Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in the ICT4D Domain: An Indian Case Study

Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in the ICT4D Domain
An Indian Case Study

1. The Multi-Stakeholder Partnership Concept
1.1 Why Partner?
“Man is a social animal by nature and necessity” (Aristotle); and barring a few exceptions (more
correctly, deviations), such as
recluse, hermits and the like, they “Partnering is easy to talk about but invariably
live in groups/ communities. Their somewhat harder to undertake. It requires courage,
social existence implies cooperation patience and determination over time. It is rarely a
and collaboration because every ‘quick fix’ solution to a problem…”
Ros Tennyson (2003) The Partnering Tool Book
individual is special and different
and possesses some unique skills and competencies to complement the lack of it in another
individual. And, in this way, the community faces the challenges of everyday life and survives. In
other words, without even consciously intending, we partner with one another to accomplish our
everyday work, projects, missions and plans and even support our very existence in this world.
Partnering is based on a few assumptions, such as:
- The skill/ competency quotient varies from individual to individual, from community to
community and from sector to sector;
- The lack of it can be compensated through partnering with another person/ community/
sector that possesses that skill/ competency;
- Partnering implies more than joining hands to complete a job/ project;
- It presupposes mutual understanding and support;
- And leads to building a ‘partnership’ to achieve a goal.

1.2 What is Partnership?
To put it very simply, “partnership refers to a relationship between individuals or groups that is
characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, as for the achievement of a specified
goal.”1 This open ended definition leaves enough scope for conceiving partnerships at different
levels and in different forms, informal as well as formal, such as two players partnering to play the
men’s doubles in tennis; students partnering to do a Biology project; women partnering to form a
Self Help Group (SHG); and so on. All these situations also presuppose pooling together of
resources and skills, and sharing of risks, responsibilities and benefits at an informal level.

Partnership acquires a formal/ legal form when applied to the business sector. Business
partnerships, whether they are intra-business (two or more entrepreneurs coming together to
conduct business) or inter-business (business to business strategic alliances where two or more
businesses/ companies enter into a
Marriage remains one of the earliest forms of contractual partnership to implement a project
partnership (albeit institutionalized through
where different kinds of core competencies
tradition and a number of rituals and
ceremonies) entered into by two consenting are needed, such as those involving
adults who decide to live together and raise a infrastructure development, for example, the
family. Delhi Metro Project), are regulated through a

1
Partnership. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton
Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/partnership (accessed: September 05, 2007).

ssharma Page 1 10/16/2012

number of rules, code of conduct, which are equally applicable to all the actors constituting the
partnership. The wikipedia defines such partnerships as “a type of business entity in which
partners share with each other the profits or losses of the business undertaking in which all have
invested.”2

1.3 The Public Private Partnership (PPP)
The partnership dimensions widened when it was started being explored and formed across
sectors, albeit within the contractual framework. It was largely accepted that partnerships based
on cross sectoral collaborations “provide a new opportunity for doing development better by
recognising the qualities and competencies of each sector and finding new ways of harnessing
these for the common good” (Tennyson, 2003). Prominent among such trends was the Public
Private Partnerships or PPPs, which were seen as offering “a long term sustainable approach to
improving social infrastructure, enhancing the value of public assets and making better use of tax
payer’s money.”3 In general terms, PPP, or P3 as it is popularly known, refers to partnerships
between the government, public and the private sector, entered into through a formal procedure
for the delivery of public services or the development of infrastructure.

The examples of PPPs operating across the world suggest that the scope of such partnerships
can vary from completely privatizing the services or facilities to just employing the financial and
management techniques of the
“They (PPPs) enable governments to transfer private sector (McDonough, 1998),
construction and commercial risks to the private sector thus encompassing the concepts of
which is best suited to manage them.”
Planning Commission, GoI (2006)Towards faster & ‘privatization’, Private Finance
more inclusive growth: An approach to the eleventh Initiative (PFI), Alternative Service
Five Year Plan Delivery (Ford & Zussman, 1997)
and Municipal Service Partnerships
also within its ambit. Carroll and Steane (2000), taking into account the vast variations in PPP
typology and the circumstances in which these are formed, have defined them in the broadest
sense as agreed cooperative ventures that involve at least one public and one private sector
institution as partners.

While exploring the concept, Peters (1998) has identified five distinguishing features of any PPP.
These are:
(i) PPPs involve two or more actors;
(ii) in a PPP, each participant is a principal, capable of bargaining on its own behalf
without referring back to other sources of authority;
(iii) PPPs are about building enduring and stable relationship between the public and the
private sector participants;
(iv) each participant contributes ‘something’ to the partnership, whether material or non
material;
(v) Participants undertake some amount of shared responsibility for partnership
outcomes and activities.

2
Wikipedia contributors, "Partnership," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Partnership&oldid=182854679 (accessed January 10, 2008).
3
Akintoye, Akintola; Matthias Beck & Cliff Hardcastle (ed) (2003) Public- Private Partnerships: Managing risks and
opportunities. Blackwell Publishing, London. Pp. 3.


The above model presented by Peters is the ‘ideal type’. In actual situations, PPPs vary greatly in
terms of the extent of the roles and responsibility of both the public and the private sectors. It is
usually seen that the public sector invariably takes upon itself the responsibility for deciding on
the nature of the services to be provided, the quality and performance standards of these
services to be attained, and taking corrective action if performance falls below expectation (Smith,
2000). In a way, the Government (always) retains an upper hand, and rather than assuming a
joint responsibility for completing the project, the private sector is supposed to bear most of the
risks, responsibilities and, of course, appropriates the benefits. PPP enables the government to
transfer these to the private sector that can accomplish such tasks because of their unique skills
and work culture. The preferred areas for building PPPs are infrastructure development,
transportation, health and education.

Lately, the Indian government has also started taking a very positive approach to the PPPs. They
have realized that such partnerships have eventually become “the preferred mode for
construction and operation of infrastructure services, such as highways, airports, ports etc.” 4
From the Government point of view, “PPPs offer significant advantages in terms of attracting
private capital in the creation of public infrastructure as well as in improving efficiencies in the
provision of services to users... (these are seen as a) “way of attracting private money into public
projects, not putting public resources into private projects.” 5 At the same time, while conceiving
any PPP, the government has to ensure that it flourishes in a competitive environment where they
are able to select the best partner/s; and the same is also acceptable to all.

1.4 PPP’s entry into the Development Sector
At the international level, two events, the Rio Earth Summit (1992) 6 and the Millennium Summit
(2000)7 greatly impacted the scope of the partnership model. While the former brought the Civil
Society Organizations (CSOs) in the wider international and United Nations (UN) arena, the latter
was instrumental in
“In today’s world, the private sector is the dominant engine of growth
– the principal creator of value and managerial resources. If the elevating the status of
private sector does not deliver economic growth and economic ‘partnerships’ as a
opportunity – equitably and sustainably – around the world, then power to reckon with
peace will remain fragile and social justice a distant dream. That is to achieve the targets
why I call today for a new partnership amongst governments, the
set in the Millennium
private sector and the international community.”
Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, Declaration, popularly
The World Economic Forum, Davos, 1997. known as the
Millennium
8
Development Goals (MDGs).

4
Planning Commission (2006) Towards Faster & More Inclusive Growth: An Approach to the 11th Five Year Plan.
Government of India, New Delhi: Yojana Bhavan. Page 41 (Box No. 2).
http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/app11_16jan.pdf (accessed: September 05, 2007).
5
op. cit.
6
http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html.
7
http://www.un.org/millennium/summit.htm.
8
“The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world's time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme
poverty in its many dimensions- income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion-while promoting
gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability. They are also the basic human rights-the rights of each
person on the planet to health, education, shelter, and security.” Available online at:
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals/index.htm


During the Rio Earth Summit (1992), the CSO sector finally acquired a consultative status after
being excluded from the UN deliberations for several decades. Moreover, the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development also talked about partnerships to achieve the goals of sustainable
development. Particularly, on partnerships, it noted that one of its goals would be, “… establishing
a new and equitable global partnership through the creation of new levels of cooperation among
States, key sectors of societies and people…”9 Following the recommendations of the Rio Earth
Summit on public-private collaboration, some of the projects launched by the UN, like the Public-
Private Partnership for Urban Environment (PPPUE) program (launched in 1994) expanded the
scope of their PPP model to include the CSO sector as well. Consequently, the PPPUE
“expanded into a network of governments, businesses, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
members of the scientific and academic community, and other developed and developing country
institutions. Building on this collaboration, (they have established) sustainable models of public-
private cooperation…”10 Without such broad based tripartite partnerships with the government,
business and the CSOs, it was challenging for them to implement their projects in different
countries.

Thereafter, the inclusion of ‘partnership’ as one of the eight Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) by the United Nations11 provided further impetus to PPPs in the development sector,
particularly with the proactive involvement of the CSOs. Its credentials as a sector to reckon with
and forge partnerships with for the competency it possesses in reaching out to the community
and addressing their issues was finally established during the Johannesburg Earth Summit
(2002).12 The CSO sector finally arrived on the international scene, as it was recognized as a
partner in development by the UN and the wider international community after remaining on the
fringes for several decades.

This international trend motivated the governments and other sectors in developing countries to
explore and seek partnerships with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) that work closely with the
communities, thereby making way for the entry of PPPs in the development sector. Since then, its
importance as an instrument to accelerate development increased manifold, and it was also
accepted as such by the international community. Consequently, many of the government or
corporate sector initiated development projects that needed community outreach were
conceptualized around this model. But, the term PPP was not appropriate to acknowledge the
contributions of the CSO sector, as by definition it referred only to the private sector. Therefore, to
accommodate the CSOs within the partnership framework, the scope of cross sectoral
partnerships was further broadened to include multi-sectoral, tripartite or tri-sectoral partnerships.
These later evolved into Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships or MSP, an emerging paradigm
considered suitable to tackle the challenges of Information Communication Technology (ICT)
enabled sustainable development.

1.5 Introducing MSPs for Sustainable Development

9
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163&l=en
10
http://www.undp.org/pppue/about/purpose.htm
11
It notes that “the MDGs call for a special focus on partnerships… (as) no one government or institution can achieve the
MDGs on its own”. Available online at: http://www.undp.org/mdg/partners2.shtml. Last accessed on 10 October 2007.
12
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/Es2002.pdf &
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POI_PD.htm


MSPs are increasingly being seen as an evolving, but potent development paradigm by
practioners as well as researchers engaged in promoting ICT led sustainable development. The
resilient nature of this approach, with its unique strengths, makes it as appropriate for a small
partnership comprising of merely two partners as for a huge partnership boasting of more than
100 partners. This partnership derives substance not from the number of partners, but from the
nature of relationship between partners and from leveraging upon their unique skills and
competencies.

“(As processes, MSPs) aim to bring together all major As suggested earlier, building on
stakeholders in a new form of communication, the strength of pre-existing
decision-finding (and possibly decision-making) on a
particular issue… based on recognition of the partnership approaches, such as
importance of achieving equity and accountability in the PPPs or Multi-Sectoral
communication between stakeholders… on democratic Partnerships (to which it traces the
principles of transparency and participation, and aim to closest affinity); its uniqueness lies
develop partnerships and strengthened networks
in the use of the term, ‘stakeholder’
among stakeholders. MSPs cover a wide spectrum of
structures and levels of engagement. They can that sets it apart from all other types
comprise dialogues on policy or grow to include of partnerships. The use of this term
consensus-building, decision-making and provided a new dimension to the
implementation of practical solutions. The exact nature whole partnership paradigm, as
of any such process will depend on the issues, its
‘stakeholders’ are not mere partners
objectives, participants, scope and time lines, among
other factors.” (active or sleeping), but …“(they)
Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and have a ‘stake’ or an interest in a
Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict particular decision either as
Minu Hemmati (2001) individuals or representatives of
groups. This includes people who influence a decision, or can influence it, as well as those
affected by it .”13 The incorporation of this term within the partnership framework brought in
concepts like equity, transparency, accountability and mutual risk and benefit sharing on which
such partnerships are supposedly built and sustained; and which also elevate it to a higher level
in comparison to the PPPs.

The emergence of MSPs and its relevance to ICT enabled sustainable development has to be
appreciated in the context of the prevailing debate around the concept of ‘development’. Over the
years, it has undergone a major paradigm shift from top down advocacy by classical Western
economists who equated it with economic growth, industrialization and capital formation, to the
ones that took into account general well being of people, improvement in their quality of life and
widening of their choices (UNDP, 1990) and capabilities (Amartya Sen). These approaches also
severed ‘development’s association exclusively with economic growth and capital formation; and
redefined poverty as denial of access to ‘information' or ‘knowledge’ (which is increasingly being
regarded as indispensable for development) in addition to denial of access to resources and
livelihoods. Thus, “international institutions, country donors and the broader development
community are rapidly coming to the conclusion that knowledge is central to development - that
knowledge is development”.14

13
Hemmati, Minu (2001) Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict;
London: Earthscan Publications.
14
World Development Report (1998/ 99) World Bank.


MSPs and ICTs are central to the whole discussion around ‘knowledge for development’ and
‘knowledge society’15 since technology is inevitable for aggregating, creating, managing and
disseminating knowledge and facilitating these activities requires MSPs. It is based on the
assumption that no sector of the society, on its own, can initiate or contribute to the process of
sustainable development and establishing knowledge societies. The associated prerequisites for
achieving these are so diverse that partnerships based on the concepts of ‘equity’ and ‘sharing’
are extremely essential. In this respect, the MSP approach takes a big stride from the culture of
‘debate (that dominated the interaction between various sectors of the society so far) to that of
dialogue’ (Tannen, 1998).

1.6 How is MSP Different from the PPP?
The way the term PPP is used to refer to even tripartite and multi-sectoral partnerships engaging
the CSO sector, has almost eclipsed the MSP concept. It is important to recognize here that in
spite of a few obvious similarities, the MSPs are essentially different from the PPP. “They are not
conformist client-contractor relationships or outsourcing arrangements, where one party
unilaterally determines the actions of another, and where recourse to resolving problems or
realising emergent opportunities associated with the relationship, lies wholly within the terms of
the contract” (GKP, 2003:7). The salient differences between the MSPs and the PPPs are
projected through the following table, which derives from Peters (1998) and Hemmati (2002):

Differences between PPPs and MSPs
Public Private Partnerships Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships
Traditionally and literally, these are MSPs are essentially multi-sectoral partnerships with
partnerships between the government and the the CSO sector preferably being one of the partners.
private/ corporate sectors. Other partners include the government, public/
private sectors, academia, donors, media, CBOs
and others.
Although these claim to be based on equity, the Equity, transparency and accountability are the basic
government exercises an upper hand in MSP premises.
deciding key issues.
The main idea here is a shift in responsibility These are based on mutual sharing of risks and
and risk from one sector of society to another, responsibilities.
usually from the government to the private
sector.
The benefits are appropriated by the private It stresses on mutual sharing of benefits; thus
sector, the executing party. creating a ‘win-win’ situation for all the stakeholders.
They are generally formed in the areas of These are suitable for any issues dealing with
infrastructure development, government service sustainable development and ICT4D, where multiple
provision and the like. core competencies are required.
These are mostly time bound. MSPs operate for indefinite periods as well.
These are, as a rule, executed under formal These are also built around informal agreements or
agreements, such as the BOT or BOOT without agreements as well, just by coming together
agreements. for mutual cooperation.

1.7 An Overview of Current MSP Thought
MSPs are largely all about providing a platform where dialogue can take place, “a neutral, free
and ordered space, where violence is replaced by verbal debate, shouting by listening, chaos by
15
Knowledge society is a derivative of the concept, ‘information society’, a society in which the creation, distribution,
diffusion, use, and manipulation of information is a significant economic, political, and cultural activity. The concept of
‘knowledge society’ is based on the recognition of knowledge as the most important capital in the present age, and hence
the success of any society lies in harnessing it. With current technologies, knowledge societies need not be constrained
by geographic proximity, as these offer much more possibilities for sharing, archiving and retrieving knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_society


calm” (Asmal, 2000). It is defined as an “alliance between parties drawn from government,
business and civil society that strategically aggregate the resources and competencies of each to
resolve the key challenges of ICT as an enabler of sustainable development, and which are
founded on principles of shared risk, cost and mutual benefits.” 16

The MSP literature can be seen as an extension of the literature on partnerships in general,
whether the PPPs, Multi-sectoral or tripartite partnerships. Glancing through the MSP literature
available today, one can easily infer that this concept is still evolving and so is the literature
around it. It is still struggling for a strong theoretical foothold. Each MSP case study is enriching
its knowledge base by adding some useful tools or by refining its methodology. Instead of
contradicting and critiquing the issues addressed by others; different authors have only added up
resources to make this approach more relevant for sustainable development. Since it is a
relatively new approach, most of the MSP literature revolves around identifying issues for MSP
engagement and the MSP exploration, building and maintenance processes. It primarily focuses
on finding ways to identify issues and describe processes, around which partners from hitherto
unrelated and mutually opposing sectors of the society can negotiate, collaborate and cooperate.
For convenience, it can be broadly divided into two categories: a) those dealing with MSP
concept, methodology and tools; and b) those dealing with how to make the partnership
sustainable and successful through the intervention of partnership ‘broker’ 17, ‘third party facilitator’
or the ‘leader’.

Initially, those writing on the role of brokering in partnerships have attempted to analyze it for
optimizing the development performance of the corporate sector, especially under their Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) programs. The most notable writers in this context are Michael
Warner, Ros Tennyson, Luke Wilde who have contributed to developing rules of brokering that
are as applicable to and relevant for MSPs in the development sector as they are for the
corporate sector. In “The Guiding Hand” 18, Ros Tennyson and Luke Wilde find the ‘broker’
indispensable for facilitating partnerships. He carries the responsibility of building and continuing
a successful partnership till its objectives are met. They have identified seven stages of
partnership building. The broker plays an important role throughout this process till the partners
start thinking in terms of institutionalizing or sustaining the partnership.

The same argument is put forward by Michael Warner in his short novel, “The New Broker:
brokering partnerships for development”19, where MSP is explained from the private/business
perspective. He uses the narrative format to discuss how MSPs can be effectively used to add
value to the development programmes of the private sector, what are the major constraints to the
partnership building process and how these could be resolved through the mediation of a ‘third
party facilitator’ or broker. The same concern is echoed in another Issue Paper written by him on

16
GKP (2003) Multi-Stakeholder Partnership Issue Paper. GKP Secretariat, Kuala Lumpur. Available online at:
www.globalknowledge.org/gkps_portal/view_file.cfm?fileid=1589. Last accessed on 23 October 2007.
17
The term ‘broker’ is not accepted very enthusiastically by the development sector because of its inherent highly
business specific connotations.
18
Tennyson, Ros & Luke Wilde (2000) The Guiding Hand: Brokering Partnerships for Sustainable Development. London:
Prince of Wales Business Leader Forum & the United Nations Staff College.
http://www.odi.org.uk/pppg/guiding_hand.pdf
19
Warner, Michael (2003) The New Broker: Brokering Partnerships for Development, London: Overseas Development
Institute.


‘Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Do We Need Partnership Brokers’ 20 and his latest
short novel, ‘The New Broker: Beyond Agreement’ 21, where he probes the issue further for
establishing the indicators for post partnership tracking and evaluation.

In ‘The Partnering Tool Book’22, Ros Tennyson analyses all aspects of partnership building for
sustainable development after establishing the rationale for using this approach over the others.
Prominent among those establishing MSP as an alternative development paradigm on the
conceptual plane are Minu Hemmati and Global Knowledge Partnership (GKP) Issue Paper. 23
Minu Hemmati’s book, “Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond
Deadlock and Conflict”24 takes an eclectic approach to understand MSP processes, which she
considers as a major shift from the ‘culture of debate to dialogue’. Her book discusses the
‘building blocks’ that are essential for sustaining multi-stakeholder processes in different
situations/contexts.

All the ongoing discussions on MSPs are synthesized in the GKP Issue Paper, prepared by the
‘Overseas Development Institute’ and the ‘Foundation for Development Cooperation’. With
reference to MSP case studies carried out in different parts of the world under different socio-
cultural and geographical contexts, it analyses its relevance for the business, government and
civil society; their role in the partnership; and the resources, skills and competencies contributed
by them to make it successful.

These studies lead to the inference that there is no ideal model of MSP that can address all the
challenges. It is not a panacea for all problems, but in certain conditions, it can be applied very
effectively. At the same time, rather than presenting a theoretical framework in the strict sense of
the term, it is more like a tool, presenting a methodology to facilitate the implementation of a
project/ program where various kinds of core competencies are required, or for ICT led
development, which is very resource intensive. This is reflected through the literature also that
focuses more on issues like why MSPs, when to use them, for what and how to use and sustain
them and so on. Although the MSP community of practice exists, there is lack of interaction among
them, which limits sharing and dissemination of best practices.

In an MSP since the stakeholders are drawn from varied backgrounds with different
competencies, skills, work cultures and values, it is extremely important to engage an individual
(in case of small partnerships) as facilitator or broker or develop an institutionalized mechanism to
support and maintain large partnerships. This is why the facilitator or the broker is so crucial in
MSPs and much of the MSP literature also focuses on the role of the broker. Such an
arrangement becomes indispensable for maintaining huge partnerships like the GKP and the

20
Warner, Michael (2003) Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Do We Need Partnership Brokers, Issue Paper,
Programme on Optimising the Development Performance of Corporate Investment, London: Overseas Development
Institute.
21
Warner, Michael (2007) The New Broker: Beyond Agreement (Brokering Partnerships for Development), London:
Overseas Development Institute.
22
Tennyson, Ros (2003) The Partnering Tool Book, London: The International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF) and the
Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN).
23
GKP (2003) Multi-Stakeholder Partnership Issue Paper. GKP Secretariat, Kuala Lumpur. Available online at:
www.globalknowledge.org/gkps_portal/view_file.cfm?fileid=1589. Last accessed on 23 October 2007.
24
Hemmati, Minu ed. (2002) Multi-stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and
Conflict. London: Earthscan.


National Alliance for Mission 2007 (henceforth referred to as Mission 2007), both of which have
‘Secretariats’ to manage the partnership. The broker not only facilitates all the activities related to
partnership exploration and building, but also enables communication between the partners. In
short, he is responsible for enabling ‘networking’ between the partners, so that they remain in
formal/ informal contact for mutual support and assistance and do not drift away either from the
partnership itself or from their goals.

One area that has been so far neglected by the MSP literature is about managing huge
partnerships with hundreds of partners and where the partnership acts as a platform for
converging and synergizing similar initiatives to contain the duplication of efforts. This is an area
that needs deeper probe in the context of emerging MSPs for telecentre 25 scale up in the South
Asian and other developing countries.

1.8 Fundamental MSP Premises
Seen in the above light, MSPs are more about “processes that engage partnerships and networks
to address different issue areas” (Hemmati, 2002). The MSP model can be used for initiating a
multi-stakeholder consultative process, collaborative decision influencing and/ or making and/ or
collaborative implementation of a project. Such case studies undertaken in different parts of the
world also corroborate the fact that it is resilient enough to suit different contextual demands. Still,
there are certain fundamental premises underpinning any MSP study (GKP Issue Paper, 2003).
- It applies to more than one sector partnerships with the CSO sector preferably being one
of them.
- The partnership operates in a given issue area requiring multiple competencies and
resources; thereby necessitating the involvement of various sectors of the society.
- The partnership derives strength from the unique core competency of each of the
partners.
- It operates around the notions of equity, transparency, accountability and mutual sharing
of responsibilities, risks and benefits.
Further, there are two inter-related and complementary aspects of any MSP:
a) one being the issue area around which the multi-stakeholder processes are planned and
organized; and
b) the other being the MSP itself with its constituents/ partners.
While the former deals with the identification of the issue area around which the partnership can
be formed, establishing the goals to be achieved and all the processes therein to achieve these
goals, the latter deals with the partnership itself, like the partnering process covering partners
exploration, identification, partnership building, etc., the entry and exit points for partners,
partnership sustainability and the dissolution of the partnership once the goals are achieved as in
the case of short term partnerships, and so on. The strategies to engage the stakeholders vary
drastically. There is no single model for partnership exploration, building or maintenance and
these differ from context to context and based on these, the MSP typology also varies drastically.

25
“A telecentre is a public place where people can access computers, the Internet, and other digital technologies that
enable people to gather information, create, learn, and communicate with others while they develop essential 21st-century
digital skills. While each telecentre is different, their common focus is on the use of digital technologies to support
community, economic, educational, and social development...” Wikipedia contributors, "Telecentre," Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telecentre&oldid=187652537 (accessed February 2, 2008).


1.9 The MSP Typology
Being a very flexible and adaptable approach, MSPs differ enormously in terms of their purpose,
scope, time frames, complexity, level of engagement (local to global), size and diversity of
partners, their unique core competency and resources (Hemmati, 2002; Carmen, 2004). In
addition, the partnering process, i.e., the way such partnerships are explored, formed and
maintained till the end objectives are met, also determines the MSP typology. Based on these,
there are:
a) Long term, evolutionary and dynamic partnerships with a huge partnership base for
example, the GKP.26 It traces its origin to the outcomes of the 1997 Global Knowledge
Conference, backed by the Canadian Government where a large number of stakeholders
from various sectors entered into a partnership to achieve predefined goals. This is a
complex and evolving form of partnership where new partners can join according to
specified membership criteria. Its aim is to promote access to, and effective use of,
knowledge and information as tools of sustainable development, by sharing information,
experiences and resources to realise the potential of ICTs. International MSP forums like
the World Bank’s Business Partners for Development Program and the PPPUE 27 program
of the UN, which is essentially an MSP because of its tripartite nature with the active
involvement of the CSOs, business sector, are other such examples.

b) There are partnerships formed on the basis of two or more stakeholders entering into a
formal partnership agreement and setting up broad objectives and then within that
framework addressing emergent situations and exploring local partners who can best
contribute towards meeting these objectives. Within the broader framework, they build
short term, static and small partnerships with clear cut objectives to be achieved within a
time frame. The lead in this kind of partnership formation is generally taken by the
organization/s that conceive the idea and set the objectives. One example in sight is the
Ericsson Response Programme,28 a formal partnership between private sector, Ericsson
and humanitarian sector, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies (IFRC), focusing on disaster telecoms to address emergent issues, such as
disaster mitigation and risk reduction and harnessing cutting edge technology to tackle
disaster related challenges. These are localized MSPs to address any emergent
challenges. They enter into partnership arrangements with other agencies according to
the specific emergency situations and demands. Through this partnership, they have
managed complex emergencies, for example, providing communications for the
Afghanistan humanitarian response work in 2002, natural disasters, e.g. the Gujarat
earthquake, 2001, and support to the handling of refugees, e.g. western Tanzania, to
increase operational efficiency and staff security. 29

c) Partnerships formed for converging and synergizing sporadic, but similar initiatives for
national scale up of the telecentre initiative, like the Mission 2007, 30 which is driven by the
shared vision of establishing a knowledge centre in each of the 600,000 villages of India.

26
http://www.globalknowledge.org/
27
http://www.undp.org/pppue/about/purpose.htm
28
http://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/corporate_responsibility/ericssonresponse/
29
http://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/corporate_responsibility/ericssonresponse/actions/index.shtml
30
http://www.mission2007.in


It is a partnership composed of smaller sub partnerships and/or networks. These
partnerships are formed with a dual purpose: for containing the duplication of efforts and
for influencing policies and regulatory reforms, which are essential to create an enabling
policy environment for the scale up. Here, the partnership building strategy involves
converging and synergizing all existing telecentre and information kiosk initiatives. Based
on this, Mission 2007 has created a huge partnership base to realize its vision of national
scale up.

d) Similarly, there are design oriented and implementation oriented partnerships and in
some cases, the MSPs address both (GKP Issue Paper, 2003). Multi-stakeholder
partnerships formed primarily for creating an enabling environment for ICT access and
use through policy influence and regulatory reforms are essentially ‘design-orientated’
partnerships, such as the GKP, Mission 2007; while those dealing with enhancing ICT
access and use; and training for the same, promoting e-health, e-government, e-
education, e-commerce, etc. are basically ‘implementation-orientated’ partnerships.

The various types of MSPs, as outlined above, are not essentially water-tight compartments;
there are considerable overlaps between them in practice. It also suggests that MSPs are
indispensable for any ICT driven development initiative, more so for the telecentres emerging
during the ‘Telecentre 2.0’31 phase.

2. MSPs for Telecentre 2.0
2.1 What are Telecentres?
As defined earlier, telecentres are public ICT access centres that enable the rural and poor
people to appropriate value added information, knowledge and services for their development
without any gender, class, caste, religion or race based discrimination. After their success in
European and North American countries as ‘telecottages, they spread to the developing countries
of Africa, Latin America and Asia under various nomenclatures, such as Village Knowledge
Centres (VKCs), Community Multi-media Centres (CMCs), Community Information Centres
(CICs), Infocenters, Community Technology Centers (CTCs), Multipurpose Community
Telecentres (MCTs), Common/Citizen Service Centres (CSCs), or school-based telecentres. This
strong telecentre movement sweeping across the globe further strengthens the argument that
access to information and knowledge is essential for the holistic development of the society; and
telecentres, by providing unopposed public ICT access, help in bridging the digital divide and
leading to the creation of ‘knowledge societies’.

Initially revolving around the idea of enhancing rural community’s access to computers, Internet
and other basic ICT facilities, over the years, the scope and scale of its activities have increased
manifold. In addition to encouraging communication through traditional as well as emerging ICTs,

31
“Telecentre 2.0 is a general model of a mature telecentre that does away with the need for any further piloting of
telecentres as a development mechanism. Now that several countries are forging ahead with national telecentre
programmes, those that lag behind can learn from the early international experiences and they can implement national
telecentre programmes without conducting further experimentation… Telecentre 2.0 exists in the telecentre ecosystem, a
network of telecentres, information providers and support institutions that serves to strengthen the movement towards
widespread enjoyment of the benefits that telecentres bring.” Harris, Roger (2007) Telecentre 2.0: beyond piloting
telecentres, APDIP e-Note 14/ 2007. Bangkok: UNDP-APDIP.


it includes local knowledge and content generation and dissemination; capacity building, not only
in terms of imparting computer literacy, but also enabling people to use traditional media, such as
community television and radio to empower themselves; provision of a number of services and
information related to government schemes to promote micro-financing and micro-enterprises;
community development and awareness generation; etc. Their introduction in the developing
countries has transformed them from telecentres to knowledge centres. 32 The prime objective of
setting up these telecentres is not only taking ICTs to the deprived and underserved; but also
ensuring its actual appropriation by them to access value added information, knowledge and
services and use the same for their overall advancement.

All the above mentioned telecentre activities presuppose the involvement of various stakeholders
and MSPs hold a special place in this regard. MSPs are essential for establishing the telecentres,
creating appropriate services and content for them, creating backward and forward linkages for
them, making them sustainable and so on. In other words, such an ambitious program requires
the collaboration of all sectors of the society for creating the ‘telecentre ecosystem’, an enabling
environment in which telecentres can take root and grow. An ecosystem is “a community of
organisms together with their physical environment, viewed as a system of interacting and
interdependent relationships…”33 and when applied to the telecentres, the community of
organisms/ actors comprise telecentre managers and operators, service providers and content
developers, software developers, Global and local IT companies, donors, Civil Society
Organizations (CSOs), the policy makers and the government, and above all, the community.

2.2 Creating a Space for ‘Networks’ Within the MSP Dialogue
The MSPs, especially in the telecentre context, are not only about partnerships between the
various actors of the ecosystem, but also about creating networks and enabling networking
between the partners to sustain the ecosystem. A network is primarily “an extended group of
people with similar interests or concerns who interact and remain in informal contact for mutual
assistance or support.”34 These are mechanisms for supporting and sustaining any partnership.
They are more communication focused, so the MSPs benefit and become more sustainable
through effective and appropriate networking. In fact, networking adds value to it and at a later
stage, MSPs, especially the long term ones with a huge partnership base, like Mission 2007,
have to focus more on networking to keep all the partners engaged and derive the maximum
benefits from the partnership.

Of late, telecentre networks have started appearing in different parts of the world. Together, they
strive to solve the emergent problems and challenges, make the telecentres viable social
enterprises and consolidate the overall telecentre movement. A telecentre network refers to “any
group of people working in telecentres whose members come together to learn from each other
and cooperatively access services. Some networks are informal groups, simply using an e-mail

32
“The term Knowledge Centre was used to stress the need for converting generic information into location- specific
information and for training local women and men for adding value to information. Value-added information is
appropriately referred to as knowledge and hence the title “Knowledge Centre”, Page 6 in MSSRF (2004a) ‘Mission 2007:
every village a knowledge centre- a roadmap’. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at
http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/Mission%202007.pdf.
33
Ecosystem. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company. Available online
at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ecosystem (accessed: November 07, 2007).
34
Network. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin
Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/network (accessed: February 01, 2008).


list and occasional meetings to connect people working in telecentres. Others are more formal
associations, offering concrete services that help their members with day-to-day telecentre tasks,
such as business management, technical troubleshooting, and service delivery. The common
thread is that networks are about telecentre people working together to make their centres more
effective, sustainable, and valuable to the communities they serve” (Fillip & Foote, 2007: 149).

The above definition talks specifically about networks of telecentre managers, which is essential
for learning and sharing of best practices. But to ensure the sustainability of these telecentre
networks, another type of network is required, i.e., that of the service providers, technical support
groups, academia (curriculum developers for capacity building), organizations with content and
services, government agencies, donors, etc. It is important to establish two way linkages between
these networks.

Moreover, telecentre networks have to be understood in two ways: as a network of individual
entrepreneurs owning a rural telecentre or information kiosk, such as the Rwanda Telecentre
Network (RTN)35 and other networks in Africa; and as a network of organisations, like the Mission
2007, which has partners like MSSRF, TARAhaat, ITC’s eChaupal, NASSCOM Foundation,
Microsoft, and so on, having their respective telecentre initiatives (sometimes with their trademark
telecentre models, evolved over a period of time). The primary aim of this network is to scale up
the telecentre program at the national level. While the former network acts as a support system
for the individual telecentre managers, the latter helps in curbing the ‘reinventing the wheel
syndrome’ and limiting the duplication of efforts by encouraging sharing and learning among
organisations having their own telecentre networks and their own telecentre ecosystems. Apart
from the Mission 2007 telecentre network of India, such networks are gradually emerging in other
South Asian countries, like Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, as well.

3. MSP Application in Mission 2007
3.1 Envisioning the National Scale up
Around “the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 21 st century many debates at the
international, regional and national levels concluded that access to information through ICT would
directly eliminate poverty and allow low income countries to leapfrog to the level of rich industrial
countries” (Weigel and Waldburger, 2004:16-17). The national scale up envisioned by Prof. M. S.
Swaminathan36 under the aegis of a ‘National Alliance for Mission 2007: Every Village a
Knowledge Centre’ or Mission 2007 tried to reaffirm this hypothesis. Mission 2007 is defined as a
“coalition of the concerned” to “facilitate and accelerate the spread of Village Knowledge Centre
(VKC) movement” 37 in India for enhancing the livelihood opportunities of rural communities and
aid their overall development. This movement did not aim only to create a physical structure like a
telecentre in every Indian village, but aimed higher, at a seemingly platonic plane, to transform
35
The Rwanda Telecentre Network (RTN) was launched in 2006 through the efforts of Paul Barera, the manager of
Nyamata telecentre (one of the first telecentres set up in Rwanda in 2003) and telecentre.org. While its counterparts
struggled to survive, it emerged as a successful model primarily because of the tireless efforts of its manager. Read more
at: http://community.telecentre.org/en-tc/node/30403; http://community.telecentre.org/en-tc/node/30172;
http://community.telecentre.org/en-tc/node/28594
36
Prof. Swaminathan is a world renowned agriculture scientist and social activist. After successfully spearheading the
Indian ‘Green Revolution’, he is now keen to convert it into the ‘Ever-green Revolution’ through knowledge connectivity in
the Indian rural areas, and by ensuring digital inclusion for all.
37
MSSRF (2004c) National Alliance for Mission 2007: Every Village a Knowledge Centre (Mobilising the Power of
Partnership)’. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Page 10. Available online at:
http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/Naional%20Alliance-Mission%202007EVKC.pdf


‘every Indian village into a knowledge centre’, thus paving the way for the emergence of
‘knowledge societies’ across rural India.

The prelude to the national scale up was the Information Village Research Project (IVRP),
supported by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) 38 and implemented by the
M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) 39. The IVRP, in turn, was conceptualized
around a larger initiative called the ‘Bio-Village’ project initiated in 1991 by MSSRF. 40 Next year,
in 1992, MSSRF organized an interdisciplinary dialogue on information technology, ‘Reaching the
Unreached’.41 The main recommendation of this dialogue was that ICTs have a major role to play
in promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development in the developing world. It,
consequently, led to the implementation of the Information Village Research Project (Bhatnagar
et al, 2003:1).

Starting small in 1998 with the establishment of knowledge centres in three villages of
Pondicherry, the IVRP project extended this facility to a few more villages, taking the total to
twelve. After overcoming initial hiccups and improving the programme along the way based on
these, presently, the project has attained an iconic status among ICT4D and telecentre initiatives
across the world and serves as a model for upcoming telecentre programs. The experience
gained from the pilot inspired the implementers to use ‘social inclusion’, ‘reaching the unreached’
and ‘voicing the voiceless’ as the guiding principles for replicating this model in other regions.
They also realized that the information needs of the people vary in terms of a) geographical area,
b) gender and c) physical disabilities, thus requiring a knowledge base capable of catering to
such specific needs and demands. It gave them the opportunity to experiment with a variety of
communication technologies for transferring (and disseminating) information (voice, data, image,
etc.) between the knowledge centres; and connectivity options, such as Internet, VHF two-way
radio, spread spectrum, WorldSpace Radio, satellite communication using C and Ku bands and
low-cost wireless (208.11) technology. 42 It also brought about some fundamental transformation
in the thinking around ‘Community Informatics’ (CI)43 in general and telecentres in particular.

3.2 The Paradigm Shift Engineered by IVRP
Projecting telecentres as knowledge centres

38
IDRC is a Canadian Crown corporation that works in close collaboration with researchers from the developing world in
their search for the means to build healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous societies. www.idrc.ca
39
Founded in 1988 as a non profit trust by Prof. M. S. Swaminathan, the Chennai based M.S. Swaminathan Research
Foundation strives to achieve employment oriented economic development in Indian rural areas to address the problems
of poverty, gender discrimination and environmental degradation. It believes that socially equitable and environmentally
sustainable development can be accomplished through the application of Science and Technology. www.mssrf.org
40
The Bio-Village project was implemented in 19 villages in the Union Territory of Puducherry (formerly known as
Pondicherry). It aimed at enhancing the living conditions of people by offering multiple livelihood opportunities,
improvement in sanitation, development of inland aquaculture, and integrated pest management.
41
Swaminathan, M. S. (ed.) (1993) Reaching the Unreached: Information Technology- A dialogue. Chennai: Macmillan
India Ltd.
42
MSSRF (2004c)’National Alliance for Mission 2007: Every Village a Knowledge Centre (Mobilising the Power of
Partnership)’. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at:
43
Community Informatics (CI) has emerged as a framework for systematically approaching information systems from the
community perspective. It refers to the “application of information and communication technology (ICT) to enable and
empower community processes. The objective of CI is to use ICT to enable the achievement of community objectives
including overcoming “digital divides” both within and between communities.” Gurstein, Michael (2007). What is
Community Informatics (and why does it matter)? Milan: Polimetrica. Pp 11.


Among all the contemporary projects, the IVRP was a trend setter in several ways. This project
also brought about a paradigm shift in the prevailing Western thinking on telecentres as ICT
access and training centres, helping the poor and the marginalized living in remote and
underserved areas to access information and equip themselves with the skills required to
compete in the emerging job market, which had become very IT skills intensive. 44 In addition to
corroborating this thinking, the Indian experiment also projected the telecentres as ‘knowledge
centres’ providing the village communities value added information and knowledge, which is
location specific, need and demand based, timely and relevant for the community.

Recognizing and respecting traditional knowledge
Another important breakthrough made by the IVRP was reclaiming due respect for the local/
traditional knowledge available within the village communities, which was gradually dying out in
want of recognition and acceptance when pitted against stiff competition from the scientific
community and knowledge. Even scientific knowledge was not readily available to them when
they needed it the most due to lack of efficient transfer/ delivery mechanisms. Thus, in addition to
providing access to and training in the use of ICTs, the knowledge centres have another dual
agenda: taking the scientific and modern knowledge to the rural people and at the same time,
aggregating and archiving the local wisdom or the ‘dying wisdom’ residing with the villagers. 45

Ensuring vertical and horizontal accumulation and transfer of knowledge
This way, the knowledge centre facilitates not only vertical transfer of knowledge, but also its
horizontal accumulation for future transfer and use. This is based on the premise of bridging not
only the ‘digital divide’ but also the gap between the ‘lab’ and the ‘land’. Through the years, the
communication between the lab and the land was mutually exclusive, although between
themselves, they had enough opportunities. Wherever such linkages were present, they were
predominantly one sided with the scientific community providing top down solutions without taking
into account the local conditions. To fill in this gap, the knowledge centres seek to create two way
linkages between the lab and the land.46

Infusing a participatory and bottom up approach to local development
At the same time, they infused a ‘bottom up approach’ to development at the grassroots level to
make it more responsive to the local necessities and demands, and to everything dealing with the
village communities. They involved the community as a stakeholder in their own development and
promoted the participatory approach to address local challenges. The whole process of launching
the telecentre model experimented upon and presented by them is also highly community based
and participatory. This included need assessment at the community level and aggregating
services and information based on these findings, and entrusting the management of the
telecentre in the hands of the community.47

44
Murray, Bill; Cathy Murray and Simon Brooks (2001) Training Telecentre Managers, Staff and Users. Available online
at: www.col.org/colweb/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/docs/chapter%2018.pdf (in Perspectives on Distance Education-
Telecentres: Case Studies & Key Issues- Management, Operations, Applications, Evaluation, edited by Latchem, Colin
and David Walker, Commonwealth of Learning, 2001. available online at http://www.col.org/colweb/site/pid/3337).
45
46
op cit
47
Bhatnagar, Subhash; Ankita Dewan, Magui Moreno Torres, Parameeta Kanungo (2003) ‘M. S. Swaminathan Research
Foundation’s Information Village Research Project (IVRP), Union Territory of Pondicherry’. World Bank. Available online


‘Collaboration’ as the key to making the telecentre sustainable and relevant
Moreover, the implementation of the IVRP also led the implementers to believe that such a
resource intensive initiative cannot be conceived in isolation and requires the collaboration of all
the sectors of the society including the government. It taught the necessity of mobilizing the
‘power of partnership’ at various levels to realize the goal of setting up the VKCs. 48 Thus, the
implementers forged a number of crucial partnerships with the local people, hospitals, veterinary
college and hospital, local administration, local service providers, Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) units of the IT sector and so on to enhance the relevance of the knowledge centres and
ensure its success.

Identifying and empowering local champions (grassroots academicians) to manage the
telecentres
Another point emphasized by this project was the development of the human capital to take up
the challenge of converting every village into a knowledge centre. The Jamshetji Tata National
Virtual Academy for Rural Prosperity (NVA)49 was set up to realize this objective. It aims to select
one woman and one man from each Indian village and train them to take forward the knowledge
revolution in rural India.50 They are people with extraordinary skills and leadership qualities who
strive to change their own and their community’s life. In the words of Prof. Swaminathan, they are
the ‘grassroots academicians’. On their selection, they are conferred with the title of NVA fellows,
the torch bearers of the knowledge revolution in rural India. The President of India has also
felicitated them as “the celebration of our rural core competence.” 51

3.3 The Enabling Environment for Telecentre Scale up in India
Apart from the MSSRF-IDRC initiative, several other government agencies, state governments,
district administrations, CSOs and private sector enterprises were experimenting with e-
governance, e-commerce and social entrepreneurship in the rural areas. Together, these
initiatives helped in reaffirming the faith in the catalytic role of ICTs in bringing about sustainable
development in rural India. They experimented with various innovative ICT tools (with varying
degrees of success) to empower the rural people. Prominent among such initiatives were:52, 53

at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEMPOWERMENT/Resources/14654_MSSRF-web.pdf
48
49
The Jamshetji Tata National Virtual Academy for Rural Prosperity (NVA) was formed in August 2003 through the
collaborative efforts of MSSRF and the Tata Trust. Its fellows are local champions, who, regardless of their educational
status (some of them having education up to the primary level only!), have shown leadership qualities and have dared to
do something different to empower themselves and the community around them. They have also motivated development
practioners to look at grassroots realities from their point of view and make such information more objective and unbiased.
They are the repositories of traditional knowledge; therefore, they are recognized as the ‘grassroots academicians’ and
honoured with NVA fellowship. www.mssrf-nva.org
50
MSSRF (2005) Jamshetji Tata National Virtual Academy for Rural Prosperity, Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF,
Chennai. Available online at: http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/NVA-Fellows-2005.pdf
51
Read the speech online at: http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/July%2011-2005/President%20of
%20India%20%20Speech-%20Lecture.htm
52
Most of these projects are described in great detail with their positive and negative aspects in: Harris, Roger and Rajesh
Rajora (2006) Empowering the Poor: Information and Communication Technology for Governance and Poverty
Reduction. New Delhi: Elsevier.
53
A description of key e-initiatives in India is also available at IT For Change’s Bridging Development Realities And
Technological Possibilities portal that can be accessed at: http://www.itforchange.net/ict4d/display/146.


Computer aided administration of registration department (CARD), Hyderabad, Andhra
Pradesh (1998) - This project sought to provide encumbrance and valuation certificates and
other registration services online to the consumers.
Warana Wired Village Project, Warana, Maharashtra (1999) - Launched by the IT Task Force
of the PM’s Office and NIC, Pune, Maharashtra, its main objective was to demonstrate the impact
of ICTs in accelerating the development of 70 villages around Warana by establishing
computerized facilitation booths (info kiosks) linked to the Central Computer Network at Warana.
Bhoomi, Bangalore, Karnataka (1999-2000) - This digitization of land records project was a
trend setter among e-governance initiatives.
Gyandoot, Dhar, Madhya Pradesh (2000) - It was one of the most hailed initiatives in e-
governance and went on to receive the Stockholm Challenge Award.
e-Chaupal, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh (2000)- Launched by a private sector company, ITC, this
project was designed to streamline the company’s dealings with farmers, initially to procure farm
produce directly from the farmers. Over the time, other social services were also integrated into
this model.
TARAhaat, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh (2000) - It was started by Development Alternatives with a
number of partners in a few north Indian states. It aimed to provide information based and
entertainment services to the underserved rural markets.
Fast, Reliable, Instant and Efficient Network for the Disbursement of Services (FRIENDS),
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (2000)- This one stop service centre was created to provide public
services, esp. those related to the payment of various bills and taxes, such as electricity,
telephone, property tax, etc. to the citizens.
Akshaya, Mallappuram, Kerala (2001)- It started off as a joint venture between local bodies,
such as panchayats in rural areas, municipalities in urban areas and private entrepreneurs in the
Mallappuram district of Kerala to set up Community Technology Centres (CTCs) for bridging the
digital divide by providing community access to computers and Internet.
Mahitishakti, Panchmahal, Gujarat (2001) – Here was another step towards e-governance
through telecentres. It provides information on various e-governance services, updation on rural
development work and some Global Information System (GIS) related functions.
Community Information Centres (CIC), Sikkim (2001)- This DIT and NIC joint venture was
piloted in seven North Eastern states in 2001 and sought to provide e-governance, e-health, e-
education, e-business and other services through telecentres called CICs.
e-Seva, Hyderabad and Secunderabad (2001), Andhra Pradesh- an initiative to issue birth and
death certificates and driving licenses online in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.
Sustainable Access in Rural India (SARI), Madurai, Tamilnadu (2001)- This project was
launched in collaboration with nLogue Communications to provide telemedicine and a number of
other services to the rural community.
Gramdoot, Jaipur, Rajasthan (2002)- Implemented by the Rajasthan government in partnership
with a private sector company, Aksh Optifibre limited, this project sought to provide e-governance
services to the rural community. It also provides high speed non dial up Internet connection to
rural households.
Janamitra, Jhalawar, Rajasthan (2002) - This was a joint venture of UNDP and the Indian
Government. Based on rural intranet, it provides e-governance, e-education, e-health and other
information services to rural community in the Jhalawar district of Rajasthan.
India Agriland, Nellakuppam, Kerala (2003) - the EID Parry company set up rural information
kiosks for sugarcane farmers in association with the nLogue communications Pvt. Ltd. It provides


all informations relevant for the farmers, such as market information, weather forecasts and other
services. (Also see the attached table and map)

3.4 The Mission 2007 MSP Model
The IVRP and its contemporary ICT4D initiatives demonstrated that an enabling environment for
the scale up was already present in India. The only thing missing was a common platform to
share and learn from the successes and failures of each other. All these experiments were being
carried out mostly in isolation, oblivious of other similar initiatives. Mission 2007 sought to bridge
this gap by bringing together these and a number of other partners essential for embarking upon
a national telecentre or knowledge centre movement.

The idea of the national scale up was developed around the ‘Scalability, Sustainability and
Collaboration’ or SSC framework54 that defines the contours of its conceptual and operational
framework. Here, ‘collaboration’, particularly a multi-stakeholder one, stands out as the most
important factor determining both the scalability and sustainability factors. Therefore, among
other things, the scale up was seen as an experiment bed for exploring, building, and maintaining
partnerships and collaborations/ alliances between different sectors of the society. Since the idea
of conceiving anything so ambitious within the traditional PPP approach was considered to be
highly unrealistic for the very survival of Mission 2007, it leveraged upon the MSP paradigm.
Reflecting the MSP spirit, Prof. Swaminathan made it explicit that “the need to map the skills and
strengths of the 41 members of the National Alliance on ICTs (as on July 9, 2004) was
recognised within the strategic framework. The commitment from all these members was also a
reflection of the fact that while each player would continue to have an individual agenda and that
individual strengths may vary, collective strength would be considerable. It appears thus that all
the players need to establish links among each other for addressing problems ranging from
connectivity to content.”55 Being a very resilient approach, it was adopted and adapted by Mission
2007 in a very unique way, complementing the uniqueness of the MSP approach. The collective
strength of MSP was also leveraged upon to overcome the ‘forever pilot syndrome’ 56 from which
most of the ICT4D and telecentre initiatives continue to suffer.

3.4.1 Deviating from the ‘ideal type’
The uniqueness of the Mission 2007 MSP approach lies in envisaging an alliance of not only
mutually opposing sectors of the society, but also creating sub alliances at different inter-sector or
intra sector levels, such as policy makers, planners, social investors and practitioners and
grassroots champions. It is more like an assorted combination of MSPs at different levels, going
down the ladder to the states, districts and villages. This movement also enjoys the mandate of
an International Support Group (ISG), created specially for strengthening and generating

54
MSSRF (2004b) Mission 2007: The March Towards a Knowledge Revolution- Needs, Challenges and Mechanisms.
Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at:
http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/Policy%20Makers%20Workshop2004.pdf
55
Op cit
56
The ‘forever pilot syndrome’ refers to the inability to move from the pilot study to program expansion at the regional or
the national level. This is constrained due to the challenges of the scale up. To understand the concept, see Stuart
Mathison (2003) ‘ICTs and Human Development in Asia: on overcoming the forever pilot syndrome’. A discussion paper
prepared for the Asia-Australasia Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society, Perth, Australia,
22-24 June 2003. Foundation for Development Cooperation. Available online at:
http://www.ict4development.org/Approaches/piloting/foreverpilot_FDC_2003.pdf. Last accessed on 27 September 2007.


awareness about it at the international level. The distinguishing features of Mission 2007 as an
MSP are:
 CSO led MSP platform: The lead in envisioning this alliance was taken by a CSO, the M. S.
Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF).
 Leadership driven alliance: This alliance is formed around the charisma of a leader/ visionary,
Prof. M. S. Swaminathan, who played a crucial role in envisioning the alliance and bringing in
all the partners, particularly the Indian government.
 MSP with an all inclusive agenda: Unlike other MSPs functioning in different parts of the
world, it has an all inclusive agenda that spans across policy advocacy, resource mobilization
(development of innovative and appropriate technology, creation of knowledge database,
capacity building of the telecentre workers, etc.), overseeing the implementation of the
program and finally, working towards making it sustainable.
 Alliances at various levels and for various purposes: In addition to developing a multi-
stakeholder alliance at the national level, for operational purposes, the Mission 2007 has also
promoted collaborations at various levels to address the challenges of ICT4D. These include
creating institutional mechanisms at the state level to coordinate the implementation and
synergisation of various programs, for example, constituting the Rajasthan State Steering
Committee. It has also advocated for the creation of multi-sectoral content consortiums and
capacity building programs in partnership with academic institutions, like the Indira Gandhi
National Open University (IGNOU) and telecentre.org 57.
 Flexible and dynamic organizational structure: The organizational structure of Mission 2007 is
modeled after the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). So,
this partnership is not even institutionalized, except the Secretariat, which acts as the
facilitator for Mission 2007 alliance. This is a deliberate arrangement to allow flexibility to this
MSP. It also allows enough scope to mould itself to address emergent needs. This very
characteristic of Mission 2007 has allowed its transition into the Grameen Gyan Abhiyan
during its 4th convention58.
 Flexible and dynamic approach towards partnership building: Mission 2007 is an evolutionary
MSP with an ever expanding partnership base. Any organization, which can identify with the
broad objectives of Mission 2007, can join it through an informal procedure without being
bound by any formal legal partnership agreements. But, in spite of having no formal, written
agreement, all the partners are expected to contribute from their core competencies. Its huge
partnership base is responsible for the hierarchical arrangement of stakeholders into a core of
key stakeholders, surrounded by secondary and tertiary ones. This informal MSP is in the
process of creating similar stakeholder engagements at various levels, with policy makers,
planners, social investors, practitioners and grassroots academicians, to address issues
related with ‘overcoming the forever pilot syndrome’. 59
 Convergence of various initiatives: The principles of convergence and synergy are at the core
of Mission 2007’s MSP approach. Driven by the vision of converting India into a digitally
inclusive society, Mission 2007 sought to converge all the sporadic, but similar initiatives
under its umbrella and built a huge partnership base to realize it. It does not intend to start
57
telecentre.org is a social investment initiative implemented by IDRC and funded by Microsoft, Swiss Development
Cooperation (SDC) and IDRC. www.telecentre.org; www.idrc.ca
58
MSSRF (2007) ‘Fourth Convention of the National Alliance for Mission 2007: Every Village a Knowledge Center, 1-3
August: Statement’. Available online at:
http://www.mssrf.org/events_conferences/content_events/august_2007/nva_statement.pdf
59
http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/Mission2007_report_July_convention_2005.pdf


anything afresh or go into the implementation mode; rather its strategy has been to build
upon not only various ongoing telecentre and ICT4D initiatives, but also upon Indian
government’s National Missions, such as the National Rural Health Mission, National Rural
Employment Guarantee Plan, Education for All, and other such programs. 60 This is essential
to contain any duplication of efforts and wastage of resources.
 Community as one of the main stakeholders, not beneficiary: Most of the partnership models
tend to see the community as a beneficiary. They don’t foresee any role for them except this.
But Mission 2007 considers them as one of the main stakeholders, since they are going to be
influenced by the end results of the partnership. Therefore, it has always advocated for the
participatory and bottom up approach, which helped in transforming the status of the
community from ‘beneficiary’ (without any control over or stake in their own development) to
that of one of the stakeholders (with equal stake in decision making concerning them and
their development). This is reflected through all the Mission 2007 conventions as well, which
have served as interfaces between the policy makers and the knowledge workers. It has also
influenced the government and private sectors to adopt this approach.

3.5 Understanding the Mission 2007 MSP
At the conceptual level, Mission 2007 can be interpreted as a combination of design as well as
implementation oriented MSP. It can be analysed around its two inter-related and complementary
aspects, which are:
c) the development aims around which all Mission 2007 multi-stakeholder processes are
planned and organized; and
d) the Mission 2007 MSP with its constituents/ partners.

3.5.1 Development Aims
This initiative is inspired by the vision of transforming Indian rural area into a digitally inclusive
knowledge society. Its roots can be traced to the vision of Professor Swaminathan who brought
about self sufficiency in food grain production through the Indian ‘Green Revolution’. Presently,
he is keen to transform it into an ‘Evergreen Revolution’ 61 by increasing human productivity
through knowledge connectivity, 62 which is considerably lacking in the rural areas. His knowledge
connectivity concept is driven by i) pro-poor, pro-women and pro-nature emphasis; and ii)
demand-driven, need-based and people-centric model to development as opposed to supply-
driven, technological magic wand to solving problems in society.

Initially, the development aims of Mission 2007 were described as promoting rural communities’
access to knowledge, thereby enhancing their livelihood opportunities. Its other objectives
included ‘reaching the unreached’ and ‘voicing the voiceless’, transforming knowledge receivers
into knowledge creators; developing user friendly applications and connectivity and creating a set
of easily accessible databases at various levels for imparting knowledge to the poor and
marginalized communities. In other words, these are the design parameters of Mission 2007 or
the 5Cs,63 of the Mission 2007 ecosystem.
3.5.2 The Mission 2007 Ecosystem
60
Read the story at: http://community.telecentre.org/en-tc/node/19632
61
Swaminathan, M.S. (2004) “The country should move to ever green revolution.”
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2004/03/31/stories/2004033103161400.htm. (March 31)
62
National Commission on Farmers (2005) Serving Farmers and Saving Farming, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of
India. Available online at: http://nac.nic.in/concept%20papers/ncf.pdf.


The 5Cs refer to: connectivity (which also implies appropriate access devices), content (and
services which are appropriate for the local community), capacity building (of both the telecentre
operators or ‘knowledge workers’, and the user community), care and management (of the
telecentre) and coordination (at various levels as well as with various agencies providing the
services and content, thereby emphasizing the ‘infomediary’ role of the knowledge workers).

63
Initially, Mission 2007 identified seven areas that required attention to implement the telecentre programme at the
national level. These were: connectivity; content; space applications; organization, management, monitoring and
evaluation; training, capacity building and the election of fellows; resource mobilization; and policy issues. Since some of
these areas overlapped, Professor Swaminathan developed the five ‘C’ formulae for Mission 2007 in consultation with
other Mission 2007 stakeholders. MSSRF (2003) ‘Village Information Centres: Harnessing local knowledge via interactive
media’, MSSRF. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at:
http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/policy%20Makers%20Workshop2003.pdf


Coordination is the most critical component of the Mission 2007 ecosystem since it strengthens
and supports all the other Cs as well. It is essential to influence government policies, establishing
proper connectivity and procuring appropriate access devices by negotiating with service
providers and hardware developers; to create a central database of content and services at
various levels with the help of the academia, relevant government agencies and departments and
the grassroots communities, who possess traditional knowledge and establishing linkages with
the

Connectivity &
Access Devices

Coordination Content &
Services

The 5Cs of
Mission 2007
Ecosystem

Care & Capacity
Management Building

content generators and providers; for engaging stakeholders to develop open curriculums for the
training and capacity building of the telecentre managers; and for setting up suitable mechanisms
for the general care and management of the telecentres by establishing linkages with the service
and maintenance providers. All the Mission 2007 stakeholder processes are planned and
organized around the achievement of these 5Cs.

3.6 The Partnering Process
The process of Mission 2007 partnership formation began around the idea of using ICTs as tools
for the collation and dissemination of knowledge (value-added information) through Village
Knowledge Centres. A number of policy makers’ workshops, national consultations and steering
committee meetings were organized to help in building its partnership base. The foremost among
these was the Policy Makers Workshop organized in October 2003 to discuss MSSRFs’ IVRP


experience. During this workshop, the policy makers made several general recommendations to
make the resource center experience more relevant in the Indian as well as global context. Based
on these recommendations, Prof. M.S. Swaminathan first articulated the need for a National
Alliance in order to take the benefits of ICT enabled knowledge to resource poor families in other
parts of the country. The main recommendations for policy makers were related to locally relevant
content, community media, gender inclusion, financial sustainability, job-led economic growth and
political commitment.64

This workshop helped in creating a consensus around using ICTs for rural development. At the
same time, it provided an opportunity for exploring appropriate stakeholders or partners for the
scale up. It was followed by the first MSSRF-NVA Steering Committee meeting in February, 2004
that provided some concrete ideas on setting up the knowledge centers. The launch of the ‘every
village a knowledge center’ movement was decided during this meeting. NVA, IGNOU, 11 state
universities, OWSA, NASSCOM Foundation, IITs, MICROSOFT India, ITC and other government
and non government organizations were the main collaborators along with MSSRF. 65

In May 2004, MSSRF and NVA held a National Consultation on forming a National Alliance for
Agenda 2007: Every Village a Knowledge Centre.66 It was followed by the formal launch of
Mission 2007, the improvised name for Agenda 2007, during a two day Policy Makers’ Workshop
organized by MSSRF and One World South Asia (OWSA) that ensued a discussion on the
introduction of an ICT enabled knowledge revolution in rural India and the organizational structure
to facilitate it. OWSA and NASSCOM Foundation were given key positions on the Steering
Committee along with MSSRF and ‘Task Forces’ were created to take care of the 5Cs of Mission
2007. Two important events preceded this launch: a) MSSRF and OWSA conducted an online
discussion on info kiosks on the dgroups platform.67 b) Parallel to the workshop, a video
conference was organized in collaboration with the British Council in which participants from four
metros exchanged their views on the feasibility of an info kiosk movement in India.

By this time, the number of Mission 2007 stakeholders had increased from the 41 founding
partners (MSSRF, 2004a) to 89 (MSSRF, 2004c). Being an open and evolutionary partnership
platform, currently the number of Mission 2007 partners is about 400. 68 Mission 2007 follows a
very informal partnership policy without compelling the partners to enter into any kind of formal
agreement with the alliance. It is a hierarchically arranged MSP platform with a core of key
stakeholders, surrounded by secondary and tertiary stakeholders. In spite of having no formal,
written agreement, all the partners are expected to contribute from their core competencies.
Although the concept of equity is questionable in the context of such a broad based and evolving

64
MSSRF (2003) ‘Village Information Centres: Harnessing local knowledge via interactive media’, MSSRF. Mission 2007
Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at: http://www.mission2007.in/index_files/Mission2007/policy%20Makers
%20Workshop2003.pdf
65
MSSRF (2004a) Towards a Rural Knowledge Revolution: Mission 2007- Every Village a Knowledge Centre- a
roadmap’. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at
66
MSSRF (2004a) Towards a Rural Knowledge Revolution: Mission 2007- Every Village a Knowledge Centre- a
roadmap’. Mission 2007 Secretariat, MSSRF, Chennai. Available online at
67
OWSA (2004) Information Kiosks in Every Village by 2007: Myth or Reality. New Delhi:OWSA
68
MSSRF (2007) ‘Fourth Convention of the National Alliance for Mission 2007: Every Village a Knowledge Center, 1-3
August: Statement’. Available online at:
http://www.mssrf.org/events_conferences/content_events/august_2007/nva_statement.pdf


partnership, transparency is ensured in goal setting, decision making and implementation through
its non institutional organizational structure.

3.6.1 Mission 2007 Stakeholders Composition
Mission 2007 envisages partnership between the government, civil society organizations,
international funding organizations, academia, and the private sector. The Mission 2007
stakeholders can be categorized into five stakeholder/interest groups—International funding
agencies, government organizations, private sector and academia, with the CSOs being the most
diversified group, representing research & development, capacity building & training and
implementation organizations. Following is the distribution of the founding stakeholders of Mission
2007.
Mission 2007 Founding Stakeholder composition

No. of
Founding Percentage
Sr. No. Stakeholders Members (%)
1 Academia 9 22
International Funding
2 Agencies 2 5
3 Public Sector Orgs. 11 27
4 Private Sector 7 17
5 CSOs 12 29
6 Total 41 100

Currently, it looks something like this, although because of the dynamic nature of this partnership,
it is not easy to establish the exact distribution. But there is no doubt that the number of CSO
partners has increased dramatically over the years.


3.6.2 Partnership Drivers
Identification with Mission 2007 overall objectives is the main driving force for partnership
building; although hidden drivers/motivations are also operating at different levels, e.g., the
private sector, especially the IT industry foresees the opening up of a huge rural market as a
consequence of this initiative. Several of its partners had already experimented with different e-
initiatives in Indian rural areas. They joined to pool in their resources and competencies; and
synergize their efforts. As perceived by different stakeholders, the key “drivers” that encourage
their participation in Mission 2007 are:

Civil Society: An analysis of Mission 2007 partnership composition reveals that most of the civil
society partners of Mission 2007 have been using ICTs for development and to empower rural
communities socially and economically in rural India. As their aims synchronized perfectly, they
shared the same platform to realize their objectives.

Private Sector: Although, the involvement of the private sector in Mission 2007 has been driven
by social responsibility concerns, the motive of the expansion of their product market through
rural penetration cannot be ruled out. This can be regarded as the hidden, but very strong
incentive to join Mission 2007. Some of the private sector mission 2007 partners are also
engaged in promoting e-trade in rural areas to integrate the local market with the global one.
Since they are buying products directly from the farmers and local producers, they are
empowering the people economically. With the abolishment of the middleman system, the
farmers and local producers are able to make maximum profits. They are also strongly committed
towards developing rural needs and demand specific softwares, ICT tools and techniques to
enable the implementation of the VKC project.

Public Sector: As the public sector in India has realized the potentials of ICTs in increasing its
reach, effective implementation of development policies and services to the rural areas; and was


actively engaged in various rural IT projects supported by the National e-Governance Plan
(NeGP), its partnership in Mission 2007 was imperative. The key contribution of the public sector
lies in enacting pro-poor ICT policies and regulations to create the necessary infrastructure to
enable ICT led development in Indian rural areas. Without the support of this sector, the
developing and Third World countries cannot envisage any ICT4D initiative. Garnering support
from the government and the public sector is Mission 2007’s most important achievement, since
the Indian government happens to be the most resource rich and influential sector of the society,
having considerable control over finances, infrastructure and connectivity.

3.6.3 Partners’ Contributions
Following are the main contributions of different sectors:
Government Organizations: policy enactments, changes and regulations related to ICT
infrastructure development; funding and implementation through the state and local government
structures.
Private Sector: equipments, appropriate software technology, managerial capacity, training and
capacity building.
Civil Society Organizations: vision and charting the roadmap to achieve Mission objectives, social
mobilization, appropriate content development, capacity building, facilitating implementation and
monitoring at village level
Academia: research and development; distance learning programs; developing non formal
educational modules.
International Funding Agencies: technical assistance through capacity building and financial
support.
Media: publicity and ally to outreach using traditional communication tools, such as community
radio and newspaper.

3.6.4 Mission 2007 Secretariat: the partnership facilitator
With the formation of its Secretariat, the function of partnership building was entrusted to it.
Besides playing a key role in the expansion of Mission 2007 partnership base through
negotiations, it also manages its web site, coordinates its media coverage, organizes meetings
and workshops, facilitates the implementation of its state chapters, etc. The Secretariat of Mission
2007 is based at MSSRF, Chennai. The main officials who help in running the Secretariat are:
Coordinator, content editors and web manager. As a facilitator that executes the work plan under
Mission 2007, it performs the following functions:
a) Building and expanding the partnership base of Mission 2007;
b) Providing support services to the Steering Committee;
c) Supporting and coordinating the work of the Mission 2007 stakeholders;
d) Convening periodic meetings of the National Alliance and the Steering Committee;
e) Designing and launching Mission 2007 web site (www.mission2007.in) to provide detailed
information about the objectives of the Mission, its roadmap and major milestones in its
relatively short history and all relevant resources that conceptualize and define it. The site
is updated regularly with news and stories about the progress of the Mission.
f) Facilitating media coverage and communication on Mission 2007 through publications
like Frontline, i4d and other portals, such as www.telecentre.org.
g) Setting up mailing lists for National Alliance members and task forces to facilitate sharing
and exchange of knowledge among stakeholders.


h) Documentation of National Policy Makers’ Workshops, Steering Committee Meetings and
other relevant meetings.

3.6.5 Engaging the Community as Stakeholders
The first national Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), organized by MSSRF, OWSA and NVA
under the aegis of M2007 in July 2005, was an important exercise in understanding grassroots
workers’ perception towards the use of ICT tools for rural development; and engaging them as
Mission 2007 stakeholders. Most of these workers were already conversant with the use of
various ICT tools and were using them to access and disseminate value added information to
enrich the rural life. In sync with the MSP spirit, M2007 made an effort, the first of its kind, to
involve the beneficiaries as stakeholders and provided them the opportunity to participate in the
decision making process of M2007, which was, earlier, the onus of the policy makers and the task
forces.69 It positioned them at the centre of:
• Identifying rural development needs,
• Suggesting solutions in this regard, and
• Establishing and managing telecentres at the village level.

Respecting indigenous knowledge and acknowledging it at par with the scientific knowledge
Participatory Rural Appraisal, as a research methodology, believes in comprehending and using it
for development initiatives through the participatory approach. It treats beneficiaries not merely as
knowledge receivers, but as potent knowledge creators. As mentioned, prior to the involvement of
grassroots workers in decision making, the task forces and policy makers were primarily
responsible for identifying major hurdles in the way of an ICT enabled rural knowledge revolution
and suggesting ways to resolve them. These discussions, consequently, revealed that besides
other infrastructural and organizational requirements, effective implementation of M2007 at the
village level presupposes:
• Collation of region specific need and demand based knowledge;
• Its dissemination through a suitable ICT model, supported through locally available
infrastructure and resources; and
• Establishment, care and management of VKCs at the village level.

Realizing that these inputs can be provided by grassroots workers only, the National PRA
comprised a general discussion on grassroots development issues and their categorization in the
plenary session, followed by focus group discussions (FGDs) on each one of them. In a similar
vein, they were also asked to provide suggestions regarding the 5Cs of M2007 and their opinions
on the preferred model of VKC.70 Interestingly, although Policy Makers’ Workshop and the PRA
convention were organized simultaneously with several parallel sessions that hindered face to
face interaction between task force and PRA FG members, several of their suggestions had
similar overtones. Moreover, without having any inkling about the MSP development paradigm,
they suggested that the VKC should be community owned, operated and managed, and
private/public funded (including infrastructural development and provision of essential resources).

69
Sharma, Shipra. Notes taken during the first National Participatory Rural Appraisal on – July 2005
70
OWSA (2005) National Participatory Rural Appraisal of NVA Fellows: A Report. New Delhi: OWSA.


Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in the ICT4D Domain: An Indian Case Study

Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in the ICT4D Domain: An Indian Case Study

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in the ICT4D Domain: An Indian Case Study

Similar a Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in the ICT4D Domain: An Indian Case Study (20)

Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in the ICT4D Domain: An Indian Case Study