Cities have critical information needs.

To reach their potential, communities require efficient information exchange among multiple stakeholders. But with communication channels increasingly fragmented, individual entities struggle to get their information to the right audiences in a timely manner.

This creates a reality where citizens’ expertise, labor, and capital are infrequently used, let alone optimized, in serving the needs of their communities. There are several reasons for this. One is a lack of meaningful opportunities to engage on issues that serve citizens’ self interest — people find it hard to understand how to make a difference in the issues they’re interested in. Even if citizens do try and input on a certain issue, there is often a lack of feedback. Without worthwhile returns on investment, the chances of future civic engagement drop. Finally, there is a lack of information on how to self-organize to solve civic problems, and few resources to turn enthusiasm into meaningful action.

We’ve recently been pondering the question of how innovation and service delivery are facilitated in real world markets. This is a particularly sticky question in the development industry, where significant “search friction” occurs.

To address the problem, we’ve come up with a theoretical approach based on making supply and demand more efficiently organized when connecting funders with development service providers.

We’ve wrapped this theory up as a submission for Nokia’s Africa Innovation Summit. From the proposal:

“”Introducing the Development Score, an index or ‘credit score’ for groups working for social impact. The Score considers both objective and subjective measures of a given supplier/do-gooder’s methodology, successes, and overall accountability, with the algorithm/metrics determined by a group of experts in development, business, and public service.”

One presentation that perked my ears at the recent Columbia Institute for Tele-Information’s Mobile Money II Conference was by Judith Mariscal of CIDE, a Mexican social science research centre. In examining literature on mobile money vis-a-vis data from select deployments, Mariscal and research partner Ernesto M Flores-Roux found that many of mobile banking’s accepted maxims don’t always hold. Their resulting “The Enigma of Mobile Money” [presentation and paper], which Mariscal presented at Mobile Money II, thus tempers the oft breathless enthusiasm for mobile as holy grail for the poor and unbanked.

To date, we’ve seen relatively few mobile banking home runs — currently, of nearly 100 deployments worldwide, only 10 can claim over one million users — thus, Mariscal noted, our understanding of what it takes to succeed in mobile banking is patchy at best and a more critical eye towards industry truisms is warranted. Some common myths addressed by Mariscal and Flores-Roux:

Many of the world’s poorest live without access to basic banking services such as savings, insurance, payment services, and basic credit. Those in the developed world often take these services for granted without realizing their contributions to secure, productive livelihoods. Savings allow us to decrease our risk in handling cash and insurance allows us to protect against economic shocks; payment services allow us to save time that can be spent in more productive ways and basic credit allows us to use current assets to capitalize on future opportunities.

Half the global population, however, lives without such services, or at least without such services as enjoyed by the majority of the developed world. The percentage of households that are financially excluded increases to 80 percent when looking at Africa. Traditionally unattractive to commercial banks, low-income populations are forced to seek out alternative service providers, often at great financial burden and opportunity cost to themselves.

I recently appeared on the Arabic language news network al-Hurra to talk about the role of the media in inter-faith dialogue. With current tensions between American foreign policy and the Muslim world at an all-time high, it’s no surprise that the US government funded network takes an interest in the topic.

There was a common assumption underlying all the questions I was asked. The proposition was that our ever expanding and globally interconnected media ecosystem is fostering inter-faith dialogue and understanding. This is certainly an optimistic pronouncement coming from those with an interest in seeing reality as such. Unfortunately, I feel that our current media have failed to deliver on this promise.

The reality of today is that people often dig deeper into their established and preferred worldview. MoveOn.org co-founder Eli Pariser has coined the term “filter bubbles” to describe our increased tendency to ignore content that challenges our opinions. Using newly possible online filters to block out dissonant views — whether intentionally or not — we are able to stay within our comfortable, bubble-view of the world.