> Should we have `ICT projects' or should we just have `health',
> `education', `rural development', etc., projects that might or
> might not have an ICT component?
> 1. `The world as it should be'.
> The first puts ICTs centre stage. The
> second places ICTs as `second fiddle'; just as one amongst a
> number of tools that might help meet broader project
> objectives. The evidence I have is that the former is less likely
> to deliver beneficial change; the latter more so.
This should perhaps be the message to donors, yes? But until they're
ready to hear that message...
> 2. `The world as it is'.
Those seeking funding recognize that they can attract extra support
by "catching the ICT wave", and clever managers will then assure that
necessary complementary services are funded as well, lest the ICT
funds be wasted.
All waves eventually expend themselves on the beach, yes? This one
seems to have a typhoon behind it, suggesting additional waves may
be pounding the shore for quite some time to come...
Jeff @ Washington
SETA Corporation Senior Analyst
USAID/M/IRM/CIS: Program Technology Transfer
[log in to unmask]
1325 G Street NW Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005 USA
Tel +1 (202) 219-0463
Fax +1 (202) 219-0518