Current and future Web 2.0 integration for Kiva

In a slight shift of focus, this section will explore to what extent Kiva integrates Web 2.0 concepts and technology. It will look at the organization from an institutional level as well as a technical level.

Kiva and Web 2.0 thinking. At the institutional level, Kiva‘s Chief Technology Officer, Sam Mankievicz, describes ―all of Kiva as a platform/marketplace, bringing together interested lenders and borrowers in ways that are only possible because of the network‖ (Mankievicz interview). This is in-line with O‘Reilly‘s (2005b)

80

definition of Web 2.0 as ―network as platform . . . making the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform.‖ Mankievicz claims that the Kiva ―business model itself is very Web 2.0,‖ because ―having someone from the US contribute $25 of a $600 loan to a farmer in Africa wouldn‘t even be close to cost-effective without the internet.‖ In that regard, this author agrees that the whole concept of Kiva is a strong reflection of Web 2.0 because it takes advantage of the ―opportunities of the platform‖ (O‘Reilly, 2005a).

Furthermore, in a presentation about Kiva and Web 2.0, Kiva founder, Flannery, and President, Shah, described how Kiva is providing microfinance funds to the ―long tail‖ of microfinance clients in the world (see the footnote on p. 39 regarding the ‗long tail‘ concept). The clients that Flannery and Shah refer to work with the ―extremely small, opaque, unsustainable‖ MFIs that do not have the ability to secure favorable commercial funds. Kiva is able to partner with these MFIs, and to help them build a bridge towards sustainable sources of funds beyond grants and unfavorable debt. Flannery describes Kiva‘s ideal portfolio as a ―combination of very established MFIs,‖ and the less-established MFIs ―who are a risk to other microfinance investors‖ – the ones in the long tail (Flannery 2007: 48). The concept of the long tail implies that these harder-to-reach clients, when given access to the network, can be strong contributors to the Kiva system, and can benefit from access to the platform. From a developmental perspective, this long tail implies providing access to the poorest-of- the-poor who don‘t have access to other resources they need, or to smaller non- governmental organizations like K-MET, whose mission is broader than just microfinance, for example.

Finally, on a conceptual level, Kiva reflects Web 2.0 in that it thrives as a result of user referrals. The viral popularity of the Kiva concept is what has driven its growth – not marketing or advertising. Mankievicz says, ―We depend on lenders to attract other lenders‖ in order to spread the word about the site. While media relations has been an important part of the organizations‘ growth, there is ―no marketing department in the traditional sense and certainly no budget there‖ (Mankievicz interview). The concept of user-driven (or citizen-lead) growth is at the core of Web 2.0.

81

Kiva and Web 2.0 technology. As to the actual Web 2.0 technology that is used, Mankievicz provides five major examples of Web 2.0-driven technical integrations. First, he explains, “we integrate a bunch of external services (PayPal, YouTube, Amazon s3/cloudfront, Google maps, salesforce, xe, recaptcha, akismet, and probably more…)17_{.‖ This is an example of the ‗collaboration‘ principle of Web 2.0. Next,}

Mankievicz explains that, ―we expose our data in ways that can be consumed by other services. The API [application programming interface]18 has made that more explicit this year, but even from the very beginning we had RSS feeds‖ (ibid.). With this idea, Mankievicz is most likely referring to the ―openness‖ that characterizes Web 2.0. His example is Kiva‘s API, where Kiva opened its data to be re-used by the public in any form that they choose. Some of the features that private users have created have then been integrated on the Kiva.org website. Furthermore, Mankievicz explains that ―the site itself doesn‘t have a whole lot of ajax or complex JavaScript19 in it, except for small doses on a few key pages,‖ meaning that it is accessible to outsiders wanting to access the growing content on the site. Finally, he says that, ―I guess we allow lenders to upload a picture of themselves and publish their own profile pages, but that seems more like a feature to me than big technology piece.‖

Overall Web 2.0 integration. While Kiva‘s business model is closely related to Web 2.0, and Kiva uses Web 2.0 technology, recall that the study by Ashta and Assadi (2008) revealed that Kiva is not a perfect Web 2.0 model (see p. 46). Firstly, the Web 2.0 technology and features on Kiva.org impact the various Kiva stakeholders differently. The Chief Technology Officer explains that ―the implementation of Web 2.0 technology itself has been much more complete, much more automated on the lender side of the equation‖ (Mankievicz interview). It is not just that borrower

17

It is not necessary to describe each of these websites/services to understand Mankievicz‘ point. It will suffice to say that Kiva engineers have integrated information and software from various different companies to work on the Kiva.org site.

18 _{An API is an application programming interface. Kiva‘s API is a set of programming instructions}

for accessing Kiva.org‘s online data about loans, borrowers, etc. Kiva Fellow morrisctm described Kiva‘s API as ―essentially an open source tap into all the data in Kiva's system that doesn't violate anyone's privacy‖ (Kiva Fellows online interview). Kiva released their API in order to allow outside software developers to create their own programs that use the Kiva data. Some examples of outside projects that use Kiva‘s data are http://kivadata.org and a Kiva iPhone application.

19

Ajax is shorthand for asynchronous Javascript and XML. In this situation Mankievicz presumably mentions Ajax and Javascript because these web development tools can sometimes prevent indexing and searching of web content to outside programs.

82

interaction is limited compared to the lender experience; borrower interaction and borrower experience via the website is simply non-existent. There are no ways for borrowers to interact with each other using Kiva.org itself. The limited borrower integration that does take place is mediated through other Kiva stakeholders.

Future integration. As for how Web 2.0 will change Kiva in the future, Mankievicz (ibid.) offered a few examples, many of which are intended to improve the lender‘s user experience. The first idea is, ―better personalization/recommendations‖ for lenders. Kiva is looking toward automated suggestions based on individuals‘ lending patterns and preferences. Next, Kiva also hopes to ―do a better job of keeping lenders engaged with the stories in-between repayments,‖ including higher journaling rates and other features that maintain lender interest and activities while their borrowers are repaying. Kiva is also working on ―integrating Kiva with communities that already exist.‖ After this interview took place, Facebook announced that Kiva would be one of the four initial charities present in its new ―virtual gift shop‖ where Facebook users buy virtual credits (with real money) to donate to (or lend via) its charity partners (McCarthy, 2009). This is just one example of how Kiva can integrate with other existing online communities.

There are also a few plans for future Web 2.0 integration that impact other stakeholders‘ experiences with Kiva. For example, Kiva is working towards ―better feedback loops‖ for lenders about their ―social returns,‖ or borrower outcomes (Mankievicz interview). Kiva is currently working towards a system of social performance monitoring of its partner MFIs, which will rate each MFI by its social performance, a metric that will be derived from Kiva‘s own data as well as data from key partners in the world of microfinance evaluation. Kiva will also be looking to implement ―better feedback loops‖ for lenders about the types of loans lenders prefer (ibid.). In this sense, Mankievicz says that Kiva ―hasn‘t really done much to get the potential wisdom from our crowds,‖ when it comes to user data. Finally, Kiva is working on ―optimizing information exchange with MFI‘s systems‖ in order to ―reduce their cost of Kiva by fitting in with their existing systems and operations‖ (ibid.) This Web 2.0 style integration could help MFIs lower their costs, and could further lower borrowers‘ interest rates on Kiva loans.

83

The first part of this chapter has served to answer Research Question 2: What is the nature of Kiva.org’s operations, with specific reference to its work in Kisumu, Kenya? The findings offered several examples of how Kiva reflects the Web 2.0 model and how it integrates Web 2.0 technology. This information is an important basis for Part 2, next, which compares Development 2.0 principles to the organization.