An open ecosystem engagement strategy through the lens of global food safety

Introduction

The Global Food Safety Partnership (GFSP) is a public/private partnership established through the World Bank. Open models have the potential to significantly enhance the GFSP’s goal of improving food safety systems through a globally coordinated and locally-driven food safety approach. This open models concept paper aimed to establish a framework to help leverage that potential.

We explored a range of open models that could enhance the scalability and sustainability of food safety. Our primary goal was to show how open models could support GFSP’s efforts to help ensure safe food, increase food supply chain value, accelerate economic growth, alleviate rural poverty, and improve public health outcomes.

In developing open models the sub-working group considered the many stakeholders involved in global food safety including:

Open models increase opportunities for access and participation so our models also identified new stakeholders including the general public.

We set out to define and design open models that generate impact and benefits from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Open models show how the many forms of openness, including such things as Open Educational Resources (OER), open access (OA), open data, and open policy can be adopted across all stakeholders and at different stages of knowledge production and dissemination. Open models provide a new paradigm for multi-stakeholder collaboration and capacity building.

Multi-stakeholder adoption of open models generates cumulative benefits for all stakeholders. The greater the number of stakeholders that use open models, the larger the impact. Going open also means that new stakeholders have the agency to get involved and participate. Open models in this paper show how both traditional and new stakeholders can collaborate in the use of open resources and practices to enhance global food safety.

New technologies offer opportunities for information sharing, public participation, and collaboration. A frequently cited benefit of openness is lower costs for funders and users^i,ii. Lower costs are amplified by using digital Information and Communication Technology (ICT) which, in combination with openness, creates opportunities for free, or very low cost, large scale access and participation. Open models harness these technologies to make more food safety information public and actively engage citizens in improving and disseminating food safety knowledge.

The primary goal of open models in this paper is to scale and disseminate food safety knowledge and practices to generate social and economic benefits. While open models can be adopted alongside status quo operations, preserving existing business models and traditional revenue streams were not the priority. Open models often disrupt traditional practices and business models. The open models outlined in this paper involve alternative business model approaches for all stakeholders.

In preparing this paper the open models sub-working group spoke to many different GFSP stakeholders. Underlying many of those conversations were questions about open models such as:

This last question came up many times with assertions that traditional service providers need to see opportunity for equivalent or greater revenue dollars in real terms before they will buy-in. This paper identifies open value propositions for food safety stakeholders and proposes a framework for creating and structuring that value. However, we recommend the GFSP not attempt to use open models and at the same time try and preserve the traditional business models of all partners. Open models enable access, scale, massive adoption, lower costs, localization and social networks, but only if existing business models are set aside and new ones adopted. Traditional models are resistant to open innovation. As a result open models are often more aggressively and strategically pursued by providers who adopt new open business models and play by different rules. Open models are not “business as usual”. Open models cannot be adopted and driven by questions like “Who pays?” assuming the same players and beneficiaries as in the traditional model. This is not to say that open models ignore the financial underpinnings of global food safety and the need for stakeholders to pay bills and keep the lights on. That is understood, but the economics of open models are different and preserving traditional business models is secondary to achieving global food safety goals. Open models are better framed by questions like “How much of this can be free?” and “Where can I add value?”.

Balancing calls for “show me the money” were aspirations for open models to improve food safety scalability and sustainability. We heard loud and clear the need for a macro, generic open model that depicts food safety as an ecosystem at the global and local level. This open models concept paper presents an overall GFSP Open Ecosystem Engagement Strategy within which specific local case examples can be situated. Two different case examples, China and Colombia, are presented to show both project-based and crowd-sourced, direct-to-public paths through this ecosystem.

OERs were the primary open practice GFSP partners spoke to us about, as they provide a logical entry point for collaboration. Going forward, funders should consider requiring that educational resources and the concomitant data resulting from their sponsorship should be open, in the same manner that publicly funded research (and more recently data) is available as a public good. There are, however, many other forms of open practice that bring value to the GFSP. This paper names and describes nine different open practices (Appendix A) stakeholders can use to generate food safety value including: open content (including OER and open courseware), open data, open access (research), open government, open source software, open standards, open policy, open licensing and open hardware. It is recommended that the GFSP adopt as many of these open practices as possible, not just OER. Parallel to Metcalfe’s law which states that the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of users, open model value becomes reciprocal and is magnified when a wide range of open practices are adopted by a large number of stakeholders. Overlaid on both the China and Colombia case examples are suggestions for which open practices can be adopted by which stakeholders.

This paper presents an overarching framework intended to guide GFSP partners in their thinking and adoption of open models. It does not get down into the specifics of identifying open business models and approaches for each individual stakeholder. However, this is a logical next step and is recommended as a follow-on for both global and local GFSP initiatives. For those interested in understanding the economics of open business models a short list of recommended books and readings is provided in Appendix B.

An open ecosystem engagement strategy

Figure 1 depicts food safety as an ecosystem at the global and local level and represents a macro overarching framework for open models. The open aspects of this work make it possible for GFSP to make use of both the global and local food safety knowledge bases. Global food safety knowledge can be reused, revised, remixed, adapted, translated, and localized for local food safety provision. And the reverse is also true, local food safety knowledge can be reused, revised, remixed, adapted, and translated into global resources.

Figure 1. Open Ecosystem Engagement Strategy.

On the left are global stakeholders who, driven by social needs and economic opportunities, are making public and private investments and creating a coordinated approach to improving food safety. To generate maximum value through open models all global stakeholders adopt open principles which have everyone participating, co-creating, sharing, pooling, using and improving. Nine different open practices can be adopted as a means of fulfilling those principles. Definitions for each of these nine open practices, examples of success, and sample stakeholder value propositions associated with them are in Appendix A at the end of this paper. Collectively this generates an open global food safety knowledge base made up of knowledge assets (e.g. text, graphics, sound, video, lists of experts and expert networks, etc.) and knowledge creators, curators and providers. Local food safety stakeholders are shown on the far right. While the categories are the same the actual organizations are different. To generate maximum value through open models all local stakeholders adopt open principles which have everyone participating, co-creating, sharing, pooling, using and improving. The same nine different open practices can be adopted as a means of fulfilling those principles. Collectively this generates an open local food safety knowledge base made up of knowledge assets and knowledge creators, curators and providers. Credit: The Blue Marble by NASA, Public Domain; Planeta Loarre by Juandc CC BY.

Open model implementation of local food safety involves the formation of partnerships between global and local stakeholders who then design and distribute the knowledge in a way that meets local social and economic needs.

Impact, scalability, and sustainability can be thought of as an equation where maximum impact, scale, and sustainability are achieved by having the maximum number of stakeholders adopt the maximum number of open practices.

Case Example 1: China

The global food system has changed dramatically as multinational supermarkets and their procurement channels have rapidly expanded into emerging markets. Consumers are demanding safe, high-quality food. In response, governments and industry are collaborating to assure quality and food safety consistently around the world. One area of focus has been the development of protocols and training for suppliers and people responsible for food safety compliance.

Starting in 2008, the Food Safety Knowledge Network (FSKN) a collaboration between Michigan State University (MSU), the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) of the Consumer Goods Forum, and other food industry and public sector partners began strengthening the food industry’s response to the complex food safety knowledge and training challenges that affect emerging markets by providing free access to high-quality, standardized OERsⁱⁱⁱ. These OERs, for basic and intermediate levels of food manufacturing, are based on competencies developed by the Consumer Goods Forum. Their Global Markets Working Group has defined company characteristics of suppliers which have been used by MSU to create OER and proprietary pre- and post-tests. These are also based on the global and country-specific standards.

GFSP's 5-year work program of demand-driven food safety capacity building and advisory services for low and middle income countries was preceded by an initial programming and preparatory year (2012) that included implementation of a training program developed in partnership with the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and other partners, on food safety prerequisites and Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) delivered in Beijing in June, 2012. This program was comprised of 3–4 weeks of online learning followed by a 6 day intensive face-to-face session (with real-time live translation) focused on skills development. More recently in the summer of 2013 a similar program was conducted in Shanghai.

These programs are making use of existing OERs, building on those developed by FSKN/MSU, in a range of formats from PowerPoint presentations to more narrative and full curricula developed in partnership with APEC and the World Bank. Content for the Basic Global Markets Training Program (Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/6Y28HOsqN) is now up to version 2 and version 3 China specific translations.

The cumulative build-out of this work has established a global food safety knowledge base made up of knowledge assets and knowledge experts as depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Case example of China.

This figure provides an overview of collaborators, resources and approaches being implemented in China.

GFSP’s current focus on China as a priority is building on this predecessor work. The main effort will be focused on generating economic growth by building out food safety knowledge and competencies of the estimated four hundred thousand food manufacturers and suppliers in China. The plan is to scale up use of existing open resources and roll out a program using a train-the-trainer approach in the fall of 2014.

The China work involves the formation of partnerships including:

Additional China-based partners are still being established.

The business model for the China train-the-trainer program is to reuse existing open educational resources and make little to no upfront investment in training materials. Public investment is being sought to support the initial train-the-trainer delivery. Downstream delivery to food manufacturers and suppliers would entail participants paying a fee.

Scalability & sustainability challenges include:

Table 1 indicates the potential starting points for various stakeholder groups in China in using the nine different types of open practices. For example, government and funders are poised to make use of eight of the nine open practices (open content, open data, open access, open government, open sources software, open policy and open licensing), whereas the use of open hardware, which is a relatively new form of open practice, is most likely to be initiated by universities and colleges.

Case example 2: Colombia

In Colombia the provincial government of Cundinamarca in partnership with Convenio Andres Bello and education partners are interested in open and distance education as a means of rural social development including food safety.

Convenio Andres Bello is an international intergovernmental organization including Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Spain, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic and Venezuela. It is led by the Ministers of Education of the member countries. Convenio Andres Bello promotes consensus building among members and joint action plans for culture, education, science and technology. Convenio Andres Bella's strategic plan focuses implementation of an ordered set of initiatives under four program areas:

Cundinamarca and Convenio Andres Bello have asked the OpenCourseWare Consortium (OCWC) for help in designing a digital learning initiative with a goal of adopting open online education in support of these aims. The OCWC is a worldwide community of hundreds of higher education institutions and associated organizations committed to advancing open education and its impact on global education. The consortium seeks to engender a culture of openness in education to allow everyone, everywhere to access the education they desire, while providing a shared body of knowledge and best practices that can be drawn upon for innovative and effective approaches. In addition the OCWC helps to solve social problems through expansion of access to education.

The OCWC is responding to this request by assembling a group of experts in open and online education to support a redesign project, and proposes to collaborate with the GFSP’s Learning and Knowledge Working Group to offer a curriculum, on a national scale in Colombia, in food safety leading to certification (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Case example of Colombia.

This figure provides an overview of collaborators, resources and approaches being implemented in Colombia.

The GFSP may benefit through the development of standardized curricula and courses that are aimed at different target groups including:

The aim is to start with a substantial body of food safety knowledge already in OER form available through GFSP and other stakeholders. Combined with the existing local curriculum, the intent is to adapt these core resources to address different levels of education. A curriculum component that provides education on what someone needs to know about cleanliness at any level might also be a curriculum component for someone enrolled in a two year program to become a certified food inspector. OER will be adapted for the Colombian context and used to create:

In addition to food safety pertaining to food manufacturing and supply, the Colombia program seeks to:

Curricula will be made open to all, enabling local communities, farmers, food vendors, small business food suppliers and even the general public to become active participants in knowledge creation and dissemination. This open model (Figure 3) blends expert and indigenous knowledge into a knowledge co-creation open model. One ambitious concept is supporting a free path to certification – and employment – for members of communities most affected by food security and problems with food safety.

As part of its redesign for digital learning a full range of contemporary options are being considered including:

There also are opportunities for entrepreneurs to play a role in providing web-based, just-in-time knowledge delivery services (like iCow which provides timely information to small-holder cattle farmers).

Certification tracks will be designed in such a way that participants can take courses online at their own pace with a practicum and assessment at the end. National centers will be used for the face-to-face practicum and assessment with colleges and universities being the certification entities.

The Colombia case example has a unique business model. The concept is that the avoidance of public health problems that are caused by unsafe foods can more than pay for the costs of employment in the area of training, monitoring and reporting on food safety in poor areas, both rural and urban. In raising the profile of food safety in these communities, related issues of nutrition and food security can be included to support even better social results, including lowered health costs and improved educational results. You can save more money on not providing emergency services than what it would cost you to provide education through this open model. Savings generated through improved nutrition, public health, and reduced days lost to illness, clinic visits and use of medical facilities pay for the food safety education. Using an open model could make the cost of the education very low. Revenue will be generated from those seeking formal certification. However, programs targeted at displaced, impacted communities will be government funded or have a publicly subsidized lower fee.

A matrix of stakeholder groups in Colombia and their potential starting points in using the nine different types of open practices is presented in Table 2. For example, the OCWC makes use of open content, open access, open standards, open policy and open licensing. The community, farmers, entrepreneurs, food vendors and suppliers have the potential to make use of open content, open access, open source software, open standards and open hardware.

Open Policy Recommendations

The adoption of an open policy represents a major culture change. For some it is a leap into uncharted territory. Although many organizations and businesses have successfully exploited the open ecosystem (see examples of success in Appendix A), in many respects it is easier to start something new in an open paradigm than it is to make the transition from a traditional approach. Historically, people have provided value through their proprietary content, process or service. As content, processes and services become available for free on the internet, basic assumptions and accepted business models are being challenged.

Recognizing that there is some information that should remain secured, there is probably more information and data that could be “freed” for mutual benefit than we currently realize. Providing seamless access to resources that could potentially be open while protecting those that need to be secured would be a breakthrough, forging a path for others to follow (and may lead to the creation of businesses around this new service). The GFSP is positioned to lead in this arena.

The World Bank adopted an Open Access Policy for Formal Publications as of July 1, 2012 which pertains to work carried out by Bank staff as well as outside research funded by the Bank.

At the GFSP meeting in Singapore Dec 10 – 11^th, 2013 a preliminary proposed GFSP Openness Operating Principle was presented as follows:

“GFSP members intend to leverage existing knowledge, reduce duplicative efforts and speed and scale global solutions. One way GFSP members operationalize this intention is to enable the use, reuse, redistribution and remixing of the knowledge they choose to share as part of the partnership.”

To operationalize this intention, GFSP members agree to:

The following broader statement is proposed to encompass the various facets of openness discussed in Appendix A. This will facilitate a staged approach as comfort with open concepts grows, without necessitating frequent revision of the policy.

In the interests of improving global food safety in a cost-effective and scalable manner, GFSP partners agree to proactively pursue “openness” as an operating principle. Partners will give consideration to the adoption and use of open strategies and tactics across all GFSP activities including:

In so doing it is recommended that GFSP Partners:

GFSP partners have differing understanding of what openness is and what it means to global food safety and to their respective organizations. Organization of information sessions, workshops, events, activities and resources about openness would increase awareness, adoption and use both strategically and tactically.

To stimulate innovation in the adoption of open methods and the creation of new business models that leverage open methods GFSP partners should consider the use of open competitions either within specific projects or in general. Competitions are increasingly being utilized as a method to stimulate innovation and could be used to spur the adoption of open methods and the creation of open business models. Competition for grant funding has long been employed, however, in recent years variations such as the Gates Grand Challenges for Global Health (Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/6Y29b9N4L) and the XPRIZE competitions (Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/6Y2A0SkcW) have come into force. XPRIZE creates incentivized prize competitions “to bring about radical breakthroughs for the benefits of humanity, thereby inspiring the formation of new industries and the revitalization of markets”. A precedent for using competitions to encourage the use of open data has already been set by the HealthDataPalooza (Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/6Y2Ay4GJH) which hosts an annual competition for development of the best app using public health data. The competition is attended by several thousand people, including representatives from major health providers, venture capitalists and entrepreneurs and has led to the creation of new businesses. This could be replicated for food safety stakeholders.

The commitment to an open operating principle is founded on a belief that open strategies uniquely provide opportunities for the GFSP and all food safety stakeholders to disseminate and scale their work for greatest impact and global public good. Through openness the food safety community can leverage existing knowledge, reduce duplicative efforts, and speed and scale global solutions.