If you take a train from one of the suburbs in Nairobi and
snail your way through the industrial area section of the city, you will notice
corroded train tracks weaving into shells of industrial complexes that have
shuttered-in broken windows with clear signs of wear and tear, and a heavily
applied coat of aging dirt. If you are
from another bygone era you will probably shake your head nostalgically, as you
remember the well-oiled industrial vibrancy that preexisted in this area, when
beer brewing and cement producing factories would ship in raw material and ship
out finished products on the same rail tracks.
NAIROBI RAILWAY STATION |
All we have nowadays is infrastructure covered with grass-bushes
and oversized weeds competing to get some lazy sunshine in an era of laxity and
waste.
The One Laptop per
Child initiative was one of the most ambitious projects to come out an Ivy
League technology lab. Behind it lay an ambitious effort to leverage digital
technology in the fight against poverty.
Rwanda, Peru, Argentina, Venezuela, Mongolia, Haiti,
Ethiopia and Uruguay were some of the countries that embraced this initiative,
and with good reason, they have a lot vested in bringing their populations into
the 21st century technologically. Unfortunately five years later,
there are mixed reactions to the success rate of this well-intended initiative.
While Uruguay, a flat terrain country of less than 4 million people that is moving
its population to 4G in a phased approach, has had success in this project
having given every elementary school child and teacher the machine and in the
process achieved ubiquitous internet access.
Peru, on the other hand, has displayed every quality reminiscent of a
failed initiative. Off course different studies on this initiative are arriving
at different conclusions and that is justifiable given their outlook and vested
interests. But one glaring question that all of them seem to want answered is
what the goal and the scope of this initiative was in Peru.
If you look at the stumbling blocks that faced the project
in Peru, and they are many, from the ill-prepared rural teachers, who were
often unable to fathom, much less teach with the machines, software bugs that
didn’t get fixed, less than 1% of the laptops having an internet connection,
schools with no electricity to keep the machines functional, to the rugged
terrain of the country, you begin to question whether nature was playing a bad
joke on the ill-prepared strategists who hadn’t thought through this idea.
A study done by the Inter-American Development Bank even
went as far as stating that there is little evidence regarding the
effectiveness of this program based on a look at 319 schools in rural Peruvian
communities that got laptops. “The magical thinking that mere technology is
enough to spur change, to improve learning, is what this study categorically
disproves”, it noted. The study found no increased math or language skills, no
improvement in classroom instruction quality, no boost in time spent in
homework and no improvement in reading habits.
But the study was also speckled with a positive note that
could probably spur continued support for this project, “the dramatic increase
in access to computers, accelerated by up to six months, student’s abstract
reasoning, verbal fluency and speed in processing information”. Supporters of
the project have taken this to mean that these are the essential 21st
century skills that ideally should have been tested, skills such as those
developed by the audio visual tools the laptops possess.
A study by the Chartered Institute of Information Technology
discovered that only one in eight Information Technology projects can be
considered truly successful, but despite
that, huge amounts of money still continue to be invested in IT projects and subsequently
get written off. Why is this “madness” the norm? To answer that question we have to take a
step back, and first ask why projects fail, and if we cut through the thick wad
of answers that come flooding through, you will begin to trace foundational
reasons that seem unanimous; because of impossible to meet or poorly defined deliverables,
poor communication, inadequate or poor project management, lack of change
management mechanisms, inadequate resources, poorly defined requirements,
inaccurate estimates, poor risk management and over optimism.
Every project that commences has four principal elements
that tilt it towards success or failure
depending on how much focus and appreciation
they are given. They are cost, scope, time and quality.
Banfield hit the ground running |
So if we go back to the
question of “madness”, if we were to give IT projects, a personality we would have
to say they have a bad disposition and are genetically predetermined to fail, mainly
because part of what drives them are new untested technologies that are
difficult to use or predict, they also have aggressive time schedules that seem
to race against time itself, putting to shame even the arms race that existed between
the Russians and the Americans. They also lack resources for various reasons including
lack of capital, lack of understanding, to inadequate or no support from stakeholders,
and then again everyone knows they normally have unrealistic expectations.
So…while you are out
there about to begin a project or deeply engaged in one keep these elements in
mind and I wish you success in your project.
Article was done for CIO East Africa Magazine April 2013 issue.
@edwin_moindi
Comments
Post a Comment