| I thank Nalaka Gunawardene Director/CEO, TVE Asia Pacific for giving permission to publish his article on my web Akuru - Donald Gaminitillake - lankaprinter@gamil,com | |||
ICT Hype and ICT
Realities
Text of a
presentation by Nalaka Gunawardene
Director/CEO,
TVE Asia Pacific www.tveap.org
At
International Workshop on Building a Common Path: Beyond WSIS
Organised by
Sarvodaya www.sarvodaya.org
Supported by
IDRC, Canada www.idrc.ca
Colombo, Sri
Lanka: 24 Feb 2006
I thank Sarvodaya for giving me this opportunity to
join this meeting.
It’s easy for us to engage in self-congratulatory talk
and mutual compliments at gatherings like this. I appreciate the like-mindedness
and admire what you do in your organistions, countries and spheres of activity.
But I’ve seen how too much of a consensus does more
harm than good, so I’m going to offer some views that stand apart from
everything we’ve heard so far. As a rule, I don’t engage in uncritical
cheer-leading. In the few circles I move, I’m the professional skeptic, asking
difficult questions that ought to be confronted.
Today, I would like to pose a series of such questions
to you:
·
Are ICTs in
the mainstream of public life and public affairs in Sri Lanka? If not, why?
·
Are ICT4D[1]
initiatives merely tinkering at the periphery?
·
Why is there
such a string of failures when taking modern ICTs to the grassroots?
·
Why is public
trust and confidence in ICTs still very low?
·
Where are the
champions of ICT when we need them most?
·
How can we be
more smart and strategic in what we do?
Being also a professional story teller, let me begin
with a little story that my Sri Lankan colleagues already know. It takes us
back to the time when we were ruled by kings, and concerns jaggery -- a
delicious sugar substitute we make from the sap of the coconut palm.[2]
The King of Lanka one day wanted to know how jaggery
was made. So he sent for the official jaggery supplier to the Palace, who
claimed that it was produced under the most hygienic conditions by people who
had mastered the technique for decades. Unlike today’s rulers, however, the
king didn’t believe everything he was told. He decided to go in disguise and
investigate. Just as well he did, because the reality was completely different.
The king found his jaggery being made in a rickety old shack, which had more
than its fair share of house flies, with none of the hygienic conditions. The
jaggery maker and his sons were sweating and toiling.
A very angry king revealed who he was, and demanded an
explanation. Pat came the reply: “That’s
the hype, Your Majesty, and this is the reality!”
The gulf between the ICT hype and reality can often be
as wide and shocking.
ICTs in the dock: Example 1
Irrespective of ethnic, economic, social or other
divisions, there are at least three things that all Sri Lankans would be
outraged if anyone meddles with them. These are:
n Our education system and public
examinations in particular
n Our Multi-party electoral process (we have
so many elections!)
n Sri Lankan Cricket Team (which offers what
I call the national religion)
Anyone or anything that affects these three will risk
national ire -- as certain Australian cricket umpires know all too well…
As we speak, modern ICTs stand accused of interfering
with two of these national institutions. And that’s not something to be taken
lightly.
Let me summarise the two situations using extracts
from the public media.
n “Now we know in this country, it is wrong
to say ‘IT is your future’. It should perhaps be correct to say ‘IT can ruin
your future’. The future of thousands of school children was almost ruined…”
- Editorial, The Island newspaper www.island.lk, 17 Feb 2006
The controversy, which erupted in January 2006,
surrounds the marking of papers in the GCE Advanced Level examination. Every
mark counts in this highly competitive exam as we have too many students and
too few places in public universities.
You can imagine the furore when it was found out that
an optical mark reading (OMR) machine used for marking multiple choice answer
scripts had malfunctioned. The US-made, Indian supplied machine had been in use
for over six years. Its performance had become increasingly erratic, which was
later attributed to frequent power failures at the Department of Examinations –
sometimes as frequently as 10 times a day. Apparently no one thought of using a
simple UPS, and by the time the marking anomalies were spotted (or
acknowledged), 2005 exam results had already been announced. An attempt to
recall the results, and manually re-correct the answer scripts had thousands of
students and parents shocked and outraged.
The ‘exam scandal’ not only seriously undermined the
credibility of the entire public exam system, but also caused much damage to
the public perception of IT and ICT. Many affected students, parents and editorialists
demanded to know why machines were used in the first place. The debate assumed
Luddite undertones, with some calling for a complete return to manual processes
and doing away with ‘new fangled gadgets’. Some even named the OMR the ‘demon
machine’.
While all this was happening over several weeks, I
didn’t see any of our ICT champions entering the debate. The government’s ICT
Agency was conspicuous by its absence – perhaps it was too busy setting up
little ‘bathing shops’[3]
across the countryside…
ICTs in the dock: Example 2
As it turned out, they were too busy getting our
Parliament online. Therein hangs another interesting tale – my second example.
n “The new Sri Lanka Parliament website
launched last Friday with much fanfare by Prime Minister Ratnasiri
Wickremanayake is incomplete and full of spelling and grammatical errors.…it
failed to provide the basic details of the 225 Parliamentarians.”
- The
Sunday Times, 19
Feb 2006 www.sundaytimes.lk
First, here’s the hype extracted from the very
website:
n "The development of the
new website for Parliament was sponsored by the Information and Communication
Technology Agency of Sri Lanka through its e-Sri Lanka Project launched with
the assistance of the World Bank. The construction of the website was
undertaken by Affno (Pvt) Ltd under the guidance of a Committee headed by Mr.
Dhammika Dasanayake, Deputy Secretary General of Parliament, comprising
technical experts from Parliament, ICTA and Affno.”[4]
When we studied the new website of our legislature, it
quickly became apparent that spelling and grammatical errors were not the main problem.
The Sunday Times had,
in fact, missed out the more glaring and unforgivable omissions that were discovered
earlier this week (website as accessed on 21 Feb 2006):
·
The entire
website is only in English, whereas the national languages policy in Sri Lanka
requires government to use Sinhala and Tamil languages.
·
More to the
point, most Parliamentarians engage in their work – and debates - in Sinhala
and Tamil. Yet these languages are completely ignored.
·
The website
offers a list of 225 current Members of Parliament (MPs). Yet, the Leader of
the Opposition (an MP since 1977 and himself a former Prime Minister) is not
listed anywhere. The irony is that he is the architect of the e-Sri Lanka
project and the creator of ICTA![5]
·
We also found
that other key opposition MPs are not included in either the directory or
biography sections about MPs. Among them is Dr G L Peiris, former
Constitutional Affairs Minister and one-time leader of government peace talks
team.
Well, let’s not attribute to maleficence what can be
explained by simple incompetence! But once again, this will not inspire much public
confidence in ICTs. In fact, it will reinforce prevailing myths and
misconceptions about the Internet that sections of the Sri Lankan society
harbour.
Government online? Give me a break!
When we hear of these struggles to place the legislature
online, it does not inspire any confidence in ambitious programmes for
e-government.
Sri Lanka was the first country in South Asia to have
unrestricted, commercial Internet connectivity (April 1995). Yet our public
sector was totally unprepared to engage the new medium. It took a few years for
agencies of the government to take even the first faltering steps in that
direction, and a decade later things haven’t progressed very much beyond
placing information brochures and government forms online.
And a majority of government websites are still available
only in English, notwithstanding the fact that a Sinhala nationalist government
is now in office.
Writing the Sri Lanka chapter in the Digital Review
of Asia Pacific (2005/2006
edition), I commented almost two years ago: “In spite of the ICT road map
recognising e-government as a priority area, not a single government agency or
department offered the option of completing an entire transaction online as at
May 2004. None of the statutory dues to the government could be paid online.”
As far as I know, this still hasn’t changed – even
though massive amounts of donor money are being spent on re-engineering
government to engage ICTs. E-government is only an aspiration, not a practical
reality in Sri Lanka.
You can’t get there from here…
Since most of your work is in connecting the
grassroots, you might wonder what all these macro level concerns have to do
with it. That’s precisely my argument.
We can’t effectively progress in ICT4D when public
acceptance of ICT is not yet established. Our work doesn’t happen in a social
vacuum.
Tinkering with a few ‘pilots’ at the periphery is
not going to mainstream ICTs in society. If we want real impact, we simply have
to be smarter and more strategic.
Let’s never lose sight of the fact that ICT4D is a
subset within ICTs in society, as seen in this simple diagram.
ICTs must earn public trust and respect
No amount of legislation, policy formulation and
costly propaganda by the ICTA is going to mainstream ICTs in Sri Lankan
society. ICTs must prove their worth and be seen as adding value to living and
working conditions of ordinary people.
We can assess the utility and relevance of a new
technology or process by asking a few simple questions:
Does the new technology or process:
- put
more food on their table?
- add
More money in people’s pockets?
- make
interfacing with govt easier?
- save
time and effort involved in commuting?
- support
cultural and personal needs of individuals and groups?
- put
a smile on users’ faces?
Finally, is it affordable, user-friendly and widely available,
with minimum entry level barriers?
This can become a simple check list – one we need to
run through every few weeks to ensure we are on the right track, just so that
we are not distracted by our own hype.
Desperately looking for ICT4D successes in Sri Lanka…
Indeed, there’s a real danger that we might lull
ourselves into believing that we are addressing the vast unmet needs through
our nice little ‘pilots’ scattered in a few places in each of our countries.
That’s certainly the case here in Sri Lanka.
And it’s not just a personal view. In 2003/2004, the
UNDP Asia Pacific Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP) supported a
nine-country Asia Pacific study[6]
to find out how ICTs are contributing to human development.[7]
With two colleagues, I surveyed for instances of any ICT tool that has had
direct and discernible impact on the poor in Sri Lanka. We could find no
initiative that can be considered successful -- except in artificial conditions
created by disproportionately high donor funding and external technical support
to sustain them. (Sarvodaya’s rural telecentre programme was in its early
stages at the time.)
After looking at various governmental, civil
society and university projects – none of which will withstand real world
conditions for more than a few months -- the single ‘winner’ from Sri Lanka
that we found was the mobile phone. This market-driven phenomenon stood out
amidst many donor-driven projects that had either collapsed or never taken off.
The mobile phone in Sri Lanka today truly cuts across
social, class and economic divides. From being an expensive, elitist tool when
it was first introduced in 1989, it has become a tool that ordinary people can
afford and use for a wide range of purposes – putting more food on their plates,
money in their pockets and a smile on their faces. Breaking up of the initial
monopoly and having good telecom regulation have certainly helped to bring down
costs.
Isn’t it interesting that not a single development donor
has directly invested in this particular ICT? Few people have so far studied
mobile phones as a social, cultural and economic phenomenon. When we do study –
as LIRNEasia has recently done in India and Sri Lanka[8]
– some very interesting findings come up.
There are now a large number of other
‘small-is-beautiful’ type ICT4D initiatives across Africa, Asia Pacific and
Latin America. The tele-centre fever currently sweeping the developing world is
only the latest wave. Tax payers in the North keep these numerous projects on
life support, believing the hype that they really help the poor. But do they,
really? I remain to be convinced.
If some people want to believe in myths, that’s a
personal choice. But such projects -- like Sri Lanka’s much-touted Kotmale
Internet browsing by radio -- do great harm by distracting funding agencies,
distorting investment priorities and creating an illusion of accomplishment.
Murali Shanmugavelan, a researcher with Panos London, calls these initiatives
‘donor mistresses’.
I personally call them ‘picture postcard
opportunities’ for roving development workers. For sure, there is a seductive
allure in images of school children playing with a computer, a Buddhist monk
using a mobile phone, or tribal people trying out a palm-top. They make us
believe that we are fixing the world’s ills with geeky gadgets – when, in fact,
we are merely tinkering in the periphery.
And all the while, the fundamental constraints keep
our societies digitally divided. For Sri Lanka, these bottlenecks include:
·
the high
capital and operating costs;
·
lack of
adequate infrastructure;
·
absence of
enabling policies and laws; and
·
failure to
produce standardised local language fonts and locally relevant content.
Unless and until these are addressed meaningfully,
there cannot be much meaningful ICT4D.
Public acceptance of ICT vital
I keep returning to my original premise: for any ICT4D
to succeed, IT and ICTs need to win public trust, confidence and acceptance.
There is a whole body of research work that looks at
the sociology and social-anthropology of how new technologies are accepted and
assimilated into societies. A key component within that is public communication
of science and technology (sometimes abbreviated as PCST), which interests me
as a communicator.
We now know that demonstrated economic, social or cultural benefits
alone will not necessarily secure public acceptance for a new technology. The
process is more complex and prolonged, and incidents such as the exam scandal I
mentioned earlier can negate years of good work.
The ICT professionals can learn from other sectors
where new technologies or processes have been introduced through careful social
marketing and promotion. For example:
·
In water
supply and sanitation, the practitioners know that building latrines is only a
beginning. There is a whole lot more that needs to be done before people change
their behaviour.
·
In family
planning, too, promoters found out long ago that merely making birth control
methods readily available was not enough: there was a ‘sociology’ to be
studied, engaged and used.
I urge all ICT and ICT4D practitioners to consider
the ‘sociology’ of introducing and promoting new tools of ICT to communities.
One reason for Sri Lanka’s long string of failures in taking ICTs to the
grassroots could be that it has been driven by engineers and technologists who
believed, sincerely, that gadgets can fix social disparities and problems. That’s how we have ended up with situations
like the one in this (first) cartoon – raising unreal expectations that cannot
and will not be met.
Public acceptance of new technologies has been studied
and documented in great detail. We can sum it up in a few key, progressive
steps:
·
First, people
begin to take note of it (there may be suspicions and apprehensions)
·
Then some people
warm up to it – they want to try and see!
·
When more
people use it, and become familiar with it, acceptance begins to take root slowly
– and a few ‘champions’ begin to emerge from within.
·
After years
of use, barring serious mishaps, people begin to actually trust it – and trust
their children with it!
·
After some
more time, everyone accepts it as part of the socio-cultural landscape -- and
no one gives a second thought or second glace…
·
Finally comes
the stage where people clamour for it, and are even willing to pay for it!
In other words, it moves from being supply-driven to
demand-driven. Where ICT4D is concerned, we are still at the beginning of this
process, with external parties (from the city, or from other countries) driving
it with supply. We should aim to progress beyond this.
Meeting the challenges: what can be done?
The question that remains is: how do we bell the cat?
Although I ask difficult questions, I don’t claim to
have all the answers. Here are a few thoughts from having watched ICTs and
ICT4D for a decade.
·
Adopt
a ‘micro-macro’ approach:
By all means, we must continue the extremely worthwhile grassroots micro
projects we are doing. But at the same time, some of us who have capacity
should address the ‘big picture’ level bottlenecks, constraints and issues.
·
Kick
the ‘pilots’ to take off:
It’s okay to start pilot projects, as long as we know how and when to phase out
and withdraw. Some pilots will never take off due to inherent design flaws.
Others may fly only for a short while and crash. Even if just a handful manage
to soar on their own power, that would be far better than sustaining ‘forever
pilots’ that distort the scale for everyone else. This is easier said than
done: letting pilots go seems as hard for development practitioners to do as it
is for some parents to let go of their children!
· Get the fundamentals right: Our pilots can’t take off when the ‘runway’
is cluttered with debris. We need to identify and advocate areas for reform in
policy, legislation, tariffs, technology, trade agreements, etc.
· Don’t
sleepwalk:
It’s easy to get mesmerized by gadgets, especially in the ICT sector. Let us
never lose sight of what we are trying to do. ICTs are only means to an end –
to make living and working easier for everyone. If we forget this, we will end
up like the young man in the second cartoon – ‘armed’ to the teeth with ICTs, but
unable to answer a basic question.
· Strengthen
the industry:
Remembering that ICT4D is a sub-set of ICT, we need to create a more vigorous,
dynamic ICT industry. Only then will ICT tools, processes, support services and
know-how become widely available, affordable and public acceptance begin to
consolidate.
·
Play
our niche roles:
Government, industry, academia and civil society each have a niche role to
play. There are some factors that only governments or their agencies can
adequately address – such as infrastructure, enabling polices and good market
regulation. In my view, setting up rural telecentres (or ‘bathing shops’) is
something smart government agencies should refrain from doing when bottleneck macro
issues are remain neglected.
·
Form
productive partnerships:
Where it helps and matters, we should certainly work together, complementing
each other’s strengths. But I’m cautious about partnerships for their own sake,
or lop-sided partnerships that remind us of the proverbial marriage between an
elephant and a mosquito. Partnerships should be reviewed, assessed and
discontinued when they have served their purpose. Partnership should also not
blunt the sharpness of our enquiry and debate.
·
Strategically
champion ICTs: This is
perhaps the hardest to get right. We need credible, articulate, passionate
individuals who take a ‘big picture’ view of ICTs’ role in society and economy,
and who speak for the ICT sector in public debates and controversies. This is
precisely what we in Sri Lanka currently lack.
Think of the eight Cs
The bigger goal is public acceptance of old and new
ICTs. Madanmohan Rao, an Indian ICT expert who has authored several books
including the Asia Pacific Internet Handbook, has identified eight ‘Cs’ that shape our region’s
Internet economy. They are:
connectivity,
content,
community,
capital,
culture,
co-operation
and
capacity.
So there’s a great deal more to ICT than simple
connectivity. Some of the other ‘Cs’ cannot be introduced from outside; they
have to emerge from within, and it takes time. The presence of eight ‘Cs’ would
be an indication that ICTs are becoming integrated into our societies.
Let me end with the same words that I used to conclude
my chapter in Digital Review of Asia Pacific, which remain as valid now as they
were written in early 2004:
“Despite a plethora of studies, there
still is a crying need for a long, hard and candid appraisal of Sri Lanka’s ICT
potential and performance. If an inclusive, strategic and coordinated approach
is not adopted soon, the island nation will remain one of Asia’s most glaring
‘might-have-beens’.”
Nalaka Gunawardene is a commentator on ICTs, media
and development. He is Director of TVE Asia Pacific (TVEAP, www.tveap.org), a regional organisation
using media to promote sustainable development and social justice. Since
2003, he has been a member of the regional panel of authors compiling the
authoritative Digital Review of Asia Pacific http://www.digital-review.org,
published jointly by IDRC Canada, UNESCO Orbicom and UNDP-APDIP. The views
expressed in this speech are entirely his own. He can be reached at:
<nalaka@tveap.org>
Note:
Some of my other recent writing and speeches on
related topics can be found online as follows:
·
Waiting
for ‘pilots’ to land in Tunis: impressions of WSIS
Published by Islam Online Science and
Environment section
http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/2005/11/article10.shtml
·
Poverty of
our own analysis: why income poor remain information poor
Remarks made at WSIS Tunis panel to launch Digital
Review of Asia Pacific 2005/2006
edition
·
ICT for
poverty reduction: Think big, act boldly
Commentary reproduced by Bytes for All