Some Perspectives of Understanding the Adoption and Implementat

Some perspectives on understanding the adoption and implementation of ICT interventions in developing countries

School of Computing and Information Science, University of South Australia, Australia

Research in the multi-disciplinary domain of ICT and Development indicates there is potential for information and communication technologies (ICT) to contribute to a nation’s socio-economic, socio-technical and socio-cultural development. With this in mind, developing countries have been rushing to implement ambitious ICT projects in rural areas with the direct/indirect supervision of institutions such as the World Bank, the United Nations (UN) and other donor/local agencies. These interventions aim to provide positive developmental impacts on people’s lives at an individual, group or community level. Interestingly, the main focus of the interventions has been on the implementation of ICT projects themselves, rather than on understanding their impacts at the recipient or community level; and such lack of understanding has led to many failures of ICT projects as reported. This paper highlights some important perspectives on research into ICT and Development while understanding the intentions behind the adoption and implementation of ICT interventions in developing countries. We propose a framework to encourage further investigation into ICT-led development projects which explicitly acknowledges the perspectives of: (i) the funding bodies, (ii) the organisations responsible for undertaking the intervention, and (iii) the to-be-affected community/ies, both dynamically and in context.

Introduction

In the past, various ICT^¹ initiatives in the developing countries of Africa and Southeast Asia have attempted to address social, economic, technical, cultural, rural and community developmental issues . Previously, these initiatives included a range of pilot projects, such as telecentres, multipurpose community access centres and information kiosks (Harris, 2005), situated in rural/remote communities. They are implemented through the direct intervention of international donors, development agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with the aim of improving people’s quality of life. Unfortunately, many ICT initiatives at the community level have not achieved the expected level of sustainability; and, at the same time, many ICT projects were terminated once the donor organizations withdrew their funds from the projects . Hence, donor agencies and practitioners, (especially infoDev and the Development Gateway^²) are making increased efforts to analyse the impact of such ICT-led projects in developing countries.

With their research in mind, this paper aims to expose some issues associated with ICT-led development projects at the community level. To achieve this aim, we describe how ICT and developmental research may be integrated, through an examination of four theoretical perspectives. Following this discussion, we propose a framework that groups the four perspectives into three levels — macro, meso and micro — and supports dynamic, multi-perspective analysis in that context. The paper previews our agenda for future research into ICT interventions in developing countries.

A missing link within Information and Communication Technology research

Research surrounding developing countries has been rare in the mainstream Information System discipline . Though there are some attempts to realize the potential benefits of ICT in developing countries, the research generally does not examine the nature of ICT interventions beyond the perspective of a ‘development intervention’ . This means that many initiatives suffer from the inability to distinguish between appropriate theories and guidelines, considering ‘ICT’ on the one hand and ‘development’ on the other .

Moreover, existing Information Systems (IS) theories and frameworks are generally based on homogeneous entities, leading to a one-size-fits-all view of developmental interventions. This results in insufficient priority being given to the local context and socio-economical factors in developing countries . One key issue is that global development agencies or practitioners generally rely on self-reporting to determine their own impact or value; and their measures may be subject to biases . Without rigorous research concerning ICT impact, it is difficult to postulate the extent to which there are influences/changes, and whether they are positive for the communities/recipients of the intervention.

We contend that there is a need for an extension of existing IS or ICT theoretical paradigms by the creation of frameworks that will either analyse individual ICT applications or measure ICT impacts on socio-economic development, especially in developing countries.

Integrating ICT with a developmental agenda

ICT can be a catalyst for effective development: but to play this key role it must be combined with appropriate developmental strategies. In a developing country, a development programme generally focuses on a combination of issues — including, for instance, the alleviation of poverty, education, human skills building and the creation of a social environment that is conducive to the provision of universal access to basic welfare systems . ICT interventions in developing countries must address these issues and align with the development programmes of the country being dealt with .

In order to examine the integration of ICT with developmental agendas we now turn our attention to four major perspectives on the adoption and implementation of ICT.

Perspective one: the digital divide

The digital divide is defined as ‘the differential extent to which rich countries and poor countries benefit from various forms of IT’ (James, 2007, p.284). It implies a widening of the gulf between the haves and have-nots with respect to information, communication and technology throughout the world. In developing countries, the digital divide may occur where there is a lack of infrastructure (such as electricity supply) or lack of access to modern technology (the Internet, computers or mobile phones) (James, 2007).

The digital divide can be viewed from various perspectives, such as industrial vs developing countries, rich vs poor countries, North vs South or information rich vs information poor. Statistics suggest that developing countries own less than 4% of all computers: further, 75% of the world’s telephone handsets can be found in the 9 richest countries, while internet subscriptions in all of Africa were only 6.31 million in September 2001, compared with 34.3 million in the UK .

ICT has both beneficial and detrimental effects and intended and unintended consequences : one major mitigating response to the digital divide is the development of ICT infrastructure in developing countries: such response includes promoting the availability of more computers, widening the telecommunications network, and hastening the growth of Internet service providers (ISPs) . But providing more computers does not necessarily result in bridging the digital divide, and may in fact actually restrict access to basic needs such as education, health care, capital, shelter, employment, clean water and food for those who are not able to process the information. More recently, the debate concerning the digital divide has broadened beyond physical access to computers and telecommunications: today the topic covers issues such as access to information and the additional resources that allow people to use technology such as content, language, education, literacy, community and social resources (Warschauer, 2002). Hence, the current challenge of bridging the digital divide can be expressed in terms of the dimensions of societal concerns, including increasing people’s opportunities, developing appropriate content and people’s capacities in using ICT, especially in developing countries .

Understanding the developmental agenda from the digital divide perspective is essential when prioritising ICT-led development projects and their specific target community/ies.

Diffusion of innovation (Rogers, 1983) is the process by which technological innovation is communicated through channels, over a period of time and among the members of a social system . It explores the factors influencing the rate of diffusion and the innovation decision-making process. As a theory, it has made a major contribution to the organizational perspective in IS research.

In diffusion of innovation literature, especially at the organizational level, some pre-conditions have been identified as necessary before a society can adopt technology ; for example, it is essential to have access to a personal computer before accessing the Internet (technology is the central theme of this research, with less emphasis being placed on the social context of an innovation).

In light of the limitations concerning the traditional diffusion of innovation approach, it is possible to draw upon alternative theories, such as Actor-Network Theory (ANT), which consider both human (social) and non-human (technology) factors as central to the discussion . ANT replaces the concept of ‘diffusion’ by referring to ‘translation’ and examining how the actors ‘translate’ the interest of another, share their own interests and develop a complex heterogeneous network of human and non-human artifacts .

Thus ANT can contribute significantly to knowledge while analysing the adoption and innovation of ICT interventions in developing countries. It focuses more on the social aspects — the major concern of Kling’s Social Informatics research. It is noteworthy that IS researchers have also considered the social context while studying the organizational perspective of IS . This perspective reinforces the idea of change as a socio-technical dynamic.

Perspective three: ICT and Development

ICT and Development is a relatively broad concept that may be broken down into two sub-sections — first, the core concept of development and then ICT’s interaction with it.

Development may be viewed with regard to any or all of a list of national goals or values in economic and social life . Though there has long been a tendency to interchange development with growth, such identification came under criticism in 1960 : simply put, development considers human resource and infrastructure improvement whereas growth considers only per capita national income . Development may be measured through various interconnected factors, such as social, economic, technical, cultural and political aspects . It is common practice to measure development using two types of indicators — economic and non-economic/social.

Economic indicators represent an aggregate measurement of a nation’s production, investment, consumption and government purchase , and directly influence the development of a nation. But this statement has been criticized as being too narrow, and not a real reflection of the way ‘development’ is understood in today’s society . These criticisms have led to changes in the way development is defined through various social-settings in a country.

Hence, many researchers argue that development may be measured by non-economic or social indicators that indirectly enable the process of development . For example, life expectancy reflects not only the level of medical service of a nation, but also the literacy rate, distribution of power, diet, income, poverty rate and occupational structures of the community. These non-economic or social indicators of development reached prominence during and after the mid-1980s when Sen , a Nobel prize winner in economics, developed his ‘capability approach’ . Sen considers that development which enables the core of national development may be understood as the enlargement of people’s opportunities for choice. For example, the choice of a healthy life, the choice to be educated, the choice of an improved standard of living and so on are key to developing a nation. explain,

‘…capacity development is arguably one of the central development challenges of the day, as much of the rest of social and economic progress will depend on it. […] If the purpose of human development is to extend human capabilities, then capacity development is not merely a stepping stone towards higher levels of human development; it is an end in itself’ .

Sen’s human development viewpoint inspired the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to develop four standard indices to measure the development of a nation . Soeftestad and Sein summarize the indices as follows:

These indicators highlight the complexities and difficulties of measuring non-economic dimensions of development against economic dimensions . Moreover, intensive statistical co-relations, multivariate analysis and judgment are required to identify the most critical non-economic indicators for development .

Over the last decade academicians, researchers and global institutions such as the United Nations (UN), the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the World Bank, as well as other regional-national level agencies and various international development agencies have worked together to set the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) . The MDG provide certain tasks and strategies to investigate how ICT can be enacted effectively in a country’s development, with particular attention on developing countries .

Overall, the literature of ICT and development is clearly divided between two streams of thought, based on optimistic and pessimistic viewpoints. The optimistic viewpoint suggests that ICT can act as a catalyst for development by making information exchange faster and more frequent, and by reducing costs. In developing countries, telecentres and information kiosks enable poor people to receive information about their governments, market prices, health and education . The pessimistic viewpoint expresses little hope that ICT will lead to national development in developing countries. Researchers in this mode consider that ICT will not aid the development of developing countries because of deep-rooted problems such as poverty^³, poor telecommunication infrastructure and lack of IT investment .

Heeks attempts to resolve these two streams of thought with information rather than technology as central to his discussion. He argues that technology is just a dead box until it adds value and processes information. For example, one fax machine has no value in transforming information unless the receiver also has a fax machine. Further, by introducing fax machines between many dispersed users, value is added to the information system by increasing the adoption from one person to another.

According to Heeks , technology must be understood in its surrounding context of economic, social, data and action resources which assist human beings to transform data into information. To ensure this process and achieve successful implementation of ICT projects, Heeks’ (2005a) Information Chain model provides a mechanism to 1) access data from the appropriate sources, 2) assess the data relevance, 3) apply the relevant data to a specific decision, and 4) act upon the decision. According to Heeks , four different types of resources are essential for humans to process information. These are data resources (relevant data), economic resources (money, skills, technology), social resources (motivation from social setting, confidence as to the data source, knowledge for access), and action resources (skills and empowerment to act on decisions).

Heeks (2005b) suggests that it is necessary to follow the entire information chain in ICT related activities to achieve ICT and development. While, Heeks’ approach to development is useful as a foundation of ICT related development activities, there is also the need to consider differing contexts. For example, in a poor community where people have no access to data, they are not able to assess data as a meaningful concept; hence they cannot act upon their decisions. This may arise due to lack of financial resources or other social barriers .

Avergou and Gigler argue that, similarly as with economic indicators, focusing merely on technological factors, such as the rate of technology adoption, the establishment of technological infrastructure, internet hosting, or the level of computer ownership should not be the only solutions towards ICT led development in developing countries. Access to information via the Internet or telecommunications is not a very difficult task — the major challenge is the assessment/transformation of data into meaningful knowledge and the availability of the social resources .

In response to the challenge of ICT-related developmental programmes, emphasis has been given to the production of hardware, software, universal access (telecentres and information kiosks) and information content, while human capabilities needed to transform data and information into useful knowledge are often missing . Focusing solely on technology factors assumes that people will automatically have access to and use the technology when it is available.

However, people’s capabilities to access and assess data and to acquire and share knowledge have added another dimension to ICT and development research . Heeks emphasizes the necessity to analyse want rather than need in ICT-led development projects. Technology-focused projects often ignore understanding the user’s actual demands . Most projects associated with needs analysis are of the top-down method, but it is more relevant to conduct a want analysis ; and user want/demand analysis tends to be a bottom-up, short-term analysis that ultimately determines what users actually demand . Heeks’ demand analysis relates to Sen’s capability approach by indicating the user’s willingness and ability to buy or get anything. Gigler attempted to operationalise the capability approach while assessing ICT impact on indigenous people’s empowerment in Peru. According to Heeks and Sen , ICT for development projects should give a high priority to studying the user’s actual capabilities rather than the typical top-down need analysis. For example, computer training cannot provide benefits to poor people in under-developed countries unless it addresses or enhances the capability to transfer knowledge or skills to the real world. Here, the capability could be the level of literacy, social power and socio-cultural influence.

Since the 1970s, researchers have been attempting to understand the mutual interconnection between IS and organizational change from the strategic business and contextual points of view (Avgerou, 2001; Bouwman, 2005; Markus, 2000), so there is some implication that technological adoption within the changing business environment leads to core concepts of organizational change . These researchers attempt to understand IS by examining the interaction between technical and social aspects . Many theories have been developed to investigate internal/external factors affecting organizational change, and how the actors (employees, senior management) behave purposefully in managing it . According to how quickly change is enacted in an organization, the theories may be classified in two ways — evolutionary or revolutionary .

The evolutionary theorist examines small changes in the organization applying the same general working framework; the revolutionary theorist suggests radical changes for the entire organizational framework in order to achieve a competitive advantage . Some researchers consider a mixture of both evolutionary and revolutionary theories .

The planned view of change has been a dominant model in organizational development and IS theory. Lewin’s pioneering work provides a general framework for understanding the process of organizational change, that involves three main layers: 1) unfreezing the present level, 2) moving to a new level, and 3) refreezing the new level. In the planned view of change, senior management only are responsible for creating the vision of change and developing its agenda. External agents of change, such as management consultants, can assist the organization to initiate change.

However, since the early 1980s, the planned approach has come under increasing criticism, because it may ignore the context of the changing business environment. In response to this criticism, the emergent view of change was conceptualised, as Bernard (1996) writes:

‘The emergent model tends to see change as driven from the bottom up rather than from the top down, and stresses that change is an open-ended and continuous process of adaptation to changing conditions and circumstances’ .

This view considers the complex nature of change as interplay of multiple variables within the organization, including such variables as political pressure, consultation and context. Organizational context has become a dominant theme in IS/ICT-led organizational change research, and the potential value of ICT and IS can be achieved within an independent context surrounded by social actors . The study of context focuses on two issues: managing complex inter-organisational factors or process; and mobilizing resources from the social context outside the organization . Context is not seen as a barrier to action, but as an important element of managing ICT-led organizational change . Further, this approach studies the process of organizational change over time, and examines the systems within which ICT is implemented; thus the contexualist approach is appropriate when investigating change at the organization level.

As NGOs and local community organizations are key sources when implementing ICT interventions in developing countries, it is relevant for practitioners and researchers to analyze the potential impact of ICT interventions at the organizational level: the significance of context in ICT-led projects in the community cannot be over emphasized. Invariably ICT-led projects in developing countries involve the transfer of technologies and organizational practices which were originally deemed useful in other socio-organizational contexts; so their potential value, their fit in the local socio-organizational conditions and their feasibility cannot be taken for granted. Indeed, what now may be considered fundamental, it is noteworthy that there is substantial evidence to indicate that local context is of significance when designing new ICT projects in developing countries .

Framework for future research

We have discussed ICT interventions in developing countries from four perspectives — the digital divide, diffusion of innovation, development and organisational change. We now develop the argument that if donor agencies or IS researchers wish to understand and/or evaluate the adoption and implementation of ICT innovations in developing countries, it is necessary to approach the research from multiple perspectives. We recognise that the impact of ICT interventions goes beyond simple economic factors, affecting also human, social and political structures, both within the communities which are directly affected by the intervention, and within an expanding context surrounding those communities.

In essence, we argue that for an assessment framework to be robust, it must be founded upon a holistic understanding of the impact of ICT on communities — robust frameworks have to recognise the complex nature of such projects. Too often impact assessment frameworks focus on the efficiency and availability of computer hardware and software, ‘paying insufficient attention to the human and social systems that must also change for technology to make a difference’ (Warschauer, 2002, p. 4). ICT-led development projects are embedded in a complex array of factors encompassing physical, digital, human, and social resources and relationships that exist across the three layers of the intervention described in Table 1.

Furthermore, for it to be robust, a framework must recognise the dynamic nature of the relationships between actors within and amongst these layers.

At the Macro layer, it is possible to take two clearly different perspectives in respect of any ICT-led intervention, namely:

At the Micro layer we can identify communities – in the case of the Bangladeshi Gonokendra programme, internally heterogeneous village communities, geographically located within R3 Bangladesh – members of which form the primary targets of the ICT-led intervention.

The primary and even secondary impact of an intervention at the micro-layer is relatively easy to assess; conventional assessment frameworks, for example, focus on ‘How many villagers are trained under the programme?’; ‘How many villagers receive basic hygiene information? … and what is the impact of this on child morbidity and mortality?’ More diffuse and distant impacts (for example, population drift as a consequence of ‘trained’ villagers migrating to capital city jobs) – especially those which exhibit a longer dynamic period are, however, less well supported by existing frameworks. Following this hypothetical example further, we can see that population drift has impact beyond the target village community (though it clearly does have impact on it) — affecting, for example, the actors concerned with the national interest whom we described in our discussion of the macro-layer, above.

At the Meso layer, we can see organisations normally contracted to macro-layer organisations responsible for developing and delivering the intervention to the target communities. During both development and delivery, meso-layer organisations interact dynamically with actors at both macro and micro layer level.

In practice, aid-funded ICT intervention projects in developing countries are typically guided and designed at the macro level as a consequence of some form of negotiation between national strategic and funding body actors, developed at the meso-level and implemented by meso-layer organization within micro layer — perhaps village — communities. Typically, implementation, project management and quality assurance approaches and evaluation strategies (success factors) are defined by macro-level organizations. Tensions evolving dynamically across the range of actor perspectives are inevitable. Whilst these tensions may be perceived as undesirable and indicative of a lack of predictability, we argue that they are, perhaps, not only inevitable but to be embraced. By embracing the tensions and working towards an improved outcome for all levels, the intervention is more likely to be successful and sustainable.

Bridging the Digital Divide (Perspective 1) is ultimately a goal, and not a strategy for achieving that goal. The insights we can draw from Perspective 3 (ICT and Development) highlight the somewhat unpredictable ripple effect of intervention in social contexts and also expand the range of dimensions within which we seek beneficial impact from our interventions. Perspective 4 (ICT and Organizational Development) develops the theme of interaction between actors and characterizes the process of change as a combination of evolutionary and revolutionary dynamics. Finally, Diffusion of Innovation (Perspective 2) reinforces the idea of change as a socio-technical dynamic.

Our earlier research (Wilde & Swatman, 1997; Wilde & Swatman, 2005; Wilde & Swatman, 2006; Wilde, Swatman, & Cavill, 2004) demonstrates that the principles which structure the academic domain ‘IS Strategy’ can be applied not only to organisations within their markets, but to communities within their regional, national and international contexts. In simple terms, transformation of communities – considered both from a community and from a national perspective – is most effective when (i) overall community strategy aligns with community information systems and ICT strategies; and (ii) these intra-community strategies are compatible with the strategic opportunities offered within their regional/national/international context. We now extend these ideas to suggest a three-layer framework within which actors may be observed as they dynamically seek alignment from their own perspectives – through which multi-dimensional assessment of the an intervention may occur.

The framework proposed in this research is on three levels — micro, meso and macro. These underpin four core perspectives — bridging digital divide, diffusion of innovation and transfer of ICT innovation, development and ICT, and organizational change. We described some core issues, challenges and recent works within these four perspectives that provide the foundation of such a framework — a normative tool for academicians, practitioners or donor agencies investigating the adoption and implementation of ICT interventions in developing countries.

For the future, our core research question is, What factors spanning macro-meso-micro levels influence the planning, development and implementation of ICT-led development projects in developing nation environments, and how can they be anticipated and measured in practice?

The framework developed in this paper allows us to design a strategy for approaching this question.

We are concerned that the developmental impact of ICT in a context might not be fully understood unless the social constraints be fully addressed. Further research is needed to make a contribution to expanding the scope for impact assessment and identifying social constraints; and addressing these constraints demands further investigation.

Amariles, F., Paz, O.P., Russell, N., & Johnson, N. (2006). The impacts of community telecenters in rural Colombia, Journal of Community Informatics, 2(3), n.p.

Avgerou, C. (1998). How can IT enable economic growth in developing countries? Information Technology for Development, 8(1), 15.

Avgerou, C. (2000). IT and organizational change: an institutionalist perspective, Information Technology & People, 13(4), 234-262.

Avgerou, C. (2001). The significance of context in information systems and organizational change. Information Systems Journal, 11(1), 43-63.

Avgerou, C. (2003). The link between ICT and economic growth in the discourse of development. In M. Korpela, R. Montealegre, A. Poulymenakou (Eds.) Organizational information systems in the context of globalization, 373-386. Boston, USA: Kluwer.

Avgerou, C., Mansell, R. & Quah, D. (Eds.). (2007). The Oxford handbook of information and communication technologies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Avison, D., Fitzgerald, G. & Powell, P. (2001). Reflections on information systems practice, education and research: 10 years of the Information Systems Journal. Information Systems Journal, 11(1), 3-22.

Baliamoune-Lutz, M. (2003). An analysis of the determinants and effects of ICT diffusion in developing countries. Information Technology for Development, 10(3), 151-169.

Banuri, T. (2003). Session 1 ICT, PRSPs, and MDGs, UNDP-APDIP, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Asian Forum on ICT Policies and e-Strategies, 1-48.

Benamati, J. & Lederer, A.L. (2001). Coping with rapid changes in IT. Communications of the ACM, 44(8), 83-87.

Bernard, B. (1996). No such thing as a 'one best way' to manage organizational change. Management Decision, 34(10), 11-18.

Bernard, B. (1997). Organizational choice and organizational change. Management Decision. 35(10), 753 - 759.

Bigelow, J. (1980). Strategies of evolutionary and revolutionary organizational change. Academy of Management Proceedings, 205-208.

Bouwman, H. (2005). Information and communication technology in organizations; adoption, implementation, use and effects. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Browne, S. (2004). ICTs and poverty reduction: two conceptual approaches. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from <http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/10787613581ICTs_and_Poverty_Reduction_2-pagers_for_Harvard_Forum_2003.pdf>

Burn, J.M. & Szeto, C. (2000). A comparison of the views of business and IT management on success factors for strategic alignment. Information and Management, 37(4), 197-216.

Cam, C.N. (2004). A conceptual framework for socio-techno centric approach to sustainable development. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 3(1), 59-66.

Cao, G. Clarke, S. & Lehaney, B. (2000). A systemic view of organisational change and TQM. The TQM Magazine, 12(3), 186-193.

Cecchini, S. & Scott, C. (2003). Can information and communications technology applications contribute to poverty reduction? Lessons from rural India. Information Technology for Development, 10(2), 73-84.

Clemons, E.K. (1986). Information systems for sustainable competitive advantage. Information and Management, 11(3), 131-136.

European Commission, (2001). The role of ICTs in EC development policy, European Commission, Brussels.

Faiers, A. & Neame, C. (2006). Consumer attitudes towards domestic solar power systems. Energy Policy, 34(14), 1797-1806.

Fukuda-Parr, S., Lopes, C. & Malik, K. (2002). Capacity for Development: New Solutions to Old Problems, London: Earthscan Publications.

Gersick, C. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 32, 274-309.

Gigler, B-S. (2004). Including the excluded - Can ICTs empower poor communities? In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Capability Approach, Italy, September 5-7, 2004.

Harris, R. & Bhatarai, M. (2003). Fact-Finding Review of ICT in Development in a Rural-Urban Setting, UN-HABITAT & Roger Harris Associates. Rural-Urban Partnerships Programme (RUPP) under Support Services Policy and Programme Development (SPPD).

Harris, R.W. (2004). Information and communication technology for poverty alleviation, In the United Nations Development Programme’s Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Harris, R.W. (2005). Explaining the success of rural Asian telecentres', In R.M. Davison, R.W. Harris, S. Qureshi, D.R. Vogel, & G-Jd. Vreede. (Eds.) Information systems in developing countries: theory and practice, Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press, 83-100.

Henderson, J.C. & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology for transforming organisations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 4-16.

Heeks, R. (1998). Foundation of ICTs in development: pushing and pulling, Information Technology in Developing Countries Newsletter, 4(1), 1-2.

Heeks, R. (1999). Information and communication technologies, poverty and development, Manchester, UK: Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.

Heeks, R. (2001). What did Giddens and Latour ever do for us? Information Technology in Developing Countries, 11(1), 1-5.

Heeks, R. (2002). Information systems and developing countries: failure, success, and local improvisations. Information Society, 18(2), 101-112.

Heeks, R. (2003). eGovernment for development success and failure rates of eGovernment in developing/transitional countries: Overview. UK: University of Manchester.

Heeks, R. (2005a). Foundation of ICTs in development: The information chain, e Development Briefing, 3(1), 1-2.

Heeks, R. (2005b). Foundation of ICTs in Development: The Onion Ring Model, eDevelopment Briefing, 4(1), 1-2.

Heeks, R. (2005c). ICTs and the MDGs: On the wrong track?, Manchester, UK: Development Informatics Group, University of Manchester, 1-5.

Hettne, B. (1990). Development theory and the three worlds, Essex, UK: Harlow.

James, J. (2007). From origins to implications: key aspects in the debate over the digital divide. Journal of Information Technology, 22, 284-295.

Jarvenpaa, S.L. & Stoddard, D.B. (1998). Business process redesign: Radical and evolutionary change. Journal of Business Research, 41(1), 15-27.

Johnston, J. (2003). The Millennium Development Goals and information and communications technology, Berlin: United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force.

Krishna, S. & Madon, S. (Eds) (2003). Digital challenge: Information technology in the development context, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Kumar, R. & Best, M.L. (2006). Social impact and diffusion of telecenter use: A study from the sustainable access in rural India project', Journal of Community Informatics, 2(3), n.p.

Kvasny, L. (2002).A conceptual framework for examining digital inequality, In Proceedings of the Eighth Americas Conference on Information Systems (AmCIS-02), Dallas, Texas, August 9-11, 2002.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lewin, K. (Ed.) (1947). Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers, New York: Harper & Row.

Macome, E. (2002). The dynamics of the adoption and use of ICT-based initiatives for development: results of a field study in Mozambique, Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology, Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Pretoria.

Mansell, R. & Wehn, U. (1998). Knowledge societies: information technology for sustainable development, Published for and on behalf of the United Nations by Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Manuela, Pd.V. & Fuentes, C.M. (2003). Resistance to change: a literature review and empirical study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148-155.

Markus, M. (2000). Toward an integrated theory of IT-related risk control, In R. Baskerville, J. Stage, & J.I. DeGross (Eds.). Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology, Boston, MA: Kluywer Academic Publishers, 167-178.

Mbarika, V.W.A., Okoli, C., Byrd, T.A. & Datta, P. (2005). The neglected continent of IS research: A research agenda for sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(5), 130-170.

McGranahan, D. (1972). Development indicators and development models. Journal of Development Studies, 8(3), 91.

McGrath, K. (2005). Doing critical research in Information Systems: A case of theory and practice not informing each other, Information Systems Journal, 15(2), 85-101.

PACE. (2005). ICT in multi-purpose community learning centres/Gonokendras, Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Prakash, G. (2005). Leapfrogging into the knowledge era: Use of ICT for development. IIMB Management Review, 17(3), 47-56.

Qureshi, S. (2003). Movement in the information technology for development debate: How can it meet the challenges of global competition? Information Technology for Development, 10(3), 147-149.

RIRDC. (1997). A framework for developing regional communications initiatives, Centre for International Research on Communication and Information Technologies South Melbourne, Victoria.

Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations, (3rd ed.). New York, USA: Collier Macmillan.

Sawyer, S. (2002). Temporal issues in information and communication technology-enabled organizational change: Evidence from an enterprise systems implementation. Information Society, 18(1), 263-280.

Sein, M. & Harindranath, G. (2004). Conceptualizing the ICT artifact: Toward understanding the role of ICT in national development. Information Society, 20(1), 15-24.

Serafeimidis, V. & Smithson, S. (2000). Information systems evaluation in practice: a case study of organizational change. Journal of Information Technology, 15(2), 93-105.

Szirmai, A. (2005). The dynamics of socio-economic development: An introduction, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Soeftestad, L.T. & Sein, M.K. (2003). ICT and development: East is east and west is west and the twain may yet meet, In S. Krishna & S. Madon. (Eds.). Digital challenge: information technology in the development context, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 63-83.

Stoddard, D.B. & Jarvenpaa, S.L. (1995). Business process redesign: Tactics for managing radical change. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(1), 81-107.

Teo, T.S.H. & King, W.R. (1997). Integration between business planning and Information System planning: An evolutionary-contingency perspective, Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(1), 185-214.

UNDP. (2005). Promoting ICT for human development in Asia: Realizing the Millennium Development Goals, Bangkok, Thailand: Asia Pacific Development Information Program (APDIP).

Wagner, D.A., Day, B., James, T., Kozma, R.B., Miller, J. & Unwin, T. (2005). Monitoring and evaluation of ICT in education projects: A handbook for developing countries., Tunis: InfoDev.

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social exclusion: Rethinking the digital divide, London: MIT Press.

Whittington, R. & Whipp, R. (1992). Professional ideology and marketing implementation. European Journal of Marketing, 26(1), 52.

Wild, K. & MnCube, S. (1996). Information and communication policy: Issues and initiatives in South Africa. Information Technology for Development, 7(4), 183.

Wilde, W.D. & Swatman, P.A. (1997). Towards virtual communities in rural Australia. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 2(1), 43-60.

Wilde, W.D. & Swatman, P.A. (2005). Gauging alignment between federal government policy and community objectives in regional telecommunications: A SISP-based study of Shepparton. In Proceedings of e-Society, (27-30 June), Malta.

Wilde, W.D. & Swatman, P.A. (2006). Federal Government policy and community objectives in regional telecommunications: A SISP-based study of Ballarat. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 1(1), 16-31.

Wilde, W.D., Swatman, P.A. & Cavill, M. (2004). A SISP approach to the alignment of Federal Government rural telecommunication policy and community goals: A King Island case study. In Proceedings of the CollECTeR Conference on Electronic Commerce (CollECTeR 2004), Adelaide, SA, May 7-8, 2004.

Yah, L.C. (1991). Development and underdevelopment, Jurong Town: Longman Singapore Publishers.

Young, J., Ridley, G. & Ridley, J. (2001). A preliminary evaluation of online access centres: Promoting micro e-business activity in small, isolated community, The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 4(1), 1-17.

1Information and communication technologies can be defined as ‘electronic means of capturing, processing, storing, and communicating information’ (

2ICT for development research affiliates of the World Bank.

3Poverty derived from the viewpoint of the lack of financial resources of a person whose income is less than $2 per day.(Since the 1990s, the concept of poverty has gone beyond measures of income. According to the European Commission (EU), poverty is defined as ‘the deprivation of basic capabilities and lack of access to education, health, natural resources, employment, land and credit, political participation, services and infrastructure’ (European ).

4Gonokendra means multi-purpose community access centre that provides computer training program and disseminates information related to basic human welfare through multi-media projector (PACE, 2005).

Macro	Funding Programmes – provide (normally on a competitive basis) financial and other support for ICT-led projects which meet Programme-specific guidelines. Domain interest groups (DIGs) define the intervention projects and seek funding for them. DIGs may, for example, be national strategically-focussed bodies or multi-national groups. There is potential for tension — to be seen within the project proposal — between the aims of the DIGs and the guidelines of the various potential Funding Programmes through which the project may be funded.
Meso	Projects may be implemented by teams drawn from a range of organization types (sometimes project teams/leadership and management may be drawn from by the DIG, more often from specialist international consultancies). In addition to normal commercial pressure, a tension is potentially observable between the specifications of the project (the contract to be fulfilled) and the needs of the end-users.
Micro	Community or group which is impacted directly by the project – the “participants” and their socio-politico-organizational context.