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.
