Think Out of the PC Box

It has been said that when the only tool you have is a hammer, you see every

problem as a nail. And one of the most appropriate examples of this adage is the

field of information communication technologies for development (ICT4D). Here,

there’s been an active engagement in finding solutions for developing

countries that improve socio-economic conditions with the use of technology.

While this piece does not address the motives behind people’s efforts to ‘close

the digital divide’, it does focus on the way many have been attempting to do

so. In particular, it examines the typical hammer-like approach that

researchers, companies, organizations, and government bodies employ while

attempting to create ICT4D solutions, and suggests an approach which may provide

more successful results.

The problem is this: The "technological haves" have been using

computers and the Internet for years, which has significantly shaped their

perspective of what technology means and the purposes it can serve. Therefore,

when they attempt to solve a problem with technology, they tend to view the

solutions from their paradigm of the desktop computer, a Web browser, the

Internet and so on. This myopic outlook can be equated to the proverbial hammer.

Given how this conditioning shapes developers’ thinking, it is no wonder

why ICT4D initiatives have almost become synonymous with providing rural

communities Internet access via desktop computers. The trouble is, however, that

the types of problems people face in rural areas are not readily solved with

these particular digital tools. This inadequacy can be understood (and overcome)

by addressing two fundamental criteria: 1) How well the technology meets the

users’ needs, and 2) How well-suited the technology is for the context or

environment. Let us have a look at each of these points.

User needs and suitability



With respect to users’ needs, one has to begin by considering whether or

not the major problems affecting the community are ones that computing

technology can solve directly. For example, issues that frequently top the list

are things like lack of water, power shortage, and insufficient road

infrastructure. Unfortunately, such problems are typically endemic, deep-rooted,

and beyond the scope of being remedied by an ICT4D intervention.

Therefore, problem-solving efforts, if they are to succeed, must be geared

toward problems that can be practically addressed.

Because of these limitations, the most common areas that have been targeted

for ICT4D relate to the providing of information services and communication

facilities, as these represent actual needs of people in rural regions, and are

capable of being addressed with technology. One solution that is frequently

proposed is the kiosk–a desktop computer that offers access to the Internet.

Applying our first criterion for developing an effective ICT4D solution,

difficulties immediately become apparent when one introduces village users to

the computer interface.

Apart from being unfamiliar with the machine itself (e.g., with mystical

devices such as the keyboard or mouse), an even greater challenge they face is

in comprehending the desktop motif, the strange icons that represent alien

concepts, and the complex navigation system. Keep in mind that these people do

not generally use desks, files and folders in their daily lives; they farm, work

in shops and factories, and make handicrafts. The images with which they

associate meaning will surely differ significantly from that of those who

created the software applications they are using. It might help to imagine what

it would be like if a group of rural farmers were to create your user interface

not knowing anything about you!

Let’s step beyond the interface, to the next hurdle that awaits–information.

Even if villagers do learn how to use the computer and get a Web browser open,

where will they go? Which meaningful sites will they visit? The truth is that

there is a dearth of content in regional languages, and more, the content that

does exist is not made by the most critical stakeholders–the people from their

own community.

The fact is that the bulk of Internet content has been created by and for the

digital haves, and is rarely of direct use or benefit to villagers. With the

majority of Internet content bearing little relevance to villagers’ lives, it

should not come as much of a surprise when analysts report that one of the most

common uses of the Internet in the rural context is for viewing adult web sites.

(Although attempts have been made to create content in local languages, scrutiny

of these attempts exposes considerable shortcomings, especially with respect to

its true value to the target audience, and the frequency of its updation.)

It is indisputable that the culture of the web has evolved, catering to the

needs of the digital haves–to people who have even developed ‘digital

lifestyles’. It may be true that some outside that sphere have found ways to

benefit from such technologies; however, to do so, they must navigate a system

which is not theirs, and which was not designed for them. It is like asking a

farmer to use a helicopter to plow his fields–possible, yet impractical.

Ultimately, the goal of technology is to make a task easier, and by doing so,

improve the standard of living of an individual or group of people. But the

benefit of technology comes when it provides a service that is meaningful to

users, and is relevant to their context. In this regard, with respect to the

rural masses, the core formula for a solution comprising a standard PC and an

Internet connection comes up exceedingly short.

Environment and suitability



Another reason why desktop computers and the Internet are not necessarily

the ideal tool for rural communities concerns environments and contexts. For

instance, a large portion of India is not well-suited to sustaining a computer

and the Internet.

The normal computer is expensive, consumes a lot of energy, and does not

stand up well with the high instance of humidity and dust. Further, the lack of

Internet infrastructure makes bringing the Internet to remote regions

prohibitively expensive. Though it is not impossible, one needs to question the

affordability and viability of setting up telephone lines in far flung areas,

what to speak of technologies such as satellite links (VSATs).

Thinking outside the box



Here’s where we must put the hammers down. Instead of trying to look

through the lens of computers and the Internet to solve problems, developers

first need to look at the problem, and then see which technologies can be

effectively applied. This approach requires solution-seekers to think more

broadly–that they not only ‘think outside the box’, as the saying goes,

but that they ‘think outside the ‘computer’ box’ as well.

To begin the process, researchers should put technology aside for a moment,

and adopt a participatory methodology of understanding the needs of the rural

community. This necessitates visits to the village, as well as a reliable

methodology for information collection and analysis. They must study the lives

of the villagers, explore the way they think, organize and represent knowledge

and see the world. At this stage, they can begin considering what kind of

technologies exist, and how they could be applied to provide services that

fulfill their needs. What must then follow is a participatory design process,

where the villagers are involved throughout the technology’s creation and

evolution, and where the designers remain as empathetic as possible to ensure

the technology not only meets the community’s needs, but is also easy to

understand and operate by the end user.

It would be safe to say that the technologies emerging from such an exercise

would look unlike the standard devices we see daily in our offices and homes.

Yes, they might use aspects of these technologies, but they would probably be

arranged in entirely novel ways. They might have buttons, a display, and icons;

they might fit on a table or in a pocket, and connect to other such instruments

via wireless. They might facilitate communication or provide information in a

meaningful way. But how they do so remains to be seen.

Cost and ICTs for development



Beyond the issues related to suitability lurks the question of cost. How can

such technologies be made affordable? Because of the work necessary to develop

plausible ICT4D solutions, it is improbable that successful technologies could

be created quickly that actually recover cost, let alone be profitable. This

evident from the lack of projects that are able to demonstrate cost recovery.

But a failure to do so need not be discouraging. The challenge before

researchers right now is to create the technologies that function and genuinely

meet people’s needs. Then, if there is a true need for them, there is a market

so huge that it might take only months to figure out how to mass produce them

cheaply and get them into people’s hands. And whenever this nut is cracked,

chances are that the device will not resemble a PC with a standard browser

making use of a dialup Internet connection.

Conclusion



Skepticism of desktop PCs and the Internet as solutions for the rural masses

should not be equated with a Luddite mentality. At the same time, this is not to

say that computers and the Internet could not be excellent solutions for certain

rural contexts. However, this is to say that the success of any ICT4D solution

will depend upon its ability to provide a result that improves peoples’ lives

in a way that is meaningful to those people, and which fits in with their lives

and their way of thinking.

By thinking out of the computer box, those involved in digital divide

initiatives will have taken the first step toward solutions that might truly

make a difference.

By Steven Rudolph



The author is co-founder of Jiva Institute and serves as Director of Education
and Outreach. Jiva Institute is a non-profit research and development

organization that creates solutions for socio-economic development.