Title: Technology for transparency, accountability and good governance
Author: Dave Algoso
Source: Find What Works blog
Date (published): 30/11/2011
Date (accessed): 03/12/2011
Type of information: blog post
Language: English
On-line access: yes (HTML)
Abstract:
"I spent yesterday morning at a discussion on the above topic. The issue at hand was the fact that a bunch of groups have been doing government accountability and transparency work for decades, and a bunch of groups are trying to leverage new technology and social media for similar ends — but these two sets aren’t talking to one another as much as they should be.

I noticed two major themes in the discussion...

How to divide up such a big topic?

The conversation ranged from open government data, to the use of mobiles for government service delivery, to citizen reporting on government abuses. In other words: the intersection of technology and better governance is huge. By the end of the event, it was clear that those attending had more to say on these issues.

There were several attempts to divide up the issue into manageable chunks. One rubric involved a distinction between top-down and bottom-up. The first category includes efforts to make data more accessible, use mobiles/other technology to reach citizens, or generally improve the efficiency of government operations through better technology.
...
Another approach for understanding the topic is to think about the impact that new technologies have on current governance processes. Technology might simply make a process more efficient by reducing transaction costs. For example, mobile phones and the internet help make it a lot cheaper to monitor elections, provide government data, or inform citizens about services. But technology might go another step further, beyond mere efficiency, by actually transforming how government works and how citizens interact with one another. This (some would argue) is what Twitter did in Egypt.
...
How do we know what works?

The other big theme yesterday was evaluation. I get the sense that most technology-for-governance interventions don’t receive anything close to rigorous evaluation. This is hardly surprising: governance issues are notoriously difficult to evaluate. As I’ve discussed before, randomized controlled trials aren’t applicable. Even psuedo-experimental methods run into trouble when trying to pick a defensible counter-factual. New technology might make data collection easier, but that won’t allow us to overcome the complexity of understanding governance or how change happens..."

Title: From Digital Divide to Digital Provide: Spillover Benefits to ICT4D Non-Users
Author: Richard Heeks
Source: ICTs for development
Date (published): 31/08/2011
Date (accessed): 07/09/2011
Type of information: blog post
Language: English
On-line access: yes (HTML)
Abstract:
"ICT4D research on spillovers to non-users specifically has been rare, with the main interests in non-users being to understand why they are non-users; and most spillover work being done between sectors or enterprises and/or focusing on the spillover of encouraging ICT adoption rather than more immediate benefits.

This does seem to be changing, perhaps because of the growth of mobile and related to earlier work on the externalities to non-users of arrival of rural telecommunications.
...
I look forward to what appears to be forthcoming work by the Global Impact Study on non-user spillovers. However, this remains a poorly-understood and little-researched issue; one that needs a greater focus since it is central to understanding the digital divide and digital inequalities. It also has implications for practice; suggesting ICT4D projects should promote non-user spillovers as much as they promote ICT usage."

Title: ICT and Economic Growth: Evidence from Kenya
Author: Richard Heeks
Source: ICTs for Development
Date (published): 26/06/2011
Date (accessed): 06/07/2011
Type of information: blog post
Language: English
On-line access: yes (HTML)
Abstract:
"Do ICTs contribute to economic growth in developing countries?

In the 1980s, Robert Solow triggered the idea of a productivity paradox, saying “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.” And for many years there was a similar developing country growth paradox: that you could increasingly see ICTs in developing countries except in the economic growth data.

That is still largely true of computers and to some extent the Internet, but much less true overall as mobiles have become the dominant form of ICTs in development. In particular key studies such as those by Waverman et al (2005), Lee et al (2009), and Qiang (2009) have demonstrated a clear connection between mobiles and economic growth and/or between telecoms more generally and economic growth. They all address the “endogeneity” problem: that a correlation between telecoms (indeed, all ICTs) and economic growth is readily demonstrable; but that you then have to tease out the direction of causality: economic growth of course causes increased levels of ICTs in a country (we buy more tech as we get richer); you need to try to control for that, and separate out the interesting bit: the extent to which the technology causes economic growth."

Title: Explaining ERP Failure in Developing Countries: A Jordanian Case Study
Authors: Ala'a Hawari & Richard Heeks
Pages: 31 pp.
ISBN: 978-1-905469-13-0
Source: Development Informatics Working Paper Series, Paper No. 45
Publisher: Centre for Development Informatics, Institute for Development Policy and Management, School of Environment and Development (SED), University of Manchester
Date (published): 17/05/2010
Date (accessed): 02/06/2010
Type of information: research paper
Language: English
On-line access: yes (pdf)
Abstract:
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems are increasingly being adopted by organisations in developing countries. As in industrialised countries, this adoption seems beset by significant rates of failure, leading to a large waste of investment and other resources. This paper seeks to understand why ERP failure occurs.

In doing this, it moves beyond the factor lists that have so-far dominated analysis. Instead, it makes use of the "design—reality gap" model. This conceptual framework aims to be comprehensive but also contingent; sensitive to the specific conditions of any individual client organisation.

The design—reality gap model is applied to a case study of partial ERP failure in a Jordanian manufacturing firm. The model analyses the situation both before and during ERP implementation. It finds sizeable gaps between the assumptions and requirements built into the ERP system design, and the actual realities of the client organisation. It is these gaps – and the failure to close them during implementation – that underlie project failure.

The paper draws conclusions about good practice in ERP implementation relating to both risk identification and risk mitigation, and offers examples of both specific and generic actions that can be undertaken. But it also notes challenges existing in some developing country contexts that may continue to constrain the effective use of enterprise resource planning systems.

Educator's guide to student questions for this paper

Title: Impact Assessment of ICT-for-Development Projects: A Compendium of Approaches
Authors: Richard Heeks and Alemayehu Molla
Pages: 162 pp.
ISBN: 978-1-905469-03-1
Series: Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 36
Publisher: Development Informatics Group, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester
Date published: 2009
Date accessed: 18/06/2009
Type of information: research publications
Language: English
On-line access: yes (pdf, MS Word)
Abstract:
Billions of US dollars are invested each year by the public, NGO and private sectors in information-and-communication-technologies-for-development (ICT4D) projects such as telecentres, village phone schemes, e-health and e-education projects, e-government kiosks, etc.

Yet we have very little sense of the effect of that investment. Put simply, there is far too little impact assessment of ICT4D projects.

In part that reflects a lack of political will and motivation. But in part it also reflects a lack of knowledge about how to undertake impact assessment of ICT4D.

This Compendium aims to address that lack of knowledge. It presents a set of frameworks that can be used by ICT4D practitioners, policy-makers and consultants to understand the impact of informatics initiatives in developing countries.

The Compendium is arranged into three parts:

* Overview – explains the basis for understanding impact assessment of ICT4D projects, and the different assessment frameworks that can be used.
* Frameworks – summarises a series of impact assessment frameworks, each one drawing from a different perspective.
* Bibliography – a tabular summary of real-world examples of ICT4D impact assessment.

See also:
Educator's guide to student questions for this paper.

Title: Impact Assessment of Mobile Phones on Development: Concepts, Methods and Lessons for Practice
Author: Richard Duncombe
Pages: 27 pp.
ISBN: 978-1-905469-06-2
Series: Manchester Centre for Development Informatics Working Paper 39
Publisher: Institute for Development Policy and Management, SED, University of Manchester
Date published: 2009
Date accessed: 17/06/2009
Type of information: research publication
Language: English
On-line access: yes (pdf, MS Word)
Abstract:
The use of mobile phones is an increasingly important part of development across all sectors, which has led to rapidly increasing investment by the mobile phone industry and new demands on the resources of donors. Impact assessment (IA) is an increasingly important tool for evaluating whether or not mobiles-for-development (m-development) funds are being used effectively. This paper reviews 18 published studies, which are critically evaluated with reference to key building blocks for good practice in IA. These building blocks encompass: the extent to which the studies address the needs of defined audiences or beneficiaries, the choice of types of impact to assess and units of assessment, the application of suitable conceptual frameworks, and the rigour of the methodology followed.

The findings suggest that m-development IA to date falls into three main categories: purely quantitative approaches rooted in information economics, and purely qualitative approaches rooted in social impact assessment. A further mixed method category provides cost effective and timely findings, but with the result of diluting the rigour evident at the methodological poles.

Overall, the paper concludes there is a need for more and better guidance for the conduct of such studies, particularly in relation to identifying the rationale and objectives of IA, and linking the choice of concepts and methods with the requirements of key audiences and beneficiaries. Thus, the paper identifies m-development IA as a contested area, and by taking stock of experience thus far, seeks to raise the level of debate concerning the relative merit of alternative methodological and conceptual approaches.
See also:
Educator's guide to student questions for this paper.