ICT4D: a three-pronged taxonomy
The Akshaya telecentre project was born out of a proposal by the members of the local Gram Panchayat in Malappuram district, Kerala, in 2002. As the state government took up the proposal, a district-wide project was launched, in the form of a network of telecentres distributed in such a way that no house was more than 3 km from one telecentre facility. The project was structured in two different phases. The first one, centered on e-literacy, consisted in inviting each household in the district to send a member to the local e-centre for computer training. The second one, aimed at promoting commercial and government applications, consisted in providing specialized e-training on six different areas: data digitization; hardware servicing; finance; multimedia; IT-enabled sector interventions and product sales. As a result of the Akshaya project, 100% family e-literacy was reached in Malappuram district, and this has created the basis for a development strategy to be grounded on increased connection and ICT-based participation (Madon 2005).
Why am I telling this story right here? Because the deployment of the Akshaya telecentre project can be traced and told by the three variables that, in my view, explain the causal connection running from the diffusion of digital technologies to human development. These variables, firstly conceived three years ago by the International Telecommunications Unit (ITU), can be identified by the names of “opportunity”, “infrastructure” and “utilization” (ITU 2006). By opportunity, I mean the set of factors which physically enable digital connection: which means, digital opportunity is positively correlated to the extension of signal coverage, and negatively associated with cost barriers. By infrastructure, I mean the actual ICT infrastructure that is available in a given region or country; infrastructure is positively correlated with the number of ICT facilities in the given area and with their quality level. By utilization, I mean the actual usage of the available ICT facilities; utilization is positively associated with the number of users of ICT in a given region, and with the extent to which they use ICTs for the purpose of local development.
When looked at through the lens of these variables, the Akshaya case shows that telecentres are able to convert opportunity into utilization via infrastructure. By leveraging on the level of digital opportunity in the region, the creators of Akshaya have utilized the enhancement of local ICT infrastructure in order to maximize the level and quality of ICT utilization by the citizens. As such, the project was designed as an integral part of the state’s development strategy: this is because ICT utilization, with the commercial, educational and governmental applications involved, flowed into local human development, generating knowledge spillovers which were to benefit the Malappuram community as a whole. It must be noted here that human development, far from being a mere function of economic capacity, results from all those factors which enable human beings to raise the standards of their life quality: this means, in the words of the UNDP, that “enlarging people’s choices” is the key of the whole human development discourse.
A tentative answer to Roberto’s question may then be, ICTs may help human development “by converting digital opportunity into digital utilization through the means of infrastructure”. This conclusion, illustrated here by the experience of telecentres in Kerala, makes sense in theory for a set of reasons. First, as recently noted by network theorists, the cost of being excluded from the global network increases at an extremely rapid pace – a pace that is even faster than the benefit gained from inclusion (Avgerou 2003). Second, this cost, when shifting from the perspective of economics to the one of human development, is to be measured not only in terms of growth, but also (and predominantly) in terms of the local human capital. Third, the very purpose of ICT utilization – related to the usage of technologies for information and communication – seems to be tailored specifically for countering those features of informational asymmetry, isolation and voicelessness that play a major role in determining poverty outcomes.
On the other hand, generalizations – resulting in the postulation of a deterministic causality linkage between ICT utilization and development – are the worst enemy of ICT for development (ICT4D) projects (Wade 2002). The success story of Akshaya, rather than being generalized and used as a template for project design, should be put in relation to the context in which the project was born and implemented. The establishment of trust relations between the stakeholders involved, enhanced by the role of the “political champions” that were instrumental in determining such a high level of participation, is not easily replicable and must not be taken as given. The economic sustainability of the project, backed by the sate government and its dedicated ICT agencies, per se cannot explain the success of the project: if social and political sustainability issues were neglected, the participation of the local population would hardly be guaranteed. A narrow vision of ICT4D project sustainability, focused on wholly-financial and managerial indicator, is the reason behind the failure of a wide set of projects, which neglected the perceived usefulness of the proposal to the people.
Roberto’s question is mechanical in nature: he does not ask “if” or “under which conditions” ICTs are likely to foster human development. He asks “how” this happens, and my answer, centered on the three-pronged taxonomy of opportunity, infrastructure and utilization, attempts to identify one of the mechanisms through which ICT-induced development can occur. However, the conversion of opportunity into utilization through infrastructure may have limited impact on human development, if social sustainability is taken as given: the financial health of development projects does not automatically imply a high degree of perceived usefulness.
References
Madon, S. (2005) Governance Lessons from the Experience of Telecentres in Kerala, European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 4, pp. 401-417.
Wade, R.H. (2002) Bridging the Digital Divide: New route to development or new form of dependency? Global Governance, 8, 4. pp 53-85.
Sandeep Mahajan said:
Thanks Sylvia, for the insightful article on the Akshaya Telecentre Project.
If I may request you, would you be in a position to share with us some details on (1) what were the initial objectives of the project, (2) what are the critical factors (planning, implementation, co-ordination, etc) that led to the success of the project, (3) what were some of the problems that had to be overcome to ensure that the project delivered the desired results.
Silvia Masiero said:
Dear Sandeep,
Thank you for your interest in the contents I have expressed. My answer will be adapted from the principal academic source on which I have studied the Akshaya project, i.e. the research article “Governance Lessons from the Experience of Telecentres in Kerala”, European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 4. That article is a 2005 publication, so the details I am going to share here are publicly available.
1) Initial objectives. With their proposal in April 2002, the members of the Gram Panchayat of Malappuram district had the purpose of using their budget for imparting district-wide computer literacy. The conversion of the proposal into an actual pilot project, operated by the state government in cooperation with a dedicated agency (Kerala State Information Technology Mission – KSITM), saw e-literacy not only as an ends in itself, but as the basis in order for the population to use IT for development-related applications. As of my previous message, six clusters of applications were dealt with in Akshaya e-centres: data digitization; hardware servicing; finance; multimedia; IT-enabled sector interventions and product sales. Hence, the objective of the project was twofold: first, reaching universal e-literacy in the district; and second, using universal e-literacy for the population to proactively utilize IT for local development.
2) Key factors of success. As far as the critical factors of success of Akshaya are concerned, the concept of telecentre sustainability, which I referred to in my previous post, should be further elaborated on. Indeed, “success” here is not only defined in terms of narrow statistical indicators (i.e. the 100% e-literacy that the project has reached), but also in terms of the interactions that the project has determined and shaped. This is what I normally refer to as “multidimensional” sustainability of telecentre projects: sustainability assessment has to go beyond financial aspects, and encompass the ways how the project and its consequences are perceived by the local recipients.
In this respect, the key factor of success in the Akshaya case was the capacity of building trust relationships between the project’s implementers and the local people. Hence, 100% household e-literacy, meaning that practically all the households in point accepted to send a member to the local e-centre for computer training, was crucially based on the trustable and accountable image that the creators of Akshaya have built. This was done through the usage of three principal mechanisms: first, the recruitment of “social animators” to bridge between the Akshaya entrepreneurs and the local community; second, the consolidation of the role of “political champions” who covered a symbolic role in promoting the development mandate of Akshaya; third, the close interaction with government line departments that was maintained throughout all the project. These factors led the Akshaya project to reach its undoubted success in terms of participation, and also led to the reversal of some of the dynamics of a conservative society as Malappuram: indeed, a lot of women attended e-centres for training, despite the fact that much of them were not allowed outside without an escort.
3) Problems. As far as implementation problems are concerned, three key points are to be highlighted. First, corporate confidence is in the process of being built, for actual commercial activity to be deployed at the Akshaya telecentres. Given the widespread awareness of worker’s rights among labourers in Kerala, private actors tend to be cautious about investing there, and this has also negatively affected the construction of linkages between the private sector and Akshaya. Second, the substitution (in 2004) of “social animators” with “block coordinators”, was more focused on management than on fostering local community participation, has marked the emergence of the trade-off between “participation” and “effective management” that characterizes all development projects (Craig and Porter 1997). Third, the integration of the Akshaya project within the existing legislative system has been at issue: of course, ICTs involve a set of “new concepts” that are not necessarily present in a state’s legislation, and the legal apparatus has to evolve and innovate to keep the pace with newly-implemented initiatives.
I hope that my answer has addressed your enquiries properly. Once again, it has to be acknowledged here that these answers also reflect the views expressed in previous research on Akshaya, a project on which I was not able to carry out any on-field research up to date.
References
Craig, D. and Porter, D. (1997) Framing participation: development projects, professionals and organizations. IN TEGEGN, M. (Ed.) Development and Patronage: A Development in Practice Reader. London, Oxfam.
Madon, S. (2005) Governance Lessons from the Experience of Telecentres in Kerala, European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 4, pp. 401-417.
Unstructure Edit said:
Kiran Kakarlamudi Director of Web Services, Duke Health Technology Solutions has stated the example of Home Health Care technology strategies for Rural healthcare in India. Especially recent joint venture that is in progress between GE and Intel for telehealth.
You can view his comments here http://bit.ly/nOXbm
Sandeep Mahajan said:
I recently read an article (dated May 28, 2008) that talked about a project similar to the Akshaya Project. Details related to the project undertaken by the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) is reproduced below:
`M S Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF)
This project is amongst the oldest ICTD (ICT for Development) interventions in India. The MSSRF telecentre initiative was started in 1992 to provide technology impetus in development domains. Over the past decade or so, this initiative has extended beyond Pondicherry and Tamil Nadu to other states such as Orissa and Maharashtra.
The foundation follows a ‘hub and spoke’ model for its telecentre initiative with a designated number of telecentres christened as Village Resource Centres – VRC (spokes). These spokes are linked to a centrally located Village Knowledge Centre – VKC (hub). A typical telecentre is run by knowledge workers who are usually drawn from the village itself. A knowledge centre provides information on government schemes, and broadcasts regular news bulletins.
Information about government schemes is available in the local language and in electronic form so people can get information for themselves. In case some piece of information is not available, the village knowledge workers try to procure that information from the village knowledge centre, where staff search for the information and relay it back to the resource centres. The centre also conducts computer training for villagers.
There is no formal setup between the information workers and the government regarding procurement of information regarding government schemes and services. Instead, an informal understanding between them allows the workers to get this information. Because the centre is a storehouse of information, it attracts people of the community, thus giving it legitimacy. The government also realises the importance of the centres and whenever the villagers need to be mobilised for any particular cause, the VRC becomes the space for doing so.
MSSRF is guided by several major principles, including:
Inclusion: Traditionally MSSRF sets up its telecentres in rural areas. They do this after consultations with different constituents of the community. One of the MSSRF’s key focus areas is inclusion; they do not open telecentres in spaces that are seen to be exclusionary. In many cases, the telecentre is intentionally opened in areas inhabited by disadvantaged sections, forcing residents from the ‘upper strata’ of society to come to these places. This does help change the power equations, albeit slowly.
There have been cases in the past where the opening up of telecentres in areas dominated by uppers castes have resulted in restricted or no access to Dalits. Those telecentres have hence had to be discontinued. However, this was the case when the MSSRF initiative first started. Things have now changed such that inclusion of disadvantaged communities is a pre-requisite for the opening of a telecentre in any area.
Social Sustainability v/s financial sustainability: The real contribution of MSSRF in the entire telecentre debate has been in the aspect of financing. It is perhaps the first institution to explicitly state that financial sustainability is not the underlying or over-riding principle of telecentre initiatives. MSSRF clearly believes that a telecentre exists to serve the citizens and a price cannot be put on access to knowledge. This key principle has guided and continues to guide the working of MSSRF.
People do recognise that a dole-out approach won’t work for long. When we ask people how the telecentres will survive if and when MSSRF withdraws, they chuckle and reply that they will get funding through the Panchayat, other village institutions or voluntary contributions if necessary. This will ensure funding for the knowledge workers and activities associated with the centre.
Community monitoring and ownership: The MSSRF initiative also addresses the all-important question of community monitoring and ownership. The monitoring and evaluation of the centre is undertaken by a joint committee comprising of MSSRF staff and people drawn from the village itself. This committee comes together every few months to discuss the current activities of the telecentre, areas that need to be strengthened and ways to strengthen them, and future activities.
With regard to ownership, MSSRF has been constantly training the information workers on the managerial aspects of running the telecentres. This gives them confidence so if and when MSSRF does withdraw, the trained workers can run the centres smoothly.`
This initiative is one of those rare examples that successfully combines the issues of financing, community monitoring and ownership. This initiative thrives and will continue to do so because it caters to the information needs of the local people, gives them a sense of ownership of the initiative, and the chance to shape its running. This makes the centre indispensable to the lives of the community.`
This article was first viewed at http://www.indiatogether.org/2008/may/gov-telectr.htm
Sandeep Mahajan said:
Here is another very interesting telecentre project, that has some unique features wihch make it an interesting case study. This project incorporates all four aspects of the “Quality of Life” quadrant (Education, Healthcare, Infomobility and eInclusion) of the “Diamond of Digital Innovation”. There is also an element of Public Private Partnership in this project with a fee sharing arrangement between the private entrepreneur and the Panchayat.
“E-Gram – Gujarat
The E-Gram telecentre initiative is a relatively new one, having started in 2001 and piloted in one district of Gujarat. It has since then been extended to all districts of Gujarat. The project aims to digitise all the Panchayats in the state. An E-Gram centre is typically located in a public space, usually a Panchayat office. The centre has a computer with or without an internet connection, and a printer.
The centre is operated by a Village Computer Entrepreneur (VCE), typically a youth from the village who has technical knowledge. The centre offers services like printouts of land records, payment of electricity bills, issue of caste certificates, and information on government schemes. A certain amount is charged as user fees for availing these services, except for the provision of information on government schemes. The user fee is shared between the Panchayat and the VCE.
While the aim of E-Gram was to digitise panchayats, it has achieved that and much more (which is why this initiative stands out and must be replicated):
Gram Mitras and E-Gram: As part of its mandate to bring in more decentralisation, the Gujarat government has also initiated a scheme which involves the appointment of ‘Gram Mitras’ (Friends of the village) in the areas of heath, education, agriculture, development & social justice. This scheme has close links with the E-Gram initiative. These Gram Mitras are not employees but are contracted, and their job is to go from house to house collecting details of a family’s health, finances and so on. This information is compiled in the form of a family data sheet called a ‘Kutumbh Patrak’.
Once this information is compiled, the Gram Mitras return to the E-Gram and in conjunction with the VCE, digitise this information. A printout is then taken and submitted to the taluk level office, which has a complete record of village level information. Through this data, families eligible for government entitlements are identified, and information regarding these entitlements is relayed back to them through the Gram Mitras.
While the current arrangement involves mostly offline links, there are plans to provide connectivity with the state wide area network. This will enable the VCE to enter the data on local computers, enabling the data to be automatically available to the administration at the taluk and the secretariat. Citizens on their part will be able to track their records and the entitlements available to them. Clearly, this aspect of the initiative is something that needs to be highlighted and replicated in other initiatives as well.
Outsourcing and E-Gram: Civil society groups contend that government must be held responsible for its actions and that outsourcing of any government work amounts to dereliction of duty. While this may be true, the E-gram case study presents a different side to this view, one which must be considered.
E-Gram operations are outsourced. A private technology company is responsible for the upkeep of the equipment and the supervision of the VLE. However, unlike the Common Service Centre Scheme (CSCs) where private companies own the telecentre and look upon it as a commercial venture, the example of E-Gram is refreshingly different.
The private company in charge of running the E-Gram only has the mandate of ensuring that the specified functions of the telecentre are being executed. The company has a representative at the taluk, district and secretariat level, and their performance is monitored by the district and state administration. The company is contracted for a certain time period and is paid accordingly; it is not expected to make money from citizens.
When we talk about PPP (Private Public Partnerships), this is the kind of partnerships that I would like to see, where the rein of control still lies in the hands of the government, and governance is not seen as a commercial venture. E-gram stands out in this respect. However, with the coming of CSCs with their accent on revenue generation, and the eventual merging of E-Gram into CSCs, one can only hope that the gains made by this initiative hold out against CSCs.”
This article was first viewed at http://www.indiatogether.org/2008/may/gov-telectr.htm