Helen, it was great to meet you, and even better that you are reaching out to the community to help collaborate on a bid with the other interested organisations and individuals, all of whom have something to add to the process!

sounds good

The Expression of Interest form looks pretty straightforward. Biggest question I imagine relates to structure. What is the proposal/thoughts for taking this forward on here? Is it to develop some form of consortia? Is it for people to feed in to a UK Online bid? or is it just a sounding board/ideas place for people to make general suggestions towards whoever ends up running the Digital Mentor programme?

Happy to keep contributing my tuppence worth whatever but I’m not clear on how this is supposed to work - whether the intent here is to contribute ideas that will ultimately become the tender or whether its to contribute ideas in general and hope that whoever runs the programme will take notice?

[...] The consortium forming to bid on open innovation principles for the UK Government’s £900,000 Digital Mentor programme now has a strong partner in the UK Online Centres network, as managing director Helen Milner confirms here. [...]

Mike - I think the two options you put forward are both possible at this stage. I don’t believe that a tender process on this scale could realistically be won by a bunch of people on a wiki (sadly). However, those organisations that have the scale probably don’t have the people on the ground with the skills, which is what exists here.

I am greatly encouraged by Helen’s approach to this group to help UK Online Centres get their bid right. I guess it is up to the people here whether or not they would want to do this. Having met Helen and her colleagues, I am of the opinion that they want to do things the right way and so am happy to help them.

However, either way, I see this site, the list and the wiki becoming a resource for the digital mentors programme to use to get their approach right, whoever wins the bid - assuming they are willing to listen!

understood - thought worth clarifying so people know how & when to input and also who to take direction from. So sounds like its an open offer to Helen and any other potential bidders to use this space to seek input into their bid and then likewise for the successful bidder?

If so will watch with interest & input if & when useful.

Hi Mike - I was with Dave at the meeting with Helen, Anne and Simon and agree we all seems to share a commitment to an open collaborative approach. We talked a bit about the approach that Simon, I and others used with the Open Innovation Exchange last year. We recruited a lot of interest and then identified work packages from the discussion. Different people volunteered to lead on the different packages, and then Simon and Jane Berry of Ruralnet put in a lot of hours on tasks and costs.
It may be we could follow a similar approach here, with the detailed work done if an expression of interest is successful. What’s key is to agree who does the detailed process/project management, and do that fairly soon. I know the guys at Ruralnet have been developing ideas, so maybe they could step in work something out with Helen and Anne and others who are interested in the detailed work. I’m sure you would be welcome too!

H David - I agree thats key if thats to be the aim. That was the original purpose of my question because if the input/involvement on here is to contribute towards involvement in a bid the project management needs to step up a bit - thats not intended at anyone in particular btw, busy people & all that, but its trying to see where the lead will come from. If we’re to support UKOnline with a bid then it makes sense for Helen to take the lead and that appears to be the case so to answer your question Helen….

I don’t think theres anything to disagree with in so far as that as a vision. I think perhaps it could be pushed a little further though - maybe along the lines of seeking to inspire & support local ‘champions’ (hate that word so replace with more suitable!) who will help transform the use of digital media within those communities who are currently excluded or disadvantaged.

A quick note about ‘disadvantaged’ and ‘excluded’, think some consideration needs to be given to the language here. I realise that theres a bit of a limitation in so far as that is the language passed down but I think theres a need to try & be explicit by what is meant by the terms in this context. if not to me it feels slightly as though this is a programme for people living in large urban areas - theres maybe a need for similar consideration to ‘communities’ that it may not be geographical communities but communities of need.

The ’scaling up’ is good as suggests building on current things that are happening. I wonder if the innovation will be more to do with how the programme seeks to support digital literacy than innovative uses of digital media? (perhaps both?)

Out of interest is there reference anywhere to which communities have been classed as digitally excluded and details of how these were determined?

Hi

Looks like this is shaping up to be a really worthwhile initiative that with goodwill and open-ness should result in a long term resourse to give communities a voice.

My project is also interested in the EOI and finding ways to collaboratively acheive its requirements.

I’m coming from a slightly different angle to those expressed so far, being based solely in the third sector (don’t like the term, but its what central government use to encompass voluntary and community organisations, co-operatives and social enterprises!)

I look after the grant and co-ordinate national reporting / monitoring to resource an ICT Champion (sorry to use that word Mike!) in each of the 9 english regions for the next two and half years, each of them operating as the co-ordination point for ICT activity in the sector in their region.

I use the term ICT, as its important to look at the whole picture - the gathering and recording of information / stories / conversations, the way these are expressed, recorded and communicated and finally the digital technology that is needed to make all this possible. Mentoring is also a key element to our work as without the services of someone, locally based who can be trusted to give impartial advice and coaching the communities and organisations the ICT Champions work with will not be as readily willing to try out digital technology.

As we are funded by Capacitybuilders, whose aim is to “support the supporters” our work is primarily focussed on giving these Local Infrastructure Organisations (CVS’, Voluntary Action’s and specialist support organisations for rural, BME, homeless etc.) the skills they need to work better with their networks and to cascade the learning down to local communities they work with.

We are being in community and voluntary organisations or social enterprises working in the community to find out what needs exist and work to meet these needs.

We have been working closely with some of the DC10plus local demonstrator projects which are showing impressive examples of where local “enthusiasts” have worked in their own voluntary and community sector organisations to get others to use digital technologies. I’m particularly thinking of the work in Sunderland here.

I think there are already some first class examples of digital mentoring and use of social media out there which we need to facilitate so they can tell their story to like minded communities in need in other parts of the country and maybe even be given small grants to get started with what they see themselves. My project has run sucessful “exchange” and “pump priming” schemes for a number of years where for example a local rural project (with little or no funding) have been paid to visit a similar group elsewhere to watch them deliver their work / training hear their story first hand and be able to ask al the questions they can. Call it Action Learning, but it really works better than reading printed case studies.

One final thought, often the most excluded communities are not just digitally excluded but are also technologically excluded. Unless this project is just aiming for the “low hanging fruit” (MY pet hate phrase!) of communities that have sparkling new PCs and digital cameras but just don’t know how to use digital technology; we are going to miss out on the small support and self-help groups, the neigbourhood communities that don’t have any funding but are desparate to campaign for their estate etc. To really make a difference we need to be prepared to offer health-checks and signposting to local community tech support organisations, open source software, recycled PCs and even the basics of how to protect for viruses and malware etc. Don’t do this and the hard work on the ground to digitally mentor the groups will soon come undone.

Sharing all this in the spirit of collaboration.

Paul Webster
NAVCA
We are also a national organisation linking up 165,000 community organisations through 350 local umbrella bodies, developing their services and giving them a national voice and representation.

[...] to put in a bid, reach out to the community being developed at http://www.digitalmentor.org through a blog post by the Managing Director of UKOC, Helen Milner. This is great news - rather than use their own [...]

excellent points Paul & your stuff sounds very interesting. I did think after my last comment that something maybe missing from Helens suggested vision is a bit more emphasis on the links between people ie. move the balance more towards people interacting & self supporting from an emphasis on the technology. (see Michaels earlier blog for more thoughts on that http://digitalmentor.org/2008/10/digital-mentoring-for-mutual-learning-and-support/ )

Pauls thoughts just reinforced that for me with the power of bringing people together to share ideas & experiences etc. This is very much along the lines of my previous work at the National Communities Resource Centre - that provided mostly residential courses for people living in low income communities throughout the UK. Its basic model is to bring people together from different communities to take part in practical training events based on relevant issues (which could well be digital literacy) - the real power of these events though is in the coming together of people from very different areas but very often sharing common challenges. I think thins kind of approach could work extremely well in this kind of programme - seeking to bring together people that have used technologies & media in different settings from different communities along with experts to provide practical training sessions and also open to those just starting out. Besides the coming together the ‘going away’ aspect is also likely to be powerful with this kind of approach as of course people will very likely use the web to keep in touch and this could easily be built in to follow up aspects to encourage the posting of progress through films/blogs etc. for work they intend to do on subsequent community projects reaching out to those maybe a little less motivated to attend such events.

Excellent points from Paul and Mike. We should be starting with what people want to achieve and helping them find and use the appropriate tools.

For me there’s another dimension. I think it should also be about people owning their voice and taking responsibility for it, rather than simply finding it. And about learning and understanding the skills and processes involved in social and civic collaboration, and how to apply them using collaboration (or social media) tools.

Oops, I meant to add that the Citizenship Foundation is very interested in being involved. (http://www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk)

agree with that Michael and thats a more positive & useful consideration than the one outline in the other post http://digitalmentor.org/2008/11/reaching-the-excluded/

In terms of user involvement & ownership there has to be some thought to achieving this as a developmental pathway within the programme. The early reaching out stages are critical but I think many of the people the programme would be seeking to reach can be reached by other organisations if not those already involved (the NCRC being an example of an organisation that already has those contacts in disadvantaged communities and I’m assuming the Citizenship Foundation does too?). Once involved though there then needs to be a pathway for people to become increasingly involved in helping to shape and deliver the programme. I think this can be fairly easily achieved using the models suggested above (and is a similar model to the one we used at NCRC). The correct approach to this in my opinion though is a developmental involvement, not a tokenistic one (of which I also saw an example at the NCRC and in my opinion was a failure because of it).

Helen wrote: “We’re very happy to do the process leg work and yes we are interested in orgs who want to join in a consortia bid with us and Citizens Online”.
Just checking - does that mean that:
- there is one consortium, led by UK Online Centres and Citizens Online
- is Ruralnet part of that too?
- are we all being invited to participate in that through a process led by UK Online Centres?
- will that process be managed here, including Citizens Online?
There’s also a call from Citizens Online to join heir consortium over here
http://haveyoursay.communities.gov.uk/forums/thread/676.aspx

Or are there potentially two consortia … one here, one there?
I personally think UK Online Centres have a strong position, so Helen’s offer of leadership in the process is significant.
It will be a very strong proposition if we can all collaborate in an open process and agree aims, approach etc. Then how to split the budget!

David, i’m sure there are actually more than two consortia / interested individual organisations from the public / third and even private sector interested in the EOI.
Some will be keeping very quiet and will be watching all this unfold.
I think who chooses to bid will all come down to those who feel they can tick all the boxes on the EOI form, if they can do that without needing to collaborate with others then they will do so.
Toomany collaborators can make very thinly spread jam for all!

Keen to add Digital Unite’s interest, here’s our blog as well http://digitalunite.com .

We manage a network of tutors nationwide who are in effect digital mentors for older people both getting started, and being ongoingly supported in their use of digital media and their confidence in the digital world. We also run Silver Surfers’ Day, http://www.silversurfersday.org where working with 700 (2008) local organisations we welcome tens of thousands of older (typically) beginners wanting to ‘have a go’ with digital technology.

Clearly, this is a hugely significant opportunity to support and extend digital literacy work in the community. It’s very exciting. My main concern (as a private provider in this space) is that it is maintained, by whoever ends up managing it, as a truly open opportunity for anyone already delivering this agenda, and capable of delivering more of it.

This, I would think, the main challenge with a consortium approach – which I do agree is what would work best and is fairest. There are simply so many people contributing to this agenda in small and big ways, in very targeted and very specific ways, that to represent them all from the start will be nigh on impossible.

I wondered if there was another way of approaching this. To consensually agree what the main characteristics, outputs and outcomes of Digital Mentoring are. To agree what, who and where the target audience is, and what main sub-groups it is made up of. To assign budgets to each work theme and against all participant groups. And to then invite large, small, national and local organisations to apply to deliver projects within that framework, providing they could satisfy criteria as defined above.

You would, hopefully, end up with a broad and diverse mix of initiatives badged/ accredited by the ‘Digital Mentor’ initiative. All participating organisations would share, and add to, a common resource so that on a local, and national, level they could partner up with other Dig Mentor providers (an example here could be ((and sorry, thinking of myself!)) DU tutors doing outreach work with older people in rural communities working with Paul’s network to add PC health check and tech support elements). As well as a diverse mix of initiatives on the ground, you would also be creating a fabulous repository of learning, signposting, support resources that could be shared across all projects. I’m thinking here of things like our Silver Surfers’ Day again, which produces a huge amount of material which would be useful to any group of learners but because they are labelled as ‘resources for older beginners’ don’t get a wider airing – it’s a shame, and ultimately a waste.

What Helen – or whoever leads a bid – could then do would be form a representative consortium to agree terms and definitions in the first phase. This group should also include impartial elements – or rather people who won’t also want to apply to deliver – as inevitably we’re all fighting our own corners, however hard we try and balance that out for the greater good. (That’s not intended to be cynical, just realistic!) The one possible conflict of interest for ukonline (NO disrespect, just an observation) is that ukonline centres themselves will presumably also be wanting to participate and deliver.

Anyway, those are my thoughts so far. Dave, all credit to you for starting this space to chat about it all.

Paul - wise words, and I take your point about too many collaborators in a consortium spreads the jam too thinly. You can also end up with a partnership of people and organisations who don’t really know each, my not have shared values and objectives, and end up pulling in different directions.
So how can we (whoever we may be) pull together an appropriate group of people? What are the boxes we would like to tick amongst ourselves? I think you have some good ones on another thread.

Dave (Briggs) - this thread, and Paul comments about many potential consortia, throws up a question in my mind: whose space is this? Well, I guess it’s yours which is why I’m asking the question of you

Is the aim here, on the mailing list and wiki, to:
1. create a space for one consortium, while being open to comments from anyone?
2. create a space for general discussion of digital mentors and the bid?

So far your initiative has been a brilliant demonstration of how to develop some bottom-up discussion and ideas when the “official” DCLG space is inadequate. However, now we are getting to the serious bit of bidding we may need another phase/mode. For example,

* if 1. above, someone needs to explain fairly soon how the consortium will be formed, and how this space will operate once an expression of interest goes in

* if 2 - and it stays that way - then any “open” consortium will need its own site to continue development focussed around it’s own proposition

I guess you could say the current site(s) are to promote discussion up to the submission of expressions of interest, and you’ll review then?

But it’s your party - thanks again for fun so far

* just to declare my interest - it’s in how to promote and manage open, collaborative innovation processes, and in the specifics of digital mentors, how part of their work may be to help people find their voice by become social reporters (or similar). And other stuff too, but there’s plenty of people know more than me on that.

[...] I’m a bit disappointed that an open collaboration approach couldn’t have been braver. Dave pointed out that its “[not likely that a tender could] realistically be won by a bunch of people on a [...]

[...] to David and others for their helpful posts seeking clarity on next steps and whose space this is. From a UK Online [...]

David, I’ve spent a little bit of time thinking about this and I am probably veering towards 1 - this space becoming a place for the practitioners to hang out and share information and experience, and which could later be drawn on by any parties who are bidding. I think the ability to organise an open sourced bid from here is a little ambitious, and instead we should focus on helping whoever wins the bid to do things properly.

That means that any of the parties who are going to bid are welcome to join us here, as the guys at UK Online Centres have done. But as Anne points out, when it comes to bid development, they will want to do that in their own space (which may well feature some folk from here, just to confuse matters a little).

Does that make sense? I think it is the best approach. I would welcome others views though.

Thanks Dave, I agree it makes sense to keep this space open for general discussion, and then bid development probably happen elsewhere. Thanks again for all the facilitation and generous hosting.

I think thats sensible Dave and well done for getting a conversation in the open going. I would like to see/be involved with a genuine open source collaboration some time in the future maybe on a similar kind of programme, but at the moment I don’t think the tender processes are really geared up to allow for the time it takes to develop something along those lines. Hopefully though this and the previous stuff David was involved with are steps along the journey to being able to do so one day.

Its good to see that at least one of the organisations seems to want to share some of their ideas about taking the idea forward too and hopefully people will see that as an opportunity to try and shape how the final programme may take shape which to me would seem very much in the spirit of digital inclusion!

My main problem with UK Online Centres is that they seem to be tied to anti-social software from a few big names and the sessions offered by UKOC further the digital divide by encouraging those Big Corp products into disadvantaged communities that can ill afford them. Sometimes that means that the Big Corp products are being used illegally in those communities, keeping the cycle going.

I’d like to see a UKOC bid include open social software, using client devices that people could have at home fairly easily (like the £50 recycled PCs that Bristol Wireless promotes). I’d ask TTLLP to get involved with that sort of bid.

Citizens Online are talking to UKOC about some of the practical aspects of this work, around the tender writing and structural tasks…. the more boring stuff really. Its exciting though to get an opportunity to partner.

The heart of this though are the projects on the ground. For sure open social software should be a key part (though I’m not a huge fan of recycled PCs). I think we should try to create a balance of new projects and enhanced current ones. As well as focussing our minds on what current good practice looks like, where are the gaps? For example how much has happened with ex-offenders, those with learning difficulties or mental health problems? Has anyone made a cool link to telemedicne? Should we try to innovate? How do we reach and to what extent do we attempt to reach organisations that work with the most socially excluded folks? We were impressed for example, by what the charity UNLOCK have been doing with ex-offenders. I doubt they will find themselves on this blog or around the tender process…

Maybe if you started by identifying who the digitally excluded are you could then begin to consider effective strategies for seeking to reach them?…………

i think identifying the digially excluded has been fairly well done already- Eg Digital landscaping document. I guess I mean who are our priorities. I’m not sure for example if DCLG want geographic foci or national communities of interest, or both or something else! Something to ask on the 19th

Hi all

I am the Director of the Community Media Association, representing the community broadcasting sector in the UK, using radio, television and the internet as tools to engage people in disadvantaged communities throughout the UK.

We are definitely considering putting in a consortium bid re Digital Mentoring as our members are doing this very work on the ground every day. Aslo though interested in joining in other bids or expressing cross-bid potential partnerships - any takers for this approach out there?

Firstly apologies for this very long comment - feel free to remove it and post as a separate entity if it makes for easier reading…………

If you’re inviting people from the ‘open’ to collaborate/contribute I don’t think assuming that everyone has the same knowledge is wise. It would have been helpful to have provided a link or even better a summary of what you believe to be the priority groups from having read the document you mentioned - if not do we just assume everyone is talking about the same people? I’m assuming you’re referring to this:

http://www.dc10plus.net/resources/Document301

Its the first time I’ve read it and its very interesting but I didn’t find within it clearly identified groups as digitally excluded (I may have missed that bit though). I’ve pulled out a few bits that seem relevant….

Many projects to date have focused on the largest groups lacking internet access, such
as the elderly and the disabled. Smaller, disadvantaged groups are currently less well
served. Although these groups are smaller the people within them could
disproportionably benefit more from initiatives to improve their situations than many
in the larger groups. Government, in turn, could benefit from increased self-
sufficiency within these groups leading to a reduction in state-dependency.

There are fewer examples of innovative use of ICT for smaller groups such as
substance abusers, travellers, domestic violence sufferers and the youngest children.
Similarly, groups such as those with mental health problems and children in care,
which are government priorities, are less well covered. These results are not
necessarily a surprise as they indicate a greater focus on larger target segments where
activities could impact greater numbers of people. However, although activities for
niche segments potentially impact fewer people, the scale of the impact could be
greater. This is because they are focused on those in greatest need and those who
could benefit the most

—————————————————————————————————-

and backing up some of the discussions made elsewhere that theres a need for emphasis on people and what motivates/inspires/seems relevant to their normal lives:

—————————————————————————————————-

Research and evidence indicates that many of those who do not currently engage with
digital technologies or digital services are not motivated to do so. In a 2005 survey of
UK adults by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), 47% of non-Internet users gave
as their primary reason for non-use as they “do not want to, do not need to or have no
interest”80. Lack of motivation was the top reason given. There is also evidence that
usage of the internet is believed by some non-users to be an individualistic, lonely
activity that is an end in itself rather than a support tool to help address personal needs
and pursue interests.

—————————————————————————————————-

Some lessons to learn with regard to the model to be established:

—————————————————————————————————-

• Sustainability is a key issue and many digital inclusion projects have difficulty
achieving a sustainable business model.
• Funding is often locked in silos at a local level and difficult to use for
crosscutting activities like digital inclusion.
• Due to fragmentation there is a long tail of smaller projects, which suffer from
the burden of costs for the same things e.g. people looking at the same
problems, set up costs or administration overheads. So the funding that does
get allocated can end up paying for headcounts rather than reaching the
problems that matter.
• Funding mechanisms typically get projects off the ground but seldom provide
second wave funding for scale-up development. Many projects end as pilots.
• With no single point of focus for funding, successful projects looking to scale-
up typically chase around government and industry looking for new resources,
which is a waste of existing resources.
• Programme and capital funding is often more widely available than revenue,
which is a barrier to sustainability.

—————————————————————————————————-

And a bit more to back up the using local people approach which fits very well with my own thoughts about how to establish a training programme that seeks to bring people together to be inspired by those they can identify with:

—————————————————————————————————-

Digital champions are being increasingly recognised as an effective approach to help
to engage people who are currently not using ICT. This was evidenced in the Digital
Challenge, with around 20% of the bids proposing to establish networks of IT
ambassadors and advocates. The main role of these champions is to remove IT
training barriers and link people, services and spaces together. Champions are most
effective when they are embedded in local communities and have strong links to
relevant community groups. This helps local community organisations to create
additional champions and achieve multiplier effects. Ideally these schemes also lay
the groundwork for students to become volunteers, creating a virtuous circle that
sustains the programme.

—————————————————————————————————-

With regard to geographic vs national communities of interest the impression I had was that it was looking more towards local areas of deprivation and identifying the digitally excluded within those. I think that its simple enough to cover both though if you include a programme of residential training that allows people to come together from those geographic areas, and gain their inspiration from others already running projects in similar areas.

Dear all

I entirely agree with Mile that using people already within local communities as champions/mentors is much more effective in “making the money go further”. This is exactly how community media projects operate, being from and for their local communities - thereby engaging with many different kinds of disadvantage. I do worry that the Digital Mentor scheme will be hijacked by projects that seek to “parachute in” potential mentors, when there are so many potential people already within communities probably better placed to achieve real and lasting change.

By the way Helen, please do get in touch, not long before any submission must be in!

Jaqui

Some thoughts from CSV…

This seems to be a fantastic opportunity for a range of people, from different socio and geographical areas to get their voices heard and improve digital literacy.

Modern technology is moving faster and faster and it is not surprising that digital exclusion is directly linked to social exclusion.

One of the challenges AND opportunities seems to reside in modelling the scheme towards individual communities. This clearly cannot be summed up in one sentence and the roll out requires a local knowledge that focuses on social, geographical and cultural issues. CSV Broadcast has years of experience of working with communities across the country. The lessons we have learnt from our work is that digital exclusion cannot be pinned down to one definition and then be applied to all.

Our CSV Producer in Bristol organised a taster session in radio production and storytelling in partnership with the Refugee Welcome Centre. The radio workshop was an opportunity for some of the service users to tell their story in their own words. Their stories, which were broadcast on radio and could be accessed online, gave them an opportunity to inform a wider audience about what asylum seekers face when arriving in the UK. It also gave them the opportunity to understand radio and gain new skills.

This project worked particularly well in this area but a different approach had to be taken in other parts of the country.

To identify those individuals and communities who are “digital excluded” needs good local knowledge and the skills to truly empower others to find their own voice.

CSV is very keen to support and be involved with this cause.

Dear All
I had a brief chat and exchanged emails with Gail a few days back. We are quite interested in this programme and working alongside other like minded partners. We worked with COL on a Microsfot funded project Can Do Online (www.microsoft.com/uk/community/scarman.mspx) and our part delivered a net technicians and net coaching programme around the UK. My team in Wales delivered workshops to community groups on hardware maintenance and refurbishment, networking and digital story telling, colleaagues did likewise training mentors/coaches with an ict interest. Prior to that we were doing all sorts of community engagement work utilising ICT and passing on the skills to laypeople. Along with Gail I had a key role in setting up the Communites@one project here in Wales which has supported over 200 projects at community level and supplied over £6m in grants. Currently we are providing a mixed menu of support to 100 of those projects ala circuit rider model, tutorials in the whole range of hardware software and multi media uses plus we design plus mentoring. Colleagues around the UK have an interest in ICT use at the community level and are very experienced at getting into and engaging communities that other struggle with. We also have a lot of specific work with communities ogf interest such as the homeless, drug users, exoffenders via supported people contracts plus a vast wealth of community development and learning experience. Our approach is to offer facilitation and support to those in communities who can develop the skills and capacity to take things forward - we don’t like dependency models or parachutes.
We would be keen to work with peole in areas we already have a presence and local champions to work with. We’d be interested in partnering up with others.
We’d like to hear from anyone interested in working with us and would probably have a large number of potential demonstrator projects we could discuss.
Terry

Dear all

I think it would be a very powerful consortium if it includes all expressing an interest here, glad to see CSV Media might want to be involved - more powerful than if we each put in separate expressions of interest…

I won’t personally be at meeting on 19th as I am out of the country, but the Community Media Association will be there and willing to talk to all re how we can maximise the potential for this scheme.

Jaqui

AbilityNet are the UK’s largest charity dedicated to bridging the digital divide for poeple with a disability or other condition thatmakes access to a PC difficult. We have worked with a number of the other organisations named here and would be interested in joing consortia that are seeking to provide access to information and support to include disabled people. we operate a number of services that woudl integrate well with teh project including our switched on communities scheme, remote assessment, online assessment, assistivetechnology advice and information both at our wiki and via our 0800 freephone advice line.

So for the purposes of any expression of interest we can offer both traditional and innovative ways of delivering mentoring, we also can collaborate we other members to ensure that resources, materials, channels etc are designed to be accessible and fully inclusive. Please feel free to contact us to discuss further.

Hi guys,

Here are our ideas for the process to apply for work package leads in our consortium bid. We did think about the how ‘open’ this should be and feel that applicants should make their applications by email rather than in open forum.

Have a read and let me know as soon as possible your thoughts as we want to make it ‘official’ by close of play tomorrow.

+++

UK online centres are looking to find lead partners who will take overall charge on key pieces of work as part of our bid for Digital Mentors. The pieces of work (Work Packages) we have identified are:

1) Research and mapping – including the identification of Digital Mentor organisations and people.
2) Digital Mentor demonstrators – this will be a range of different organisations and approaches, therefore we want to involve a range of leads for each. (Coordination of the Digital Mentor demonstrators will be done by the Project Management work package lead)
3) Training and development of Digital Mentors – both face-to-face and online
4) Advisory support – This will involve strategic advice and project support from a range of experts across a wide spectrum of social and digital media (eg community media)
5) External communications and dissemination – which may be through conferences, campaigns and events
6) Project Management - [As consortium lead, we will take responsibility for the project management].
7) Sustainability Planning

If you are interested in leading any of these work packages, we’d like to hear from you!

To apply, can you email me (bbrown@ufi.com) your answers to the following questions:

1. Name of your organisation and the name and contact details for the main contact
2. What work package(s) are you are interested in leading on?
3. Tell us how you/your organisation’s experience make you the ideal candidate to lead this work package? (Max 1000 words please!)
4. Tell us how you would collaborate with others to ensure your work is delivered with the maximum impact. (Max 1000 words please!)

Try to keep your answers as concise as possible. With the tight timescales to get this bid in, we need to be able to assess all the responses as effectively as possible, so don’t get hung about beautifully hand-crafted documents; bullet points are fine!

Your emails must arrive no later than midnight on 19-Nov-08, as we’ll be assessing them straight away the following day. We want to make decisions quickly, and will let applicants know the result by close of play Friday 21-Nov-08

We look forward to hearing from you……

@Helen Milner - 98% of the centres use Microsoft software to teach office computing because 98% of the centres use Microsoft software to teach office computing - it’s a feedback loop. Why pass on the £6m Microsoft-for-free offer and not the much larger FOSS-for-free offer that has existed for years?

Personally, I’ve given up asking UKOCs whether they offer useful transferable skills like INGOTs or web CMS admin training and I doubt I’m alone in that. For office software, it’s all Microsoft-subsidising single-vendor-linked courses. These days, I refer to smaller, non-UK Online centres instead.

I’ve written a little of what’s wrong with myguide over at http://www.getsafeonlineblog.org/?p=210 - I think it ignores the Information Commissioner’s guidance on cookies and sets a bad example for new computer users.

It’s great to read that UKOCs are using free and open source software to provide their own services, but how about sharing the benefits of freedom with the UKOC users more directly? Teach them OpenOffice.org and you could give them a copy of the software to take away with them…

Just a point of order / protocol.

If an organisation / individual bids for one of the work packages and does not get chosen (as for sense’s sake at some point we do actually have to say who is leading on what and who is doing what!) what are their options ?

Could they ask to lead another package ? … should they look for another EOI to team up with ?

Also - who is making the decision about who will be the partners leading the workstreams and what criteria are being used ?
Isn’t this going against an open and collaborative way of working with choices being made behind closed doors ?

Then on Open Source …

Would agree with MJRay. Open Source solutions should be promoted to small communities as not just a cost effective way of operating, but as a ethical way too.
If digital mentors are to be providing mentoring in the free and open community social media web tools, they should also employ this thinking the desktop and office suites that communities use. I am not advocating throwing out all existing propriatory based community centres being selective who you work with based on their set-up, however Digital Mentors should be completly vendor and platform independent concentrating on the community needs first.

If you are interested in pursuing open source options it might interest to know that we’ve just produced a triple CD set for Communities @ one projects here in Wales which is in the process of printing for distribution at this very moment. All cleared with the relevant producers! That gives people a second option in many cases and an element of choice. However there are pros and cons to opting for open source or more generally used software but the main thing is to ask the right questions of the people being worked with and encourage them to make informed choices. A lot may depend on the realistic availability of support when issues occur , if not readily available where do they go and what experience is that “advisor” likely to possess?

I’m not clear on the lead issue raised. It’s presumably possible to have an interest in one of the work packages and deliver as part of a team What may be better is a simple matrix that solicits interest both in helping deliver and also taking a lead role.

HI

I don’t really get why there are any issues re using Open Source software - we use both open source and where appropriate Microsoft etc. Our commitment is to all our “back end” systems being open source including servers, email and our streaming and other online services for the community broadcasting sector. For general documents etc though we use Microsoft (OK mainly because everyone else does!)

Jaqui, CMA

Helen,

We are definitely up for joining this partnership. We run an innovative social media programme across the North West called community reporters which progresses people onto further education provsion and also HE provision through a partnerhip with the University of Salford. We are also a community partner with the BBC and all our reporters attend a journalist training session at the BBC. We also have 14 community web sites that we distribute content on. We are up for being a demonstrator project but also for supporting new digital mentor progarmmes as we do this already across the North West.

Gary

Hello - I’ve been reading the info on the Digital Mentors scheme with interest and just want to highlight who we are down here in West Cornwall.
I’m Barbara Santi, part of a digital media community interest company working across Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.
We are firmly placed within the sector as a grass roots deliverer of media expertise - we also contribute as board members to the county’s strategic media plans (ie Cornwall County Council Creative Unit / Cornwall Media Focus) and work across various sectors to raise awareness and participation in digital media. Our work is varied and includes media projects with disaffected young people (ie Gypsy/Travellers/excluded young people) through to rural community groups (ie Farming community/people experiencing domestic violence etc) using digital media as the tool for social change.
Apart from commissions/promotional work we develop educational projects with our communities which tackle key rural issues. We are not only educational mentors but we are practitioners ourselves - therefore we are firmly placed in exhibition and distribution so our work gets seen by the widest people possible.
We are interested in partnering up to deliver aspects of the Digital Mentors programme in Cornwall/Isles of Scilly. http://www.awen.org.uk http://www.barbarasanti.co.uk
Look forward to hearing from anyone interested.
thanks

@Jaqui - “For general documents etc though we use Microsoft (OK mainly because everyone else does!)” Oh no we don’t! By now, most people seem to be using PDF (or RTF for editables - maybe ODF will eventually replace it) but quite a lot of people who deal with gov.uk a lot are still publishing Microsoft. This is a pain the backside for Free Marketeers because we have to either convert an unreliable format and hope it’s correct, or wait for the publisher to republish in a standardised format. It also has a trickle-down effect - some CMA members publish Microsoft format files and when asked for another format, cite the CMA as an example :-/

I stopped using Microsoft Office a long time ago (well when I got to the point where I’d have to pay for it myself ) - I did use an open source alternative for a bit but didn’t like it very much and then realised I didn’t really need a word processor or a spreadsheet and if I do I can use google.

I do use pdf mostly - but I wouldn’t say most people that I deal with do. I suspect that the less tech savy people are the more likely they still use regular Word files? I can’t say I’ve ever found it especially inconvenient though. Partly I think it doesn’t matter what software is being used so long as people understand there are alternatives (& pros and cons to both), but then partly I do think that clearly the software you do use in this sort of programme is likely to have a significant influence on the people involved and probably most people have heard of Microsoft Office, whereas Open Office et al. would be new to them so what better way of introducing the idea of alternatives?

I use Adobe Suite a lot, but I am also aware of cheaper and free alternatives so make sure people are aware of those alternatives when the question arises (but then mostly that has to be the case because of scarily expensive Adobe is!).

I have no idea who CMA is? I’m assuming ODF is the Open Office extension for docs?

CMA = Community Media Association. One of my early jobs was with Community Radio Milton Keynes, so I know CMA.

ODF = OpenDocument Format, an ISO standard. Used by OpenOffice.org and some other stuff too, including Google (which is dangerous, but that’s another discussion).

Hi Gary (MCIN)

Would be good to catch up with about working in the North West.

Lot’s of other interesting links here too.

Cheers

Taylor

Following on from my colleague Terry Price – we have in the recent past run several ICT projects across regions, they have been very much starter projects and all very well attended, they where aimed at those without any or very little experience of ICT and took place in grass roots community settings.
We used quite short (days rather than weeks)and have led to participants developing their new skills in formal directions, jobs, self help groups and formal study.
We would be looking to run focused demonstrator projects and link the participants to follow on opportunities with suitable partners.
Currently we run a variety of capacity building and support programmes across the country but are looking to concentrate this Digital Mentor work in Northwest, South West and may be London and South East – we would really like the opportunity to have dialogue with organisations who see a possible development route in providing support and learning in our most deserving communities.
We know, from our extensive and mature networks that many citizens are looking for programmes that are accessible and that they can understand what they will gain from the outset.
I will be attending the workshop tomorrow.

Taylor

Happy to have a conversation drop me an email and we can arrange a time to meet gary@mcin.net

I have had a brief email conversation with Gail at Citizen’s online and am repeating those comments here for info.

Groundwork Derby & Derbyshire would be interested in participating in this project as one of the demonstrator projects. We operate a community recording studio and community film label, the Imagination Lab. More details of the types of projects we have run are available here: http://www.gdd.org.uk/digitalmedia/index.html
As well as commissioned community films, we also run training courses for various groups on photoshop, photography, film making etc.
We also have open access computer facilities at both our Somercotes and Langley Mill sites. Obviously we only work in a small geographic area, compared to the tender requirements, so would not be looking to lead on a bid, but are certainly interested in acting as a demonstrator project.
Please dont hesitate to contact me once you are at the stage of looking for demonstrators!

Following on from Phil Mundy’s message we, Awen Productions CIC, are well placed to deliver focused demonstrator projects in Cornwall as we are linked strategically with what is going on down here. I’d be interested to discuss further with interested parties. Can I just say that having worked in the sector for over 10 years the success of such a body of work has to be delivered bottom up and linking in with those organisations that know their own communities in a grass roots approach. We have all seen too many projects that have failed due to working top down. If anyone would like to discuss please contact me via our website http://www.awen.org.uk or http://www.barbarasanti.co.uk
thanks

Have any decisions been made on work leads?

Hi Terry

The UK online centres and Citizens Online bid is being managed at Voicebox. Each work package has its own area on that site and I would suggested you write any comments you have on one of those. Also, there is a form to complete on the ‘collaborate’ page where you can submit your organisation’s interest.

This site remains bid neutral, a place for practitioners to hang out and share stuff.