Revisiting LIRNEasia's Mission Statement and the addition of a Vision Statement

Revisiting LIRNEasia’s Mission Statement and the addition of a Vision Statement

Posted on July 9, 2007 / 20 Comments

LIRNEasia is in the process of updating and fine-tuning its Mission Statement; this is being done in light of the rapid expansion–both in terms of research interests and geographical coverage. The process was kick-started at a planning meeting in Kandalama, Sri Lanka on 30 June, where LIRNEasians reviewed the current Statement, and came up with some suggestions as to how it can be improved to more accurately capture its mission.

The ‘original’ Mission Statement is:

“To improve the lives of the people of Asia by facilitating their use of information and communication technologies; by catalyzing the reform of the laws, policies and regulations to enable those uses; by building Asia-based human capacity through research, training, consulting and advocacy”

After the Kandalama discussions, two options are currently on the table for comment and discussion. Some kind of closure on this is required by the 23 July 2007, so LIRNEasians are invited to provide feedback by such time. The two options are as follows (but please do see the summary of the discussion here, plus the previous discussion on the Mission from November 2004):

Option 1:

“To improve the lives of the people of the Asia Pacific by facilitating their use of information, communication and related technologies; by catalyzing the reform of the laws, policies and regulations to enable those uses; , by conducting high quality policy-relevant research, by building capacity of current and potential policy actors and by proactively intervening in the policy process”

Option 2:

“To improve the lives of the people of the Asia Pacific by facilitating their use of ICTs and related infrastructure; by catalyzing the reform of the laws, policies and regulations to enable those uses, by conducting high quality policy-relevant research, by building capacity of current and potential policy actors and by proactively intervening in the policy process”

In addition, LIRNEasia is considering adopting a Vision Statement; the Kandalama discussion can be summed up as follows:

We should develop a Vision statement for internal purposes; it should be an internal distillation of LIRNEasia’s values, a ‘timeless beacon’ which gives us a future identity (versus the Mission, which tells us why the Vision will be achieved). Our vision should emphasize commitment to the public interest: example: “to become the foremost public interest research and capacity building organization in the region.” Feedback is invited on the to

20 Comments

Dee
July 10, 2007, 11:52 pm
What is missing in the current mission statement? I see the expansion of geographical coverage to encompass the Pacific as a necessary addition. The existing mission statement is succinct and elegant, the same cannot be said about the two new options. “Catalyzing” and “advocacy” in the original statement capture what you are trying to say with proactively intervening in policy process. The original statement also captures the capacity building aspect. Even if you decide to go with either of the two options, kindly drop “high quality.” It is a given and LIRNEasia’s work should speak for itself.

Anyways, here’s my stab at trying to preserve as much of the original as possible while incorporating some new elements:

“To improve the lives of the people of the Asia Pacific by facilitating their use of ICTs; by catalyzing the reform of the laws, policies and regulations to enable those uses through actionable research; by building policy & regulatory capacity through training, consulting and advocacy.”
Chanuka
July 11, 2007, 3:56 pm
Okay with Option 2.

Repetition of word ‘by’ thrice is redundant.
Laurent Elder
July 12, 2007, 6:54 pm
Interesting additions. One thing that is missing in the new version is the emphasis on being “Asia-based”, i.e that emphasis is on ensuring local capacity exists in order to enlighten policies and advocate for change. I’d also delete “high quality”, as the work should speak for itself (or else replace with “rigourous”). I do however like the more defined specifics of the mission.
samarajiva
July 12, 2007, 8:24 pm
I think consensus is building on the deletion of words, “high-quality.” The Asia-based issue requires some clarification.

CPRsouth, a spin off of LIRNEasia, is working on the basis that Asia-Pacific relevant expertise may exist outside the region as well (e.g., a graduate student with demonstrable links to the Asia Pacific, temporarily in the US for studies). My recollection is that the dropping of the “Asia-based” qualifier was connected to this.

But I agree that we must get some sense of Asia-Pacific related into the mission. Abstract development of capacity is not what we’re about.
samarajiva
July 19, 2007, 12:21 pm
How about this?

“To improve the lives of the people of the Asia Pacific by facilitating their use of ICTs and related infrastructure by catalyzing the reform of the laws, policies and regulations to enable those uses, through the conduct of policy-relevant research, the building of the capacity of current and potential in-situ policy actors and proactive intervention in the policy process.”
Sujata
July 19, 2007, 12:51 pm
Rohan’s:
“To improve the lives of the people of the Asia Pacific by facilitating their use of ICTs and related infrastructure by catalyzing the reform of the laws, policies and regulations to enable those uses, through the conduct of policy-relevant research, the building of the capacity of current and potential in-situ policy actors and proactive intervention in the policy process.”

My changes are after the ”through” connector:
“To improve the lives of the people of the Asia Pacific by facilitating their use of ICTs and related infrastructure by catalyzing the reform of the laws, policies and regulations to enable those uses, through policy-relevant research, training, consulting and advocacy, with a focus on building and utilizing in-situ expertise”

My reasons:
1.Original line up of research, training, consulting and advocacy is simpler and captures all our activities. Interventions ARE pro-active. Advocacy is a simpler way of saying all that.
2. Policy relevance is applicable to all activities.
3. Our focus on developing in-situ capacity is a very important one. In fact I would say that it deserves its own phrase covering all our activities–research, training, consulting and advocacy.
Chanuka
July 19, 2007, 1:03 pm
“to improve the lives of the people of the Asia Pacific” means the lives of people in Japan, South Korea and Australia as well.

Need to add anything to emphasise pro-poor pro market focus? Just thinking loud.
Donald Gaminitillake
July 19, 2007, 5:46 pm
Pacific includes up to “”seattle””

http://www.gradpula.com/guides/seattle/
Quote
Seattle is the largest city in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States.
Unquote

Near East, South east and south west Asia would be more appropriate. Choice is yours!!

Donald
samarajiva
July 19, 2007, 6:13 pm
Asia Pacific is a well recognized region (see organizations such as the Asia Pacific Telecommunity). It does not include any of the American territories, North or South.

Chanuka may consider pasting the definition of the Asia Pacific used in the web survey a few years back.
Donald Gaminitillake
July 19, 2007, 9:01 pm
As far as I know US uses Seattle to talk to Asia.

1.
APEC calls for China’s entry to WTO by Seattle meeting

2.University of Washington, Department of Asian Languages & Literature

3.Seattle’s 3rd Independent South Asian Film Festival! September 27th – October 1st 2006.

4.Cross-Cultural Health Care Program (CCHCP) in Seattle

5.Seattle City Council: Seeking lessons from India, Asia and beyond

6.Why do the Chinese love Seattle so much? Washington is probably the most free-trade-friendly and China-friendly state in America.

If you search in google for “seattle and asia” you get enough details

Donald
Chanuka
July 20, 2007, 8:05 am
First there are no universal definitions for ‘Asia’ and Pacific’. Everything depends on our requirements.

For the purpose of web survey, ‘Asia’ was broadly defined as the group of countries in the region confined by the countries Russia, Turkey and Egypt and Indian and Pacific oceans including the island nations in the said oceans. This group with the pacific countries, formed the first list of countries and included 62 different independent territories.
Donald Gaminitillake
July 20, 2007, 9:00 am
Dear Chanuka

“Pacific oceans” so the pacific side of America can be included!!! or not!
on the other hand Atlantic side may be linked to Europe!!
Very debatable

Your definition is fine

Donald
Linern Asia Vision
July 20, 2007, 4:07 pm
1.When L.A grow to become a regional player, will you loose local issues ?

2. Do you still allow unauthenticated publishing to enable mud slinging and spread of false information happening in your blogs ?
samarajiva
July 20, 2007, 4:50 pm
1. From the beginning we have been a regionally focused organization; rarely have we dealt with local issues as such.
2. Please see http://www.lirneasia.net/2007/06/on-lirneasianets-policy-of-no-editorial-control/ (in case you want to go through the archives, June 17th is the date). See also http://www.lirneasia.net/2007/04/software-issues-in-sri-lanka-part-7/#comment-134712
zzainudeen
July 28, 2007, 3:13 pm
we do need to incorporate the idea that we are not just about ICTs, since we’re expanding into other infrastructure now; however, agree that people don’t use infrastructure per se. Suggest wording something like ‘facilitating/enabling greater access to ICTs and related infrastructure…’. If you enable greater access this covers physical access, affordability, etc.; you create the conditions for people to make greater use if they want to.
harsha de silva
July 31, 2007, 8:58 am
agree with ayesha on both counts.
samarajiva
July 31, 2007, 10:07 am
How about this as a synthesis?

“To improve the lives of the people of the emerging Asia-Pacific by facilitating their use of ICTs and related infrastructures; by catalyzing the reform of the laws, policies and regulations to enable those uses through the conduct of policy-relevant research, training and advocacy, with emphasis on building in-situ expertise”
harsha de silva
August 1, 2007, 7:16 pm
[a] good; but do we want to drop ‘proactive intervention’?

[b] wondering about other infrastructure not directly related to ict; say electricity?
samarajiva
August 2, 2007, 6:59 am
I’d say “related infrastructures” include electricity.

Isn’t advocacy = proactive intervention?
zzainudeen
August 23, 2007, 11:39 am
Changes to LIRNEasia’s Mission Statment were approved at a Board meeting held on 8 August 2007. The new Statement is:

“To improve the lives of the people of the emerging Asia-Pacific by facilitating their use of ICTs and related infrastructures; by catalyzing the reform of laws, policies and regulations to enable those uses through the conduct of policy-relevant research, training and advocacy with emphasis on building in-situ expertise”