A very interesting and useful report on Telecentres in Tanzania.
Go to the link below
http://www.tcra.go.tz/publications/telecentresReport.pdf
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Are mobile solutions overhyped?
Editor’s Note: Contributors to this post will be part of a panel on the topic taking place on Thursday, February 9th in Washington, D.C. Sign up for the event here.This post is part of the Global Innovation Showcase created by the New America Foundation and the Global Public Square.
Yes, mobile solutions are overhyped. At the moment, there is tremendous excitement around using mobile phones to address illness, ignorance, oppression, and other socio-economic challenges of the developing world. Within a decade, though, I expect that we’ll look back and see mobile development just as we view 1960s attempts to tackle the same problems with television – the technology has great potential, but overall it’s just an unproductive diversion.
It depends. If you are looking for instant improvements in health, education or income shortly after a mom in a remote village or a young person in an urban slum purchases a cell phone then you will be shaking your head. Five billion cell phones in and of themselves are not going to produce development. On the other hand if you look at what occurred in Internet retail or music downloads you might predict we are within spitting distance of that development inflection curve.
Yes and no. There is no doubt that mobile technology has revolutionized communications worldwide, with over six billion active subscriptions, according to theGSMA, and with Africa and India experiencing growth in mobile accessibility and availability that is unprecedented.
Yes, if you are predicting that mobile technology will mean the end of the digital divide and that a mobile phone in every hand will solve all problems. No, if you are saying that utilizing mobile phones already in the hands of nearly 6 billion people is profoundly better than dropping tablet computers out of helicopters.
Original Article: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/are-mobile-solutions-overhyped/
There are now over 5 billion mobile phone subscriptions worldwide, according to the International Telecommunications Union, with global mobile penetration at 87 percent. In the developing world, where landlines are especially scarce in rural areas, mobiles have been used for governance, banking, agriculture, education, health, commerce, reporting news, political participation, and reducing corruption.
But the ubiquity of the mobile phone - and its application to a diverse and growing set of development goals - doesn’t guarantee economic or social progress.
Are mobiles just another high-tech solution to what are essentially systemic and deeply rooted problems? Are mobile solutions for combating global poverty overhyped?
Kentaro Toyama, (@Kentarotoyama), Researcher at the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley
Yes, mobile solutions are overhyped. At the moment, there is tremendous excitement around using mobile phones to address illness, ignorance, oppression, and other socio-economic challenges of the developing world. Within a decade, though, I expect that we’ll look back and see mobile development just as we view 1960s attempts to tackle the same problems with television – the technology has great potential, but overall it’s just an unproductive diversion.
Cheerleaders for mobile development point out that there are nearly six billion active mobile accounts in the world, and that mobile phones are increasingly used by the remotest rural villagers. It’s hard, indeed, to overhype the business success or the consumer appeal of mobile phones.
Market penetration, however, is not the same as meaningful impact.
Technology amplifies human intent and capacity, but technology by itself doesn’t fix challenges of intent or capacity. What’s overhyped is a belief that mobile-centric programs are a cost-effective means to combat disease, improve education, or alleviate poverty, as if mobile or not were the essential question. What’s overhyped is technological innovation as a primary solution to complex social problems, at the expense of tested-and-true interventions that nurture people and institutions.
Here’s an analogy: Imagine that you were chair of the board of a failing organization. Which of the following actions would most help turn it around?
1. Replace the chief executive with someone smarter and wiser.
2. Consult with clients, and address organizational blind spots.
3. Provide relevant, high-quality training for the employees.
4. Buy every employee a fancy smartphone with specially designed productivity software.
I’ve asked this question of many audiences, and everyone always laughs at (d). Yet, (d) in one form or another is the rationale behind most mobile development.
The real question is one of priority: Why allocate resources for technology-centric projects, when they could be better spent on people-centric ones? To paraphrase an old adage (with a deep apology to poets), “If you give a person a turbo-charged, heat-seeking, robotic fishing pole, they might eat until the technology becomes obsolete, which in our age is a couple of years at best; if, however, you teach them how to fish, they’ll eat for a lifetime.”
Maura O’Neill, (@MauraAtUSAID), Chief Innovation Officer at USAID
It depends. If you are looking for instant improvements in health, education or income shortly after a mom in a remote village or a young person in an urban slum purchases a cell phone then you will be shaking your head. Five billion cell phones in and of themselves are not going to produce development. On the other hand if you look at what occurred in Internet retail or music downloads you might predict we are within spitting distance of that development inflection curve.
After Amazon went public, raised an additional billion dollars in debt and was still mounting losses, many people were dismissing it - pointing to its single digit share of the book market. It will never be more than a bit player, many thought. Not sustainable. No scale.
A market rarely looks robust from the outset. Until, of course, it does and it is too late for competitors.
However, one company usually doesn’t get it right at first. It is an iterative process. There was Napster, then Kaaza and then Apple launched a business model that finally was a hit for the industry and consumers. Legitimate downloads skyrocketed. There was Friendster and MySpace, both market leaders, before Facebook built a new mousetrap.
We are in that experimentation phase just before the inflection point in the field of mobiles for development. Thousands of apps, few with massive scale. Lots of people are chasing that dream. Many will end up failing while the Amazons and the Facebooks of development will emerge faster than people think.
The first signs that mobiles will be a game changer in development are appearing. 15 million Kenyans or 70% of the country’s adult population now have mobile money wallets nestled in their back pockets – a phenomenon that occurred in just the last four years. It is already driving development outcome improvements in savings and internal remittances.
It hasn’t gone viral globally. At least not yet. But when VISA invests in companies like Fundamo, and is putting it global distribution assets behind game changing mobile applications, we know true development is not far behind. Serious mobile money launches or re-launches based on the lessons learned are occurring in dozens of poor countries. Vodafone, Google and other players are offering digital wallets. Financial inclusion will soon be within reach of millions.
There will be development hurdles mobiles will struggle to solve. Twitter may have accelerated the Arab Spring but tackling development problems will remain complex. The next decade will be transformational in development. Mobiles will be a big part of the story.
Katrin Verclas, @Katrinskaya, Co-Founder and Editor of MobileActive
Yes and no. There is no doubt that mobile technology has revolutionized communications worldwide, with over six billion active subscriptions, according to theGSMA, and with Africa and India experiencing growth in mobile accessibility and availability that is unprecedented.
Mobile phones have been instrumental in allowing people to strengthen their social networks and safety nets in case of financial or medical emergencies. Phones have ‘normalized’ information disparity in markets, allowing farmers, for instance, access to information about commodity prices to negotiate better prices for their products. Information available via mobiles can streamline supply chains for small shopkeepers.
Phones are increasingly used for delivery of basic health care services, such as more accurate and speedy transmittance of patient information, streamlining of drug supply chains, vaccination outreach, and sexual health information.
Mobile money has seen particularly striking success in reaching the unbanked. A recent study looked at 18 branchless banking providers and found that they’d brought on average 1.39 million people into the formal financial system for the first time.
Lastly, mobile phones have the potential to lessen income and power inequalities between men and women. One 2008 study in South Africa notes that mobile phones can have a distinctly positive economic effect on female users. When network coverage was extended to a new locality, employment increased by 15 percent, with “most of this effect…due to increased employment by women.”
Yet mobile technology is no silver bullet. As the Financial Times pointed out not too long ago, in many Africa countries there is “an acute shortage of resources and trained staff means that more than 50% of the region’s population is estimated to lack access to modern health care facilities." Mobile technology may serve as an effective communications medium for local community health workers, but it will not replace the lack of investment, and the lack of resources and trained medical staff.
While mobiles are great for accessing information about commodity prices, similarly, they will not replace investments into roads and transportation infrastructure that would allow goods to actually get to market efficiently and speedily.
Lastly, while the data on mobiles and women is conflicting, there is with growing evidence of a bottom-of-the-pyramid mobile divide. In the poorest areas, cell phones are especially scarcer, and cost and literacy impose greater barriers to poorer women, who are more likely to be illiterate than men. It is often these poorest, most rural women who could most use information about market prices, personal safety, and female health care who are also least able to afford mobile phones and take advantage of its opportunities.
Eric Tyler (@Erict19), Program Associate at the New America Foundation
Yes, if you are predicting that mobile technology will mean the end of the digital divide and that a mobile phone in every hand will solve all problems. No, if you are saying that utilizing mobile phones already in the hands of nearly 6 billion people is profoundly better than dropping tablet computers out of helicopters.
Mobile phones are leading the developing world into the information economy and digital age. Already, we’ve seen the potential of the devices to transform an entire industry, as mobile money did in Kenya. And for a large portion of the developing world’s next generation, it will be through mobile phones that Internet connectivity is gained.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves and throw mobile phones at every problem we see. The sustainability and effectiveness of mobile solutions will be closely tied to the human reality and context that surrounds these devices. And important questions still need to be asked around replicability and costs. For example, why has mobile money not yet taken hold outside of Kenya? And how can prices come down for those who cannot afford mobile phones?
A promising sign of mobiles phones’ potential are early randomized evaluations of projects showing a range of positive impacts. One such study of a mobile money transfer project in a drought prone village in Niger showed a huge reduction in distribution costs and greater diversity in crop allocation, purchasing decisions, and diet for mobile transfer beneficiaries.
“Mobile development” is still in its infancy. After all, the first call was made from a mobile less than forty years ago. The inventor Martin Cooper picked up the two and half pound handheld and dialed his rival company’s head researcher to gloat. Martin couldn’t have envisioned the implications of his breakthrough for helping the world’s poorest, and the picture is still coming into focus today. Whatis already clear is that this is just the beginning, and as mobile phones get smarter, cheaper, and more widespread, they will continue to play an integral role in adapting international development to the digital age.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the individual authors.
Original Article: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/are-mobile-solutions-overhyped/
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Testing the InTheClear Security App
| |||
|
Dear MobileActives,NBN Based Telehealth Program for People Living with Cancer and Those Requiring Palliative Care
Telehealth has been a major component of Australian Government ICT promotions for (at least) the past 14 years - I well recollect as a rural/remote Telecentre Manager participating in the year 2000 national Federal Govt Telecenter Telehealth programme and telecons with our (then) Prime minister John Howard on this very issue - unfortunately then as now the "devil is in the detail" - in this latest promotion the quoted 7,000 services provided by over 1,200 clinicians...." - actually equates to less than 6 consultations per registered clinician; the vast majority of which are simply requests for information and are not further followed through.
However, I have a major problem with this type of application and
the related ones for the elderly and others (and please note that over the
course of this year the Journal of Community
Informatics will be coming out with major special issues on Community
Informatics and Older Persons (edited by Gene Loeb) and a second on Community
Informatics and Health (edited by Lareen Newman and Ali
Sanousi).
My problem is that this application (and regrettably
most of the applications described in the articles in the two special issues)
are evidently based on the assumption that folks with cancer or other
diseases/conditions, older persons and so on are somehow living/functioning as
totally autonomous self-sufficient individuals and that whatever ICT supports
are provided need to have that as an inbuilt design
assumption.
In fact of course, they don't live as autonomous
individuals--in most cases they live as part of families, even in a lot
circumstances extended families and for the lucky ones they also live in the
context of supportive communities and community
connections.
It is terribly disappointing and I would argue
profoundly wrong-headed and damaging to be making such an individual
focussed design assumption.
There are as I see it at least three problems with
this:
1. people don't live this way and
whatever design that is provided should be based on how people live not on how
the (system/application) designers choose to see them as
living
2. because of these assumptions it
appears that little or no resources are being directed toward the
design of ICT supports for families/communities in their providing
enabling/enriching contexts for cancer patients/older persons or for helping
patients/elders to make the supportive connections with their
families/communities etc.etc.
3. there is increasing evidence
that supportive families and communities have a measureable impact on
well-being including medical indicators of patients/elders etc. By
ignoring these connections the application designers/implementers are in fact
harming their target audiences by designing systems which by emphasizing
individual behaviours foreclose on the collaborative community behaviours that
reseach is now identifying as so beneficial to health, healing and well
being.
My doctor in India works from a call-centre and was introduced through a pharmaceutical company with which I have an interest. Fortunately nowadays there are means available for people to access foreign health systems via telehealth (given our rural domestic system is in such a terrible state – if I do seem a little negative in this area it might help by explaining that our local hospital was closed by our previous State Government, not to be reopened, rather replaced by a small clinic without emergency facilities – and given the excessive long waiting lists to see a local GP more and more people are looking overseas for medical assistance).
However, I have a major problem with this type of application and
the related ones for the elderly and others (and please note that over the
course of this year the Journal of Community
Informatics will be coming out with major special issues on Community
Informatics and Older Persons (edited by Gene Loeb) and a second on Community
Informatics and Health (edited by Lareen Newman and Ali
Sanousi).
My problem is that this application (and regrettably
most of the applications described in the articles in the two special issues)
are evidently based on the assumption that folks with cancer or other
diseases/conditions, older persons and so on are somehow living/functioning as
totally autonomous self-sufficient individuals and that whatever ICT supports
are provided need to have that as an inbuilt design
assumption.
In fact of course, they don't live as autonomous
individuals--in most cases they live as part of families, even in a lot
circumstances extended families and for the lucky ones they also live in the
context of supportive communities and community
connections.
It is terribly disappointing and I would argue
profoundly wrong-headed and damaging to be making such an individual
focussed design assumption.
There are as I see it at least three problems with
this:
1. people don't live this way and
whatever design that is provided should be based on how people live not on how
the (system/application) designers choose to see them as
living
2. because of these assumptions it
appears that little or no resources are being directed toward the
design of ICT supports for families/communities in their providing
enabling/enriching contexts for cancer patients/older persons or for helping
patients/elders to make the supportive connections with their
families/communities etc.etc.
3. there is increasing evidence
that supportive families and communities have a measureable impact on
well-being including medical indicators of patients/elders etc. By
ignoring these connections the application designers/implementers are in fact
harming their target audiences by designing systems which by emphasizing
individual behaviours foreclose on the collaborative community behaviours that
reseach is now identifying as so beneficial to health, healing and well
being.
My doctor in India works from a call-centre and was introduced through a pharmaceutical company with which I have an interest. Fortunately nowadays there are means available for people to access foreign health systems via telehealth (given our rural domestic system is in such a terrible state – if I do seem a little negative in this area it might help by explaining that our local hospital was closed by our previous State Government, not to be reopened, rather replaced by a small clinic without emergency facilities – and given the excessive long waiting lists to see a local GP more and more people are looking overseas for medical assistance).
T Update - Call for contributions - Forthcoming issue on Teleservices
ICT Update magazine is looking for articles for our forthcoming issue on Teleservices.
We would like to hear from anyone developing technology services - telecentres, ICT training facilities, cell phone services - to bring information, particularly agricultural information, to rural parts of African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
If you are involved in providing such services then please get in touch with brief details on the technology you use, the communities served, and how the work contributes to rural development in ACP countries. We are especially keen to hear from self-sustaining enterprises who can share the details of the challenges they have faced and the lessons they have learned. We will send an article outline and a list of questions to cover in the article, or organise a time for a telephone interview.
The editorial committee of ICT Update would also like to thank those who responded to our previous calls for articles, and look forward to hearing more about your ICT projects in 2012.
For more information, send an email to
Jim Dempsey
ICT Update (http://ictupdate.cta.int) is a bimonthly printed bulletin, web magazine, and accompanying e-mail newsletter focusing on the use of information and communication technologies in agriculture in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. It is published in English and French, by CTA (Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation) in Wageningen in the Netherlands.
Jim Dempsey
Editor ICT Update
|
Giacomo Rambaldi
Sr. Programme Coordinator, ICT4D
|
@ict_update
Contactivity bv
Stationsweg 28
2312 AV Leiden
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)71 514 1166
|
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU (CTA)
P.O. Box 380
6700 AJ Wageningen
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)317 467174
|
Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist
Public Intelligence
A flyer designed by the FBI and the Department of Justice to promote suspicious activity reporting in internet cafes lists basic tools used for online privacy as potential signs of terrorist activity. The document, part of a program called “Communities Against Terrorism”, lists the use of “anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address” as a sign that a person could be engaged in or supporting terrorist activity. The use of encryption is also listed as a suspicious activity along with steganography, the practice of using “software to hide encrypted data in digital photos” or other media. In fact, the flyer recommends that anyone “overly concerned about privacy” or attempting to “shield the screen from view of others” should be considered suspicious and potentially engaged in terrorist activities.
Logging into an account associated with a residential internet service provider (such as Comcast or AOL), an activity that could simply indicate that you are on a trip, is also considered a suspicious activity. Viewing any content related to “military tactics” including manuals or “revolutionary literature” is also considered a potential indicator of terrorist activity. This would mean that viewing a number of websites, including the one you are on right now, could be construed by a hapless employee as an highly suspicious activity potentially linking you to terrorism.
The “Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities” contained in the flyer are not to be construed alone as a sign of terrorist activity and the document notes that “just because someone’s speech, actions, beliefs, appearance, or way of life is different; it does not mean that he or she is suspicious.” However, many of the activities described in the document are basic practices of any individual concerned with security or privacy online. The use of PGP, VPNs, Tor or any of the many other technologies for anonymity and privacy online are directly targeted by the flyer, which is distributed to businesses in an effort to promote the reporting of these activities.
All Issues of the KM4D Journal Currently Free Access
All of the issues of the KM4D Journal are currently free access on the Taylor and Francis website at:http://www.tandfonline.com/
This includes the most recent issue 'Special Issue: Beyond the conventional boundaries of knowledge management: navigating the emergent pathways of learning and innovation for international development' May 2011.
This includes the most recent issue 'Special Issue: Beyond the conventional boundaries of knowledge management: navigating the emergent pathways of learning and innovation for international development' May 2011.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)