ICTworks by Inveneo

Without a doubt, social networking has changed the technology landscape in places like Europe and the United States. But what is the role of this technology in the Global South? The February #ICT4D Twitter Chat focused on this during a lively 90-minute dialogue between technologists, implementers, and others in the ICT4D world. (Take the Chat Survey)

1. Social networking is driving ICT adoption, but which tools, why, and to what extent?
2. How can social networking increase donor, implementer, recipient participation in development?
3. What are the gaps and limitations in social networking engagement - where doesn't it work?

What social networking technology is involved?

Vincenzo Cosenza recently published a map reinforcing the dominance of Facebook as a powerhouse in the social networking world. And with new features like Facebook Zero, its also changing the way people interact with the Internet.

While Facebook is the major player in social networking, more local and regional sites like Mixi and Hi5 also have a presence in the Global South. Many others are being rapidly launched, even using other platforms, such as SMS. In fact, on Twitter, 50% of tweets are not in English.

Older technology tools like email can be used to connect and communicate with existing social networks. Still, the idea of the social networking site as a stand-alone platform has undeniably taken hold in the developing world - 25% of Kenyans who are online do not have email addresses yet 80% of all Kenyan Internet users are on Facebook.

Social changes increase participation in development work

Not surprisingly, this month's roundtable seemed to reach a consensus around the value of social networking for international development work. Social networking has tremendous potential to give voice to the people on the "receiving" end of international assistance.

It's also helping implementers in the actual work of development. Organizations are using different social networks for different purposes - Facebook is seen as a great for public outreach and youth engagement, while Twitter is better for peer exchange and identifying new partnerships.

This is one reason that ICTworks has a Facebook empowerment strategy.

Limitations on social networking

The largest constraint on social networking's influence and reach is the limited Internet infrastructure of the Global South. Communities that are not online do not feel the impact. In addition, socio-economic barriers like literacy and education can limit adoption and growth in connected societies.

Also be warned that big numbers of Facebook or Twitter followers doesn't directly translate into meaningful interactions. In fact, during the #ICT4D Twitter Chat, we came across one group that's steadfastly held its own against the social media tide: the "big men" of Africa - ministers and other government decision makers.

Reaching government decision makers with social networks

There is a still a strong culture among government leaders that "big men" don't use computers. The feeling that typing is for clerks or students. However, even if government officials are not using Facebook or Twitter professionally, they may be online in their personal life.

Regardless of personal status, they are listening to what their employees, direct reports, and family hear though online social networks. After all, they're "big men" because of their skill in reading offline social networks.

Here are a few early adopters:

• President of Togo - 4,997 fans
• President of Rwanda - 6,365 fans
• President of Côte d'Ivoire - 1,576 fans

Social networking future impact on development

Social networking technology is disruptive - no longer are donors and "big men" in government the only voices that communities have; those parties can be bypassed directly to launch grassroots movements. Indeed, many government and NGO leaders are reluctant, unable, or unwilling to use technology and are in fact being "leapfrogged" by the people they serve.

As today's youth who are growing up aware of social networking technology (even in the developing world) become the leaders and decision-makers of tomorrow, the role of global communication in "mainstream" international development will grow even more rapidly. The fast-paced spread and dropping costs of mobile technology will only feed the fire.

Michael Downey is a graduate student in human-computer interaction and ICT4D at Indiana University School of Informatics, and leads the Community Infrastructure Team for OpenMRS.

Last Friday, the third monthly #ICT4D Twitter Chat brought together 30 of the field's thought leaders (follow them all) to focus on and discuss ways that ICT4D can and does work with local governments, especially in situations like the recent disaster in Haiti.

Four questions guided the conversation (full transcript) which once again was a fast, free-flowing exchange of ideas:

• Do you work with local governments or bypass them? Why?
• What are the keys to project success with local governments?
• How can you work with compromised governments, like Haiti?
• What lessons for ICT have been learned so far in the Haiti relief effort?

Keys to success with local governments

One of the critical success factors identified collectively by the group was the importance of having a strategic personal relationship with a "project champion" in either a local government or other community leadership role. Because ICT4D projects by their very nature are long-term investments in the future, this local connection brings a strategic perspective and focus, as well as providing an opportunity to ensure the work is based on real, expressed needs of people in the area being served -- not just those of donors and interest groups "back home".

An interesting discussion during the event turned on the question of assigning credit for successful ICT4D implementations. While the group believed in the importance to position the local government or community champion as the driving force behind such projects, it's also important not to lose your own individual or organizational identity. Making sure people remember who helped make a solution possible will prevent costly searches for expertise in the future.

ICT networks, flattened

Learning from ICT deployments in Haiti

Working in a time-critical disaster relief context, like has been happening in Haiti in the past few weeks, brings some unique issues. Participants generally believed that when peoples' lives are on the line, it's important to "do" first, and inform others later. Waiting to get approvals from a local government in shambles is often not the best course of action.

However, major functions of ICT4D-focused relief groups should be focused on quickly identifying local "hubs" of knowledge and communication in the community, and helping rebuild communication infrastructure for these governments as well as major NGO's. Without these critical links in place, a coordinated relief effort just is not possible, resulting in wasted resources and delays in response.

In a situation like Haiti, with at least 150,000 known dead at the time of writing this article, lack of interoperability and cooperation between groups has undoubtedly cost an untold number of lives. The ICT4D community can learn from this, however, and take steps to proactively coordinate resources (e.g., local disaster contingency plans by organizations based in the community, and open standards for ICT response systems). This coordination in advance will help make the response more timely and effective in the critical hours after a disaster strikes. It's our responsibility as ICT4D professionals to work toward that end today to save lives tomorrow.

Recommended NGO's in Haiti

Finally, we asked participants to suggest some of their favorite relief organizations using ICT in Haiti. Here's a list of those shared:

• Partners In Health
• SOIL
• Sahana Foundation
• Ushahidi
• Plan International
• Hands and Feet Project
• Doctors Without Borders

Michael Downey is a graduate student in human-computer interaction and ICT4D at Indiana University School of Informatics, and is a contributor to the University's Indiana Development Informatics Group (IDIG) and OpenMRS programs.

Join #ICT4D Twitter Chats - subscribe to ICTworks via RSS, Email, Twitter, or Facebook

.

While many practitioners and pundits in the ICT4D community agree that the field has had more than its share of failure - with some even claiming an unbroken string of failures - little work has gone into understanding why these failures happened, and even less work sharing failure with others.

ICTworks attempted to change the nature of the community's discussion of failures last Friday with "Fail Day", the second edition of the now-monthly #ICT4D Twitter Chat.

By all measures, the event was a success, with nearly thirty participants -- including researchers, practitioners, and interested people from industry and government -- not to mention an even larger audience of observers. The event's guiding questions were simple: What are the major types of failure in the ICT4D field, why are we faced with these patterns, and what can be done to change the course?

Unsurprisingly, at the end of 90 minutes, there were arguably more new questions than answers. (A full transcript of the event is available.) However, a few important themes arose:

1. Improper or missing understanding of users.

Technologists, like all people, have a tendency to dream big. As a result, systems are often over-engineered in the minds of the designer, without taking the time to base the design on real data points from potential users (or even from other projects). Designed in a vacuum, these projects are nearly guaranteed to fail -- users in the developing world often end up finding very little in common with an application developer in the United States (for example).

The human-computer interaction field is partly to blame for this pattern, as we haven't done a good job providing low-cost, meaningful ways to better understand users in the global south. We certainly haven't promoted use of simple techniques such as use of personas, interviews, and surveys in the early phases of ICT4D projects. Some of us, including me, are working to change this, but it will not be an overnight process.

2. Failure to focus on real problems and needs.

A failure to understand real needs is somewhat related to misunderstanding of users. After all, the better technologists are at understanding users, the better they can understand their needs. At OpenMRS, we have a mantra that "care will lead the way". This means that every bit of functionality can be traced to actual, real-life needs of the clinics and health care professionals we serve.

Unfortunately, this type of understanding can only be achieved by spending time first-hand in the environment where an ICT4D solution will be used, or, if that's not possible, by involving people from that environment directly in the design process. Eliminating time spent on "imagined" problems not only makes the technology development process faster, it also increases the likelihood the product will be well-received.

3. Expectation gap between implementers and donors.

Building on the previous two points, the chat's participants made it clear that implementers don't always do a good job of educating donors and other stakeholders about the realities "on the ground". (Perhaps this is because these "doers" don't fully understand them, themselves!) This misunderstanding inevitably leads to faulty expectations not only of the project, but also the processes of designing and implementing. Technologists must become better at "speaking donor", and also must help the donors learn a little about how to "speak tech".

This communication gap has plagued the informatics world in the global north since its beginnings, so it's not surprising to see it at play in the global south in international development projects. However, I believe the remedy may be the same in both situations - increased cross-training of people with solid technical backgrounds in concepts like interpersonal communication, project management, monitoring and evaluation.

Summary

While failures -- particularly in ICT4D -- will never be eliminated, focusing on these factors earlier in projects can help reduce of the impact of these failures, and help us "fail early and often", iteratively improving project implementations instead of failing late in the game, wasting more donor funds and invaluable time.

What do you think? Do you agree with these ideas? Were some overlooked? Voice your opinion in the comments.

Other FailDay Chat Synopsis

• ICT4D: Past mistakes, future wisdom
• Agile Development and Retrospectives: Learning from failure?

Keep current - subscribe to ICTworks updates via RSS, Email, or Twitter

.