1. CARE’s SRH Listserv and Experience with Google Groups
I wanted to share CARE’s experience using Google Groups as a learning, sharing and collaboration mechanism for our SRH listserv. After I describe who is on our listserv, I will share our experience with GG, its limitations, and an evaluation we conducted.
Please feel free to ask questions along the way or wait for a discussion afterwards—because I am really interested in learning from your experiences as well.
Luis Ortiz-Echevarria
CARE

2. CARE’s SRH Listserv Health Sector Coordinators Project Managers
Implementing partner organizations*
Broader SRH Portfolio
Provide state-of-the-art sexual and reproductive health information to CARE’s global SRH staff and partner organizations
IP-received the bulk of technical and program assistance
Focus countries-receive virtual and limited in-country TA
SRH portfolio-the listserv
Started off as labels and sending things in our internal office mail system we call the pouch

3. What we needed Uncomplicated mechanism to capture
and reuse information
One stop hub to access resources/links
Cohesion across group
Ability to personalize
See what is out there
With CARE’s programming becoming more holistic, there was a need to stop siloing information disseminated, i.e. HIV to HIV Coordinator, FP to FP project manager
Also cross cutting themes, likes rights based programming, no longer focused on those who particularly like RBA—but all CARE staff, because RBA is a programming principle.
Need something to capture information and organize information and resources
One stop hub
For HQ staff, field staff and new staff—so that new staff didn’t have to start from scratch

4. Successes Surveys 30% surveys collected
14% had used the GG and found it useful
Most used it for ideas and links rather than sharing* and meeting new staff
Threads
Two successful field initiated discussion threads
One successful HQ initiated thread
What else did we learn?
48% read thematic reports; less than 23% read working papers
Over 50% use Skype and/or social networking sites
Less than 10% use blogs and wikis
An evaluation was disguised as an Annual Renewal
We wanted to know the success of the GG, rather than the Listserv. Over 70% of survey participants and collected discussions rate the listserv very useful or of good use.
30%, most we have ever gotten for an evaluation
Threads: community-based distribution of injectables (Rwanda), experience with vulnerable groups and confidentiality (Tajikistan). HQ= working together to get a number of experiences collecting “gender” indicators
Increased accuracy of project list

7. Limitations Busy schedules (field staff, HQ) Profile function
Open source
Library
Customer support
Field staff are busy, although this is just one click away, it still takes time
We are also busy—setting up page, maintenance and encouraging use is time consuming
Profile function is lacking compared to what staff are used to with facebook and myspace, netlog
Although you can organize pages, attach files—we would still link to more comprehensive libraries, like that on IBP’s knowledge gateway.

8. Future of the Listserv More engaged than ever
Explore other technologies to link back to GG
Creative ways to engage staff
Funding opportunities
Knowledge sharing requirements
Link with other units and CARE systems

9. What is your experience?
Questions?
What is your experience?