Final Essay Selections

Before delving into my potential final essay selections, it is important I provide some background information in order to make the methodology behind my essay selections clearer. This will also help to put my thought process in context. I spent the last three and half years working for a Technology and Strategy consulting firm headquartered in Mclean, Virginia, located in the District of Columbia metropolitan area. While there, I engaged in evaluating and assessing advanced and emerging technologies in complex environments. This sparked my interest in the actual transfer of technology on an international scale. Thus, my essay selections are based upon the concept of ‘technology transfer’ in the context of international development.

I’m exploring essay topics related to transferring technologies between institutions. Technology can be objects, activities, processes, systems, etc. The concept of technology transfer can be defined as the transfer of a body of knowledge from one location to another. The regions of particular interest to me are as follows:

 Middle East (countries: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar)
 India (states: Maharashtra, New Delhi and Goa)
 Southeast Asia (countries: Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam)

I believe the Middle East is extremely underdeveloped due to cultural norms that the West find difficult to operate within or around. Pursuing a topic regarding the Middle East would shed light on the operating model for technology transfer in which cultural norms are highly valued. On the other end of the spectrum is India, a country which has enjoyed a steady flow of development over the last decade but is still plagued with infrastructure growing pains. Exploring an ICT case study revolving around India will allow me to examine the successes and failures of implementing technologies in an environment which has sufficient enough infrastructure in certain respects, but hold communal beliefs that are sometimes a deterrent. In regards to Southeast Asia, the local cultural and the business norms are unknown to me. Studying technology transfer in the region would be instrumental in providing me a framework for understanding the socio-economic, political, and cultural dynamics. Regardless of the region, I’m interested in learning more about the nuances surrounding technology transfer in the context of international development.

Mapping heritage in times of complexity

In this week’s post I’ll share some insights into my current sphere of academic interest and briefly introduce you to several key concepts of prospective essay for this course.

Scholars deriving from greatly refined areas of applied math and microfinance suggest that a new method of analysis could be introduced to development practitioners.

Authors suggest that there are rather new ways of tackling complexity, largely emanating from the two fields of complexity science and cognitive science.

Deriving from systematic methods of thinking, complexity science reveals that complex aspects of reality are best analyzed as whole systems that can only be understood by examining the deeply-imbedded, non-linear interrelationships of the system’s parts (Weaver 1967, Tapscott 2008).

Modern day cognitive science reveals that our minds evolved to think not with a systems mindset, but to rely on simple, linear, cause-effect modeling that served our ancestors well but is inadequate for grappling with modern public policy issues. Therein lies the source of our intellectual immaturity: the mismatch between how complex things work and the simple cognitive methods we use to understand them. Our increasingly interconnected and interdependent world cannot be described with our default preference for clear, black and white solutions.

As development discourse requires multiple perspectives, a variety of possible explanations and constant testing and retesting of hypotheses before it is safe to draw any conclusions.

Firstly, building on concepts deriving from of complex adaptive systems theories as well as referring to authors like Weaver (1967), Dichter (2003), Ramaligam (2011) etc. my work can be best described as humble attempt to examine possible impact of audio-visual heritage centers operating in developing countries within the framework of complex adaptive systems theory.

In my writing I will also discuss how such institutions were established, what were implications and incentives for different origins of this type of institutions. Additionally, I will also look more in depth how such institutions function in a countries gradually recovering after long term conflict.

In this writing I will look more profoundly to relations existing between all involved actors and analyse how such relations could be modified or extended in order to generate profit or create more beneficial forms of collaboration. 

Also I will offer recommendations how to sustain and develop such institutions,  propose business models that will allow such institutions evolve to other stages of performance.

Infrastructure: Back to the Basics

If we are to answer the question proposed by Langdon Winner, “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” or Bernward Joerges’s question, “Do Politics Have Artefacts,” it is important to look at the ethnography of infrastructure. ‘Infrastructure’ must be defined along with the context in which it is to be addressed. This blog will draw on a controversial example of the design and use of technology in the context of infrastructure for development. The issues addressed in this blog include: defining the term ‘infrastructure’ and analysing whether artefacts have intentional or unintentional actions associated with them.

‘Infrastructure’ is an elusive term, if not defined in a particular context the term could have several meanings. Star (1999) states, “Infrastructure is both relational and ecological—it means different things to different groups and it is part of the balance of action, tools, and the built environment, inseparable from them.” If we agree that this is the case, this blog defines ‘infrastructure’ as an architectural (not always physical and usually hidden) framework (or structure) in which technology is embedded for use by the society in which its structure was designed. Look to Winner’s example of the low-hanging overpasses of New York which he states were built (in the 1950’s) to discourage buses from using these parkways. Due to these overpasses designed by Robert Moses, Winner (1980) states “Poor people and blacks, who normally used public transit, were kept off the roads because the twelve-foot tall buses could not get through the overpasses.” This provides an example of infrastructure as a technology in the context of development which was inscribed a value by design. Conversely, Joerges argues Moses overpasses in fact did not control the social environment in which they were constructed and Winner’s argument could be made from almost any physical set-up. Furthermore, Joerges (1999) states “Theories of social change can be divided, in an heroic simplication, between the two grand discourses of control and contingency.” Control being viewed as an intentional action that results in the social order or disorder of a society, while contingency is viewed as the unintentional action on many small actors that result in the social order or disorder of a society. Both Winner and Joerges arguments are relevant and illustrate the need for more research regarding infrastructure and its impact on society.

In the example above, Winner provides an illustration of how a value was inscribed in technology by design. However, it must be understood that though an artefact (or technology) is designed, its value is inscribed by its local use. The local use of an artefact is the space, time and frame in which the artefact was designed. Thus, Winner’s example of the low-hanging overpasses which he stated Moses designed to keep poor people and blacks from reaching Long Beach is no longer true. In fact, the overpasses in their present state do not control the social environment but are in Joerges words, a contingency.

Exploring mobile technologies for development

According to Donner (2008:3) various approaches to application of mobile technologies in developing countries are being explored and depicted by academia as well as private sector researchers. Donner argues that in most of the cases two dominant dimensions of technologies are mostly explored: adoption and use of mobile technologies. This post will only focus on the latter.

Since aprox. 2005 most of African countries have been considered the fastest growing market for mobile technologies. Only four years after in 2008 let alone the mobile service providers at home as well as in developing countries would celebrate a significant breakthrough in adopting modern technologies, when global userbasis of mobile internet users took over the total number of fixed line internet users.(ITU report on telecom industry growth, 2009 available online)

Therefore in developing countries the expansion of mobile internet is more likely to be the second wave of techno-development, as it's offers cheaper and more adoptable access to internet than the cable telephony.

Even tough the evolution of mobile technologies as such may be considered as a factor of "developmental success" in the sunny continent, I would only consider specific mobile technology projects aimed directly  to solving reoccurring problems be of any value to local users. Key milestones of development are these three areas:

1. Agriculture;
2. Healthcare;
3. Education;
4. Finances;

Exploring mobile technologies adopted in area of agriculture, one great example should be a inter-institutional initiative started in Kenya in late 2009, where local governmental bodies as well as private sector work together to develop services for existing userbase related to successful farming, market prices, where to get help, how to farm better etc. (see report of Mobile Technologies Summit 2010, online).The project was launched in Kenya in 2009. It's initial phase has been very successful, as there are 30 000 subscribers to date. Therefore, it could proof being added value and investment safe convergence of public and private sector.


In this post however I will only cover mobile technologies for agriculture. Please consider coming back to our blog, as we constantly ad more post and provide more insight on our chosen topics.
 

Standardization and the use of two different approaches to ICT project design and implementation

In the last decade there has been a process of continuous evolution in the theory of ICT project management and implementation that the author of this post would like to stress.

When approaching a complex issue of technology standardization in a context of developing or emerging markets, it is necessary to take into account the socio cultural factors of the region, also consider it’s current/past political and economical developments as well as it’s ability to embrace the outcome of the technology in a suitable manner.

The authors (Bra et al) suggest that two different kinds of standards have evolved in the ICT industry. They sprang up from a pure necessity to adopt ICT project management techniques to ever changing requirements of IT industry.

The two kinds of standards are: change and use standards. The former has evolved from industry’s rapid response to great need to produce tangible results faster and work more efficiently (lessen the officialdom, fasten decision making) and the latter allows more flexible interpretation of imposed standards were it is necessary. It’s all very true and does have a positive impact on the industry especially in cases where technologies need to be successfully transferred and implemented “from stage zero”.
Use case analysis of projects in Thailand, S.Africa and Ethiopia does support more flexible approach to standartization in ICT.In turn, when it comes to decision making processes and implementation of ICT projects in developing countries I believe the same rules apply here as anywhere in the world when talking about transfer of a new technology and exercise a top-down effort to foreign environment.

Recomendations

Indeed, IT industry is heavily bounded to existing implementation and development standards per se. More to say the standards are mostly not even transparent or  inter-compatible, so most of the ICT project are very much bound to one particular technological solution and do not easily “migrate” as the technologies imposed go out of date. How to avoid this reoccurring dependency in ICT?

Therefore it is necessary to start implementing technology in a more transparent manner where testing the local environment and adopting changes would happen simultaneously.Involving existing know-how and orchestrating the entire process of technology implementation according to local legislative and organisational standards may be very fruitful as technologies tend to be accepted better if it's been given sufficient exposure to local context and  usually undergo several stages of a very subjective interpretation....

Both the technology design and technology management schools in Europe as well as the US suggest that ICT users as well as implementer tend to understand and interpret technology in a very subjective way. Therefore, when given flexible standards from the very beginning  and being able to exercise a great effort of analysis of local context, ICT's in developing countries could surely deliver more result as it is now.

Tackling digital mapping in India

Context

When transferring technological advances transnationally, it is important both suppliers and implementers account for socio-cultural norms within the country where the technology is to be implemented. If these societal norms are left unaccounted-for implementation of the technology will be severely hampered by the lack of social context, as was the case in ‘Implementing GIS technology in India.’ 

This blog post will draw on the case of GIS to examine issues when implementing Western technologies in developing nations. The issues addressed in this blog include: the lack of due diligence in understanding the cultural dimensions and the mismanagement of project implementation.

Lessons learned

In implementation, whether local or international, compartmental or institutional, it is beneficial to draw from similar projects to understand the causes for both the failures and the successes in the implementation. This was not done in the case of GIS, the Indian Ministry of Environmental Forest (MoEF) and the eight collaborating institutions did not account for the social, political, economic and cultural dimensions within Indian society. The MoEF attempted to implement GIS using the technology push model, pushing GIS on users without consideration for how users in India perceived land-management.

Suggestions

Instead, they should have performed research and analysis of previous Western technological implementations and identified the lessons learned for reference in their implementation. Also, a dominant pre-assumption of the GIS project was based on purely Western provision that implementation of a sophisticated technology would greatly benefit existing users of geographical data. Innovation and change in dealings within land and property management in India contrast most Western traditions. 

Therefore, introduction of new technologies into this highly restricted environment should have been implemented with high attention to:

(1) actual needs of all actors; 

(2) socio-cultural implications and great understanding of scope;

and (3) scale of a project. 

This would have led to the realisation that technology transfer is mostly driven by empowering existing actors and answering to major requirements and needs of the actual user base. In the same vein, attention must be paid to employing the technology in a way which is practical for the user. This means inscribing societal assumptions into the technology and adopting it in a phased manner. The MoEF attempted to institutionalise GIS by piloting multiple districts at once, allowing users no time to adapt to the technology. The MoEF should have employed a phased implementation approach, this would have given users time to adjust to the technology and focus on resolving issues in one district versus multiple districts simultaneously.

Conclusions

Even though the potential scope of employed technology was greatly beneficial to all participants, lack of strategic analysis resulted in severe mistakes and mismanagement of the project. The results of the project could be interpreted as “using great tools but not being able to identify and tackle the actual need of wasteland management.” The GIS technology could have been promoted as a vehicle of existing social hierarchy and status, but not as a tribute to local authorities and disorganization of existing networks and structures.