[GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon for ICT and Local Government?
What's on the Horizon for ICT and Local Government? GKD members have identified a number of cases where ICTs have improved local government performance, and outlined major obstacles and critical success factors. With increasing emphasis on decentralization in developing countries, the role of ICT in improving local governance will become more ever more important. As GKD members have noted, technologies make it possible to gather, analyze and distribute information in new ways that promote better responsiveness, transparency and efficiency. But technologies are only part of the solution -- national and local policies, citizen knowledge and power, and incentives influencing local government officials all affect the outcomes. During this week, we would like to discuss how local governments could - and should - be using ICT in the next three years. We would like to focus on: * Identifying successful cases that should be brought to scale: We in the development community hear many accounts of ICT for local government accompanied by a great deal of hype. We would like to cut through the hype and identify concrete uses of ICT that have had a positive impact, and determine what is needed to bring them to scale. * Identify new and emerging ICTs that can provide important tools for improving local government: What exciting new technologies are becoming available over the next 3 years, and what other inputs are needed to make them effective. Key Questions (1) What cases of ICT for local government show concrete positive impact and should be brought to scale? What is needed to bring them to scale successfully? (2) What technologies have already shown great promise in the field and should be promoted over the coming three years? (3) What new technologies will soon be available, which can help improve local government performance? What is needed to use them effectively? (4) Should the ICTs we introduce, and our strategies for introducing them, be different for different kinds of communities, e.g., for different levels of local government (regions, districts, cities), different sized municipalities, and rural communities vs. urban communities? (5) Based on what we have learned, what are the critical success factors and pitfalls for helping local governments use ICT? Please provide a case that demonstrates each of those factor(s)/pitfall(s). This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For past messages, see: http://www.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's On the Horizon for Professional Development?
On Monday, June 21, 2004, Global Knowledge Dev. Moderator asked: KEY QUESTIONS: 1) What are the most innovative, cutting edge ICT-related practices currently used for professional development in developing countries? 2) Can technology innovations revolutionize professional training for developing countries? What is needed to make it happen? I will leave question one to those currently working in a developing country. Regarding the second question, technology can revolutionize professional training by cutting costs - the cost that is reduced is travel expenses to either bring experts in repeatedly or to transport interested parties to a location where there is expertise. I am not advocating no travel. Even a virtual program is more effective when everyone is able to meet, as virtual communication has a long way to go before it will replace a face-to-face discussion. The Internet though allows us to bring images, dialogue, technical information, and continuous follow-up to the needed area, and we can still sleep in our own bed at night. If the cost of housing and transporting experts is minimized, then those same funds can be redirected to creating desired communications network. I would guess that in the beginning the cost would not be reduced. The beauty of this metamorphosis though is that the network, once built, can be used for many projects, thus the long term costs are reduced. The tough nut to crack is that first year. Cost can be reduced though by utilizing recycled equipment, and software with minimal license fees (Open Source), and sharing training and materials with similar organizations. Other costs can be reduced if groups like the UN help to develop the infrastructure. I know I am harping on infrastructure development, but these costs are too great for small organizations, so governments and other organizations with strong financing capacity will need to tackle this part. The other part of the puzzle I believe comes from providing a way for small groups to meets others with common goals (such as training in Portuguese). An organized method for networking to find the right contacts. This is not so much a new technology as a way to use what we have. This is where I see great value in a discussion group like this, and others, as a sort of nexus where roads cross and people meet. 3) What new technologies will significantly improve and expand professional development? What will it cost to develop these technologies -- and is it worth the cost? The technology that we are hoping to refine and share with the UN's Global E-Schools and Communities Initiative is the Sakai Tools. These web tools and the course management software are written in open source, so the interface can be adapted into a variety of situations. It is free - a key element. And it is well supported by many of the major US Universities, so it is here to stay - sustainable. Having universal, standardized tools is one part of creating a platform for idea exchange. If we can get others to use these tools, then maybe we can pool our resources to develop modules that we all can use, thereby reducing our cost. 5) Where are the pitfalls in using these new ICTs in developing countries? Pitfalls - professionals in other location give advice without ever seeing the situation first hand, and thus giving advice that is not appropriate for the local situation. Blending approaches in general will probably work better. Maybe more face-to-face initially, with IT tools used for follow-up and rapid feedback. 6) How do we want to be using ICTs 3 years from now? Where is the line between hype and reality? To unite groups with common objectives. Probably the most advanced use will be one way video streaming, used in conjunction with e-mail for response due to limited band width. Most developing countries will not have high speed access to homes, but should have ample capacity at education sites. If some of the technologies like Wi-Max move faster than expected though, urban areas could have more connectivity capacity. Wi-Max is suppose to have a 55 km radius. 7) How can GKD members be effective advocates for reaching these goals? Act as a crossroads for exchanging ideas and discussion. GKD's diversity is one of its great strengths. It is fascinating to see both theoretical discussions as well as real life situations. For now discussing scripted questions is ok, and probably the best approach for the objective of writing papers. However, I would like to see the group tackle a real project or projects. Not just a hypothetical case study either, but one where the debate and decisions count. I believe that you develop and refine best practices by doing. So why couldn't the GKD group choose a group to help. Incorporate those with a vested interest in the project to be a part of the discussions. Go though all of the steps, including implementation, and adjustments. That is where I would learn best, this how you could also
[GKD-DOTCOM] What's On the Horizon for Professional Development?
Dear GKD Members, The future of technology is exciting: online face-to-face courses with simultaneous translation; virtual reality training offering real-world experience; tiny hand-held devices providing just-in-time job mentoring from top experts. It is easy to imagine inspiring possibilities. Yet how much of this will actually be available to professionals in developing countries? And is this where our training investments should go? This week we explore the cutting edge of technology for professional development and what it means for the future. Technology RD investment for developing countries is limited and many promising new technologies flounder for lack of support. At the same time, there is much hype about what new technologies can deliver. We need to understand where the technology trends are going, and assess them carefully in light of our concrete experience with the needs and resources of developing countries. KEY QUESTIONS: 1) What are the most innovative, cutting edge ICT-related practices currently used for professional development in developing countries? 2) Can technology innovations revolutionize professional training for developing countries? What is needed to make it happen? 3) What new technologies will significantly improve and expand professional development? What will it cost to develop these technologies -- and is it worth the cost? 4) What do cognitive and pedagogical sciences tell us about using these technologies effectively? 5) Where are the pitfalls in using these new ICTs in developing countries? 6) How do we want to be using ICTs 3 years from now? Where is the line between hype and reality? 7) How can GKD members be effective advocates for reaching these goals? We look forward to your insights regarding these questions, based on your concrete experience with professional development in developing countries. This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
I'd like to add a set of technologies involving language to the list before this thread is entirely cold: translators, text-to-speech (TTS), and speech-to-text (STT). In societies of the global South that are multilingual, and have strong oral traditions and low literacy rates, these technologies might be used in some interesting ways. For instance, computer translators could be used to help speed up translation of educational materials for publication. TTS could turn any text web page into something oral (even if aethetically not as pleasing as the human voice). STT could be used to assist in transcribing oral histories etc., and I wonder about the possibility of creating synchronized audio-text files with this technology which would facilitate searching. All three of these language transformative technologies exist and are being refined. Aside from time and money to make them work for different needs settings, they do depend on staying with a standard orthography for each language - an area where ICT and language policies need to be coordinated. While computer translators are kind of a gimmick to many in the North and a tool used in a limited (?) way by some businesses, and TTS and STT are, so far as I'm aware, thought of mainly as a way to assist people with disabilities, I think all three could have a tremendous long term impact in the multilingual South. Don Osborn Bisharat.net This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
I think what Allen is speaking of here can be generalized: IMHO, ICT is a tool (or more accurately, a very large suite of tools) that can be used to achieve a wide array of goals. It is not more, and it is not less. Tools have been around for thousands of years, and though the implementation of ICT tools can sometimes be on the cutting edge, we have collectively accrued a large body of wisdom to help us understand how to use tools, and the opportuntities and limitations they present to us. Two of my favorite pieces of wisdom about tools: * It is a poor workman who blames his tools. * If you're only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Broadband connectivity, telecenters, PC recycling, etc. all have their place, but they are in the end only tools. We do a disservice -- to ourselves and the people we hope to help -- if we attempt to provide an ICT service or capability without a very clear understanding of the underlying needs we are trying to meet. A very clear understanding of the end goals, and the priority of these goals, is critical to choosing the correct tools. What we must strive for in the future, and what I think we will see, is an increasing understanding that we must carefully select the tools we use based on the problems we are trying to solve. Moreover, we must recognize that in almost all cases ICT tools alone will not be sufficient. We need to do a better job integrating ICT into the rest of our activities as a valuable component, but not as an end itself. John Mullinax Al Hammond wrote: I agree strongly with Simon Woodside's answers--experimentation, more modern technology, and broadband. But I was also struck by what another contributor said, e.g. Find successful and sustainable activities. Replicate. Get constraints out of the way. Get funding on the right basis. Let the demand pull what is wanted. I think the aid community should continue experimentation, but also be willing to fund scale-ups of apparently successful models--yes, that would include those that have a business model--even to the point of making equity investments or funding additional training and social networking that leverage a private sector enterprise and its network. There are beginning to be some successful models, many of them driven by the private sector, and some not aimed primarily at connectivity, but at an agricultural solution or a microfinance solution or a health solution. Nonetheless, they will spread access perhaps more rapidly. See our case studies at www.digitaldividend.org. This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
1. What new high impact technologies are on the 3-year horizon? Who (exactly) needs to do what (concretely) to make those technologies widely available? It seems to me that most of the component technologies needed for deploying ICT in rural areas are already in place. What really needs to be done is to knit these together into a system that can be easily deployed in rural areas. To give an example, Philips in India, is looking at expanding its market by tapping the bottom of the pyramid. They have skills in lighting systems, power storage and solar power. Now, they are exploring how they can combine these skills into a system that can be deployed in rural areas. One proposal is to create community owned solar power systems into which villagers can plug rechargeable lamps. The lamps can be charged during the day and used during the nights to bring light to off-the-grid locations. This will probably need some microfinance intervention but my point is that we don't need more technology because the components -- low cost computers, renewable energy, VSATs etc exist as discrete pieces. We need to spend a lot more time and effort to knit these together into solutions that fulfil the needs of people in different locations. Hope this makes some sense. Venky This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
As for Guido Sohne's comment on battery life of hand-helds: Of course the real alternative is in effecient circuit design and perhaps the genre of mini fuel cells being researched on by various East Asian companies. However, there is one solution in low-cost solar power. Do visit www.biodesign.org.uk and the URL below this message. Udit Chaudhuri MAXIMISE YOUR MILLIWATT http://microPower.blogspot.com Guido Sohne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. What new high impact technologies are on the 3-year horizon? Who (exactly) needs to do what (concretely) to make those technologies widely available? Hardware: Cheap handhelds (approx $100) that are Wi-Fi (or GSM 3G) capable. Either as a telephone or a handheld tablet. Processing power won't matter too much, battery life will be more important. Linux is an ideal choice for these devices. No keyboard. ..snip... This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
Dear GKD Members: It is interesting to note the emphasis on policy. I for one, based on my education and experience base have come to believe that the Governments must not make technology choices and it should be best left to the forces that are well experienced in using it to the purposes they get paid for. However, who creates the policy? The government? Do they have adequate capacity to develop a policy framework for all their citizens or optimising global goals? Yes and NO! That is precisely why policies differ across governments and international organisations. We have not been able to create an agreed framework that may make policy-making itself a task that yields expected results. So the policy ends up becoming largely dependent on who in particular wrote it, who backs it up and who takes more than a fair share of interest in it. Having said that, there are a few intriguing developments that some of us may like to note: All international calls out of India begining 20th Nov are going to be charged @ $0.14 (14 cents approx but less than 15 US cents). This is way below what is available to anyone living in the heaven of telecom (fixed lines only) users called the USA. They will still be paying upwards of 49 cents a minite to call India and more for calling the rest of the developing world! So when a villager from India can call his alien US resident kids for 15 cents instead of the usual $3 they have been used to and that had come down to 40 cents lately, it will bring in a different kind of knowledge transfer, behavioural changes, and contribute its few cents worth to development. Once again made possible by a very competitive market where notoriously bad investment made by a government will profitably make it competitive vis a vis the leaders of technology such as ATT and the likes. Sincerely, satish jha This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
If we were to ask What SHOULD be on the horizon?, then I would answer: IMHO, the number one thing that would help Africa catch up to the technology revolution would be the elimination of the telecom monopolies. Whether by allowing competition from both internal and external vendors, privatization of existing government-owned telcoms, relaxation of laws for VSAT and wireless connectivity, or other similar choices, African governments could speed up the development of affordable services running on a sustainable and reliable infrastructure by letting go of their choke hold on their telecoms. Ironically, the increase in business that the ensuing development would enable, would create untold opportunities for money-making schemes, the very reason that governments cling to those fragile telecoms. Bill Lester William A. Lester CTO/Director of Technology NinthBridge a program of EngenderHealth 440 Ninth Avenue New York, NY 10001 (Office) 212.561.8002 (eFax) 212.202.5167 (e-Mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (URL) www.ninthbridge.org The Means to The Mission This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
3. Where should we focus our efforts during the coming 3 years? On ICT policy? Creating ICT projects with revenue-generation models that are quickly self-supporting? Demonstrating the value of ICT to developing country communities? Universities in developing countries need to build their ICT capacity for a variety of reasons. For the purposes of development, universities potentially can contribute significantly to the nurturing and long term support of community telecenters and related ICT resources. As partners, for example, they can: (1) Conduct continual research on community information needs so that appropriate information resources can be developed. (2) Conduct on-going e-Readiness studies at the regional and community level and interpret their results for regional and local policy formulation and action. (3) Convert its own research and academic knowledge into education, information, and training packages suitable for community use. (4) Mobilize, interpret, integrate, and package information from external authoritative sources and tailor it to the needs of populations in surrounding communities. (5) Train students in the application of ICTs to development problems by: assigning them as student interns at community telecenters, having them collect indigenous case studies and lessons learned related to development initiatives, involving them in data collection and processing related to e-Readiness and information needs analysis studies, and training them in the process of information packaging. (6) Design and execute ICT training programs for various community groups, especially those that are likely to be by-passed by conventional ICT training. (7) Through their participation as students in this program, prepare a new generation of professionals in various sectors (health, education, agriculture) to use and support the application of ICTs and telecenters for community development and poverty alleviation programs. (8) Experiment with innovation approaches to ICT4D. (9) Actively contribute to the Country Gateway (information portal) system. (10) Establish a community ICT access (telecenter) facility as part of a university program. We're working on this idea in China and would like to learn more about other developing nations universities' experiences in these matters. Would be happy to have messages directed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Roy Colle Cornell University This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
I agree strongly with Simon Woodside's answers--experimentation, more modern technology, and broadband. But I was also struck by what another contributor said, e.g. Find successful and sustainable activities. Replicate. Get constraints out of the way. Get funding on the right basis. Let the demand pull what is wanted. I think the aid community should continue experimentation, but also be willing to fund scale-ups of apparently successful models--yes, that would include those that have a business model--even to the point of making equity investments or funding additional training and social networking that leverage a private sector enterprise and its network. There are beginning to be some successful models, many of them driven by the private sector, and some not aimed primarily at connectivity, but at an agricultural solution or a microfinance solution or a health solution. Nonetheless, they will spread access perhaps more rapidly. See our case studies at www.digitaldividend.org. Allen L. Hammond Vice President for Innovation Special Projects World Resources Institute 10 G Street NE Washington, DC 20002 USA V (202) 729- F (202) 729-7775 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.wri.org www.digitaldividend.org This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
My two bits... 1. What new high impact technologies are on the 3-year horizon? Who (exactly) needs to do what (concretely) to make those technologies widely available? Optical frequencies communication for exceptionally low power, very high bandwidth, short distance communications (line-of-sight) will be very likely to emerge as a new low cost option, in both desktop (laptop) and handheld devices. To deploy it, far more effort will be needed from grassroots social assistance program workers. Voice based messaging software programs will also appear on handhelds, enabling the Grameen model to be deployed much more effectively in other regions of the world, where cellular and cellular-like systems are being and will be deployed over the next three years. 2. What's the most valuable area for technology development? Voice recognition? Cheap broadband delivery? Cheap hand-helds (under $50)? The most critical area for technology development lies in the digitisation and support of services in demand, not in hardware per se. This is an exceedingly local activity, given that software development by its very nature demands a huge level of interaction between technologists and users. In hardware, though, it is both cheaper broadband and handhelds that need to emerge. Right now, in countries like India, the only really cheap mobile handsets are obsolete ones, which do not support the kind of operating systems that run such applications. 3. Where should we focus our efforts during the coming 3 years? On ICT policy? Creating ICT projects with revenue-generation models that are quickly self-supporting? Demonstrating the value of ICT to developing country communities? We need to evolve better funding models, that are better equipped to evaluate and deliver funds to grassroots projects that are more appropriate to the communities in which they are to add value. Trying to opine here in this group about specific projects we get to know about somewhere else in the world is both frustrating and patronizing. 4. What levels of access should we be able to achieve by 2007 in each of the major under-served regions? Who (exactly) must do what (concretely) to attain them? We need to get a foothold into these regions. And we need to have funding in place that will support the growth of that foothold, driven by local demand. 5. What funding models should we develop over the next 3 years? Projects with business plans that provide self-sustainability? Support from multilateral corporations? Venture capital funds for ICT and development? In a nutshell, none of the above. But see *3.*, for the glaring weaknesses in these models make it impossible to choose between them, or even to want to make such a choice. -- Vickram This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
It's hard to predict or foresee technology. Mainly, it becomes an exercise in wishful thinking. So here are my wishes ... On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 20:28, Global Knowledge Dev. Moderator wrote: 1. What new high impact technologies are on the 3-year horizon? Who (exactly) needs to do what (concretely) to make those technologies widely available? Hardware: Cheap handhelds (approx $100) that are Wi-Fi (or GSM 3G) capable. Either as a telephone or a handheld tablet. Processing power won't matter too much, battery life will be more important. Linux is an ideal choice for these devices. No keyboard. - Manufacturers of hardware should standardize on a common, modular platform. The size of a common global market for baseline computing and communication should be well worth it and result in truly low cost computing. Such a system could be modular and enable manufacturers to place their own high value components, e.g. CPU in place of standard components. - Manufacturers should specifically target a low cost, mass market device that can suit the needs of the less developed (and poorer) countries. - Bandwidth industry needs to make sure that Wi-Fi succeeds. The network, the computing device and the person attached have a value much greater than the sum of its parts. Software: Social software - helps people keep organized and use computers based more on their interpersonal relationships than on their file structures. Networking moves from linking computers and programs to linking humans and their data. - Software developers need to create applications focussed on ease of use and the end user experience. They need to work on software that does groupware but breaks out of the business information mentality. It's not about the documents, it about the people, so to speak. Right now, that's the address book and obviously, there's a lot of room for improvement, mostly in the need for new ideas. - User interfaces should be keyed to voice and video. Crucial in getting it to the largest number of people. It's all happening already and three years will definitely see lots of new and exciting technology. Change is about the only thing that is certain. 2. What's the most valuable area for technology development? Voice recognition? Cheap broadband delivery? Cheap hand-helds (under $50)? Cheap broadband delivery and cheap handhelds. Entirely new types of mass market applications are possible with this. The combination of mobility, low cost and connectivity makes it possible to extend information services to previously unreachable areas. Software designed not to assume a literate user is using the device. Obviously, this changes a lot of common assumptions. Error messages? How many spoken languages are there? Voice synthesis and recognition research is going to be important. There's probably a lot of research on that already, someone just needs to put it all together and make that into a cross-platform software library that other projects can easily reuse. 3. Where should we focus our efforts during the coming 3 years? On ICT policy? Creating ICT projects with revenue-generation models that are quickly self-supporting? Demonstrating the value of ICT to developing country communities? 3 x Yes. 4. What levels of access should we be able to achieve by 2007 in each of the major under-served regions? Who (exactly) must do what (concretely) to attain them? The level of internet access must increase by an order of magnitude in each of the major under-served regions. Could be foreign direct investment - trade. If one underserved region has 1 in 1 users, target 1 in 1000 users by 2007. Numbers like this can be adjusted for population density. The aim is to grow the global market as much as possible. Investing industries already have such a huge lead over the developing countries that it poses no real threat to them but instead offers a means to increase in size. - Suitably high targets have to be set, otherwise its easier to just do business as usual than to take a good look at it and fix it properly. - The G7 should muster the collective will to pull this off. Political will to use their collective financial and technological lead to pay serious attention to human development in a profitable manner. - People all over the world have to be educated to understand that it is in everyone's best interest to make the world a more equitable and peaceful place. Political will of world government leaders to push this message for a sea change required. Sharing the workload globally will make it much easier and what better monument to build in this new century than one demonstrating civilized, peaceful behaviour - a world that is simply a better place for everybody in it. 5. What funding models should we develop over the next 3 years? Projects with business plans that provide self-sustainability? Support from multilateral corporations? Venture capital funds for ICT and development? Funds get to almost all but
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
Perhaps we should ask: what could be on the horizon? After all, this is a question more likely to lead to proposals for action that are feasible in terms of their possible payoff in the medium term if appropriate action would be taken now. In that connection I would suggest an examination of the proposal I put forward in a paper titled High-tech to the Rescue? that I prepared for the WB's Global Knowledge Conference and is available on my website: www.governance.uottawa.ca/miller. It seems to me that it addresses issues that are relevant to almost all of the 5 questions that the moderator has put forward as a basis for discussion. As for the timing factor, the proposed feasibility study could be undertaken at relatively low cost within the next few years and the full-scale denouement would stretch into the more distant future. Morris Miller (formerly a WB Senior Economist (with EDI, Policy Planning and operational divisions) and Executive Director) This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
This new set of questions is intriguing. I am not sure I agree with the direction of the questions and the focus on magic bullet technologies. First, I submit that the focus of efforts should be on policy, particularly universal access policy. IDRC's Acacia programme, DFID's CATIA programme and USAID's DOT-COM programme have all begun to focus new efforts on policy. This is where the real gains will be made. CATIA in particular is opening up opportunities to improve telecom policy across Africa in the areas of VSAT access, Internet exchange points, civil society participation in shaping telecom policy, positive policy environments for radio broadcasting (particularly community radio), and institutional strengthening for institutions that affect policy. See www.catia.ws DOT-COM is enhancing policy related synergies among its NGO, education and policy/regulatory reform initiatives - one of its programmes in southern Africa, the SADC-TRASA collaborative workshop on Rural Access and Universal Service resulted in the first formal bonding of industry, NGOs and government in an ICT coalition to consider implications of a Universal Services Fund. See www.dot-com-alliance.org IDRC's Acacia II Prospectus highlights 10 lessons learned during the first phase of Acacia. Lesson number 1: Policy is key... ICT policy development requires positive support at the highest level of political leadership, and the creation of policy frameworks - especially as regards infrastructure and rural connectivity - is key to success. See www.acacia.org.za Related to the policy dimension is the concept of technological neutrality. I am VERY wary of efforts to promote magic bullet technologies - through policy or through project funding. Technological neutrality is central to universal access policy - policies and regulations should neither unfairly advantage nor disadvantage one technology over another. Instead, technical choices should be driven by quality of service standards, not by arbitrary technical standards or the technology flavour of the month. The market is the best mechanism to determine technological solutions - it may not always select the best technologies, but it is very good at selecting technologies that people are actually willing and able to pay for. The policy environment supports the market by introducing and sustaining measures to promote a competitive, multi-operator environment. As an example, according to the European Community, the goal of the technological neutrality principle is not to impose, nor discriminate in favor of, the use of a particular type of technology, but to ensure that the same service is regulated in an equivalent manner, irrespective of the means by which it is delivered. Such a policy can go a long way to ensuring that consumers have access to such things as IP networks for voice, and other technological convergences which may emerge, which can significantly reduce the cost of providing universal access. With regard to funding programs that target specific technologies, I have yet to see one example of a promising technology emerge from such a program to achieve broad adoption. At the same time, I have seen many examples of indigenous entrepreneurs adapting themselves to the policy environment to introduce technologies that fit market conditions. If anything, we need a great deal more research directed at sharing the lessons learned and technological innovations of indigenous entrepreneurs who work in real world and real market contexts - other than policy, that's where I would put my money. US FCC Chairman Michael Powell once said, Government [this could also read the donor community!!!] is a notoriously bad investor. It tends to buy high and sell low when it comes to predicting technology winners and losers. One lesson from all of this is that we should be careful [not] to embrace too quickly any one technology or service. In essence, policy environments and program/projects environments that favour a particular technology to the exclusion of others can delay the advance of universal access infrastructure by distorting the economics of deployment in challenging markets. For example, one need only look at the experiences of donor-driven telecentres to see examples of financially unsustainable donor entities actually competing with local entrepreneurs and their home grown cybercafes. Cheers, Don Richardson, PhD. Director TeleCommons Development Group Stantec Consulting 361 Southgate Drive Guelph, Ontario N1G 3M5 Canada Tel: 519-836-6050; Fax: 519-836-2493 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.telecommons.com or www.stantec.com This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
Dear GKD Members, In response to the question asked on What's on the Horizon, to us in the developing world it is more or less provision of basic connectivity, integrating basic services in the connectivity and a lot of capacity building. I wish to concentrate on educational delivery and discuss a model that I have been toying about with as part of a process to improve the quality of the educational delivery system in the nothern part of Nigeria. The model uses a VSAT link to the internet and wireless technology to rapidly and cheaply spread access to cover many educational institutions within a radius of 40 kilometers. The VSAT is located in the University and will house educational databases and serves as an educational portal to the higher institutions, secondary and primary schools in the area. Such databases, which are to be updated periodically, will provide the much needed access to educational materials with little need for access to the net. Of course the servers will provide other services such as web based email, DNS, web servers for local content creations, course management software, etc. Once this is put in place, a lot of skills development programs ranging from basic computer skills to advanced networking and web based technologies will be mounted. The key to the success of this model is the maturity of the wireless technology. I believe this kind of model if refined and implemented can be a rapid enabler to Connectivity for All. We have already started on this project using our University as the base. VSATs and a lot of wireless devices have been deployed with very good results. For instance, our two campuses separated by a distance of 15 kilometers have been linked with wireless. We are also able to cover the two campuses with wireless signals. We are planning next to bring our Teaching Hospital into the picture and one or two secondary schools as a pilot scheme. However, the issues of funding, self sustainability and adequate planning are among our greatest problems. Any ideas that can be of help to us? You can reach me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ahmed Isah Chafe This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
Time for peering into the crystal ball, I guess. First, three years is about the outer limit IMO for any kind of computer technology predictions. I tend to look at trends that are coming in the next year or two and that's quite challenging enough... This week we ask GKD members to consider the distant future in ICT terms -- the next 3 years. Connectivity for All. It has a nice ring, but success thus far has been limited. Funding is a central issue. I would say that to the contrary, funding is not a central issue. It is easily possible to pour money into hare-brained schemes that will never yield positive results. Whereas, it is far more difficult to determine what scheme will succeed. Funding is important, but I believe it should come out of a natural process that begins first with coming up with a correct scheme. For example, I have recently read that the East African nations are devoting hundreds of millions of $ to build an undersea cable. I cannot say enough that this is an excellent move. However, if I could question these initiators I would ask - what is your sharing plan? Currently the West African cable (SAT-3) is very slow to bring benefits because it is monopolized. The bandwidth is NOT being used. There is in fact either none or very little competition available, but rather one single supplier in each country of the bandwidth tap that comes out of this fat pipe. The single supplier is a monopoly that knows only one rule - charge high prices. Clearly not the best for the people. What will the East African cable organization do differently? Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, but I suspect it has never occurred to them as a problem worth giving thought to. So I have an intrinsic distrust of huge funding because I think it's more difficult to think creatively in a very expensive project. Forgo experimentation Disagree. Technology is unpredictable. Experimentation, lots of different trials at small scale, is key. Open reporting on successes and FAILURES is key. Then harvest the results and learn, learn, learn. 1. What new high impact technologies are on the 3-year horizon? Who (exactly) needs to do what (concretely) to make those technologies widely available? Wi-Fi is a big one. Whoever is able to influence government policy needs to push developing governments to create an Open Spectrum plan to allow the Wi-Fi growth to happen. Java-enabled cell phones is another area that I think will explode. J2ME enabled java phones will be the new PC especially in developing areas where the following qualities are so valuable: a) portable b) rugged c) cheap d) low-power Wireless cellular in general but I don't think anyone here needs to do anything to make that happen - it's already rolling like a steamroller. In the developing world, I believe that technologies that can be used by people who are illiterate - whether is a Simputer type technology, or internet voice mail :-) will be very popular and important to achieving development goals. Broadband is very important. I think it has been given short shrift in these discussions. The #1 rule of bandwidth is you NEVER have enough bandwidth. Businesses can be built purely on the basis of HAVING broadband. We are talking about voice applications over the internet - this requires broadband. E-learning over the internet - need broadband for that. Downloading the latest version of Linux - broadband. We may realize that we sometimes have to do without it, but the goal should always be to get it. As others have pointed out already, you don't need to have international broadband to see benefits. Even local broadband, through, say, an IXP can give very substantial gains in building local content networks. And voice connections between local villages ... will still save people a lot of time walking on poor-quality roads, paying for the post, etc. 3. Where should we focus our efforts during the coming 3 years? On ICT policy? Creating ICT projects with revenue-generation models that are quickly self-supporting? Demonstrating the value of ICT to developing country communities? Yes. ;-) (that's an engineer's answer) simon This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
Dear Colleagues, I am not sure that what I have to say can be described as valuable input and insights!, but here goes anyway! 1. What new high impact technologies are on the 3-year horizon? Who (exactly) needs to do what (concretely) to make those technologies widely available? Affordable cost. What this means is that in order to have an impact in developing situations the technology has to get mass produced and be consumer costed. Items need to be available for $10, not $1,000 or even $100. There has been a lot of talk over the past 25 years about appropriate technology and this was often interperted to be old technology. With ICT the most appropriate is more and more the most modern. Wireless minimum power using devices ... reliable . 2. What's the most valuable area for technology development? Voice recognition? Cheap broadband delivery? Cheap hand-helds (under $50)? Reliability / Affordability / better ways to get from electronic to traditional (reduced cost ink! and paper). 3. Where should we focus our efforts during the coming 3 years? On ICT policy? Creating ICT projects with revenue-generation models that are quickly self-supporting? Demonstrating the value of ICT to developing country communities? Innovators need to be able to implement best technology for development without running afoul of law and regulation that constrains best ICT practice in the interest of one particular group of stakeholders. We (in the NORTH) need to be more willing to see and listen and understand the needs of people who might be able to benefit from ICT's use parents, children, educators, students, medical service personnel, farmers, market folk .. people can use I and people can use C . maybe we should just help to see that there is access to T, and access to resources to implement T. We need to remember that the technology needs to help not only those with academic training and education, but also those who have had no formal education, but can still benefit from more knowledge, especially practical relevant local knowledge. 4. What levels of access should we be able to achieve by 2007 in each of the major under-served regions? Who (exactly) must do what (concretely) to attain them? Find successful and sustainable activities. Replicate. Get constraints out of the way. Get funding on the right basis. Let the demand pull what is wanted. 5. What funding models should we develop over the next 3 years? Projects with business plans that provide self-sustainability? Support from multilateral corporations? Venture capital funds for ICT and development? The funding model that is needed is one that allows the SOUTH to do value adding within its own economy. Most foreign direct investment pulls a lot more value out of the SOUTH than it generates. So something different is needed. From a financial planning perspective the policy direction should be to have private local equity supported by external loan funding. The external loan funding should be rewarded for both use of money and the risk being taken. This is the AfriFund model that has been described elsewhere from time to time. This is for profit, but it is not for profit at any cost and not all the profit for the financial stakeholder at the expense of everyone else. Grant funding has been dangerous and has contributed to value destruction. Grant funding pulls local resources into areas of activity that do not have any inherent sustainability beyond the grant subsidy. Among other things, grant work gets good local people working where they essentially do little of real practical value, rather than having these people serve the local interest in struggling but essentially sustainable and priority local business (or service). This is the same sort of damage that the project form of organization has been doing for years, pulling good people into projects rather than having good people working inside the mainstream local (and underfunded) institutions. Planning should get less funding and pilot implementation should get more funding and replication of success should get most funding. A key step in this is to get information about success so success can be replicated. This is accounting and related output analysis, not the more common monitoring and evaluation exercise that serves to satisfy donors and grant givers, but so often does little to set the stage for replication . the reason being usually that the project has really failed (again) and replication is not economically worth doing. Going forward is going to be exciting. But the policy framework and the organizational design needs to be as modern and functional as the technology that has emerged over the last few years. Sincerely Peter Burgess Peter Burgess ATCnet in New York Tel: 212 772 6918 Fax: 707 371 7805 [EMAIL PROTECTED] for secure messages This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and
[GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
Dear GKD Members, During the past three weeks, GKD members have discussed a number of intriguing technical solutions to bringing access to underserved communities, several of which have demonstrated promise in the field. Especially noteworthy are various forms of wireless connectivity, in combination with low-cost devices, e.g., the Solo. In addition GKD members have noted that some pilots have already proven robust -- scaling them up requires policy change, training, tailoring to local demand, and community involvement. This week we ask GKD members to consider the distant future in ICT terms -- the next 3 years. Connectivity for All. It has a nice ring, but success thus far has been limited. Funding is a central issue. Although there are some impressive donor programs, some high profile, multi-lateral donor commitments have fizzled. Perhaps, going forward, we should follow the 80-20 rule: Focus our limited resources on pursuing the few technologies and project approaches likely to have the widest impact. Forgo experimentation and defer efforts to meet the needs of those who will be most difficult to serve. KEY QUESTIONS: 1. What new high impact technologies are on the 3-year horizon? Who (exactly) needs to do what (concretely) to make those technologies widely available? 2. What's the most valuable area for technology development? Voice recognition? Cheap broadband delivery? Cheap hand-helds (under $50)? 3. Where should we focus our efforts during the coming 3 years? On ICT policy? Creating ICT projects with revenue-generation models that are quickly self-supporting? Demonstrating the value of ICT to developing country communities? 4. What levels of access should we be able to achieve by 2007 in each of the major under-served regions? Who (exactly) must do what (concretely) to attain them? 5. What funding models should we develop over the next 3 years? Projects with business plans that provide self-sustainability? Support from multilateral corporations? Venture capital funds for ICT and development? We look forward to your valuable input and insights! This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
