Summary

In this article, which is an introduction to the Journal of International Development's special edition on ICTs[1], Heeks provides a sceptical review of the current state of thinking on ICTs for development (ICT4D). He criticizes a large portion of the current literature and programmes as being couched in an overly optimistic technological determinism that is bound to produce a lot of words, but little concrete improvements. His solution is to take a step back from the hype and excitement associated with new ICT initiatives, and examine the knowledge and information that is at the core of ICTs potential for development and the pre-existing ways in which human society handles that information.

Key Points

ICTs basically handle information in digital format, no more, no less. To understand how they can be applied to development initiatives one must understand the pre-existing role of information handling within development. It is a role that can be divided into two parts - processes, which include:

• Processing: changing data with potential value into information with actual value; and
• Communication: the movement of data from source to recipient.

These processes result in outcomes, those of which actually contribute to development include:

• Learning: the transformation of information into knowledge; and
• Decision making: the use of information in decisions and actions.
• The support that ICTs provide to these outcomes constitutes their ‘intensive' contribution.[2]

By evaluating ICTs as simply another tool for working in these roles, a sense of continuity and understanding about information handling is gained that lends itself to rethinking positions about other tools such as ‘intermediate' technologies like radio and TV; ‘literate' technologies like the written word and books; and ‘organic' technologies such as the brain and the human voice. This promotes the idea that lessons learned form prior work on information handling apply equally to ICTs and that development initiatives should place information before technology and remain open to a range of possibilities and alternatives.

Heeks believes that the impacts from ICTs can be classified according to a framework that maps beliefs about the utility of ICTs along two axis, the first being whether or not the impacts will be positive, neutral, or negative, and the second being whether the cause of the impact is technologically determined, contingent on the situation, or socially determined. He is critical of those elements of the development community who believe that ICTs are almost always positive, and that the outcomes are mainly derived from the technology involved. Heeks believes that this is a naïve but nevertheless commonplace position. The articles presented in the special journal edition see a more limited role for ICTs and are less optimistic about their potential as a panacea for development problems.

Heeks' solutions for successful implementation of ICT systems are based on a set of i rather than e principles. The first requires that ICTs are integrated into development objectives and never emerge as an end unto themselves. This requires proper identification of the project goals, the new information requirements required for those goals, and the potential role of ICTs and other info-handling technologies in meeting those information requirements. Project designers must also recognize that the majority will continue to not have or be able to fully access ICTs and that intermediaries are essential to the successful utilization of ICTs for knowledge. Understanding this involves thinking more about the information and the alternative tools and conceptualizing various bridges. It is also essential for intermediaries to facilitate a contextual ‘fit' for the information and audience.

It is also necessary to interconnect all of the information-related divides, the digital divide being just one manifestation of a much bigger system of have and have-nots. There are resources other than technology that are required to make ICT4D work that can be understood and evaluated using the concept of an information chain, the connection between the data and its effective action for development. The necessary resources besides the data fall into economic, social, and action categories. The disadvantaged remain disadvantaged because they are lacking in more than one of these resources. One particularly pressing resource that deserves attention is motivation. Many ICT projects have failed because they have been unsuccessful in instilling a sense of motivation in the participants, often because the ICT initiatives are supply driven rather than demand driven and the end-users do not see how ICTs will benefit them.

A final principle is that ICT systems must become indigenised in order for them to be successful. At present, a large design-reality gap [3] exists because solutions are primarily developed in the North and exported to the South where they simply don't work. These design-reality gaps stem from both infrastructure discrepancies and cultural differences that guide the ways that people use technology.

In concluding, Heeks argues that ICTs are not and will not be the ‘silver bullet' for the problems of development and that unless ICTs are taken into account in a holistic, i -centred way, then they may not really offer very much at all. While many new opportunities exist, these are primarily to be found in the ‘extensive' uses of ICTs, small entrepreneurs who grasp technologies on their own and without organized oversight. While the ‘intensive' uses that are the stuff of ICT projects and programmes are far more prone to failure. Proper approaches to ICT implementation must be information-centred, integral to their environment, integrated with development objectives, intermediated, interconnected and indigenised. And above all, he notes that they must be intelligent and not based on visions of an overnight technological revolution for the world.

Source: Richard Heeks, “i-Development not e-Development: Special Issue on ICTs and Development” in the Journal of International Development, Issue 14 (2002) 1-11

1. Several of the articles from that Special Edition are included in this literature review.

2. “Intensive” contributions are generally those focused on poverty reduction and the work of developmentagencies while “extensive” contributions reside in the area of grass-roots entrepreneurial and marketactivities.

3. For more on design-reality gaps see Heeks “Heeks, “Failure, Success and Improvisation of Information Systems Projects in Developing Countries” (P.38)

Click here to go back to the table of contents, or navigate above by clicking on "next page".