Aparajita [user:field_middlename] Suman

Aparajita Suman

Kaizen, a Tetra Tech Company

Expertise in designing and rolling out specialized KM, communication and learning initiatives across ministries (MoJS, MoHFW, MoWCD, MoRD) in Govt. of India, civil societies (Oxfam, FHI 360, The Union), international organizations (UNAIDS, UNODC, UNICEF, CDRI) and multi-lateral/ bilateral projects (USAID, World Bank, WHO). The cross-cutting sectoral experience from flagship missions of GoI (JSY, NRLM and SBM) help me employ a multi-disciplinary approach to development challenges.

Currently working as Advisor- Knowledge Management, Kaizen - on secondment for a USAID funded project in India.

Key skills and personal traits

• Proficient in designing and implementing KM & communication strategy, multi-media campaigns, participatory communication techniques, learning & development approaches
• Wide experience of designing strategies for capacity building of various stakeholders and rolling out CB plans using both traditional and innovative ICT tools
• Proven knowledge of information management and dissemination techniques viz. public relations and media management; publications; branding and social media
• Demonstrated experience of handling new media tools using online platforms for information dissemination: website, information portals, intranet, e-learning platforms, and social media
Competence in programme management including budget and performance monitoring of State governments – NRLM, SBM etc.

My contributions

    • Very useful insights Silva. You are right that visuals are usually cute add-ons/ after thoughts. It's high time we get trained/ skilled and create a pipeline of experts and practitioners who can communicate in other languages/ mediums.





      Dr. Aparajita Suman

      Advisor- Knowledge Management 

      Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure


    • My experience says evaluation findings without communication may not be as impactful. In most cases, the evaluation findings are supposed to inform either the design of new programs or propose changes/ insights for design of next phase. In either case, communication is important- not just for the internal/ core team that commissioned the study but for all stakeholders.

      Specifically, on the questions:

      • Who should fund this campaign ‒ the intervention partners or the evaluation office?

      The intervention partners should make provisions for this right at the design stage, unless the project/ programme deals with sensitive data of any kind. The evaluation office should ensure that the findings are presented in a usable form- need not be a campaign ready content but something less jargonized to help stakeholders take decisions, as necessary.

      • To what extent should evaluators be involved in communicating their findings to stakeholders?

      Evaluators needn't be involved in the communication of the findings per se but MUST be available to ensure/ validate that the essence of the findings doesn't get lost in the design of communication campaigns. Sometimes, the attempt to simplify the messaging leads to dilution of the core finding.

      • Should evaluators make recommendations on communicating their results? This means asking evaluators to possess another skill

      This is tricky. It is ideal if the evaluators (agency/ team) has the additional skill (sub-team) to make recommendations on communicating their result but this may not be essential. However, the evaluators must help in shortlisting/ finetuning the recommendations from a communication perspective.