I would like to weigh in on the conversation started by Lishan Adam on the recent dynamic of e-readiness that has transformed into a broader discussion on age old dichotomies of development: indigenous vs. outside consultants, action vs. planning, and one need (e.g., food/health) vs. another (e.g., wire/computers). Of course whatever the project, the answer lies somewhere in between. The trick is how to balance and know when to swing from one side to the other.
With that in mind, I return to Lishan's initial question -- why E-readiness? By answering that we can shed light on the appropriate balance of these fundamental development questions in the dynamically changing environment that ICTs create. I enter this conversation as a co-owner of a consultancy firm that specializes in 'leveraging E-Readiness' and as a former Peace Corps volunteer and staffer that got muddy in rural sustainable development issues in Africa and elsewhere. My company assesses E-Readiness (and that term is now a misnomer as few countries remain on the brink of getting 'ready' to enter the digital economy; countries have already entered and taken some action) for a multitude of reasons, depending on our clients' needs. We have seen that too many governments are still being sold a bag of false promises when it comes to ICTs. Some systems do not need to be automated, especially if the price tag is high and benefits low. And, most e-strategies to transform Agrarian Republic into the next India or Ireland will end up on the proverbial pile. Without the language skills, strong technology/science educated base, and low labor cost of an India, Agrarian Republic will not be able to compete in what we call Network Enabled Services (outsourcing or outlocating software development, back-office operations, call-centers, etc.). Assessments that consider cultural factors and lead to realistic and achievable action can avoid this pitfall. In conducting assessments, we have found three paramount objectives for doing this work -- to benchmark, to leverage what works (also known as 'leapfrogging' or 'antelope jumping' as my colleague in Tanzania would say), and to sequence and prioritize actions. - Measuring a nation's current capacity for comparison with tomorrow's results enables leaders to make difficult decisions on how to use scarce resources based on what has proven to work in their own environment. While cause and effect are often difficult to distinguish, as some of you have mentioned, a standardized assessment methodology applied over time can quell some skeptics who are still arguing over food versus wire. - E-Readiness assessments can help identify a country's strengths and weaknesses, and more importantly, how to leverage their existing strengths (local creativity, strong research and intellectual property protection, music/textiles etc.) into new revenues. Back to our Agrarian Republic example, such a nation could prioritize on developing its indigenous businesses and improving its health/education system through the wise use of ICTs to increase domestic capacity and capital. Understanding other countries' E-Readiness strengths and weaknesses and what has worked for them (e.g., understanding how and why India grew its telecenter market) can help newcomers 'leapfrog' technologies and policy decisions while avoiding dead ends. - A well designed and implemented E-Readiness assessment can remove the analysis paralysis vs. misdirected action syndrome by helping a country to see its low hanging fruits and potential future harvests. >From an assessment, a country can weigh the effort needed to pick ripened fruits quickly with the investments/resources needed for growing tomorrow's garden. Involving local stakeholders to shape the assessment tool, conduct the assessment, and evaluate the results is critical to achieve consensus on bottlenecks and open gates, and to build buy-in for the subsequent action. Outside consultants can add value in this process as they are 'removed' from the situation and can raise issues that those close to the situation may not see or can not express openly. Once these pitfalls and opportunities have been identified, based on the level of effort needed to make changes, and the consequences of taking action or taking no action, participants can begin to sequence and prioritize next steps. Knowledge of global best practices and lessons learned, which outside experts often bring to the table, can be helpful in sequencing as well. At last week's launch of the UN ICT Task Force (which I believe is moving in the right direction as it has been only a year in the making -quick in UN time- and it has used an inclusive process to determine where action should be taken), Kofi Anan said 'the ICT age has dawned, but not yet for all of us.' Let's move forward from rhetoric to action, and help those whose day is just beginning and those already busy working to reap the benefits that the wise use of information and communications technologies can bring to the global community. Roslyn Docktor www.mcconnelliinternational.com ------------ ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.globalknowledge.org>
