ICT4D,LIMITATIONS AND RISKS

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Wangchuk Chungyalpa on June 7, 2009 at 11:54am

First, we need to identify areas of development. What constitutes development?

Generally development refers to:

1) Infrastructure development as in roads, bridges, electricity, hospitals, cities, airports, seaports, urban housing etc.

2) Capacity building measures as in education, healthcare, political and economical measures and more.

The United Nations Development Program identifies the following areas as “development”.
1. Poverty reduction
2. Democratic governance
3. Crisis prevention and recovery
4. Environment & Energy
5. Womens empowerment
6. HIV/AIDS
7. Capacity Development

When we speak of ICT4Dev, we are applying ICT to address one of the above issues or a combination thereof.

In my experience, the primary challenges are:

Soft Areas:

(1) Lack of vision resulting in ambguity
(2) Failure to take into consideration needs of the various stakeholders.
(3) Inability to collaborate and function as a team.
(4) Lack of leadership
(5) Lack of accountability

Hard Areas:

(1) Lack of information and communication systems
(2) Lack of skilled personnel
(3) Lack of funds, overextending budget and time limitations
(4) Lack of resources or control over resources – value chain dependability
(5) Lack of strategy – short and long term. The project has no clear direction.
(6) Ineffective application and use of resources resulting in wastage

Much of the above can be resolved via in-depth research, feasibility assessments, collaborative planning and strong execution and implementation.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jan Herder on June 15, 2009 at 8:51pm

Thank you Wangchuk, for your discussion. You have probably heard me speak of this before, but I want to discuss the difference between Development (ICT4D) and Emergence (ICT4E) in terms of the questions and issues you are raising. Simply said, 'development' is a top down strategy. Its roots are colonial, industrial and supply side. Emergence is bottom up, its roots are biological, indigenous and synergistic--demand side. I feel that the effort to solve problems from a developmental framework will always fail at a certain level. So if we change our perpective and look at these "developmental' goals and objectives from a new paradigm suddenly we can re-invision them according to a bottom up swelling, an emergent point of view.
1. Poverty reduction becomes wealth creation
2. Democratic governance becomes equitable access to knowledge
3. Crisis prevention and recovery becomes awareness of the biome
4. Environment & Energy becomes self reliance and sustainability and renewables
5. Womens empowerment becomes cultural evolution
6. HIV/AIDS can be prevented through access to knowledge
7. Capacity Development becomes full capacity sharing (transfer)

And so I would re examine your soft and hard categories of challenge in this new light and take your suggestion of collaboration deeply, very deeply. I am excited about the possibilites. What do you think? Does this make any sense?

This shift in paradigm addresses Niranjan's concern about Telecenter Operators (and I would add 'Telecenter community') and his call for including the bottom of the pyramid in the discussion of the pyramid building, by using ICT Web 2.0. 4 Emergence.

Regards,
Jan

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sandra Nassali on June 17, 2009 at 6:44am

ICT projects are notorious for coming in over-budget and late. Several high profile public sector failures have made voluntary organizations and funders very wary of ambitious ICT projects. But equally, there is a risk associated with not investing in good technological solutions, and some organizations even jeopardize future funding if they do not have ICT-based monitoring systems in place to show how they are performing.

It is very important to set out the real costs of an ICT project. The first thing is to identify all the costs associated with the proposed work. Initially, it may appear that hardware and software make up the main cost. In fact, over the life of a project, these items could turn out to be the least expensive. The costs of managing a project, training staff and supporting a new ICT system can be several times the initial outlay on equipment. You will need to show in your application that you have considered all these items. Lack of attention to any one of them could undermine the whole project. This could include getting quotations for hardware, software, installation and training costs, and working out how much management time you expect to devote to the project.

Also, investors are always challenged to continue managing their IT environments to lower costs, increase security and mitigate risks. They face pressure to upgrade IT infrastructures and execute more complex tasks under limited budgets. The digital divide is a key challenge even within national boundaries and still exists. A conscious effort needs to be made by Governments, NGOs and Aid Agencies to address this gap.

Another challenge is the apportioning of funding for ICT projects when some of the developing countries have an immediate and more urgent need in medication, education and health care.

Cross- agency adoption of IT shared services is yet another limitation. Multi-tiered states, regions and communities with National, State level government, and Local levels, continue to operate in silos with insufficient guidance to put a consolidated shared infrastructure and to bring a single window of services/ impact to the citizens.

Those were my few cents :-)

Cheers

Sandra

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Shipra Sharma on June 27, 2009 at 2:41am

Hi Evans,
First of all, I must thank you for starting up this discussion and eliciting some very good replies from Wangchuk, Jan and Sandra. I agree with their opinions and just want to add to what they have said.
As Jan rightly said, currently the term "development" has been reduced to a cliche with no value attached to it when used in isolation.
Therefore, before considering the risks and limitations of ICT4D projects, we have to remember that in sharp contrast to the classical and neo classical theories of development that lay down the path/ strategies for development, ICT4D propagates the appropriate use of ICTs for development. That is: ICTs act as enablers for development or an instrument to achieve development because of their immense ability in overcoming the barriers of time and space.
ICTs are powerful mediums, more so in the context of the "knowledge economy" where access to and control over knowledge is the real power that determines (to a major extent) how developed or under-developed a country is. In other words, merely access to and control over the means of production and resources are not enough for achieving development. It should be backed by right knowledge at the right time and place to the right person/ community, i.e., to the one who seeks it.
Here comes into play the power of ICTs; these can be used for individual gains as well as for the betterment of the whole community. Therefore, the major limitation and risk lies in its utilisation for the benefit of a priviledged few, i.e., those with access to and control over ICTs and the immense potential of the World Wide Web. So, it faces the risk of misappropriation. In itself, it does not guarantee equity and an egalitarian community/ society.
So, in addition to what others have said, in my view, this is the greatest risk and limitations of ICT4D projects globally. These projects should come with a "handle with care" tag.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Wangchuk Chungyalpa on June 28, 2009 at 11:11am

Thank you for clarifying a big issue. When you term ‘development’ as top down, I suppose you are referring to the planning, analysis and research that goes into any development project whereas emergence is more happenstance, that is, it evolves without planning and guidance. As for the development goals, it is goals because it is precise and focused. For example, wealth creation could refer to a financial instrument in the market. However, your contribution is valued because the underlying viewpoint is poverty reduction or some sort of social benefit and this need not be identical.

Thank you Sandra for identifying relevant areas. If a project is public ie government funded, incentive to innovate and improvise are generally lacking because the enterprise will continue due to funding and they are not subject to the same constraints. The difference with a private entrepreneur is that costs have to be considered. The first rule for any entrepreneur is sustainability which is based on risk assessment and return on investment. The value of the enterprise lies in its core service and if this service is in alignment with the development goals and positive spillovers, it is a win win for all.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Evans MACHERA on June 30, 2009 at 11:52am

Dear all,

I am indeed pleased to learn and exchange online on and about ICT4D.

While limitations are related to e-readyness in terms of infrastructure and 'technological literacy',risks includes giving individual and family information to the extent of revealing privacy on oneself/family either willingly or unwillingly.

There is also exposure to lurement to conning commonly known as cyber crimes.

what is your take in terms of solutions here!

Evans

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jan Herder on July 2, 2009 at 12:00pm

Hello, great discussion, thanks. Evans, in terms of your latest questions I would have to say awareness is the best defense against predators on line. Any school that limits access to web 2.0 sites is jeopardizing their youth by not giving them tools and experience in dealing with public persona. This is a fact of most schools in the States. They deny and ignore the use of web 2.0 by students and so fail to educate them in 21st Century Literacy. They must be taught to realize they should not put private information on the internet. I have this struggle all the time with my college students, and one of the major reasons I moved my LMS to Facebook. We cannot put our children on a busy street without teaching them to look both directions before they cross.

But I wanted to go back to the difference between Development and Emergence as a strategy for full capacity transfer using ICT. As Shipra said we should not be so naive to embrace 'development' unless we understand its implications. The proposition to use an emergent approach to ICT and full capacity transfer is radical because it gives power to the people. This contrasts sharply with standards, control, hierarchies and established educational systems. Renewable power is an excellent example. If you can produce your own power you do not need the huge infrastructures of multi national corporations. Consumers become prosumers and this changes everything. The same is true of web 2.0 and ICT. No longer knowledge consumers only--now we can be knowledge producers--called content creators, and establish folksonomies as opposed to taxonomies. With local experts and local wisdom centralized control becomes more problematic. Developers are trying to sell you something, to open markets, to exploit resources and human capital. Web 2.0 is also extremely clever at exploiting you and your creativity. What makes emergence potentially different? Well, it is a bit out of control, you don't know what will emerge, and this takes courage and openness. It takes tolerance, comfort with diversity and pluralism. So Wangchuk's characterization of emergence as 'happenstance, without planning and guidance' is not entirely correct. Rather, it happens without the developers guidance and planning, it follows an organic model, like a flower blossoming, or the step from one media to another, that cannot be predicted based on the characteristics of what proceeded the change. So what I am saying in regards to the problems of development, is that we are asking the wrong question. As Einstein said, you cannot use the thinking that caused the problem to solve the problem. SO this rather long digression returns to community empowerment and supply side vs demand side use and deployment of ICT4D projects. And this is why I begin with local content and inventories, of the widest scope, to include the biome in all of its diversity and challenges. It is my hope and vision to start with this bottom up approach to avoid many risks of ICT4D projects. Of course there are other risks.
Thank you for the thoughts,
regards,
Jan

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Evans MACHERA on July 3, 2009 at 2:07am

Jan,

Thanks for your appropriate response.

There cannot be a better answer in Your illustration that "We cannot put our children on a busy street without teaching them to look both directions before they cross" .

Thank you,as i watch over other responses if any.

Evans.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Niranjan Meegammana on July 5, 2009 at 3:47am

Hi All
I been reading on open ICT4D and saw this intersting discusion evolving. Some times we have to get back to the basics to start some thing fresh.

I was inspired with this paper
http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/12271304441Open_ICT4D_Draft.pdf

I like the idea for ICT4E as Jan says, but what works on field is what Wangchuk says. In our case we work in a mixed approach, development to enable emergence bottom up. So you both are showing a point.

And to answer "What are the limitations for starting/establishment of ICT4D Projects and what are the risks for a developed ICT4D Projects in general!"

ICT4D projects now tend to shift from free sevice context to service + subsidised revenue context. Unless we establish a project that has demand to generate cash, it's more of a business that serves a market demand

I think there for majority of the ICT4D project tend to be in a community service model; The limitations of starting such projects lie in it self, like a new born. Need assistance until can getup and go, even a good project is done, usually there is a dry period until next line of funding is available, This is the period of servival of for your key team, you can't loose them.

Some projects are great ideas people like them and give you funding, sometimes it would take an initial development stage and impact stage to convince a funder; this is a risk, in case if you have to drop it; But if you are sure and belive it might be your shining.

Secondly, all good things dont happen one after other; trying several small initiatives are good as one may get the attention; it usually happen as the project evolve. As I know many projects fail to meet milestones due to unrealistic time and resource plans; but if you do not fail in your beliefs you can get the project back on track, ICT4D projects usullay tend to show high impact in plans, but ground conditions vary,

We need to calculate for winds, resistance, anti momentum all sort of factors, even theft and loss of data , lives in extreame cases and make your plans dynamic. The project must be made sensitive to external changes. If the project aimed to change something, the project it self need to be the one changing first. so be dynamic.

The risks for a developed ICT4D Projects in general
- You can't easily leave it
- You are challanged to innovate further
- You are challanged with sustainability

Matured projects has their limitations in innovating further. Specially Shilpa Sayura like projects address an eternal problem, that has a demand, not really to sell, but to attrat, motivate and keep beneficiaries in the project (extra to the Team) requires carefull planing and contining strategies that would increase the beneficiary base and impact community.

In Shilpa Sayura we just keep doing it and it costs money ?
We have to find it and we are thinking alternative revenue strategies.

This is still an unswered question to me.

Regards
Niranjan Meegammana
http://www.shilpasayura.org

▶ Reply to This