Kani

Principles for Societal Platform Governance 1 Index 01 Introduction 03 What we have attempted here 03 Research Process 04 Building A Platform 04 Developing a platform: Need for the platform/extensions to it 04 Establishing norms and boundaries: What will the platform not do? 05 Principles for governance of societal platforms 05 Understanding the framework 06 Pillar Principles 07 For and of the society 09 Make accessible co-creation a habit 11 Embed accountability 13 Design for evolvability 15 Levers 16 Partition decision rights for modularity and autonomy 18 Collaborate with formal and informal offline architectures 20 Index for the interactions that drive impact 21 Fit revenue model to mission 22 Move from process control to relational management 23 Foster open innovation within and at the boundaries of the platform 24 Build capacities and skills to amplify societal values 25 Conclusion 26 Resources 26 Appendix Introduction A societal platform is a development mission in a specific focus area (such as, but not limited to, education, healthcare or economic opportunity). It aims to catalyse systemic change at population scale (extending services to all affected people). It leverages an open digital infrastructure to share the ability to develop contextual solutions with an ecosystem of cocreation partners (e.g. Social Enterprises, Governmental Institutions or Private Sector). It amplifies, by orchestrating and enabling, the diverse developmental initiatives taken up by a network of key actors across the society, including the state, civil society and private sector. These societal platforms aim for impact with deliberation—impact is the mission, and the platform is the means, (Unlike the other way round for commercial platforms). The impact and mission are rooted in rights, equity and freedom, and additionally democratic values. These translate into enabling choice, nurturing dignity, and restoring agency for all. So, for these societal platforms, technology architectures, data governance, programs and partnerships must all line up to serve a mission to deliver impact for the communities of interest. EkStep is a Societal Platform mission that leverages a core digital infrastructure, a network of developers, to enable learners across India access learning opportunities material generated by experts and their peers, as well as capabilities and means to conduct their core activities more effectively and efficiently. For EkStep, assets, governance practices and engagement with the ecosystem must serve the aim of enabling learners. While a clear mission statement is critical to get started—it is not enough. Values and principles, established through relational approaches (embedding, not enforcing) become critical to ensure continued impact and amplification of rights, equity and freedom.1 The mission, which articulates the desired social impact, is a distinguishing feature of Societal Platforms. Accordingly, any set of values and principles that aim to frame governance or design must centre the mission. In centering the mission, it is critical to watch out for mission Of course, one question to consider is whether Societal Platforms will cease to exist or pivot to a different mission, once the desired impact has been attained. There is no right answer - various entities may adopt different approaches - such as pivoting, merging/de-merging, etc. 1 1 creep, which is a situation where the platform begins to serve a different mission. Accordingly, paying attention to the limits of the mission itself is important. None of this is to say, however, that Societal Platforms must adopt a rigid and unyielding approach to their mission. Missions must evolve—but, when they require different value systems, such as rejection of democratic values, or the (replication of the) platform becomes an end in itself, then there must be due reconsideration. The principles articulated in this document aim to provide a framework for thinking about infusing societal values into governance. In the current form, they do not do more than provide a guiding value framework for governance. They are meant to stimulate thought (and, hopefully action) bearing in mind the stage of platform evolution and the context. Specific governance approaches must necessarily be evolved in context—keeping in mind the nature of the platform, its stage of evolution and importantly, the social and political environment within which it operates. We recognise that any articulation of values or principles raise important questions about who framed them, and who gets to make decisions around them. Why should individuals and institutions of privilege have a disproportionate say in setting the agenda, as it were? We have no easy answers to offer here—but we hope the fundamental principles of accessible co-creation and accountability pave the way for wider and deeper engagement, and critiques around these principles. And that governance evolvability enables and drives for accommodation of wider voices in this area. 2 What we have attempted here Research Process In this paper, we attempt to articulate a set This piece and the principles have emerged of principles that could guide us in governing from desk research. We conducted 7 societal platforms. In doing so, we attempt interviews (list in appendix) and a brief to move towards calibration of values, rather round table with a few societal missions. We than blandly state categories. The calibration used the processes to generate a long-list accounts for societal values, and aspire to of principles. Analytically, we attempted to maximise societal impact with a focus on the “cut” the principles different ways to look for rights of every individual. mutual exclusivity—however, principles are related to each other and form elements of a At present, we keep the focus primarily on broader value system that is rooted in rights, sarkaar and samaaj platforms. Sarkaar has and democratic principles. the additional obligation of being available to all as it is financed by public resources. We believe more needs to be done here— We believe these principles can apply to getting to an understanding of the operation bazaar platforms too; however, more work is of these principles in context, sharpening required to understand the ways to navigate the processes of governance/how-tos, and conflicts between profits and societal values understanding specific breakdowns at scale when they arise. —all require thought and research. These values and the ways in which they operate on Our starting value system is co-governance the ground require exploration. (Murray, et al 2019). This is a way where stakeholders use each other’s resources However, this report is a starting point, and to achieve better societal outcomes with is structured as follows: the following section improved efficiencies. articulates how we frame the principles. Within each principle, we document what it is, why we think it is relevant, who it may be applicable to, and an already operationalised example. We have not been able to find examples for every principle mentioned. We also explore some concerns that may arise from scale. We leave specific questions for each value/principle that may be starting points for further inquiry. A brief conclusion and resource lists appear at the end. 3 Building a platform Values for governance can be imagined even prior to the operation of the platform. It is our hope that in discussions on establishing a societal platform, examining a few questions to frame values and governance may be helpful: Developing a platform: Need for the platform/ Establishing norms and boundaries: What will the extensions to it platform not do? Developing and making extensions on the platform require All societal platforms are embedded in socio-political careful thought, and ideally should not result in crowding-out systems. However, it is important to establish the other players. Societal platforms do not always come with fundamental norms/boundaries a priori (such as, democratic the assumption of capturing value, but rather societal impact. values, not enabling authoritarianism). These need to be Therefore, they should consider the systemic and competitive discussed among founding teams upfront. Referring to the impacts of establishment and extensions. Any technology Societal Platform core values is helpful in this aspect. deployment should be closely linked to a gap, that can best be filled by the proposed technology (and ideally, also by no A related point is conflicts, and being aware of conflicts other way). This means ensuring that platform instantiation, early is important. Platform work inherently generates a regardless of societal value very carefully engages with range of conflicts of interest—ranging from level playing- existing and embedded systems. field distortions due to private ecosystems of extenders to potentially enabling harmful platform interactions (social media platforms amplify problematic content to drive engagement). 4 Principles for governance of societal platforms Understanding the framework Beyond a core set of considerations for platforms, we see the principles as two types—pillars and levers. These need to be understood as embedded in the societal platform context and the legal, social and political system. They are neither abstracted from the context nor absolute—so feasibility and the ability to operationalise must Pillar principles inform the process of translating this into governance at the mission or platform entity These go to the core imagination of a societal level. platform and are foundational values. They may be seen as those values that make platforms societal, and support and align with the mission. Equally, the notion of ‘good’ in good tech is linked to principles of community ownership, accountability and co-creation. Lever principles These are instruments that increase the impact, efficacy, and efficiency of a societal platform. Implementing these principles may increase reach, amplify impact, and support the innovation of open co-creation environments. At the governance level, these would have implications on everyday practices of management—which would be specific to the platform context and the stage of evolution. 5 Pillar principles Community ownership, co-creation, accountability, governance evolvability are pillars of Societal Platform governance. These may be seen as fundamental—and working towards them can radically shift societal platform imagination from efficiency/consumer lenses to societal impact frames. They underpin platforms’ aspirations for social good and impact. Our research and conversations show us that these values cannot be ‘implemented’ overnight. Various factors—including nature of the platform, the socio-political context in which they operate, stage of platform evolution—influence implementation. However, attempts must be made to iteratively calibrate and implement for community governance, co-creation, accountability, underpinned by governance evolvability. 6 1 Be for and of the society What Put society first in platforms. Embody societal cares and concerns into governance and co-creation processes to unlock imagination and problemsolving. Why: Restoring agency Societal platforms exist to serve society and communities, not the other way and system leadership around. Accordingly, societal goals cannot end at delivering services through 2 platforms, but must go beyond to strive for wider and deeper societal good. In order to do so, towards restoring agency and system leadership, platforms must embody community in their very essence. Restoring agency, that is— providing choice and ability to platform users—cannot stop at enhancing capabilities to use a platform. It must go to truly empowering users to claim a broader set of rights via platforms. Similarly, system leadership is not merely about establishing large networks and sector pre-eminence, but unlocking the imagination of society to solve problems at scale. Community involvement enables that. Who Communities must play significant and formal roles in governance in societal platforms. Communities include all actors who are co-creating upon and amplifying the shared enabling societal platform infrastructures, as well as participants and users. Concerns at scale Formal ways of including community refer to board seats for community in sarkaar and samaaj platforms, and equity shares along with board representation in bazaar platforms. Communities could also play a role in managing established governance frameworks (eg. around content governance) at the ground level. But as networks become large and complex, problems arise in being able to identify the right representatives for communities, and in some instances, the right communities. It is possible that privileged, vocal and visible communities are represented at the expense of others—a problem that could occur without scale too, but is magnified The ‘Why’ for each of the pillar principles derives from the values articulated by Societal Platform. 2 7 as networks become larger. Early examples show the possibility of bringing in civil society as a representative for the community; however, both the opportunities and challenges need further evaluation. for further research example › How can we create safe and clear Amul, is an Indian dairy cooperative society managed by a cooperative body, pathways for community participation in the Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., which today is platform entities at the board level? jointly owned by 36 lakh milk producers in Gujarat. Elected representatives What are the challenges and limits manage the board, which is responsive to the farmers needs and suggestions. › of community governance for multiplatform entities? › How do you identify the true representatives of a community? How do you solve for contradictions within the community? › What are the practices for implementing community governance at scale? 8 2 Make accessible co-creation a habit What Aspire to have co-creation at all levels of the platform; unlock opportunities for co-creation of participants. Why: Share Solvability Societal platforms work at scale, for samaaj, sarkaar, and bazaar, which have and Inspire Co-creation diverse and dynamic needs. Embedding any value system by design (impact, privacy, inclusion—by design) requires discovering the parameters from those who are affected by it. Co-creation improves platforms, but importantly, cocreation engages communities to embed longer-term values of citizenship, trust and responsibility. At design and extension stages, engaging with the ecosystem of extenders and participants is essential for the platform to be sustainable in the longer run. Values of shared solvability and co-creation at all levels (upon the shared infrastructure) require conscious adoption of practices of co-creation. However, it is not enough to aspire for co-creation without considering questions of access. Actors on platforms—builders, extenders, and participants—experience breakdowns in accessibility for co-creation, and efforts to govern co-creation processes must account for accessibility. Participants may be hindered by social structures like gender, caste, and class. Co-creation mechanisms may not sufficiently accommodate people with disabilities. Thinking about co-creation from the standpoint of accessibility can widen the range of those who engage in co-creation processes, in turn amplifying the societal impact of platforms. Who Actors who build shared infrastructures must engage with users in order to catalyse the change they wish to see. These include extenders and participants. Embedding values of accessible co-creation must begin at the technological infrastructure layer, in order to unlock this at all levels. At all levels of the societal platform, actors can play differentiated roles in co-creation. On the shared digital infrastructure, upon which platform development happens, co-creation can come in design. With respect to 9 innovation co-creation networks (extenders), co-creation must be facilitated, particularly by platform owners/entities. Co creation can ensure that platform extension work does not happen in silos, and limit overlaps and conflicts. With respect to the impact amplification networks—which may be both online and offline—co-creation to inform design and extension pathways, can be impactful. Concerns at scale Co-creation is not a one-time exercise nor is it easy. In particular, the process of co-creation when it involves community actors requires considering the social structures on the ground. Power relations affect community engagement processes—and paying attention to these relations is critical. At scale, these risk entrenching power divides more deeply. Co-creation requires acknowledgment of power relations, historical and structural injustices, and labour by those in power. It may appear that the Societal Platform principles of ‘seeking rapid evolution’ is at odds with co-creation. However, exploring short cycle co-creation models to identify what works is critical. These may involve embedding feedback and survey processes within design, and developing and working with smaller groups of users. As the platform becomes ubiquitous, best fit co-creation design principles can be arrived at. It should also be noted that the platform should consider resilience as a value and continuously iterate upon as the nature of the platform evolves. for further research example › How do we go from process to identifying ShikshaLokam is working on a mission to enable and amplify leadership long-term, structurally sound co-creation development opportunities in school education in India. Unnati is an app approaches? developed using the ShikshaLokam platform which helps leaders from various How can we embed co-creation at all areas to collaborate and execute projects. ShikshaLokam enables participants stages of the platform life cycle? (typically, school leaders) to conduct surveys, to further understand how to What capacities do actors require to co- engage with parents and elders in the communities they serve. This approach create? embeds co-creation in the process. › › 10 3 Embed accountability What Clearly articulated responsibilities, indexed for context. Established and accessible grievance redressal process. Why: Restoring agency Accountability is a set of processes (such as due process, fairness) that are owed to by institutions, and in this case to all actors on the platform. It is important to clearly articulate the ways in which these operate, and the consequences of breakdowns in delivery. Platform operation without articulated consequences and liability, risks alienating and losing trust of communities of interest; it also hampers trust with extender and developer communities. Clear articulation incites compliance with principles. Importantly, accountability is not just a process but also a set of values (such as transparency), and adherence to these magnifies societal impact. Who Levels of accountability and liability differ by actor, and by platform type. Platform entities, especially sarkaar entities, are typically accountable and liable for failures of service provision as well as exclusions. They also emerge from legal obligations and frameworks. Samaaj platforms may have lower levels of (expected) accountability. However, they may choose to have higher levels of liability for failures or breakdowns. Clear codification of accountability processes is important with respect to the assets, processes and the interactions. Clear codification also includes delineating responsibility. This means articulating the specific degree of accountability for actors across the system—especially, the level of platform responsibility as a shared space. Concerns at scale While a general set of norms and processes for accountability and liability can be established by the platform, the local nitty-gritties of the operations and the specific concerns of the community may sometimes be at conflict. While it is best that specific processes for accountability should be left for the local actor, what they are in each instance need to be articulated sharply. 11 Accountability is not limited to articulating liability for breakdowns. It also means establishing clear, and accessible grievance redressal mechanisms, likely embedded in the platforms themselves. For sarkaar platforms, engaging civil society can be helpful in translating accountability into action. for further research example › How do entities build buy-in around Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) is a self- appraisal system accountability, especially if they are followed in the Indian bureaucracy. India has a strong APAR system where not derived from legal/regulatory the agreed goals for the next year have to be filed by 30th April of each expectations? year. Historically, APARs were getting filed late every year and came into Are there any examples of how grievance prominence only during the time of promotions. Using the digital platform redressal mechanisms have been of Sparrow, a lock-in period was ensured ( by 31st December of each year), deployed? beyond which the APARs could not be edited. In this case, this ensured How can dispute resolution mechanisms individual accountability for actions. › › be designed to involve all stakeholders? › Are levels of accountability (and therefore liability) different for sarkaar platforms given obligations to serve everyone. 12 4 Design for evolvability What Values and norms that the platform espouse must evolve according to the relevant democratic social ideals of the times by identifying recurrent themes. Why: Seek Rapid Evolution Governance processes must not be seen as static, beyond the core compliance to constitutional/legal frameworks and commonly agreed upon normative values. The core commitments include democratic values, and individual and community rights. Beyond that, just as technical architectures should allow for structures and features to evolve and adapt to challenges and opportunities, so too governance must evolve. Governance norms would benefit from anticipating future changes and design for a resilient platform, whenever possible. Who Platform entities and builders need to play a critical role in governance evolution. While extenders, amplifiers and participants can engage in iterations, ultimately each governance evolution must come from platform builders and owner entities. This custodianship of governance processes is a significant one for platform owner entities. The process of evolution itself must follow the other principles. Concerns at scale At scale, there may be conflict between rapid evolution and principles of governance evolvability. However, having the right checks and balances upfront in the limits/boundary conditions for governance and distributed leadership ensures that values related to diverse experiences are embedded in the governance processes to support evolvability.The process of governance evolvability requires ongoing discussions, and can be built on the principles of co-creation, accountability and society-orientation articulated previously. 13 for further research example › ECHO India is a not-for-profit working towards both building capacity and How to identify core vs evolving values? extending access to speciality care for underserved communities using the telementoring model. ECHO India has a fidelity team to ensure that the values and norms are being adhered to at each interaction/encounter. As the hubs evolve into superhubs over the course of the platform, the values keep evolving to ensure the current needs of the participants are accounted for. 14 Levers Partition for autonomy, subsidiarity, offline architectures, indexing for impact, revenue model fit, relational control and innovation ecosystems—can be seen as levers. These levers enhance the impact, efficiency and reach of platforms. These principles sit alongside the core values, in supporting societal platforms. 15 5 Partition decision rights What This means articulating clearly the decisions (on the platform, assets/content, applications) that are to be taken by each actor. This also includes minimising decision dependency between actors through modularity. Specific players are best suited to do what they are already doing. Enabling and empowering them vs replacing is critical. Why: Resolve for diversity, Inspire co-creation As platforms scale, modularity in decision making ensures a reduction of latency in platform interactions and governance processes. It also ensures all actors have clear roles in the platform. Allowing autonomy in decision-making at each level by identifying redlines or triggers where platforms intervene, ensures that communities of users govern decisions most relevant to them. Who Often, those who are platform owners, creating the shared digital infrastructure, decide how decision rights must be partitioned. Typically, decision rights with respect to asset content and app interfaces are retained with those who are in the co-creation environment. In this framework, communities play a role in implementing governance frameworks with respect to group membership, content, etc as relevant Concerns at Scale It is quite possible that at scale, modularity may lead to invisibility, with federated units taking contradictory decisions. Since societal platform models need to work for diverse solutions at scale, during each potential modification of the platform by either addition of new actors, by significant process changes, or re-orientation of the platform, modularity and autonomy processes must be examined. This way the decision-making regarding the solutions are more specific to context and also equitable. 16 for further research example › How to ensure standardisation across Wikipedia has the governance mechanism of ‘Wiki Projects’ where small, modules/units? decentralized social structures govern themselves in a locally organised › How to resolve variation in values? manner, dealing with developing guidelines for stylistic conventions and the › When does a problem become too big for creation of content. These could be thought of as these as local jurisdictions the modules to handle and goes to the in the site, within which local leadership, norms, and standards for writing are superstructure above? agreed upon by editors familiar with a particular topic. 17 6 Collaborate offline with formal and informal architectures What Leveraging the long-standing, embedded relationships of trust of community organisations and individuals, while being cognizant of the power relationships, can provide significant amplification for societal platforms. Why: Open value creation, Restoring agency Offline architectures (institutions, individuals and civil society) play a significant role in enabling platform adoption and impact—indeed, they are the entities for whom societal platforms are built. These offline architectures are embedded in context and can play a role in amplifying key interactions, addressing breakdowns of awareness and ability, and ensuring accountability. These entities understand the context best. Importantly, in order to consider those who are offline, and bring in their choices and experiences into the platform, it is important to create an environment which is both online and offline in nature. Who The primary role for engaging with offline architectures lies with the platform entities and builders. However, co-creators/extenders, would also benefit from having their own approaches to engaging with offline architectures to embed and amplify impact. Concerns at Scale The approach must be to systematise engagement with offline architectures as much as possible. Identifying the right offline architectures is critical, as some of these entities and individuals may cause more harm than good. Just as much as offline intermediaries can unlock the ability of platforms to distribute the ability to problem solve, rent-seeking intermediaries may undo these potential gains. While there is no one pathway to identify the right architecture at all times, being mindful of the values articulated here, the core mission of the platform, and the changing incentives and dynamics on the ground can be helpful. Additionally, being mindful of the fact that offline architectures come from entrenched social systems and power structures, is important. This means that the ways of engagement must be encoded as the platform attains scale. 18 for further research example › How to identify the right offline Pratham is a large-scale independent non-profit organization working to architectures? improve the quality of education in India. Given the limitations of access to How do you ensure offline architectures technology in rural areas, Pratham supports a hybrid learning program. This retain their independence? involves getting children in the age group 10-14 in a village to form their How do we finalise on who better own groups of 5-6 each, thus enabling them to co-create a learning space represents the voice of the community? within their community. Digital devices (where feasible) and content is placed › › directly in the hands of children providing them with opportunities and choices—through peer to peer learning and shared resources—to learn on their own. In order to unlock the ability to problem solve, community based children’s groups engage in choice-based learning and are guided by the coaches and youth members in the communities. 19 7 Index for interactions that drive impact What Indexing all processes, including governance processes, to increase the interactions which drive impact on the ground. Why: Inspire co-creation, shared solvability Platforms generate value through some interactions which add value (to the platform bottom lines) and impact (to the communities of interest). These interactions are amplified and built upon to enhance adjacencies. For societal platforms, some interactions and processes on platforms drive impact for the communities of interest, which is linked to their mission. Beyond accurately identifying the relevant interactions, it is important to index governance processes to amplify them, and foster further development. Who For impact amplification at scale to happen, it is essential to support interactions at all levels. And, builders and extenders need to be aligned to optimise platform interactions. Conflicts between these actors need to be resolved with these interactions in mind. Concerns at Scale At scale, the ability to consistently and correctly determine interactions becomes difficult. Moreover, it is possible that value from some interactions are at odds with others. for further research example › Are there multiple interactions that drive In ECHO India, the key value interaction is the engagement between health impact? care workers and expert doctors in a conversational, case-study oriented What if indexing governance for an approach. The aim of this interaction is to ensure distributed capacity for interaction undermines the agency of one healthcare, but not in a hierarchical, teacher-learner frame. The nature of the participants? and the structure of this interaction (weekly session) is critical—timeliness, › structure, and the character of the conversation between the hub and the spoke is important. ECHO India governs this process very seriously by operationalizing structured and random checks and training/intervention, if in case needed. 20 8 Fit funding to mission What Why: Restoring agency Funding models must be aligned with mission statements and platform values. Revenue models must serve platform missions, and revenue models are critical for long term sustenance of platforms. Funding must align with the goals/plans for platform evolution as well as the fundamental, underlying mission and imagination of societal good. Therefore, establishing a funding model is both a functional process as well as a normative one. Who Platforms that are financed/subsidised by public funding (sarkaar platforms) or receive subsidies, have differential obligations towards transparency, pricing, navigating conflicts of interest and accountability. For sarkaar platforms, by design it becomes important to be shared as a public good. Samaaj platforms, which are subsidised by philanthropic resources, have an ability to be flexible, and can explore community and co-operative funding models. In models where participants or users pay a fee, determining value-sharing is critical. Concerns at Scale Revenue models are both pre-conditions and consequences of scale. However, consistently implementing them at scale, while remaining true to evolving missions is critical. for further research example › What about instances of conflict? How eGovernments Foundation works with state governments to deploy are they to be navigated? technologies for public grievance redressal and revenue functions. While What do processes of changing the core technology is developed through philanthropic/private capital, orientation and business model involve? implementations/system integrations are paid for by the state governments. How are these to be navigated? Typically, white-labelled services/apps are provided to citizens. In this context, What special obligations and limitations evaluating a pricing model must account for the source of funds (part private, apply to platforms that are publicly part public funding), the type of service (government to citizen, grounded in financed? entitlement) and the mission (easier access to all to the state). › › 21 9 Nurture relational management What Platform governance needs to evolve to embedding norms and values in all actors, rather than express process controls and procedures. Why: System leadership Platform governance can emerge from gatekeeping and controls (content moderation through gatekeeping, standardised forms and procedures, metrics based controles). However, these are costly and also limit the responsivity of the system. Accordingly, it is critical to move towards relational management which is focused on embedding norms and values (in code, where feasible) and in the actors in the system. This means that every actor on the platform shares the same values—and some values such as data minimisation, for example— are embedded in code. Who The platform should embed values as every actor is a bearer of them. This means that these become replicable at every level of the platform. Concerns at Scale Embedding values, which are not easily measurable, consistently across at scale is challenging. for further research › How can consistency be ensured? What is the balance between process control and relational control? › 22 How do platforms respond to bad actors? 10 Foster societal innovations What Build ways for extenders and participants to co-create upon the shared digital infrastructure. Why: Shared solvability The impact of societal platforms is directly linked to the quality of interaction on the platform. Continually supporting innovations on the platform is critical. Recognising that those who are not on the platform, but at the edge of it may be innovators allows platforms to remain at the cutting edge of innovation and continue to deliver societal value. This is built on open resources (APIs, content, data and source code3) and open processes (crowdsourcing, open source development). Together, these lead towards democratization of platform value. For societal platforms, all innovators may struggle with the capacities—technological or otherwise—in converting ideas to modules/ extensions/apps that can sit on platforms. Accordingly, being deliberate and thoughtful in supporting extenders and participants is critical. Who To inspire co-creation, it is critical to take note of the innovation happening at the edge of the platforms. The ecosystem should be able to make use of the platform and its related structures to co-create solutions to achieve impact at scale by network amplification. Concerns at Scale Building ecosystems at scale is costly and challenging. At scale, there is also variation in the capacities and types of innovators, requiring customisation of programs and means of engagement. for further research example › How to navigate values of openness Datameet, hasgeek and various state and central government departments, with software/technical interpretations ministries have hackathon challenges for the innovators to gather and of openness? Do they require different propose solutions. approaches? Openness of code may also be linked to government regulations. 3 23 11 Build capacity to amplify values What Build team and partnership capacities and skills to amplify societal values. This means seeking those relationships that can nurture these values; practically, it means aligning hiring, training and incentive structures for these values. Why: Resolve for diversity Unlike other platforms, societal platforms care for impact. Other platforms seek to build networks and amplify interactions in order to profit. In ordinary commercial platforms, the skills and capacities required amongst the ecosystem are well-established and include measurable skills for growth and business development. In societal platforms, these skills are not enough —individuals and partners need to have a value system that aligns with the mission, and an ability to grapple with and navigate system complexities. Who For societal impact to happen, it is essential for an organisation to have capacities and skills reflective of the values of the societal platform. So people who have a firm understanding of the society and its complexities must be part of the platform and its governance principles. To embed multiple viewpoints, the platform should reflect diversity. Concerns at Scale Doing this at scale is complicated by the difficulties in measuring and assessing these values. However, articulating these values and building cultures of appreciation may enable these to become more widely accepted. for further research › How may we begin to articulate the social values and skills that are required for societal platforms? › In what ways are these values contextdependent? 24 Conclusion This report attempts to articulate an early version of principles and values that must frame governance approaches within platforms. They are prior to governance—they reside at the level of values. We acknowledge that this report raises more questions than it answers! Many questions arise—when problems that platforms aim to address change shape so as to become unrecognisable, or disappear altogether, how should platforms evolve? Should the existence of a societal platform be in perpetuity? Equally, we need to ask whether these values are to be calibrated differently for sarkaar, samaaj and bazaar, platforms? Further research is required to shed light on calibrating these principles further, testing them in context, and articulating a set of practices and actions around them. Next iterations relate to extending these out to speak to more practical, everyday considerations, and identifying best practices for actions. 25 Resources: Building a National Scale Learning Platform The 7 Key Principles of Platform Design Designing positive platforms: a guide for a governance-based approach Designing for social impact Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance The Hidden Order of Wikipedia Platform cooperativism Platform Ecosystems - Aligning Architecture, Governance, and Strategy - Amrit Tiwana Societal Platforms - Padmini Ray Murray, Paul Anthony & George Syeda Zainab Appendix List of interviewees 1. Dr Lalitesh Katragadda, Avanti Finance 2. Dr. Sunil Anand, ECHO India 3. Stina Heikkila, Platform Design Toolkit 4. Dr. Santosh Mathew, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 5. Khushboo Awasthi, Shiksa Lokam 6. Hiren Doshi, eGovernments Foundation 7. Sanjay Jain, Bharat Innovation Fund List of organisations in the roundtable 1. EkStep foundation 2. eGovernments Foundation 3. Avanti Finance 4. Digital Green 5. Arghyam 6. Reap Benefit 26 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.