ICTworks by Inveneo

In a recent post wondering what Steve Jobs would do in ICT4D, Ken Banks of FrontlineSMS fame bemoaned the lack of customer focus in ICT4D and expected that Apple would do better:

Apple would see people as customers, and they’d be carrying out what they’d see as a commercial transaction with them. This approach would mean they’d have to build something the customer wanted, and that worked (and worked well). Since it would have to sell, if successful it would by default be financially sustainable. Part of the problem with the largely subsidised ICT4D "give away technology" model is that no-one is ultimately accountable if things don’t work out, and regular business rules do not apply.

With all due respect to Ken, I have an issue with the idea that ICT4D is not serving its customers. Look at any successful ICT4D organization and I say that it builds exactly what its customers want, understands perfectly their business rules, and delivers it in a efficient commercial transaction - better than Apple ever could.

We know our customers needs

ICT4D buyers are looking for cool projects they can brag about to their friends and colleagues. Quick and cheap events that claim impressive return on investment. Better yet, the ability to show off shiny gadgets that get good press. None of our customers want to pay for a decade of R&D, nor would they ever tolerate secrecy in design or finances. So we build on the cheap, show them every penny, and fight to be leaner than the next in a highly competitive marketplace. We even fill out 20, 30, 50 pages of requirements just to get our customers attention.

Funders our our customers

Be not fooled by the talk of beneficiaries or financial self-sufficiency. ICT4D isn't working with people who can afford iPhones, or often even feature phones. We are working with the poor. Nor are the poor our customers. They don't pay us, and most likely never will. We are working for the funder. Bi- and Multi-laterals, international NGOs, even national governments, smaller organizations, and wealthy individuals - these are our customers. They are who we sell to. And we sell well. We sell exactly what they want, exactly how they want it, and at the exact price they are willing to pay.

Apple failed with funders

Anyone learn on an Apple IIe in school? A generation did before Apple walked away from the market, giving the enterprise and institutional buyer to Microsoft. Apple couldn't or didn't want to deal with the long sales cycle, the focus on vendor lock-in and the need to be infinitely flexible for the client. Now Apple is back in boardrooms and classrooms, but not via the IT department, but via the consumer. A better sales strategy overall? Arguably. But not one where Apple was successful with the funder as customer.

So don't make the mistake of thinking that Apple knows every customer. Or of thinking that ICT4D does not. Any successful organization owes its success to building exactly what the customer wants.

.

Get ICTworks 3x a week - enter your email address:

As teachers at a primary school in the Kisongo district of Arusha, Tanzania huddled into their computer lab, they quietly scoffed at me. What can a twenty-something American girl have to say in a meeting with all of us? I tried to remain upbeat and ignore the fact that I couldn’t understand what was being discussed in Swahili amongst the group.

“So I wanted to meet with everyone today to show you some computer software that can be used to support the concepts that are being taught in your curriculums.”

Blank stares. This was one tough crowd.

“Well there are lots of free tools on the Internet that you can use to help reiterate some of the concepts that you teach in the classroom.”

Crickets. Now I’m getting nervous.

I decided it might be best to open a program and demonstrate, so I opened Sebran, an open source educational software package, developed in Sweden. This would be a good start because it could be run in Swahili. I then loaded a math game that tasked students with counting the number of pictures on the screen and selecting the corresponding number.

“This game should be helpful to students in Class One who are just learning how to count. They can see several objects and then relate them to a number.”

I clicked on the first answer to show the teachers how it worked. Heads perked up. Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. I clicked on another answer. Now the teachers were closing in around the screen. One more answer. Now I had one teacher thieving the mouse from my grasp. They immediately started answering on their own and exploring the other games that were available through Sebran.

“Do you have anything to help with Class Two English?” “What about Class Five Science?”

I went on to show what I had collected and then explained how other educational tools could be located on the Internet. They all remained intrigued and attentive for the remainder of the meeting.

Guess what. This story took place in a primary school where each Standard had weekly ICT classes. Let me repeat that: Every student in this school sat in an ICT class every week. Guess what else. The ICT teacher, the one that instructs the students that sit in the weekly ICT class, was present at the meeting and was just as fascinated by the software as the rest of the teachers.

So if we have students that sit in an ICT class every week, being led by an instructor that has no prior knowledge of how to make use of educational software, what are the students doing in the ICT class?

Well I can somewhat tell you because I just so happened to stumble upon Class 5’s final exam in ICT from the previous year. It included questions such as: “An aluminum rod antenna is the type of __________.” “Most television sets use __________-power.” Or my favorite: “[True or False] Children are not supposed to watch television.”

And why is Class 5 being tested on these things in the ICT class? Because it’s what’s in the curriculum! The Tanzanian ICT curriculum lists objectives related to how a computer, radio, or television operates. Students are expected to know how to type up and save a document and how to transmit a message via radio. With instructors faithfully adhering to these policies, they don’t ever consider how technology can be used as a tool for facilitating instruction in other subjects.

I will admit that basic ICT literacy will be vital to students as they prepare to enter job markets where technology use is emphasized. But what is the ultimate goal of incorporating ICTs into education? Is it simply to teach kids how to use a computer? I hope not. What is the point in teaching kids how to use a computer if they are not using it for anything constructive to their learning?

The main goal of incorporating ICTs into education should be to improve or enhance the quality of a student’s education. This involves developing pedagogies for integrating the use of technology with the curriculums of other subjects. When used appropriately, technology has the potential to reiterate concepts learned in the classroom and allows students to think about these concepts in a different way. Furthermore, students are able to see a connection between technology and its applications.

Being able to offer this type of learning to students is dependent on several factors. First of all, the policies must back it. Teachers teach to the curriculum. They have been trained to teach to the curriculum, and with little prior ICT knowledge, there is little incentive for them to steer away from the curriculum. If teachers are going to use ICT as a tool for learning, then the policies should reflect that.

Second, teachers must have training. Teachers need sustained instruction, not only in basic ICT literacy, but also in the ways in which technology can be leveraged as a learning tool. A teacher will not take a classroom full of students to work on computers when (s)he is not comfortable working on it on his/her own. The ones that do this often find that they are unable to come up with productive activities for the students.

ICTs have the ability to effectively support student learning. It should be the main focus of ICT4E practitioners to veer policy development and teacher training in a direction that promotes technology as a learning tool. Doing so will provide students with better education and understanding of how technology can benefit various aspects of their lives.

.

Get ICTworks 3x a week - enter your email address:

Made in Africa: Africa's first handheld tablet, developed by Verone Mankou of the Republic of Congo, went on sale in Brazzaville and Pointe Noire yesterday (January 30). The "Way-C," or "light of the stars" in local dialect, sells for about US$300 and features integrated Wi-Fi and 4GB of memory. It will soon be marketed in 10 West African countries as well as France, Belgium, and India. There is some question as to whether the tablet is truly an African made project, as it is being assembled in China for the simple reason that Congo has no high tech factories. Stay tuned to ICT_Works for further discussion – the ICT4D world will soon be buzzing. In the meantime, congratulations to Africa and Mr. Mankou!

Mobile Tech in Mongolia: This is a part of the world that is often forgotten by the international development community. Yet this highly literate, sparsely populated, largely nomadic region of the world is poised for an ICT4D explosion, with considerations for improving access to higher education at the forefront. Blogger Michael Sean Gallagher explores various questions about "how to harness the knowledge potential of a literate society with good pedagogical frameworks and, if the situation demands, a pinch of ICT."

India: Increased Use of ICT for Education: From mapping to educational content delivery to data collection, from teacher recruitment to quality monitoring, the Indian state of Gujarat really knows how to effectively use ICTs for education. Read all about it

Girls in ICT Day! The UN's ITU agency has created the Girls in ICT Portal, a site for helping girls get involved in ICT studies and careers. They've even declared a "Girls in ICT Day" the fourth Tuesday of every April, when girls are invited into companies and governments agencies (globally) to meet ICT professionals and see what life is like on the job. "Girls in ICT Day" was only launched in 2011, so if you are an ICT professional please do your part and invite the girls in your life to learn about your work this April 24, 2012!

And now for some light reading… Information Technology and Educational Management in the Knowledge Society is an essential reference for both academic and professional researchers in the field of information technology and educational management. The papers presented in this volume are the result of an international call for papers addressing the challenges faced by the information technology and education management (ITEM) field in a society where knowledge management is becoming a major issue both in educational and business systems. This state-of-the-art volume presents the proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Information Technology in Educational Management. The price – $145 – is steep, to say the least, but for serious scholars and researchers of ICT, this is a must-read.

To get these links faster, follow me on Twitter: @SabinaBehague

.

Get ICTworks 3x a week - enter your email address:

When working with USAID funding, the purchase of ICT can be a little complicated. USAID would always ask for the source, origin and nationality of all equipment. That is where the equipment was manufactured, where it was purchased, and the nationality of the companies involved.

The expectation was that all three would be from a set of limited countries specified in the implementing agreement via a geographic code. Geographic code 000 was the most restrictive - United States only - and a huge headache for any implementer.

Instead of buying computers, printers, etc from the local ICT company, USAID funded programs had to import all that equipment from the geographic code countries. Often even then asking for a waiver because as Apple demonstrates, S/O/N is a joke when it comes to modern computing technology. Almost all technology is made outside the USA, from a global supplier base, sold by multinational companies with only the vaguest sense of nationality, and often available in-country at competitive prices. Or as USAID itself says:

Because of the end of the Cold War and the subsequent globalization of the economy, this approach has become increasingly difficult to administer and, in some respects, obsolete. The costs of compliance with the complex regulation, and of the self-imposed and unnecessary restrictions on procurement in recipient and developing countries means that the foreign assistance dollar does not go as far as it would with a more straightforward regulation that reflects the statutory authority to procure in the recipient country and other developing countries, in addition to the U.S.

What's even more interesting, is that USAID didn't have to follow this rule - it was a self-imposed relic of the Cold War never updated even though Congress gave it the authority to do so in 1993. Well, finally, USAID has re-written the S/O/N regulation, and we should all cheer. With this Final Rule determination, we are free of restrictive geographic codes come February 7. Just read the detail from USAID itself:

(a) USAID has established principal geographic codes which are used by USAID in implementing instruments. This regulation establishes a presumptive authorized principal geographic code, Code 937, for procurement of commodities and services unless otherwise specified in the implementing instrument. Code 937 is defined as the United States, the cooperating/recipient country, and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, and excluding prohibited sources. USAID maintains a list of developing countries, advanced developing countries, and prohibited sources, which will be available in USAID's Automated Directives System, ADS 310.

(b) For purposes of procurements under the authority of the Development Fund for Africa, 22 U.S.C. 2293 et seq.; for any waivers authorized under Subpart D of this regulation; and if otherwise designated in an implementing instrument, the authorized principal geographic code shall be Code 935, any area or country but excluding prohibited sources.

What does all that mean? By default, we are hereby free to buy from you and me, Africa or America, based on the qualities of the technology, not where it was made or who sold it to us.