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.

Ken Banks of FrontlineSMS fame, had his 2010 ICT4D year in review published in the Guardian UK as "Technology's role in fighting poverty is still ripe for discussion" and an exceprt is below:

If I were to make one key observation, I'd say that the "D" in ICT4D (Information and Communication Technologies for Development) resembled more "debate" than "development" during 2010. The ICT4D field has always been ripe for fierce discussion – perhaps a sign that all is not well, or that the discipline continues to mature, or that the rampant advance of technology continues to catch practitioners and academics off-guard. Where, for example, does the advance of the iPad fit into ICT4D, if at all?

I've witnessed debate around the promise of high-speed internet since the landing of the new cable off the east coast of Africa almost 18 months ago. There was much hype and excitement when the connection was made – yet the promise of faster, cheaper broadband is yet to reach the masses. It was always going to be a battle of expectation versus reality, and maybe 2011 will be the year that accelerated progress is finally made.

There has also been debate surrounding "the cloud", and whether internet-based services are useful and relevant to many members of the grassroots non-profit community who find themselves working in more remote, challenging environments.

And post-Haiti, debate continues on the value of crowd sourcing in humanitarian response following the lead taken by Ushahidi in responding to the crisis.

Read more ont he Poverty Matters Blog

Recently there's been a good discussion about cloud computing in Africa, where Ken Banks asks if its "Inappropriate" appropriate technology? Ken starts by suggesting that:

If we take anything that uses “the cloud“, for example, then I’d argue that it’s largely “inappropriate” unless you’re working in predominantly urban areas or in predominantly ‘developed’ countries.

7.47 Kbps download speed in Nigeria

Why? Well cloud computing relies on realtime server interactions with low latency, high bandwidth, and a stable connection. None of those are common in most of Africa. As an example, 193 Kbps in Ghana is the best bandwidth speed I've found in my Africa travels. Or as Miguel says:

The Cloud is predicated on having an "always on" connection to function. While it's fine to design a web architecture that centrally stores user data and handles all the heavy lifting when it comes to processing, the issue of access is going to block off Africa and whole lot of the rest of the world because of this. Designers (if they can be nudged to care) need to build applications with this in mind for probably the next 5-10 years. It's building in "graceful degradation" to a system.

But why live in the now? Others look to a brighter, more connected future with announcements like 3.5G in rural Ghana. Specifically, Matt Berg makes the point that we should not close our minds to the rapid growth of bandwidth options that make cloud computing possible:

The data quality of GSM networks in places like Africa is improving dramatically and will soon offer (if they don’t already) performance comparable to the West. Assuming the well funded operators can weather the growing pains of widespread data adoption, I think we can expect the quality and reliability to improve. Also in terms of GSM networks rural areas will increasingly = urban areas as operators extend services.

In addition, the quick spread of technology infrastructure can reduce some of the connectivity constraints that Miguel described. Alice Liu points out that much of the long distances data must now cover to reach American or European server farms is shortening as infrastructure moves onto the continent:

The cloud doesn’t necessarily mean connecting back to California as another person mentioned. MTN in Kigali, for instance, offers data center/hosting services and many governments are setting up their own data centers and IT service centers to serve other government units. I’m hoping this takes off, because in govt they’re all competing for the same scarce IT resources.

But I think the best point in the whole discussion is made by Michael Downey, when he says that, like politics or the weather, all technology is local:

“Appropriate” technology is based 100% on context of who users are and the environments in which they will work and live. Thus, there’s a danger of over-generalizing any technology, such as emerging platforms like cloud computing, and even more proven platforms such as mobile devices.

Choosing the right solution for a given situation is what's paramount, not any one specific technology. In high-bandwidth areas where users have devices that can browse the Internet quickly and cheaply, cloud computing can make great sense. I used my mobile phone web browser more in Accra, Ghana than the USA. Yet in Nigeria, Internet bandwidth is so poor and unreliable, VoIP intranets beat Skype for voice communications and cloud computing would be a joke.

So its best not to watch international news for the right technology solutions to implement in your specific project. Like the weather, its best to be local and look out the window to see what's appropriate for your day - be it cloudy or not.

With Dambisa Moyo sounding off in Wired magazine that we should Cut Off Aid to Africa, that is favor investment over grants to government, its time we ask ourselves if information and communication technologies are a help or hindrance to development.

In our search for answers, or at least a in-depth discussion of ICT's impact on Africa, may I suggest that we start with this great Vox Africa interview with Tunde Adebayo, Ken Banks, Tim Unwin, and Samuel Burke:

In this video, Ken Banks has a provocative statement when he says:

I think we can argue that if mobile phones were a World bank or international aid project, we would be no where near where we are now

I wonder if he remembers that the IFC, the financing arm of the World Bank, helped found Celtel, one of Africa's largest mobile phone companies before it was bought by MTC? But he does have a point in the rapid spread of mobile phone being mainly free of international development influences.

Yet the bigger question around a second act. Are mobile phones a fluke, or can there be other private industry driven ICT's that have just as great, or even greater impact of the long-term development of Africa?

Like what you read? Then subscribe to ICTworks updates via RSS, Email, or Twitter

.