ICTworks by Inveneo

I've been following Facebook's rise in Africa pretty closely, but Rebecca Wanjiku reminds us that Twitter is also a social media platform to watch in her Twitter grows, Facebook gains ground in sub-Saharan Africa article:

Big companies like Kenya Airways, Safaricom, Nairobi Stock Exchange, Telkom Kenya, Kenya Tourist Board, Bata and Kenya Data Networks have set up a presence on Twitter as a way to engage consumers and address their concerns.

"Companies are using Twitter to spread word on offers, announcements, handle basic customer care issues, raise awareness on new products and collect views from consumers," said David Mugo, an independent social media consultant in Tanzania, Kenya and Namibia.

However, the services provided by Facebook are considered simpler to use for first-time Internet users or people with basic skills compared to Twitter, which is considered complicated and intimidating to those who may not know how to use the third-party applications available.

"Based on my statistics, Twitter usage is still low with less than 10,000 tweets a day, which is hardly enough to analyze conclusively. The number of unique users actually sending tweets is even lower, with most of them being spammers," said Jacob Ayienda, an independent software developer based in Nairobi.

.

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.

Don't forget that we're having a Twitter Chat today. We want to explore the impact of social networking technologies on businesses and communities in the developing world with our guides: ICTworks, Michael Downey, and Chloe Feinberg.

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?

We'll start at 12-noon Eastern Time ( noon worldwide ) with introductions, then move into the discussion, using the #ICT4D hashtag in Twitter.

For those not on Twitter, you can watch the action via the handy embed below or this separate webpage:

For those new to Twitter Chats, its a freewheeling conversation around our central questions on the Twitter platform. Our hope is to learn from each other and find ways we can increase our impact using social media.

We'll archive the Chat too, in case you miss out.

Be sure to follow ICTworks on Twitter and RSVP today!

.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn - these social networking technologies are driving ICT adoption worldwide. They're also increasing revenues and efficiencies in leading American and European companies.

But what's the impact, if any, of social networking technologies on businesses and communities in the developing world? Are they really driving ICT adoption and business revenues in rural areas? Or does Facebook, Twitter, and the like just reinforce the techno-elite echo chamber - bypassing the Global South completely?

Join us for the February #ICT4D Twitter Chat, where we'll explore these vital questions with our guides: ICTworks, Michael Downey, and Chloe Feinberg.

We'll start at 12-noon Eastern Time (noon worldwide) with introductions, then move into the discussion, using the #ICT4D hashtag in Twitter. Be sure to RSVP here.

• Handy Re-Tweet
  Feb #ICT4D Twitter Chat:
  Social Networking 4 Development -
  Feb 26 @ 12:00/noon Eastern -
  RSVP: http://ow.ly/18WdH

.
For those new to Twitter Chats, its a freewheeling conversation around our central questions on the Twitter platform. Our hope is to learn from each other and find ways we can increase our impact using social media.

We'll archive the Chat too, in case you miss out.

Be sure to follow ICTworks on Twitter and RSVP today!

.

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

.