talents within government systems.

• The working groups were well aware of the changes that needed to be done and developed seeds of ideas into actionable recommendations.

 Key successes

• Stimulate data aggregation in new areas (pharmacopeia, libraries)

• Generate fresh structures for more effective delivery (Innovative universities, Innovation Council) which effectively is information development

• Begin fresh analyses of knowledge society in Karnataka (aspirations of youth)

• Develop measures of knowledge in Karnataka, thereby de-mystifying the process of knowledge development

• Disseminate a larger learning approach by involving a bigger change management group through Jnana fellowships, which effectively leads to Knowledge creation

Unfinished Mandate

• Scoping and scaling up the small experiments developed in Phase 1 to create a critical mass of knowledge experiments

• Gradually shift the focus from information generation to knowledge creation through the commissioning of more studies that are inter disciplinary and mass based

• Consolidate the work of Phase 1 through a determined effort to mainstream all lines of work hitherto done by the KJA into departmental budgets and policies

• Spiral lines of work outwards to include larger and larger constituents of the knowledge society beyond universities such as corporate and research agencies, nongovernmental agencies, and purveyors of traditional and community wisdom

 Areas for improvement - 1

• Strengthening the KJA team internally to incorporate a more comprehensive understanding of government protocol and financial flows, as well as of the technical details of each project, a layer of domain experts

• Peer review and audits of projects to gauge results or see how the lives of the end stakeholders

have been affected.

• As a public agency, the KJA needs to be periodically measured by audits etc.

• Sectoral expansion beyond health and education

• Develop a line of leadership for the emerging knowledge society – look beyond departments and universities

• Dissemination of work, better public presence

• Better presence all over Karnataka

• Involve citizen groups

Areas for improvement - 2

 Brand Value

• KJA has its own special brand value, built upon a unique and self-effacing style that respects stakeholders within their own working environments but which also motivates them to rejuvenate their work and infuse fresh thinking into old ways of working.

• This brand value is the foundation that can be used to expand the scope of its work by sourcing new knowledge sources (traditional and new), including new members into the working groups from many other sources, and to stimulate innovation.

End note

• All stakeholders who have been consulted in this audit agree that the KJA has provoked and stimulated them to contribute to the review of current knowledge generation and application in Karnataka, and to add value to the effort so that the vision of a knowledge society in the state by 2020 is realised.

---

[1] http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newSTR_91.htm

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinsey_7S_Framework