Introduction

Community technology has been referred to as a process designed to serve the territorial community in responding to the needs of that community and building solutions to its problems. Beamish (1995) and Prell (2003) define community technology as using the technology to support, to meet the goals, and to strengthen the community. The technology (i.e. telecentre) is seen as local community initiatives where owners and developers are community members, and the content reflects community needs and interests. On the other hand, Pigg (2003) and Davies et al. (2003) define community technology as telecentres or organisations which promote centralised coordination of ICTs that provide territorial communities with tools to complete a variety of tasks; to satisfy basic information needs; to promote economic opportunities; to encourage access; and to share collective experiences for community members.

The introduction of a telecentre into a typical rural community in a developing country represents a substantial innovation for that community (Harris, 2001). A community telecentre will be the rural population’s first encounter with ICT. Moreover, telecentres that seek to bridge the digital divide in rural areas in developing countries are mostly experimental. Telecentres strive to deliver the simple interface between ICTs and the Internet, and offer basic communication services including telephone, fax, typing, photocopying, printing, and training in the use of various ICTs, email, and electronic networking (Whyte, 2000; Russel, 2000; Graham, 2002). It is an accessible facility that provides computer access for people who are unable to meet the expense of a computer and associated technical instruction (Beamish, 1999). Telecentres become centres for the delivery of rural development support services within its community catchment area (Gurstein, 2000), where some are moving into e-commerce and telemedicine services (Graham, 2002), and some provide access to social and economic development (Cisler, 1998 cited in Owen and Darkwa, 1999).

Although the Malaysian government has been implementing and establishing telecentres throughout the country, a review of the literature indicates that there are only a few studies on telecentres in Malaysia. Thus the main aim of this study is to analyse the implementation of telecentres in Malaysia. There are three major comprehensive Multipurpose Community Telecentre (MCT) programmes in Malaysia that provide services to all groups within the community and that have projects that are implemented nationwide. They are: Kedai.Kom (implemented by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission), Rural Internet Centre (implemented by Ministry of Energy, Water and Communication), and “Medan Infodesa” (implemented by Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation Development). These MCT projects provide access to the Internet, email, and related services, telephone booths, sales for working materials and stationery, Internet Cafés, and training courses.

This study will focus on the Kedai.Kom project implemented by Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) under the Community Communications Development Programme (CCDP). The main purpose of Kedai.Kom is to develop and implement a collaborative programme between Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commissions, Internet Service Providers and State Economic Planning Units. The objectives of Kedai.Kom are to build capacity; to introduce and to encourage the usage of ICT; and to create community communication equipped with a range of ICT services to facilitate Internet access, e-commerce, and e-learning. The focus is on areas with an active community base that have limited or no ICT access but have existing economic activities that can benefit from this access.

Implementation of Kedai.Kom involves three basic factors. First, it is a locally driven project where, whenever possible, local communities will be involved at every stage of planning and implementation. Second, it creates a strong partnership among government and state agencies, NGOs, and local communities, which is a critical factor towards the success of the programme. Third, the ultimate objective of the project implementation is for the local community to own the project. Thus, the involvement of local communities in the planning, implementation, stake holding, and ownership will ensure that the project will sustain itself and empower local communities. Kedai.Kom enables local communities to help bridge the digital divide as well as allowing local economic activities to be marketed online. MCMC coordinates with other public agencies to identify suitable communities and this coordination involves liaison with various agencies to solicit support and commitment to ensure the project’s success. The main criteria in selecting suitable communities includes a location within five kilometres of the nearest town; active underserved communities; strong and active local leadership; and availability of public frequented premises. The preferred operator is required to provide safe and comfortable premises; a reliable electrical supply; and the creation of a website for the community that includes the community profile, operator profile, and local information.

The role of Kedai.Kom is to deliver ICT services to underserved communities. The hardware is provided by the MCMC as a one-off allocation with a minimum of five computers, a printer, and relevant peripherals. The facilities include satellite access solutions that provide two payphone services and Broadband Internet Access with a dedicated 128 kbps for downloading and 64 kbps for uploading. Internet connection will be supplied by an ISP and the monthly access fee of RM400 per site is paid by MCMC. Hours of operation are between 8.00 — 6.00 pm weekdays and are extended to 10.00 pm on weekends and public holidays. The operators will manage Kedai.Kom as commercial enterprises, charging users reasonable rates to encourage the adoption of technology by the local communities. Thus, this programme will also support the creation of local entrepreneurs by encouraging the operators to manage Kedai.Kom as their own business opportunity. The management team consists of a minimum of two personnel; a manager and an assistant. In an effort to ensure targeted communities benefit from Kedai.Kom services, training and courses are provided in usage of the Internet as a medium of communication for the target groups including Kedai.Kom operators, local leaders, teachers, students, youth and women. Among the courses offered are basic competency in personal computer maintenance, word processing, Internet exploration and email usage. (http://pdt-manjong.perak.gov.my/BM/dotcom.html)

Based on the aim of this study, the following questions were formulated:

Who are Kedai.Kom users?

What is the level of community readiness to adopt ICT (digital inclusion)?

What is their usage pattern?

Why do they use Kedai.Kom?

What is the level of Kedai.Kom’s users’ satisfaction?

Literature Review

Generally, community technology access refers to the physical availability of suitable computers equipped with appropriate software for a given activity (Kling et al., 2000), network connections (Van Dijk, 1999, cited in Van Dijk and Hacker, 2003); and digital content made available online (Warchauer, 2003). Van Dijk and Hacker (2003) point out that the extent and nature of the digital divide depends on the kind of access defined. Considering technical access by the effects of saturation; income, employment, education, gender, age, and ethnicity, gaps will more or less close. However, the differential access of skills and usage is likely to widen with the access problem of digital technology gradually shifting from technical access to that of social access. Many people think that the problem of the digital divide is solved the moment everyone has the ability to access the computer and the Internet. Thus, social access is a neglected phenomenon touching only certain marginalised groups, rather than all groups. The problem of inadequate digital skills is reduced to the skills of operation, managing hardware and software rather than how to search, use and share information. Differential usage is normally assumed to be the user’s choice rather than considered in the community development policies.

According to Romm and Taylor (2001), Community Informatics (CI) focuses on four themes; communities learning how to use ICT, ICT supporting community development, effective CI, and diffusion of ICT within communities. Social access is crucial in sustaining ICT projects to enhance community general well-being. Kling et al. (2000) refers ‘to social access to expertise’, a mix of professional knowledge of economic resources and technical skills to use technologies in ways that promote social life. Van Dijk (1999, cited in Van Dijk and Hacker, 2003) describes three kinds of social access based on barriers to access and the types of access they restrict; mental access, skills access, and usage access. Mental access is the lack of elementary digital experience caused by lack of interest, computer anxiety, and unattractiveness of the new technology. Skills access portrays the lack of digital skills caused by insufficient user-friendliness and inadequate education or social support. Usage access describes the lack of significant usage opportunities. The digital divide issue requires explicit action concentrated on three fundamental themes; access to ICT, use and share of ICT, and social support (Warchauer, 2002). Most ICT projects run into unexpected difficulties because they constantly focus on providing technical access rather than access to the social networks and social resources that are essential to achieve the expected results. The framework of technology for social inclusion should encompass social and community development enhanced through effective integration of ICT into communities and institutions. Thus, social access can be divided into two elements; skills and usage access, and support access.

Digital skills include the ability to search, process, and apply information from online sources. In these ways, Van Dijk (1999, cited in Van Dijk and Hacker, 2003) anticipates the appearance of a usage gap between those parts of the community that systematically use and benefit from advanced digital technology, together with the more difficult applications for work and education, and that part of the community that uses basic digital technology for simple applications primarily relating to entertainment. Moreover, Warschauer (2002); Breiter (2003); and Southern (2002), discuss that by promoting social inclusion and meaningful use of digital media technologies, ICTs can play the role of enabler; however, it depends largely on additional skills including literacy. Furthermore, Warchauer (2002) argues that literacy acquisition obviously requires the development of a variety of skills, knowledge, and the attitude necessary to make meaningful use of ICTs. To some extent, Jackson et al. (2003) suggest reconceptualising the digital divide as a ‘use’ divide, as their research findings reveal both qualitative and quantitative evidence indicating a high need for technical support by all kinds of users. Similarly, Pinkett (2002) and Besser (2003) mention that public attention should also focus on the ability of the user to be an active consumer, and the availability of local affordable content. Information literacy is essential to enable individuals to recognise when information is needed and possess the ability to locate, evaluate and effectively use and share the needed information. Thus, the main barriers in content-related issues include lack of local content, literacy barriers, language barriers and lack of cultural diversity.

Hacker (2000) argues that access alone does not guarantee either usage or benefits from usage; the adoption of ICT needs sustained usage over time. Mason and Hacker (2003) explain that the empirical evidence from studies indicated that those who utilise ICTs possess more accurate information than their peers. Van Dijk (1999, cited in Mason and Hacker, 2003) argues that the advancement of technology creates circumstances in which those who are limited to very basic skills will now be outpaced by those who are ahead in the ability to select and process information. This argument was supported by Van Dijk (1999) and De Haan (2003), who indicated that the Internet skill levels and social inequality between groups affect diversity and level of usage. Differences in use and skills, however, are gradual, rather than absolute and are part of a diffusion process. The exploration of opportunities for using ICT applications also contributes to increasing skills, which may lead to more frequent and more diverse use.

It is widely accepted that skills and usage of ICTs as well as active and effective communities create economic dislocation and the allocation of benefits to the underserved communities. In this sense, Gurstein and Civille, (2003) argue that the availability of community technology does not apply to the effective use of ICTs to achieve local needs. Selwyn (2003) has mentioned that the usage access to ICTs is a hierarchical rather than a dichotomous concept.

In considering the relationship between access to ICTs and use of ICTs, Silverstone (1996, as cited in Selwyn, 2003) points out that access to ICTs does not denote use of ICTs. The use of ICTs however, leads to a meaning, significance, and utility for the individual and community concerned. In this sense, Selwyn (2003) argues that the consequences of the meaningful use of ICTs can be seen in terms of the effects on the individuals’ and communities’ social quality including socio-economic security, social inclusion, social cohesion, and empowerment. Hence, the impact of ICTs reflects the extent to which technology use (or engagement), where users exert a degree of control and choice over the technology and its content, enables individuals and communities to participate and be part of society (social inclusion).

Since little attention has been given to research on how Internet access and use fit into everyday life, Chen and Wellman (2003) produced a framework of the Internet to examine four perspectives; technological access (different levels and combination of technologies to access computers and the Internet); technological literacy (having access to the Internet and having the ability to use the Internet effectively); social access (economic, organisational, and cultural factors that affect equal access to the Internet, for example income, awareness and interest, language, content, location, training and social support); and social use (who uses the Internet, for what purpose, under what circumstances, and how this use affects community social capital and community general well-being).

Thus, Chen and Wellman (2003) propose that scholars should adopt a more realistic stance in examining the impact of ICTs on individuals and communities to answer the main policy questions:

• How does the Internet help individuals enhance social capital?

• How does the Internet facilitate community building?

• Under what circumstances could disadvantaged individuals and communities reap digital dividends from the Internet?

• In what precise ways do people benefit from Internet use, and conversely, are disadvantaged by not being able to use the Internet?

Moreover, Taylor and Marshall (2002) propose that it would be useful to examine the relationship between social engagement and the adoption of a CI approach for local community benefit. From this perspective, Taylor and Marshall (2001) did not find a large demand from the community to use ICT for community practice.

Chen and Wellman (2003) mention that in addition to the equipment, use, skills and purpose of using the Internet, the other dimension used to measure social impact is social support including awareness. The support access as defined by Warschauer (2002) is lack of social resources where it is important to make something (i.e. ICT projects) belong to a community (ownership). Warschauer (2003) believes that the provision of physical resources is just one component of a broader set of resources which include digital resources, human resources, and social resources that allow people to make use of technology for local development. Thus, social support means the individual and community awareness, which can create and sustain social capital capable of supporting the implementation of ICT development in the local community. Gordo (2003) contends that in addition to emphasis on community-level interventions (social support), the expansion of affordable connection to ICT for the underserved community could be realised through technology discounts and community telecentres. Lenhart and Horrigan (2003) see access as a continuum rather than a dichotomous division and one key finding of their research is that there is a portion of the population that does not appear to want the Internet because they believe ICT is not for them. This suggests that the public provision of access at community telecentres can address the varying access needs of non-users, across the access spectrum, by increasing awareness among the members of the local community.

Methodology

This research focuses on the Kedai.Kom located in underserved communities in rural areas. However, the scope of this study will cover Kedai.Kom in the state of Perak, which has 55 locations/communities representing (94.8%) of the grand total of 58 nationwide. All the Kedai.Kom in the states of Perak, Kedah and Perlis, are located on the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. There are several reasons for the choice of location. To begin with, the West Coast is at the epicentre of the Malaysian Internet boom, and this is where political leaders and industry experts have been most vocally championing the cause of ICT development. The West Coast is a particularly unique region to consider because, in contrast to some other regions, there is a focus on the urban and industrial areas as well as being intent on spreading technology to rural areas. Also, the West Coast, particularly the state government of Perak has increased its effort to wire communities in the state. In addition to the MCMC; the MEWC, MRRD; the state government has established community telecentres, equipped with up-to-date peripherals, connected to the Internet through broadband.

The sample element is a Kedai.Kom user aged above 15 years old. The cut off point of the user’s age was decided on because social capital is new and foreign to the respondents. From the pre-test, it was found that users below 15 years old found it difficult to answer questions relating to social capital. With the exact population composition of Kedai.Kom users unknown and based on the pre-test, the daily registered number of users are around 10 to 20. However, most of the active users were using telecentre services more than once per day. Thus, to use the registration records as the basis to estimate the population of telecentre users was not an appropriate solution. For this reason, this study does not depend on a population frame. With an average of 10 to 20 respondents for each Kedai.Kom, 600 questionnaires were distributed to users at the 55 locations. The locations of the Kedai.Kom were distinguished into three zones with the classification of districts according to region; (1) Zone One, the north region; (2) Zone Two, the south region; and (3) Zone Three, the central region.

For the reasons above, as well as time and cost constraints, this study used non-probability sampling. The design used was convenience sampling; the collection of information from the Kedai.Kom users of the underserved community who are conveniently available to answer the questionnaire (Sekaran, 2003; Zikmund, 2003; Malhotra 2004).

Data for the study was collected using a questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into four parts. The respondent’s demographic profile was captured in Part 1. The demographic items were taken from Ferlander (2003). Part 2 of the questionnaire consists of variables relating to support access. The items were based on the work carried out by Vivid Education Corporation (2001). The respondents were required to provide their skills and usage access. In Part 3: Skills and Usage Access, the variable items were based on Ferlander (2003) and Proenza et al. (2001). The final part of the questionnaire requires the respondents to state their level of satisfaction towards Kedai.Kom. Finally, the respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement to the various items on a scale of 1-7.

Findings

Who are Kedai.Kom users?

Respondents Demographic Profile

A total of 326 questionnaires were returned and found to be usable for analysis. The gender proportion seemed to be balanced, where female beneficiaries or users outnumbered the male by only 2.5%, and accounted for 52.5% of the total users. Single users comprised 88.7% of total users, outnumbering the married and divorced users, which consisted of 10.4% and 0.9% respectively. The marital status proportion dominance by the single seemed to match the percentage of an age group of less than 25 years (83.1%). The results suggest that most of the users are single and students, either in secondary schools, colleges or universities. The pattern was revealed by the users’ education level where 67.8% of the users have secondary school education compared to 25.1% with tertiary education (Polytechnics, colleges and universities).

The socio-economic pattern of the users illustrate that most of them belong to poor and low-income groups, were either unemployed or self employed, and a majority of the users were Malays. The study results disclose that 91.4% of the users have a family monthly income of less than RM 2,000, where 66% of them have a family monthly income of less than RM 1,000; lived in their family home (78.5%); and 99.1% were of Malay ethnicity (as measured by the mother tongue). In terms of occupation, the majority were students (56.1%), while the others were self employed (12.9%), unemployed (12.3%), government employees (4.3%) and private sector employees (9.8%). Hence, the "dependent" group that includes students and unemployed comprised 68.4% of the total Kedai.Kom users.

The respondents were also asked to state how long they have used computers, with 37.1% having more than 3 years computer experience compared to 29.1% with less than one year experience. Another 33.7% are users who have between one and three years experience using computers.

Level of community readiness to adopt ICT

The community's readiness to adopt the ICT facilities and services via Kedai.Kom can be clearly observed as the larger number of respondents or users mentioned that the main place for them to use a computer or the Internet is at Kedai.Kom (79.1%) compared to cyber cafés (65.6%), workplaces (60.7%) and at home (46.6%).

In addition, the community's readiness to adopt ICT is also measured by questions related to user awareness about ICT as well as their knowledge about the integration of technology in local development. The finding suggests that users are certainly ready and capable to adapt to ICT. Based on the actual responses, more than 70% of users agreed that ICT is important as a tool to develop the local community (Table 1). More than 80% of respondents agreed that community learning is enhanced by the incorporation of ICT in everyday life; that the rural community adequately supports the implementation of ICT initiatives; and local community leadership is willing to lead ICT development.

Table 1: Level of Agreement: ICT Awareness

Through the deployment of EFA, the variables measuring ICT awareness were split into two factors: “ICT Support Awareness” which consisted of four variables with loadings ranging from 0.50 to 0.74; and “ICT Knowledge Awareness” which comprised of three variables with loadings ranging from 0.50 to 0.74 (see Table 2). The other five variables are omitted because of low loadings.

Table 2: Factor Loading: ICT Awareness Variables Using PAF

Based on actual responses to the questions concerning barriers to integration of technology in the local area's development, more than 60% of users agreed that rural communities lacked a technology plan, basic telecommunication infrastructure, training, skilled staff, community support, funding, and sharing of information (Table 3). Indeed, more than 80% of users agreed that the important things that need to take place in integrating technology in the local area development is overcoming the main barriers. In particular, to improve the basic telecommunication infrastructure, promoting the sharing of relevant information, increasing community support, and increasing local leadership support and involvement were identified as being of importance. The findings indicate that a majority of the users are aware of what is needed in their local area in support of integrating technology into local development.

Table 3: Comparison of Level of Agreement: The Integration of Technology in Local Development

For the question – What is the level of community readiness to adopt ICT (digital inclusion)? – results suggest that for the factor “ICT Support Awareness”, rural communities adequately support and are willing to participate in the implementation of ICT initiatives. In addition, rural communities place appropriate emphasis on the integration of ICT and the local leadership is willing to lead the implementation of ICT development in their local area. For the factor “ICT Knowledge Awareness”, the findings indicate that community evaluation should consider the ICT component as one of the main evaluation criteria. Accordingly, people who have ICT knowledge will be respected by other community members. Users also believe that community learning is enhanced by the incorporation of ICT in everyday life. In addition, the “Barriers to Integrate Technology in Local Development” implies that to expand the use of ICT, particularly to successfully bridge the digital divide initiatives in the community; the combination of community technology and social support is definitely crucial to overcome these barriers. The results indicate that the users, as community members, are undoubtedly ready to and capable of adopting the use of technology into their everyday lives.

Usage Pattern

The high level of user agreement in using Kedai.Kom was confirmed by the higher percentage of users who agreed that the implementation of Kedai.Kom in the local community was good (89.9%) as compared to 2.7%, who disagreed. In terms of actual usage, about 45.0% of the users spend at least two hours per typical visit (Table 4). Upon exploring and examining the frequency distribution of the number of times the users visit Kedai.Kom in a month, the study divided the users into two groups – active and passive users. The division is based on the following: active users were those who visited Kedai.Kom at least once a week or four times in an average month, and passive users were those who visited Kedai.Kom less than four times in an average month. Based on this categorisation, the study found that 230 or 70.5% of the respondents were active users and the other 96 or 29.5% were passive users.

Active Users of Kedai.Kom

Using Chi-square analysis, a significant difference (at p<0.05) was found between active and passive users for only two different demographic factors; gender and occupation (see Table 5). In terms of gender, this study found that, in general, male respondents tended to be more active than female, and in terms of occupation, students tended to be more active than working users and others.

Table 4: Time Spent Per Typical Visit

Table 5: Active and Passive Users: A Demographic Factor Comparison

In responding to the question – Who are Kedai.Kom’s active users? – No significant differences were found between the two user groups with respect to age, marital status, education level, and family monthly income.

Kedai.Kom Usage Objectives

Sixteen items were subjected to EFA application and the results show that “Skills and Knowledge Usage Objectives” is a solid and clean factor with all eight variables having a loading of more than 0.5. However, for the factor “Social Networks Usage Objective”, only four of the eight variables extracted have a loading of more than 0.5. Hence, this suggests that users use Kedai.Kom more to enhance their skills and knowledge rather than for social purposes.

Table 6: Factor Loading: Usage Objectives Variables Using PAF

In addition, based on actual responses, the results showed that more than 70% of users agreed that improving work related skills; improving skills to attain better jobs; and finding employment are important to them (Table 7). Furthermore, about 70% of users agreed that keeping them better informed with relevant information; finding mates or friends, making new or keeping existing friendships; encouraging information sharing among users; involvement in entertainment; and increasing interaction among community members are relevant for them.

Table 7: Level of Agreement: The Kedai.Kom Usage Objective

In responding to the question – Why do they use Kedai.Kom? – the related findings revealed that most of the effective and positive usage objectives are related to improving skills and knowledge including improvement of working skills, increase in earnings; involvement in teleworks, e-commerce and e-learning; and to save personal transaction time. In addition, other effective and positive usage objectives related to improving social networks including finding new friends or keeping existing friendships; involvement in entertainment; encouraging information sharing; and to be better informed with local information. Thus, the usage of Kedai.Kom will further include the community members in the adaptation of ICT in their everyday life.

Users Satisfaction

Based on actual responses, it was found that more than 70% of users were satisfied with the services and facilities offered by Kedai.Kom (Table 8).

Table 8: User Satisfaction Levels

It has to be noted here that initially there were nine variables pertaining to users satisfaction in the questionnaire. When EFA was used, two variables were omitted due to low factor loadings (Table 9).

Table 9: Factor Loading: User Satisfaction Variables Using PAF

The above findings imply that most users are satisfied with the facilities and services offered by Kedai.Kom. The results reveal that the conditions and the physical outlook of the Kedai.Kom as well as the availability of courses and training are not significant in attracting users. Instead, staff disposition, Internet speed, operating time, and rates are more important for users considering their likely visit to Kedai.Kom.

Kedai.Kom users were also asked to provide suggestions on how to enhance Kedai.Kom. Many of them (43.5%) suggested increasing the number of Kedai.Kom's computers, 10.0% suggested improving the ambience of Kedai.Kom, and 8.8% suggested increasing the choice of software. Although Kedai.Kom is provided only with five computers, supplemented with basic software and basic facilities, the demand is very encouraging. Suggestions for improvements include increasing skilled staff and increasing local content. Noteworthy to mention is that 6.5% of the users suggested promoting Kedai.Kom as a public space where the community can use it as a place for interaction (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Kedai.Kom Users Suggestions for Enhancing Kedai.Kom

Discussion and Conclusion

The main objectives of Kedai.Kom are to build capacity; to introduce and encourage growth in the usage of ICT; and to create community communications equipped with a range of ICT services to facilitate Internet access, e-commerce, and e-learning with reference to an active but largely underserved community base. The present research findings suggest that the implementation of Kedai.Kom in the Malaysian community is good and beneficial despite various shortcomings. The results explain that the users of the Kedai.Kom have indicated that local and relevant content and skilled staff are of less importance in maximising their usage of Kedai.Kom than for example availability of computers, selection of software and the "ambience" of the telecentre.

In addition, the findings showed that community members are likely to believe that the usage of Kedai.Kom’s can be extended beyond being merely a place for using computers and connecting to the Internet, and that it could serve as a public space for community interactions as well. This finding is in line with the arguments of Glover (2004); Pigg (1999); Kean (2000 cited in Mason and Hacker, 2003); Alkalimat and Williams (2001); Poletta (1999); and Davies et al. (2003) which maintained that telecentres are generally established to create public spaces in which the ideas and actions of the community members can be shaped by providing technical assistance and resources essential to meet the community needs as well as offering a common ground for community members to socialise comfortably. The findings suggest that the underserved community is looking forward by considering Kedai.Kom as serving as a good new public space that can engage diverse groups of people and contribute to building the local community for creating and sustaining development outcomes.

The Kedai.Kom equipped with adequate facilities and specifications’, including broadband Internet access is the main public place for this underserved community to use computers and access the Internet. This, indicates that the implementation of Kedai.Kom in the underserved community is providing local benefits. In terms of demographic characteristics; the majority of beneficiaries or users are single; students; have at least a secondary school education; are aged below 25 years; and have a monthly family income of less than RM1, 000.

The findings suggest that most of the users are youth and in a productive cohort which has a relative high education attainment. Normally, this group of users use Kedai.Kom in a productive and effective manner. Although the family monthly income is relatively low, the awareness level in the family is relatively high, thus influencing the frequency of this group of users in using Kedai.Kom. Furthermore, the majority of the beneficiaries have computer experience of more than three years; visit Kedai.Kom at least once a week in an average month; and spend at least four hours per typical visit. The findings suggest that most of the users are core users rather than peripheral users, and excluded users as pointed out by Murdock (2002 cited in Selwyn, 2003). The relatively high average time spent per typical visit shows that the usage of Kedai.Kom is principally productive and effective as discussed earlier and includes information seeking, communication and origination of digital materials.

In answering the question – Who are the active users of Kedai.Kom? – it was found that there were no significant differences between active and passive groups of users regarding age; marital status; education level; and family monthly income. However, significant differences were found in two demographic factors, gender and occupation. In general, male beneficiaries tended to be more active than females and students tended to be more active than the others. The findings suggest that active users are not differentiated by demographic factors including age, marital status, education attainment, and income.

However, the necessity and the need to use Kedai.Kom are significant. Job hunting, information seeking and sharing, acquiring work and education related knowledge and skills, keeping and prolonging friendships as well as seeking and involvement in entertainment are the main forces encouraging the users to use Kedai.Kom. Thus, users, who are mostly youth, and in a productive cohort with family and community support, will frequently visit and use Kedai.Kom. Students in secondary schools and in community colleges especially need Internet access to acquire information for their folios and assignments. Their families need to bear the costs of this even with limited income, in order to support the students’ to obtain a better education with the assistance of ICTs. The finding is in agreement with Chen and Wellman (2003) and Warchauer’s (2003) argument that social support increases individual and community awareness, which in turn can create and sustain social capital capable of supporting the implementation of telecentres in a local community. Moreover, the finding is in agreement with Gordo’s (2003) contention that the expansion in the number of affordable telecentres can be realised through technology discounts and through fostering active community level intervention in supporting and encouraging the use of telecentres.

Most of the users with the exception of students, including working users, school leavers, job seekers or unemployed were males. Most of the users seeking and involved in entertainment were male as well as being the most frequent users spending more time per typical visit. Females were generally restricted to using Kedai.Kom during the day, most likely because the norms and values of the rural community do not encourage females visiting public places during certain times, especially at night.

The answer to the question on the level of community readiness to adopt ICT (digital inclusion) suggests that generally, the Malaysian community is certainly ready and capable of adopting ICT. Most members of the community are adequately supportive and they are willing to participate in ICT initiatives. The local community places an appropriate emphasis on the integration of ICT, and the local leadership is willing to lead local ICT initiatives. Moreover, community members are aware that for the expansion of ICT and for bridging the digital divide initiatives in the local community to be successful, the combination of community technology and social support is crucial to overcome the barriers to technology integration into local development. The barriers that need to be overcome include the limitations in the availability of skilled staff, community support, information sharing, training, planning, infrastructure, funding, and local leadership. The finding is in accordance with Romm and Taylor’s (2001) argument that the success prospects of a telecentre project are likely to be affected by the combination and supportiveness of the interrelationship between the exogenous and endogenous elements. The exogenous elements include the function of the government and local authorities to continually expose and promote ICTs to the local community. The endogenous elements include the strong support of ICT projects by the local community in addition to strong local leadership. Both exogenous and endogenous elements are likely to be affected by the outcome of the Kedai.Kom project.

The results of the study show effective and positive usage by Kedai.Kom users, particularly to improve the user’s skills and knowledge and extending and upholding the user’s social networks, all of which influence their ability to achieve digital inclusion. The most important usage objectives are related to the improvement of the user’s skills and knowledge, which include improved working skills; increased earnings; involvement in teleworks, e-commerce, and e-learning; and saving time in personal transactions. The most important effective and positive usage related to the expansion and upholding of the user’s social networks include finding new friends, making new or keeping existing friendships; seeking and involvement in entertainment, sharing information; and being better informed. Thus, the high, effective, and positive usage of Kedai.Kom will eventually encourage the community members in the adoption of ICT in their everyday lives. The results suggest that the users of Kedai.Kom are mostly and actively involved in the positive usage of the Kedai.Kom, particularly for improving working and education related skills and knowledge as well as for improving and prolonging social networks. This particular positive usage normally involves students, working users, job seekers and parents who have family outside the community, and tourists in homestays organised by the community. However, certain users who are unemployed and school dropouts, mainly male, are heavily involved in entertainment, that is in the category of unproductive usage, explicit games, chatting, movies, and music etc. The involvement in unproductive usage occurs mostly at unsuccessful Kedai.Kom’s where the operators rarely provide strict supervision on usage.

The positive and effective Kedai.Kom usage is significantly influencing the community building of the underserved community. The finding is in agreement with Van Dijk and Hacker (2003); Warchauer (2002); and Romm and Taylor’s (2001) arguments that positive and effective usage of the Internet, particularly in telecentres, will limit users in their acquiring digital skills related to operations, managing hardware and software, but will encourage them to acquire digital skills on how to search, use and share information. The gap in usage of the telecentre will further divide users systematically using and benefiting from telecentres for work and education and those that use telecentres for simple applications that are primarily entertainment related. In addition, the finding is in agreement with Van Dijk (1999, cited in Mason and Hacker, 2003); and De Haan’s (2003) arguments that users with limited skills and knowledge will be outpaced. Thus, there is a need for those in this category to increase their usage of ICT applications that contribute to increased skills and knowledge which in turn may subsequently lead to more frequent and more diverse uses of telecentres. The finding also suggests that most of the Kedai.Kom users are core users that use telecentres positively and effectively with continuous and comprehensive usage, especially for information seeking, communication and origination or production of digital content which is in accordance with Murdock’s (2002, cited in Selwyn, 2003) argument. Furthermore, the finding is in agreement with Warchauer (2002); Pinkett (2002); and Besser’s (2003) contention that most telecentre projects have run into unanticipated complications because they persistently neglected positive and effective usage and have users who are passive and non-producers of local content, which is the stumbling block for realising the expected results.

Most Kedai.Kom users are satisfied with the facilities and services provided. Moreover, the environmental and physical conditions and the availability of courses and training are not significant for satisfying and attracting users. Instead, the staff disposition, Internet speed, operating time, and rates are more important for users to consider their likely and prolonged visits to Kedai.Kom. The high level of satisfaction among Kedai.Kom users will likely result in the inclusion of community members in the ICT adoption process and eventually in the integration of technology into local development.

The present research findings suggest that for the rural community, the implementation of Kedai.Kom in their community is more important than anything else including the physical condition of the Kedai.Kom itself or the supporting materials such as local content and availability of related courses and training. The availability of Internet access and the opportunity to use computers is more than sufficient for rural folk. Moreover, Internet speed is provided via broadband access which is fast and reliable and offered at a reasonable rate. Kedai.Kom is the main source for the underserved community to use computers and access the Internet rather than at home or at the workplace. This finding is in accordance with Harris (2001) where he argued that the introduction of community telecentres into a typical rural community represents a significant innovation for the community. In this context, Harris (2001); Gurstein (2000); Graham (2002) and Cisler (1998, cited in Owen and Darkwa, 1999) argued that a community telecentre will be the typical rural community’s first encounter with ICT that offers delivery of rural and socio-economic development support services, e-commerce, e-learning, telemedicine services etc. Thus, most Kedai.Kom users’ perceive that the most important step is to provide opportunities for them to access computers, the Internet and basic applications rather than tp provide quality services, a good environment or ICT courses and training.

References

Alkalimat, A., and Williams, K. (2001). Social Capital and Cyberpower in the African American Community: A Case Study of Community Technology in the Dual City. In Keeble, L.; and Loader, B. (Eds.) (2001). Community Informatics: Community Development through Use of Information and Communications Technologies. Retrieved October 1, 2003 from www.communitytechnology.org/cyberpower/ cyberpower.pdf.

Beamish, A (1995). Community On-line: Computer-Base Community Networks. Master of City Planning Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved August, 5 from http://sap.mit.edu/anneb/cn-thesis/.

Beamish, A. (1999). Approaches to Community Computing: Bringing Technology to Low-Income Groups. In Schon, D. A.; Sanyal, B.; and Mitchell, W.J. (Eds). High Technology and Low-Income Communities: Prospects for the Positive Use of Advanced Information Technology. MIT Press.

Besser, H. (2003). The Next Digital Divide. Retrieved July 6, 2003 from http://tcla. gseis.ucla.edu/ divide/ politics/besser.html

Breiter, A. (2003). Public Internet Usage Points in Schools for the Local Community – Concept, Implementation and Evaluation of a Project in Bremen, Germany. Education and Information Technologies, Volume 8, Number 2, pp. 109-2003.

Chen, W. and Wellman, B. (2003). E-Commerce Development: Charting and Bridging the Digital Divide. I-Ways, Digest of Electronic Commerce Policy and Regulation, Volume 26, pp 155-161.

Cisler, S. 1998. “The Internet and Indigenous Groups”. Cultural Survival Quarterly. Available: http://cs.org/publications/CSQ/csqinternet.html#Cisler.

Davies, S.; Schwartz A.W.; Pinkett, R.D.; and Servon, L.J. (2003). A Report to the Ford Foundation: Community Technology Centres as Catalyst for Community Change. A Report to the Ford Foundation, New School University Retrieved October 25, 2003 from www.bctpartners.com/resources/ CTCs_as_ Catalysts.pdf.

De Haan, J. (2003). IT and Social Inequality in the Netherlands. IT&Society, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 27-45.

Ferlander, S. (2003). The Internet, Social Capital and Local Community. PhD Thesis, University of Sterling. Retrieved July 23, 2004 from http://www.crdlt.stir.ac.uk/Docs/ SaraFerlanderPhD. pdf.

Glover, T.D. (2004). The ‘Community’ Centre and the Social Construction of Citizenship. Leisure Sciences, Volume 26, pp. 63-83.

Gordo, B. (2003). Overcoming Digital Deprivation. IT&Society, Volume 1, Issue 5, pp 166-180.

Graham, S. (2002). Bridging Urban Divides? Urban Polarisation and Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs). Urban Studies, Volume 39, Number 1, pp 33-56.

Gurstein, M. (2000). Community Informatics: Enabling Community Use of Information and Communication Technology. In Gurstein, M. (Eds.), Community Informatics: Enabling Communities with Information and Communications Technologies. Idea Group Publishing, pp. 1-32.

Gurstein, M. and Civille, R. (2003). Community Informatics System (CIS): Mapping the Sector. Retrieved October 23, 2003 from www.communityinformatics.org./cissectors_ files.

Hacker, K.L. (2000). Divide Facts and Fictions Digital. Retrieved July 6, 2003 from http://khacker2. freeyellow.com/ddnow6.htm.

Harris, R., (2001). Telecentres in Rural Asia: Towards a Success Model. Conference Proceedings of International Conference on Information Technology, Communications and Development (ITCD 2001), November 23-3-, Katmandu, Nepal. Retrieved May 24, 2006 from http://unpanl.un.org/introdoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPA C006304.pdf

Jackson, L.A.; Barbatsis, G.; von Eye, A.; Biocca, F.; Zhao, Y.; and Fitzgerald, H. (2003). Internet Use in Low-Income Families: Implications for the Digital Divide. IT&Society, Volume 1, Issue 5, pp 141-165.

Keane, John. 2000. “Structural Transformations of the Public Sphere.” pp. 70-89 in Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice, edited by K. L.Hacker and J. van Dijk. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kling, R., Crawford, H., Rosnbaum, H., Sawyer, S., and Weisband, S. (2000). Learning from Social Informatics: Information and Communication Technologies in Human Context. The Information Society, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-232.

Lenhart, A. and Horrigan, J.B. (2003). Re-Visualizing the Digital Divide as a Digital Spectrum. IT&Society, Volume 1, Issue 5, pp 23-39.

Malhotra, N.K. (2004), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, .

Mason, S.M. and Hacker, K.L. (2003). Applying Communication Theory to Digital Divide Research. IT&Society, Volume 1, Issue 5, pp 40-55

Murdock G. (2002). Tackling the digital divide: evidence and intervention. Paper given to The Digital Divide Day Seminar; 2002 Feb 19. Coventry: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

Owen, W.J., and Darkwa, O. (1999). Role of Multipurpose Community Telecentres in Accelerating National Development in Ghana. First Monday, Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet. Retrieved August 28, 2004 from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/ issue5_1/owen/

Pigg, K.E. (1999). Community Networks and Community Development. Retrieved February 9, 2003 from www.ssu.missouri.edu/facultgy/kpigg/IACD99.html.

Pigg, K.E. (2003). Applications of Community Informatics for Building Community and Enhancing Civic Society. Information, Communication and Society, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 507-527.

Pinkett, R.D. (2002). Creating Community Connection: Sociocultural Constructionism and an Asset-Based Approach to Community Technology and Community Building. Proquest Digital Dissertations. Retrieved July 10, 2003 from http://wwwwlib. umi.com/ dissertations/fullcit/f338321.

Prell, C. (2003). Community Networking and Social Capital: Early Investigations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Volume 8, Issue 3. Retrieved October, 16 2003 from www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol8/issue3/prell.html.

Polletta, F. (1999). “Free spaces” in collective action. Theory and Society, Volume 28, pp 1-38.

Proenza, F.J., Bastidas-Buch, R., and Montero, G. P. (2001). Telecentres for Socioeconomics and Rural Development in Latin America and the Caribbean: Investment Opportunities and Design Recommendations, with Special Reference to Central America. FAO, ITU. IADB, Washington DC.

Russell, N. (2000). Evaluating and Enhancing the Impact of Community Telecentre: A Companion Project of the InforCauca Initiative to Foster Sustainable Development in Marginalized Regions. Submitted to the Rockefeller Foundation by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).

Romm, C.T., and Taylor, W. (2001). The Role of Local Government in Community Success Prospects: The Autonomy/Harmony Model. Proceeding of the 34^th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 3-6, 2001, pp. 2868-2875.

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business. New York, Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Selwyn, N. (2003). Defining the ‘Digital Divide’: Developing a Theoretical Understanding of Inequalities in the Information Age. Occasional Paper 49, ‘Adults Learning@Home’ – An ESRC Funded Research Project. Retrieved March 23, 2004 from www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/ict

Silverstone R. (1996). Future imperfect: information and communication technologies in everyday life. In: Dutton W, editor. Information and communications technologies: visions and realities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Southern, A. (2002). Can Information and Communication Technologies Support Regeneration? Regional Studies, Volume 36, Number 6.

Taylor, W. & Marshall, S. (2001) "The challenge of collaboration for establishing community networks in regional Australia". Second World Congress of Citizens Networks: Global CN 2001. Buenos Aires, 5-7 December.

Taylor, W.; and Marshall, S. (2002). Collaboration: The Key to Establishing Community Networks in Regional Australia. Information Science, Special Series on the Digital Divide, Volume 5, Number 3, pp. 155-162.

Van Dijk, J. (1999). The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media. [Trans. Leontine

Spoorenberg] London, Sage

Van Dijk, J., and Hacker, K. (2003). The Digital Divide as a Complex and Dynamic Phenomenon. The Information Society, Volume 19, pp 315-326.

Vivid Education Corporation (2001). Community Technology Survey. Retrieved August 10, 2003 from www.vived.com.

Warchauer, M. (2002). Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide. First Monday, Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet. Retrieved October, 16 2003 from www.firstmonday.dk/issues/ issue7_7/warchauer.

Warchauer, M. (2003). Dissecting the “Digital Divide”: A Case Study in Eqypt. The Information Society. Volume 19, pp 297-304.

Whyte, A. (2000). Assessing Community Telecentres: Guidelines for Researchers. For the Acasia Initiatives of the International Development Research Centre. Retrieved November 14, 2003 from http://web.irdc.ca/ev.php?ID=28303_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC.

Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Business Research Methods (7th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Thomson.