TechFit Framework Development

In the Dehra Dun workshop, 3 groups of participants 'developed' and 'tested' initial TechFit frameworks. One full days was spent working on the framework, the second day was mainly field trips to test the frameworks. The group assignment is provided below.

Audiences for tool (identified by participants in Dehra Dun)

  • Development workers (private sector, ngo, government, extension, etc), likely to have little livestock experience/knowledge and seeking basic information on options
  • Researchers, academics who screen and prioritise technologies
  • Perhaps two ‘versions’ of the tool/interface

Results of the Groups

Group presentations of their frameworks on 22 September

Group 1 - presented by Shirley: Techfit development group 1 presentation.pptx
Group 2 - presented by Nils: TechFit development group 2 presentation.pptx ; TechFit development group 2 presentation matrix.xlsx
Group 3 - presented by Brigitte TechFit development group 3 presentation.ppt ; TechFit development group 3 presentation.doc

Raw materials developed on 20 September (for field testing)

Group 1
Techfit group 1 first results context attributes.docx
Techfit group 1 first results Quick FEAST plus.docx
Techfit group 1 first results tech filter.xlsx

Group 2
Techfit group 2 first results.docx
Techfit group 2 frst results ContextTechnologyMatching.xlsx

Group 3
Techfit group 3 first results.docx


How do we decide which feed technologies will work and be beneficial to smallholder livestock keepers in specific situations?


Devise a [prototype] generic analytical framework or decision matrix that can be used to collect, structure, screen and prioritise possible feed technologies and interventions [for smallholder livestock]

It should incorporate:
• technologies and their characteristics or attributes
• uptake factors
• feed/livestock problem context
It should help a user derive a set of technology options out of a specific context/problem analysis
• The options should be ‘scored’ in some way to indicate potential suitability/feasibility
• Using a generic checklist [technology attributes; scope for uptake, ??]
• Aligned to some generic decision making process/steps by which someone screens reviews, tests, and ‘selects’ promising options
• The options should indicate necessary enabling uptake/delivery factors or requirements
• So technology attributes can be matched with specific contexts and problem diagnoses
• …?

It should be aligned to a set of generally repeatable ‘steps’ in a decision process/cycle used to screen and select an option or options
It should be a ‘self-service’ framework not requiring an intermediary
It should serve the needs of development workers - NGOs, private sector, extension, development projects – as well as researchers …

Group Composition

Group 1: Alan, Aichi, Tiwari, Shirley, Padma, Werner

Group 2: Ben, Yashpal, Nils, Sapna, Steve, Keith

Group 3: Brigitte, Kebebe, Arindam, Julius, Michael, Ranjitha