Draft, 10 May 05
UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok/ Knowledge Services Team
May 2005
Asia Pacific UNDP-internal Knowledge Fair
Post Knowledge-fair “After Action Review”
The UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok’s Knowledge Services Team
convened a post-Knowledge Fair ‘after action review’ meeting with
all RCB staff involved in organizing or exposed to the Asia-Pacific
UNDP-internal Knowledge Fair in Bankok 27-29 April. Present were
RCB management, practice teams, operations support team,
regional programme support team, and KST, including the main KFair focal points of the teams. to conduct,. This took place on
Wednesday the 4th of May 2005, during the week immediately after
the fair.
The meeting offered an informal opportunity to surface impressions
and views. Loosely held objectives were as follows:



Evaluation of the planning and process of the organization of
the fair: measuring against the objectives what worked and
what aspects of planning were successful, including
identification of lessons learned
Evaluation of those processes that worked less well, and had
areas that could be improved or done differently in the
planning of similar UNDP-internal or specialized sub-practice
knowledge fairs in the future.
Identify critical next steps.
The various suggestions, comments and recommendations made
with regard to the meeting were recorded and compiled under
various categories.
General


As a UNDP-internal, multi-country and pilot/demonstration
project/event, the knowledge fair was very successful. It built
some new knowledge and self-confidence in what UNDP has
been doing, and about how its’ work is important to the rest of
the world, in particular other countries, in addressing problems
and finding common solutions.
This knowledge fair also served to create a positive image of
how KM can work in practice, of regional centre work, including
show the RRs and DRRs what can be delivered.

1
Draft, 10 May 05
UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok/ Knowledge Services Team
May 2005











Hafiz Pasha’s allocation of extra funds for the awards speaks for
itself
Examples of RRs, DRRs and CO colleagues roaming the fair
grounds on the first night during setup (e.g. Bangladesh,
Samoa, Philippines, Fiji, PNG)– seeing concept rendered in
reality.
It was suggested that all organisers and participants can note
in their RCAs that they know better what KM is and practiced it
in 2005, having facilitated or organized a major knowledge
sharing event with 25 COs and regional centres in Asia Pacific
region and with HQ.
It was suggested that future fairs should enhance knowledge
for innovative solutions for development problems and broker
those from other organizations too.
The K-fair has been successful in creating a new demand for
knowledge management, has helped strengthen the MSI and
created a market place where COs are rewarded for sharing
knowledge.
Future knowledge fairs could more systematically concentrate
on not only engendering supply, but also demand, inquiries and
curiosities, and creating an environment that allows country
offices to be interested in finding out what each other is doing,
and share and replicate good practices and lessons learned.
K-fairs should also be a platform for exposing in which areas
COs need to expose their good practices, based on longer
consultations and mapping of needs.
The K-Fair “simulation meeting” prior to the fair, especially the
Marketplace game of how buying and selling was to be done at
the fair, done, was very important and served as a good way
for organizers to visualize how the fair would be played out. It
was suggested that the simulation meeting be done earlier in
the process next time.
Given the amount of effort that went into preparing for the fair,
it is necessary to agree on a clearer results framework, with
more forward planning and clearer focus on what was needed
and what was hoped for.
It was also suggested that fairs in the future can be in specific
thematic areas, with cross-cutting areas like gender or capacity
development being covered explicitly in all booths.
Cost-effectiveness – it is hard to determine what the price of
knowledge is. The fair may be seen as a microcosm of how aid
will work in the future. It may be a waste of time to cost and
share the costing of this fair, it can be seen as sort of an
2
Draft, 10 May 05
UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok/ Knowledge Services Team
May 2005


investment – like education for a person’s life, it is hard to do a
real cost benefit analysis of this, especially as it was a
pilot/demonstration project. Therefore this fair can be seen as
not a cost, but an investment and part of the organizational
learning agenda or demonstration project. Future fairs in AsiaPacific, however, should be differently budgeted and cost
shared.
As a quick and single consolidator of knowledge, the Fair was
quite useful. It revealed that sheer and too large quantity of
products was huge. As well as variations in the utility and
relevance of knowledge – important to be more self-critical of
the quality and value of knowledge shared, as well as their
dissemination strategies.
It was also suggested that there much time had to
unfortunately be spent on conceptualizing and getting buy-in
for the K-fair and therefore this may have been sacrificed to the
large amount of time for the actual implementation and
logistical support and planning that was needed.
Conceptualisation, Audience & Integration into the Main
Cluster Meetings



A good lesson learned in conceptualization and linking with the
other cluster meeting sessions was that the practice
presentations at the cluster meetings were reinforced by
products and good practices displayed at the fair.
It was suggested by several that such knowledge fairs should in
future be opened to other UN agencies, embassies and
chambers of commerce. However others justified this fair being
an internal event because it resulted in a “wonderful and very
precious” self-education process to whet the appetites of COs.
It has also helped bring the “Knowledge Management theory”
into practice.
It was also noted that this fair could have been more integrated
into the main event, as originally envisioned when the K-Fair
was being proposed – it was suggested that the entire set of
cluster meetings could have been shaped around this fair and
around knowledge activities and built in an organic process on
what happened at the cluster meetings, and could have
resulted in communities of practice being built up, and more
explicit deals between COs for joint knowledge activities.
3
Draft, 10 May 05
UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok/ Knowledge Services Team
May 2005

Some suggested that the fair could have been the main event
itself and not a secondary event to other meetings taking place
during the same period.
Schedules and Time





Two very important issues were raised: the limited amount of
time available to 1) plan/implement the event (5-8 weeks,
depending on when start counting) and 2) for the actual event
(a 2 hour 45 minute slot, which included intro presentations on
KM and how the fair will work, and time to browse at coffee
breaks for 1 ½ days after).
It was widely agreed that the time frame available to plan and
implement this event was a big constraint and challenge for
RCB staff, also CO staff, where the possible success of the
event was at risk at many times and which created exceedingly
high stress levels among organizers.
More time was needed for the entire duration of the event – not
just a 3-hour slot on one, given the vast amount of knowledge
on display at the fair, and the amount of time needed to
assimilate all that was available in a productive manner. It was
said that there was an “imbalance between the amount of effort
and investment versus the time to enjoy and capitalize on it
and achieve a mental transformation”. Another similar
knowledge-sharing event was highlighted from the experience
of IUCN’s World Conservation Congress and UNDP’s
“Community Mubaan” event that allowed for storytelling and
sharing of traditional knowledge, and the opportunity for local
community leaders to dialogue with global leaders. This event
went on for 7 days, and allowed more time for assimilation and
discussion of knowledge shared.
The time constraint was also tied up with the market-place
game and the buying and selling, where some of the trading
was as a result perhaps a bit ad-hoc.
In terms of setting dates for this event – it was suggested that
the exact dates of the fair be set early and not shifted around
after that. In this knowledge fair the dates were shifted from
Saturday the 30th of May to Wednesday the 27th of May and
this created some confusion among those planning to attend
the fair from headquarters and other regions because it was not
communicated to all concerned.
4
Draft, 10 May 05
UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok/ Knowledge Services Team
May 2005



The time constraints made effective communications more
difficult as well as dense with information and requests.
More explicit arrangements would have helped to make people
actively come to the fair during the cluster meeting breaks and
lunch times, as well as after hours. This could have avoided
delays in buying and selling as well.
For the closure of the trading game, it was suggested that a
‘cashier’ collected the cheques at a formal or ‘proper’ session to
provide for greater transparency.
Communications with COs




In terms of emails to the COs, it was observed that information
had fallen between the cracks owing to the large volume of
information – rich emails that went out to the COs over the
planning period, which in itself was very tight. A good lesson
learned is that often people don’t read their emails, or don’t
read them carefully.
Shipping arrangements – COs and other offices sending
pouches of materials for the knowledge fair should have been
notified of the additional days taken for customs clearance, so
that they could have worked this into their schedules. For
example in terms of the items sent from Copenhagen, people
worked all day and night to get materials out and ready for the
fair, but unfortunately it arrived at a day late and after the
opening of the fair.
Streamlining communications with COs – it may have been
better if only one team were communicating with the COs,
since there was some confusion with the practice teams and
COs in relation to this. On the other hand, it was important and
efficient to have the ‘direct partners’ in contact, i.e. practice
booth organisers and CO good practice submitters.
Mongolia had said that they did not receive all communications
from the RCB, in spite of 3 communications from EF to all
RRs/DRRS. Mongolia had a commendable good practice to
share, and fortunately it was able to be integrated at the last
minutes, although preparation of materials to be shared at the
fair was not possible.
5
Draft, 10 May 05
UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok/ Knowledge Services Team
May 2005





Spatial and Logistical Arrangements
It is essential to have 3D models, videos etc that help people
visualize the process and spatial planning of the fair.
It is essential that in assessing the quality of vendors providing
services to us to note that about 10% of the promised items
were not delivered. For example poster boards and other
furniture items requested in the booths did not come through.
In terms of deciding spatial requirements and booth design, it
was suggested that in the future design should be done after
finalizing of all display materials for the booths.
It was considered whether in future a cross-cutting booth would
be needed, or if such a booth should be mainstreamed.
It was suggested that the source of funding / budget be
consolidated and come from a central fund rather than highly
multiple sources of funding.
Packaging of Knowledge Materials





The overall quality of products and services delivered was
mixed (e.g. logo, brochures very good, some practice team
products not so good).
The final quality of the posters ordered by some practices were
mixed, as unfortunately there was insufficient time for the final
proof for some materials to come through for feedback prior to
printing.
The flash presentation requested by governance did not come
through, the REG product was not proofed, an ICT4D product
came back with mistakes.
It was also suggested that in terms of the media used for
distribution of knowledge products and materials, it is
recommended that soft copies be given out through on CDs,
the internet or on memory sticks to save on the high cost of
printing and paper.
Awards
The winners should have been given the opportunity to make a
short speech at the awards ceremony, and share the criteria
they used to select that practice as a good practice.
6
Draft, 10 May 05
UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok/ Knowledge Services Team
May 2005
Next Steps










This fair should be replicated in other regions and work up to a
“world-cup” or “Oscar” parallel that filters the best of the best
practices at a global scale.
Use RBLAC experiences to exploit the next phases of knowledge
fairs in the manner they have done, such as allocating only
staff for the organization of it, while each organization / office
that has a booth pays for it, with zero cost to RBLAC.
It is essential to see how the good practices that were traded
are used, or perhaps replicated in the COs, including those COs
who did not win anything and RCB broker this through MSI and
provide assistance for activities related to replication and
deepening of this knowledge among themselves in the future.
It is important to note that the regional centre will be judged
based on how well this support can be given in the future.
It was suggested that an after action review meeting also be
done with the COs, and get to know their views and feedback.
It is also important to share how a K-fair is organized with COs,
with the KST providing backstopping support to COs both on
site as well as virtually.
It is also necessary to sustain this type of knowledge event in
the future. Possible ways for this could be through a website,
making an annual or bi-annual event, or a virtual or online
knowledge fair.
It is also necessary to establish criteria on how the awards
should be used in the future. For example, Indonesia who came
in the first place may help those 8 COs who voted for it using
the prize it received.
A UNDP bulletin should also go out on the outcome of this fair
as well.
For content management, it may be necessary to filter out and
distill what can be considered a good practice out of the
submissions received from the 24 COs who participated.
It was also suggested that the KST could help broker
publications and media materials in the future, critiquing
quality, and sharable knowledge, is it worth it?
7
Draft, 10 May 05
UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok/ Knowledge Services Team
May 2005
“Post Knowledge-fair After Action Review Meeting”
List of Participants
Management
Elizabeth Fong – Regional Manager
Stephen Browne – Deputy Regional Manager
UNDP New York
Selva Ramachandran
Knowledge Services Team
Robert Juhkam
Johan Arvling
Rebecca Roberts
Daniel Tshin
Wilairat Singhachai
Environment & Energy Team
Sergio Feld
Kamal Rijal
Thiyagarajan Velumail
Panida Charotok
Democratic Governance Team
Patrick Kuelers
Roger Shotton
Henrik Larson
Emilia Mugnai
Chandra Roy
Arusha Stanislaus
Kullawan Arphasrirat
Panvirush Vittayapraphakul
8
Draft, 10 May 05
UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok/ Knowledge Services Team
May 2005
Cross Practice Team
Niloy Banerjee
Robert Bernardo
Seema Joshi
Radhika Behuria
Shahid Akhtar
James George
Phet Sayo
Jane Steel
Pranee Threekul
Karakate Bhamornbutr
Crisis Prevention & Recovery Team
Michael Ernst
Chip Bowness
Ajcharaporn Lorlamai
Management Practice Team
Tetsuo Kondo
Anthony Wood
Jakob Agersnap
Programme Management Support Team
Sergelen Dambadarjaa
Operations Team
Carlos Haddad
Nantiya Tipmanee
9