The fact that we want to measure the impact means that we are in agreement there is an impact. But when it come to measuring, I think it will be dependent on several factors for example the ICT tools being used, scale, socio economic status of the people among others. Some of the tools are used simultaneously and rarely do they work in isolation which complicates the process of measuring the impact. But one thing is for sure, ICT is here with us and it’s here to stay whether we measure the impact or not. The only thing that matters is the end user approval, if they like it they will adopt it whether it has scientific backing or not. A good example is the case of SRI where research was only done recently years after the method had widespread application by farmers.
Jenny AkerTufts UniversityUnited States of America
Thank you for your thoughtful and accurate posting. I completely agree that measuring the impact of ICTs can be complex, that they are (probably) here to stay, and that adoption signals that is it useful to them.
At the same time, if we are going to use public funding for ICT-based projects -- which might be replacing another type of project, say in health, agriculture or education -- I do think that we should be measuring the impact (at least at the initial stages). This will help us to know whether the ICT-based approach is "better" than the traditional approach (maybe users were using the traditional approach as well); whether the ICT-based approach is more cost-effective than the traditional approach; how it affects certain groups (some -- like the users - - might be positively affected, others might be negatively affected); and whether the impacts are in the same in different contexts (namely, different countries). An ICT-based project that worked really well in India might not succeed in Ghana.
I don't think that we need a "rigorous' impact evaluation for every project, but at least for new pilot projects in new contexts, I think that this is important -- especially when public funding is involved.
Ian ThomsonSecretariat of the Pacific CommunityNew Zealand
I think it is important to focus on systemic change and innovation, both of which often take many years to show themselves. ITCs are only tools and it is how well the tool is used over time that is important.
Typically when ICTs are introduced there is some incremental change, but as it becomes widely adopted, significant process re-engineering becomes possible and transformative change becomes available if there is an innovation present.
This is what we need to focus on and report on.
ICT enabled change management is the hardest part of ICT4D and it is often the local bureaucracy, not the end user that prevents change and causes ICT4D projects to "fail"
Well, it is a bit difficult to analyze the socio-economic impact of ICT but yes we can quantify it in one or the other way. Prior to analyze we must add on a continuous pace of educating the rural community about the benefits/uses/values of ICTs tools and application and keep them updating. Perhaps it is a two way parallel approach, at one side feed in and on the other side evaluating the results.
At very beginning we have to study out the socio-culture of the community and then build up a web portal that encompasses the information/links that exactly matched with the desire both in English and regional language equipped with a real time feedback.
In second phase the feed community up with trainings, how they get benefits from the given information on the web and how they can access more desired/needed information and when and where they can contact to get real time solutions to their problem.
In third phases, evaluation to those parameters fed up to community earlier in a precise manner. A successful implementation/execution of such ICT tool can change the life of rural communities. A farmer can get weather forecast, market price information, demand and supply in markets, a student can have the access to universities, scholarships, a graduate can apply for jobs, a lady can buy grocery/cosmetics/health services while sitting her house. This all magic can be done with simple ICT application and can bring revolutions in rural life.
In order to analyze the socio-economic impact of ICT in rural areas one has to understand the power-plays in rural communities for this is a critical factor in the launch and success/failure of the ICT projects. Indicators drafted at the initial stage of implementation are also important guides but note that this is usually idealistic. It would also help to understand the culture of the community.
To conduct social-economic impact analysis, one needs to be very specific about the ICT in reference, its application (usage), stakeholders, the performance indicators, and the social-economic impact indicators.
For example, one needs to be specific about the ICT in reference: Is it cell phones (for voice and SMS), cell phone towers, broadcast radio, broadcast television, an internet connected computer, or an individual email account? One then has to state what the ICT is used for. Is the ICT used to transmit or diffuse market information (e.g., market prices), production or agronomic information, health information (e.g., malaria control or treatment messages), or financial transactions (e.g., money transfer)?
Next, one has to state who the beneficiaries are. Some projects identify farmers as their main clientele when in reality their main clientele are traders, government policy makers, or donors. Next, one has to identify the performance indicators as viewed by the users (e.g., reliability, accuracy, timelines, and accessibility).
Next, one has to identify the social-economic indicators to be measured. These can be numerable or non-numerable, and vary depending on the ICT usage. Examples include price received, revenue or income, quality and or quantity of food produced or bought, government policies that increase food security, new friends, better health, increased production and productivity, employment, improved property rights, and improved security.
Once the social-economic indicators are well stated, one can then think of methods to measure the marginal contribution (impact) of: (1) a particular ICT if its effects can be truly isolated from other factors such as the ability of the person who wrote the project proposal; or (2) a group of ICT if one tries to account for the complementarities within ICT usage, and between ICT usage and other intervention such as government policies.
Sonigitu Ekpe-AjiMinitry of International Development CooperationNigeria
Once we get proper co-ordination of up-dated population figures and distribution and not estimations.
Today the youths are very active than the older ones in terms of ICT utilization. We can determine what is used by who and where.
I totally agree with Karl Jonas, make the project open to all stakeholders. Lets understand on thing, once you can track the distribution of people you can also get feedback easy.
Many countries today give wrong information on population data because of national interest or political reasons and this has hamper economic growth. Kizito points are very clear, the broad complexity will be narrowed once there is a database of real people. You can make findings via emails, voice, sms and video clips. This creates more openings, clarity to both the urban and rural dwellers; learning will be more interesting as people will have to adjust to the technological changes.
The complexity of ICT will be more easier when we face the reality of controls, within the global village. Everybody eats then lets get down to solving the problem of matching real figures.
The fact that we want to measure the impact means that we are in agreement there is an impact. But when it come to measuring, I think it will be dependent on several factors for example the ICT tools being used, scale, socio economic status of the people among others. Some of the tools are used simultaneously and rarely do they work in isolation which complicates the process of measuring the impact. But one thing is for sure, ICT is here with us and it’s here to stay whether we measure the impact or not. The only thing that matters is the end user approval, if they like it they will adopt it whether it has scientific backing or not. A good example is the case of SRI where research was only done recently years after the method had widespread application by farmers.
Kimole - you took the words out of my mouth! Well said. Your analysis is right on.
Thank you for your thoughtful and accurate posting. I completely agree that measuring the impact of ICTs can be complex, that they are (probably) here to stay, and that adoption signals that is it useful to them.
At the same time, if we are going to use public funding for ICT-based projects -- which might be replacing another type of project, say in health, agriculture or education -- I do think that we should be measuring the impact (at least at the initial stages). This will help us to know whether the ICT-based approach is "better" than the traditional approach (maybe users were using the traditional approach as well); whether the ICT-based approach is more cost-effective than the traditional approach; how it affects certain groups (some -- like the users - - might be positively affected, others might be negatively affected); and whether the impacts are in the same in different contexts (namely, different countries). An ICT-based project that worked really well in India might not succeed in Ghana.
I don't think that we need a "rigorous' impact evaluation for every project, but at least for new pilot projects in new contexts, I think that this is important -- especially when public funding is involved.
I think it is important to focus on systemic change and innovation, both of which often take many years to show themselves. ITCs are only tools and it is how well the tool is used over time that is important.
Typically when ICTs are introduced there is some incremental change, but as it becomes widely adopted, significant process re-engineering becomes possible and transformative change becomes available if there is an innovation present.
This is what we need to focus on and report on.
ICT enabled change management is the hardest part of ICT4D and it is often the local bureaucracy, not the end user that prevents change and causes ICT4D projects to "fail"
Well, it is a bit difficult to analyze the socio-economic impact of ICT but yes we can quantify it in one or the other way. Prior to analyze we must add on a continuous pace of educating the rural community about the benefits/uses/values of ICTs tools and application and keep them updating. Perhaps it is a two way parallel approach, at one side feed in and on the other side evaluating the results.
At very beginning we have to study out the socio-culture of the community and then build up a web portal that encompasses the information/links that exactly matched with the desire both in English and regional language equipped with a real time feedback.
In second phase the feed community up with trainings, how they get benefits from the given information on the web and how they can access more desired/needed information and when and where they can contact to get real time solutions to their problem.
In third phases, evaluation to those parameters fed up to community earlier in a precise manner. A successful implementation/execution of such ICT tool can change the life of rural communities. A farmer can get weather forecast, market price information, demand and supply in markets, a student can have the access to universities, scholarships, a graduate can apply for jobs, a lady can buy grocery/cosmetics/health services while sitting her house. This all magic can be done with simple ICT application and can bring revolutions in rural life.
In order to analyze the socio-economic impact of ICT in rural areas one has to understand the power-plays in rural communities for this is a critical factor in the launch and success/failure of the ICT projects. Indicators drafted at the initial stage of implementation are also important guides but note that this is usually idealistic. It would also help to understand the culture of the community.
To conduct social-economic impact analysis, one needs to be very specific about the ICT in reference, its application (usage), stakeholders, the performance indicators, and the social-economic impact indicators.
For example, one needs to be specific about the ICT in reference: Is it cell phones (for voice and SMS), cell phone towers, broadcast radio, broadcast television, an internet connected computer, or an individual email account? One then has to state what the ICT is used for. Is the ICT used to transmit or diffuse market information (e.g., market prices), production or agronomic information, health information (e.g., malaria control or treatment messages), or financial transactions (e.g., money transfer)?
Next, one has to state who the beneficiaries are. Some projects identify farmers as their main clientele when in reality their main clientele are traders, government policy makers, or donors. Next, one has to identify the performance indicators as viewed by the users (e.g., reliability, accuracy, timelines, and accessibility).
Next, one has to identify the social-economic indicators to be measured. These can be numerable or non-numerable, and vary depending on the ICT usage. Examples include price received, revenue or income, quality and or quantity of food produced or bought, government policies that increase food security, new friends, better health, increased production and productivity, employment, improved property rights, and improved security.
Once the social-economic indicators are well stated, one can then think of methods to measure the marginal contribution (impact) of: (1) a particular ICT if its effects can be truly isolated from other factors such as the ability of the person who wrote the project proposal; or (2) a group of ICT if one tries to account for the complementarities within ICT usage, and between ICT usage and other intervention such as government policies.
Once we get proper co-ordination of up-dated population figures and distribution and not estimations.
Today the youths are very active than the older ones in terms of ICT utilization. We can determine what is used by who and where.
I totally agree with Karl Jonas, make the project open to all stakeholders. Lets understand on thing, once you can track the distribution of people you can also get feedback easy.
Many countries today give wrong information on population data because of national interest or political reasons and this has hamper economic growth. Kizito points are very clear, the broad complexity will be narrowed once there is a database of real people. You can make findings via emails, voice, sms and video clips. This creates more openings, clarity to both the urban and rural dwellers; learning will be more interesting as people will have to adjust to the technological changes.
The complexity of ICT will be more easier when we face the reality of controls, within the global village. Everybody eats then lets get down to solving the problem of matching real figures.
Thank you