Full Circle Associates

In a slight contrast to the previous piece, here is another thought provoking article from Islam Online- Health & Science: "Are Pilot Projects Helping Development?

Thousands of ‘pilot projects’ have been seeded all over the developing world during the past few years to find out if information and communications technologies (ICTs) can foster development. Among these are attempts to put computers in underprivileged schools, provide internet access to the poor, or bring ‘community radio’ to villages.

The development community, ever anxious to coin more jargon and acronyms, now has a collective name for these efforts: ICT4D (ICT for development).

Of course, there is nothing wrong in trying out new ways of improving lives and livelihoods. Every possible tool must be employed in the global battle against poverty. If technologies can offer part of the solution, we should indeed welcome it.

But the enormous development challenges we face, captured in recent years by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), are not going to benefit from what I call ‘forever-pilots’: projects that remain externally supported for years or decades, and never seem to stand on their own.

It is also strange how the generic ideas behind these pilots are not imitated, in a world that is quick to emulate—even pirate or plagiarize—good ideas.

Here in Tunis, where a massive ICT4D exhibition ran parallel to the official, inter-governmental meeting, project proponents from UN agencies, civil society and the private sector have spent much time, effort and money in promoting their pet pilots.

Phrases like ‘up-scaling’ and ‘ensuring sustainability’ have been tossed about over endless cups of coffee. But these are precisely what the forever-pilots fail to accomplish.

One much hyped project comes from my own country, Sri Lanka: the Kotmale Internet radio project. Established in 1999, it used a “community radio” service, a rural broadcast from the fully state-owned radio network, to bring the World Wide Web slightly closer to its listeners.

Surfing the web was not a practical option in the Kotmale valley, some 250 km (155.3 mi.) away from the capital. So a daily two-hour interactive radio program enabled listeners to request (by live telephone or by post) information on any topic. Radio presenters sourced it from various websites and summarized on air in the local language, Sinhala.

This helped to overcome the twin problems of Internet access and English proficiency. For a while, the station also provided free Internet access at two public libraries and at the station itself. The capital and running costs were covered by donors.

The project appealed to communications researchers and journalists all in search of a “good story”. Never mind the project was government-driven, and rarely provided information of economic or social value. In reality, the community had no say in either management or content development. Nestled in the scenic Kotmale valley, the pilot project had all the ‘sexy’ trappings for the development community.

But when the donors finally wearied of funding, everything came to a standstill. Amazingly, however, the project lives on in development textbooks and websites, and is still cited widely as a South Asian ‘success’.

If it was such a success, why didn’t it spawn similar efforts in Sri Lanka or elsewhere? The rural and urban information needs are vast and remain unmet.

Joining Kotmale are a large number of other ‘small-is-beautiful’ ICT4D initiatives across Africa, Asia Pacific and Latin America. The tele-centre fever that is 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 it really helps the poor.

Gunawardene goes on to say how donors might more productively channel their support.

"Development donors looking for a bigger bang for their increasingly limited buck should put more money in regulatory and structural reforms that have tangible downstream returns."

Good advice. I have been part of my share of pilots and have felt the pain of their demise at the end of funding cycles. The politically correct lip service to sustainability rarely pans out the way we expect. If you are interested in this, go and read the full article.

But also consider the unexpected and unintended consequences of pilots. At the end of one project that, while running, seemed so successful, I sympathized with my colleagues as we sadly saw most of it fade away. But we didn't look in the right places. Although the formal programs, the computers and the project had ended, people's thinking about collaboration had changed. They saw new possibilities of working between villages and not feeling isolated and alone. Was it worth the millions poured in? My distant view is no, it did not get as much value out of the investment as we'd all have wished. Our "plan" for sustainability relied on unreliable partners. But something did change. Hopefully for the better. But the question remains: how successful are we, with all our good intentions, of helping communities do what they want to do for a better life?

Categories: nptech, ict4development