Svein Tenningas opened the floor and the BDT Director Mr Sanou welcomed the members.
He reminded the members of Res 40 of WTDC and of the work ahead. He highlighted the importance of capacity building in developing countries since technology cannot be harnessed for development without capacity building. Main objectives of this meeting to get to know each other and determine manner the group would work. He mentioned the CoE study that would form the basis of the meeting and and asks members to think how BDT could add unique value to building capacity. The recommendations of this group will be presented during TDAG on 27-29 June. He will make sure the recommendation will be implemented.
Introduction of Group Members
Svein Tenningas thanked the Director and highlighted the need of GCBI members to represent the needs of the region. Introductions were made and the BDT Director excused himself.
Contextualizing the GCBI
Mr. Tenningas then touched upon the Background (Res 40 instructed BDT Director to establish this WG). WG members are asked on advice on accreditation, certification and quality assurance.
Election of Chairman, Vice Chair and Rapporteur
David Mellor is proposed Chairman and Gladys Ogallo is proposed as Vice Chair. Eric Huerta is proposed as Rapporteur.
Human Capacity Building Division Presentations
Mr. Tenningas touched upon ITU, BDT and Regional Initiatives. He highlighted capacity building as an element that cut across sectors. And also highlighted areas where the WG could contribute – collecting country/regional feedback and representing its needs.
Boris Williams presented on the ITU academy and went through the evolution of e-learning at HCB through the years.
Mr Mellor highlighted the lack of visibility and mentioned that the ITU academy did not feature when searching through the ITU website itself. Williams asked WG to highlight the need to have the ITU academy on the ITU website.
Mr Williams gave a demo of the ITU academy.
Prof. Dokuchaev raised the question that if the Academy would require a change of the way we work on activities currently. Mr. Nxele clarified that this was an attempt to work towards “One ITU” initiative. Mr. Tenningas mentioned the need to harmonize actions between sectors.
Mr. Sarr asked for statistics of use of the ITU Academy in Africa.
Ms Tobgyl gave a presentation on ITCs.
Prof. Mellor posed the question on what the participants thought of library and implementation. Prof. Markosyan responded on how access to on line databases were organized in universities at his region. Mr Huerta said access to library would be an issue for short courses. And there is a lot of “free” material available online now so how is the academy posing itself in the light of these circumstances.
On this subject clarification was made regarding the library of ITU Academy, which it’s not intended to be a proper library but mainly a repository of selected material for each course.
Prof. Mellor asked the participants about their experience with receiving payment for training courses. Prof. Markosyan differentiates between access to information and training courses. He says that students want free access to information but for training courses they prefer it to cost since there is an illusion of quality to cost. He also proposes the staging of courses so providing the first stage for free and charging for later stages.
Prof. Mellor and Ms. Ogallo highlight need to rebrand perception of ITU as organizing courses that charge. Mr Tenningas points out that in his experience mostly EUR has a problem with paying for courses while this issue doesn’t arise for AFR.
Mr. Huerta highlights the need to solve “small” issues such as payment resolution and administrative matters since these could prove to be reasons that prevent centres from joining the network.
Presentation on the CoE study
Prof. Dokuchaev and Mr Trimech highlight the need for terminology and differentiate between “centre” and “nodes”.
Mr. Sarr highlights the very important need to provide courses on management and leadership.
Mr. Chaves mentions that other than leadership we should also provide courses in “working together”.
In that sense comments were made on recommendingto develop a leadership program
Prof. Dokuchaev thinks that the specialties are too narrow, and also from the financial point of view, it is difficult to become sustainable if they focus on a narrow field. He asks to find out what should be the reason why someone would want to be part of the CoE. He does not agree with having “centres of expertise” focusing on a specific topic.
Prof. Mellor mentions need for diplomas to be accredited to recognized university. And risk of highly trained persons leaving the organizations in LDCs.
Mr Sarr highlights need for CoE to provide a progressive training path easier to manage. And also need to involve telcos. And certificates are more “justifiable” at the end of a longer staged training. Short courses can be just given an “attestation”.
Mr Huerta reminds us to keep an eye on regional achievements and the manner in which they have been operating. Firstly, to build upon the success of what they have achieved and secondly not to cause conflict for the regions if the manner in which they have been operating does not coincide with strategy devised at HQ. He cites the example of CITEL human resources centres and ITU Centres of Excellence which have been working together since the program started, and the need to take in to account these ways of working so that they do not compete with each other.
Prof Mellor expresses concern about the security of electronic signatures in certificates. Prof Dukuchaev thinks the more important issue is to discuss is what the CoE program’s position is regarding who has the right to issue, sign and print certificates.
Prof. Markosyan thinks the security concern for signatures and electronic certificate is not a big issue. It can be validated technically comparing certificate keys to a ITU academy database. He thinks we do not need to limit in numbers the courses and the number of participants. It is sufficient to apply stringent quality control on courses and their implementation and make sure they are followed. Prof. Dokuchaev does not agree on having many centres of excellence and asked rather to focus in what is a Centre of excellence.
Day 2: Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Svein Tenningas presented the structure of the HCB.
Mr Nxele and Mr Tenningas: More collaboration on between sectors and using ITU Academy as a storehouse.
Mr Huerta: Themes to be selected by region and not restricted to themes from WTDC. Mr Awang seconds this flexibility. The discussion that touched upon selection of themes concluded by:
The 4-6 themes as presented in the structure remain with the clarification that global themes will be proposed based on regional requirements, (in addition to the 2 regional themes). The selection of themes is in order to assist the Secretariat to concentrate on a select number of themes in order to develop content and compile the regional content.
On the topic of each centre being selected for 2 themes there was an input about how things were done in different regions and how they might have evolved into the manner that worked for them and how it may be impacted by limiting themes per centre. This went into a discussion on what defines a centre of excellence and the different elements that are required such as facilities, administration, content and delivery (trainers). It concluded that a centre of excellence will not require physical premises.
Discussion on the quality assurance and quality of delivery.
The annual program of activity is discussed and decided at the Steering committee in according to regional mechanism of consultation.
The possibility of including the WG members in the Steering committee would be considered.
On the issue of ITU leadership fora, Prof Mellor questioned the use of this initiative, it was concluded that this was not a priority for the CoE. It could be implemented through TELECOM, GSR and other ITU-wide events.
Mr. Huerta questions the limiting of the total number of centres to 30. Mr Tenningas mentions it is due to resources at ITU, but we need to be flexible.
Mr. Trimech highlights that definition of CoE is critical which is agreed by Prof. Dokuchaev and there is a danger of the centres turning commercial.
The franchise proposal put forward by Prof. Dokuchaev and seconded by Prof Mellor and Mr. Huerta included 6 regional CoE organization one for each region. These bodies were auditable regional bodies who worked through means of “nodes”. The selection and number of the nodes was decided by the region. The quality assurance was based on “guidelines” (standards) issued by the ITU.
The definition:
The ITU Centre of excellence is a regional organization demonstrating an auditable quality both content development and delivery through a recognized administrative process.
All contributions/comments and feedback on the definition to be sent to David Mellor, Mike Nxele and Svein Tenningas before Friday May 4.
For Recommendations to be made to TDAG, please comment on the powerpoint by Mr. Tenningas.
Developing a Work plan and Working Methods for the WGCBI 2012-2014
Meet in one year’s time, group members work online.
Mr Nxele highlights that best practices from regions could be shared. He stresses the importance of cash funding from ITU even nominally. Prof Mellor says that cash funding from ITU is not of importance and the contribution of ITU could as well be on provisions of experts or content.
On the discussion on quality standards – one the question of one ITU standard vs regional standards.
Mr. Abderrahman Rafi. Morocco. rafi@inpt.ac.ma. Secretary General, INPT/ANRT
Asia & Pacific
Mr. Abdul Aziz Awang. Malaysia. azizawa@kpkk.gov.my or azizawa@tm.com.my. Special Officer to the Deputy Secretary General (Communications). Ministry of Information, Communications and Culture, Malaysia
Europa
Joao Chaves. Portugal. joao.chaves@anacom.pt. Senior Expert, Cooperation and Development, ANACOM, Portugal
Prof. David Mellor. United Kingdom. prof.mellor@btinternet.com. Chairman, United Kingdom Telecommunications Academy (UKTA)