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.