Description
Discussions 1 :
Due: 5/2/2022
– Locate an article on the SEU Digital Library that applies to a relevant topic
.that you want to learn about in this course
-Post a thread on the Discussion Board that describes this article and why you
feel it is relevant to this class. Your post should be approximately 2-3
.)paragraphs (150-200 words
-Respond to another student?s post before the end of the week. Consider and
reflect on your fellow student?s point of view. Simply saying that you agree or
.disagree is not a sufficient response
-I want answers to my responses to my friends in the discussion, logical .answers that contain the topic in the digital library
Knowledge Management for Information and Communications Technologies
for Development Programs in South Africa.
The Living Labs in South Africa (LLiSA) projects in remote rural South African
municipalities have exhibited mixed success. Some projects are quite
successful in teaching Internet and smart phones use, while others enjoy
initial success only to fall into disuse. Knowledge management (KM) for
technology, Internet, computer usage, and software tools expertise, requires
a transfer of knowledge to local interested individuals. However, KM is
typically not an explicitly named aspect of LLiSA projects. Rather, projects cite
a need for training and development of skills for maintainability and
sustainability but no need for long term KM. This research describes KM
characteristics then analyzes information and computer technology for
development projects around the world to develop best practices and their
KM components. The Siyakhula Living Lab, a LLiSA program, is evaluated for
the extent to which KM best practices are applied. Recommendations for KM
are developed for planning, training, and project conduct.
Keywords: information and communications technology; knowledge
management; community involvement
1. Introduction
The significant body of research on information and communications
technologies for development (ICT4D) gives us guidelines on conduct and
expectations of outcomes for such work. The Living Labs in South Africa
(LLiSA) is a long-running program of remote rural ICT4D projects in South
Africa that have both impressive successes and disappointments (Dugmore,
[22]; Gumbo, Thinyane, Thinyane, Terzoli, & Hansen, [33]; Osah & PadeKhene, [49]; Pitse-Boshomane, [55]). One area that appears to have general
applicability to project work, specifically in ICT4D projects, is knowledge
management (KM). KM applies to ICT4D because projects implement
technology that requires ongoing support and maintenance without the aid
of the original development team. The question guiding this research is what
KM practices for remote South African rural projects might improve their
outcomes?
From an academic perspective, this research is important because past KM
research in ICT4D projects is sparse. The existing research does not look at
specific project use of KM and deals primarily with the government policy
level of recommendations (cf. Ferguson, Mchombu, & Cummings, [27]; Jain,
[40]). This research evaluates a case for which KM is important to
sustainability. Thus, this research begins to fill a gap in KM research by
discussing specific issues relating to project sustainability that can be dealt
with through a KM effort.
Another contribution is the development of a set of best practices for KM and
for ICT4D projects that might be applied to other analyses of project successes
and failures. Though there are other attempts at ICT4D best practices, they
do not include explicit KM practices (e.g. Unwin, [65]).
This paper seeks to first develop a summary of KM to develop best practices
that should be part of any ICT4D project to optimize its probability of success.
ICT4D research from many developing countries then is examined to identify
practices that are key to success to be emulated or key to failures to be
avoided. These are evaluated to determine ways in which formal KM might
enhance their conduct. South Africa’s Siyakhula Living Lab (SLL) is examined
to identify its KM practices. SLL KM practices are then analyzed to determine
ways in which they might be improved to enhance the potential for outcome
sustainability. This paper is not meant to criticize the SLL or LLiSA projects
which are successful in helping remote rural people adopt wireless
technologies, including primarily cell phones and health clinic and school based Internet. The projects have accomplished some feats of technological
innovation in the field. Rather, this research seeks to provide ICT4D projects
with the benefit of KM successes around the world that, when applied in their
own work, might improve their successes and sustainability.
2. KM best practices
KM is the systematic process of acquisition, organization, and communication
of organizational member knowledge for reuse by others in the community
(Alavi & Leidner, [ 1], [ 2]). Knowledge relates to an individual’s ability to take
For instance, for a project-based KM system, the directory might include key
characteristics of the projects, such as hardware, software, company size,
project manager (PM), and PM contact information. In addition, the
conduct, and so on. Such a directory combines both searchable information
and contact information.
Knowledge is categorized as either tacit or explicit. Tacit knowledge is held in
an individual’s mind and relates to an individual’s experiences with technical
aspects in terms of skills or procedural knowledge (Nanaka, [48]). Explicit
knowledge is known, codified, and shareable (Nanaka, [48]).
Tacit knowledge poses the larger challenge to KM as expertise and reasoning
processes are difficult to clearly identify. Professionals are often not able to
articulate their reasoning processes (Davenport, De Long, & Beers, [17]). Plus,
when solutions are constantly tailored to situations, pre-defining situational
needs may not be possible. Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, is more
simply the codification of relatively well-understood knowledge into a
reusable format.
An example of both types of knowledge can be seen in a help desk situation.
Explicit knowledge on past computer outages is codified into a “known errors
database” (KEDB), which is a searchable, online database accessible by all
outage occurs and is recorded, the KEDB is checked to determine if a solution
or work-around already exists. When found, the solution is applied and
verified as working. When no solution is found, the expertise of the help desk
staff worker in the form of tacit knowledge takes over. Then, the worker
reviews his past experience to determine similar situations and tries to
resolve the issue based on that past experience. Alterations and improvised
solutions based on experience may result (Conger & Probst, [13]; Verjans,
[68]). Ideally, then, the new solution should be able to be codified and added
to the KEDB but often, the circumstances are so unique that the solution is
unlikely to ever be used again. An example might be an outage due to a
vendor engineering change. The reasoning used to find the root cause is
interesting but the solution is mundane, rarely applicable, and not worth the
effort to put into a KEDB. Separating tacit situations of interest from those
that are not is a subjective and difficult prospect.
Challenges to KM relate to all aspects of its information life cycles, including
identification and acquisition, storage and retrieval, and dissemination (Alavi
& Leidner, [ 1], [ 2]; Teece, [60]). Identification and acquisition relate to the
intellectual task. Then, dissemination is the sharing of information across a
community of users such that they are all apprised of the new information
and how to access it (Brown & Duguid, [ 9]; Vaughan, [67]). The larger the
organization, the more likely the number of shareable knowledge items
would be large and the more often items would be added to the digital cache.
The challenge in this environment is not to overwhelm users with information
on new knowledge items but to somehow keep them informed about the
items that are available. Thus, information about the information that is metadata becomes necessary.
The human adjunct to digitally recorded information is the development of a
community of practice, also called a knowledge cluster (Brown & Duguid, [ 9];
Cooke, [14]; Evers, Nordin, & Nienkemper, [24]; Jeon, Kim, & Koh, [41]).
Knowledge is only important when applied or shared. Sharing does not
always come naturally because of culture, organization, geography, or many
other reasons (Bowen, Edwards, Cattell, & Jay, [ 8]; Evers et al., [24];
Gottschalk, [30]). By encouraging the target user community to become not
just users but contributors to the knowledge store can motivate them to
continue use of project products (Evers, [25]; Jeon et al., [41]). Thus, part of
the project purpose becomes knowledge production and oversight (Evers,
[25]).
Internet access provides fungibility, removing many barriers related to
distance. Further, the individuals who actively contribute to knowledge stores
can be recognized and rewarded for their participation as encouragement not
just to them but to incite others to participate (Gottschalk, [30]). Sites that
create their own community of practice become more sustainable as they
rely less and less on the project originators and more on local expertise to
conduct the project’s work (Brown & Duguid, [ 9]; Evers, [24]; Robinson,
Anumba, Carrillo, & Al-Ghassani, [59]).
To summarize, key aspects of knowledge include knowledge type, definition
of key knowledge in a project, the life cycle for KM, design of a KM data store,
development of a knowledge cluster, and development of processes for
knowledge production. These should be considered in all projects, but
particularly in remote rural projects because the experts change over time
and communities that continually rely on the remote experts for key
maintenance activities tend to be less successful (Geldof, Grimshaw, Kleine, &
Unwin, [29]). The creation of a community of practice that is based in sharing
knowledge through an automated knowledge store is important to reducing
reliance on project originators and thus, freeing the local users to control
their own destinies in the use of the technology (Brown & Duguid, [ 9] ; Evers,
[24]).
3. KM in remote rural technology implementation
In this section, we discuss global ICT4D project research to discern critical
success factors (CSFs) and key reasons for failures to eventually analyze how
KM might contribute to project conduct and sustainability. The works cited
are representative and often cited rather than exhaustive, which is precluded
by space limitations. Ultimately, the two main goals of all projects are success
of the initial project, usually in the form of working technology, and
sustainability of the initiative. Different activities are required for initial startup vs. sustainability, which is the focus here. For sustainability, many key
activities need to take place over the project implementation life cycle and
during those processes, knowledge transfer needs to take place and spread.
The well-known PEST framework is used to categorize political, economic,
social, and technical factors relating to CSFs and project failures (Dosi, [21];
Y?ksel, [70]). This framework was chosen because it is often used to organize
information about research constructs and its categories are comprehensive
for this need. Without such a framework, the information becomes unwieldy
and difficult to characterize. First, CSFs are developed. Next, key
shortcomings of ICT4D projects are identified. Then the two sets of project
criteria are integrated and analyzed to define potential KM components.
Then, knowledge outcomes are identified and analyzed to develop best field
practices relating to KM, in turn to provide the basis, along with KM theory,
for evaluating the SLL projects.
3.1. Key activities in ICT4D projects
Remote rural projects can be initiated as part of a governmental, nongovernmental organizational (NGOs), academic, or private corporate
initiative. India, a country with hundreds of remote rural initiatives has all
types, including some that seek to develop entrepreneurial skills among locals
who would “own” the final products (Best & Kumar, [ 5 ]; Toyama, [63];
Vaughan, [67]; Walsham, [69]). Other countries’ projects evaluated include
Brazil, Indonesia, Nepal, India, China, Sri Lanka, Mozambique, South Africa,
and Nigeria. Table 1 gives requirements for project success and summarizes
findings of these projects.
Table 1. Key Requirements for remote rural ICT4D success.
Category
Key requirements for success
Author
Economic
Balance between demand and supply of resources
Geldof
(2011)
Economic-social
Develop strategy with long-term and short-term goals
Emphasize sustainability (e.g. life of project), include economic and sociopolitical sustainability
Cunningham et al. (2012), Geldof (2011), Heeks
(2010), Heeks and Molla (2009), Kanya and Good (2012), Unwin (2009)
Economic-social-technological
Monitor and evaluate all aspects of project
and its outcomes Heeks (2010), Unwin (2009)
Social-technical-political Address issues of accessibility
Toyama (2011),
Unwin (2009)
Social-technological Adapt technology to local context Bidwell et al. (2011),
Cunningham et al. (2012), Geldof (2011), Heeks (2010), Heeks and Molla
(2009), Krauss and Turpin (2010), Thapa and Saebo (2011), Unwin (2009)
Base projects on local needs, using a bottom-up approach
Design appropriate technology
Develop contextual understanding should be the basis for project design
Ensure that project designs are aligned to local realities
Ensure that all problems are remedied
Focus on outcomes
Provide working technology
Use design approaches such that the resulting technology exhibits flexibility,
improvement, iterative learning in situ and from the past
Social-political
A local champion, preferably who can take over
management and maintenance Cunningham et al. (2012), Geldof (2011),
Heeks and Molla (2009), Kanya and Good (2012), Heeks (2010), Krauss (2013),
Krauss and Turpin (2010), Thapa and Saebo (2011), Unwin (2009)
Communicate trust, openness, mutual respect, and understanding through all
communications
Committed, enthusiastic, competent leaders
Develop a transparent, ethical basis for partnership
Develop trust and shared vision among partners who understand the scope of
each other’s roles and activities
Draw on the strengths of multiple actors for project governance
Leverage local capabilities
Local community involvement with attention to local politics
Manage expectations
Eventually give locals control over daily operations
Train and work with locals, eventually give them control over daily operations
Invest time in partnership building and networking
Attend to cultural differences in gaining trust and cooperation but also not
changing the culture
Treat locals in such a way that their traditional “social fibre” remains intact
Researchers come with or lose preconceptions to become effective at cultural
interpretation
Have project team study ICT4D in school to better understand
While ICT4D authors all have their own, unique, CSF lists for the particular
project under study, all seem incomplete by themselves. Even the
combination of all of the lists would be incomplete as the ephemeral aspects
of success are often in the personalities and abilities of the individuals
involved (Robinson et al., [59]; Turner & M?ller, [64]). In fact, Unwin ([65])
The economic category has one entry to balance demand and supply of
resources (Geldof, Grimshaw, Kleine, & Unwin, 2011). This could also have
social-political consequences in terms of managing expectations so that local
users do not expect more than can be delivered. The other classifications
were not clean in terms of the categories because each item had aspects of
one or more categories involved. Rather than duplicate the success
requirements, the categories were combined.
The social-technical and social-political aspects of projects have gotten the
most comments from authors. From a social-technological perspective,
contextualizing and developing technology that works are the main themes
(Geldof et al., [29]; Heeks, [36]; Heeks & Molla, [37]; Unwin, [65]). These are
important from a social perspective because contextualizing implies
significant local involvement in project outcome planning. From a technical
perspective, these are important because the design, interface, working
technology, hours of operation, usage support, and maintenance support all
must be planned, involve local participants in non-trivial ways, and imply onthe-job and formal training to provide for needed support (Kanya & Good,
[42]; Unwin, [65]).
The social-political perspective is more diverse. The need for trust between
the various partners and local user community is discussed by virtually all
authors. Trust is socially important because it implies understanding the basis
for community and community participation (Krauss, [44]; Krauss & Turpin,
[45]). From both perspectives, trust is important because it often does not
happen and rarely happens in short periods of involvement (Krauss, [44]).
Researchers are usually goal-oriented while, at least in Xhosa, South African
remote villages, respect drives most behavior (Krauss, [44]). As a result,
technical goals may be met that ignore or violate local respect traditions and,
as a result, will not be used (Krauss, [44]).
The other most often discussed social-political topics relate to involving local
participants as champions, project workers, requirements participants, onthe-job training for maintenance and support, and for training as users (Kanya
& Good, [42]; Krauss, [44]; Unwin, [65]). Champions usually take the form of
school teachers for school projects or health workers in clinical projects.
Development of strategies that emphasize sustainability and that contain
short- and long-term goals are categorized as economic-social project needs.
From an economic perspective, these are important because while a project
is in development, funds should be budgeted and husbanded to ensure
project success. Similarly, funding is mentioned often as an issue in projects
that are discontinued.
From a social perspective, strategies are needed to ensure that both project
developers and users all agree on the outcomes and how they should move
forward past implementation. This aspect is also critical to success in terms of
managing expectations and also in terms of ensuring that appropriate skills
and capabilities are developed to ensure ongoing support for project work.
Monitoring and evaluation falls into the economic, social, and technological
categories. From an economic perspective, monitoring is important to
maintaining budget and project goals and schedules (Heeks, [34]; Unwin,
[65]). From a social perspective, monitoring and evaluation provides a sense
of who is participating fully and who might not be. It also provides notice
from project initiation of impending deadlines and deliverables, including the
final project deliverable. From this, local participants can guage when they
will need to take control and ownership over the project. From a
technological perspective, metrics guide project work and determine the
need for numbers of technicians (Unwin, [65]). Further, economic planning
would be difficult without technological metrics and monitoring to ensure
that a project is meeting the scheduled goals.
Accessibility can be viewed from social, physical, economic, technical, and
political perspectives (Pannu & Tomar, [54]). Socially and politically access
relates to culture and expectations of behavior within a community (Unwin,
[65]). For instance, it may be acceptable for teachers who are women to
access computers and the Internet as part of their teaching responsibilities.
However, it may not be acceptable for women who are not teachers but are
part of the community to access technology that is not directly related to
their role in the community (Grunfeld, [32]). Thus, women who farm and
obtain water for the village would not be expected to use technology unless it
could be shown to enhance their work. Also, if the King or Chief is not a user
of technology, this is a subtle suggestion that technology use is not condoned.
The solutions to non-role-related technology use include items such as having
the Chief as champion and user and ensuring adequate social standing of
local support people. From a technical perspective, physical accessibility
might be limited to a school that is open only during school hours or that
relies on solar power to work (Toyama, [63]). Those not available for daylight
or school hour usage would be precluded from using the technology. Thus,
physical access needs to be ensured before social and political issues can be
adequately addressed (Toyama, [63]).
Each area needs to be analyzed for its knowledge components and its method
of management. Ideally, this planning would predate the project but often,
the issues are revealed as project work is conducted. As a result, both
planned and ad hoc methods for identifying and designing KM needed for
sustaining ICT4D are required.
3.2. Key shortcomings of ICT4D projects
In general, KM is not an explicit part of remote rural projects. The terms
training, learning, and skill development often appear in project
documentation, but the term “KM” is sparsely found to date (cf. Ferguson et
al., [27]; Ferguson, Huysman, & Soekijad, [26]; Jain, [40]; Kleine & Unwin,
[43]). In this section we analyze key reasons for ICT4D project failures to
identify practices to be avoided.
As the list in Table 2 gives, many of the reasons for project failures are the
opposite of items given in Table 1. Often the project initiators believe that
they have attended to a needed area but their actions are insufficient or
misguided and ultimately fail (Toyama, [63]). For instance, if the problem is
low literacy, means to deal with the problem are required. Use of handsets
for mobile phones with simple, iconic instructions might remedy literacy
issues. Reading programs that begin at an elementary level and designed for
adults might be added to the project tasks (Thapa & Saebo, [61]). Further,
typing or other skills classes for learning how to deal with a keyboard may be
needed. Similarly, with inconsistent electricity, some means for solar panels,
wind-up equipment or other electrical substitute might be required
(Herselman, [38]).
Table 2. Key reasons for remote rural ICT4D failure.
Category
Key reasons for failures
Author
Economic
Finances were insufficient Thapa and Saebo (2011), Toyama
(2011)
Economic-social
Lack of business model for sustainability (i.e. relied on
donations) Thapa and Saebo (2011)
Social-political
Local organizations were not partners Thapa and Saebo
(2011), Toyama (2011)
Low literacy inhibited participation
High age of local community inhibited participation
Participation of community was not invited as a group
Project did not adhere to sociocultural norms
Relationship with local government was not developed
Stakeholders were not incented to support the project
Social-technological Design was not context-appropriate technology Thapa
and Saebo (2011), Toyama (2011)
Lack of trained maintenance people
Services did not meet local needs
Technological
Inconsistent electricity
Thapa and Saebo (2011)
Insufficient bandwidth
The main economic failure of projects is underestimating financial needs
(Thapa & Saibo, [61]; Toyama, [63]). Similarly, lack of planning for
sustainability is the primary economic-social reason for project failures. These
issues relate to the CSFs recommending strategy and budget creation for
both short- and long-terms that includes sustainability considerations.
The social-political failure reasons also are the obverse of CSFs relating to
inclusion of local people and attention to sociocultural norms (Thapa & Saibo,
[61]; Toyama, [63]). In the social-technological category, context-appropriate
technology and meeting needs are the obverse of CSFs. The lack of trained
maintenance people highlights a problem that directly relates to KM (Thapa &
Saibo, [61]). The research only discusses “training” without designating
aspects of training needed.
The technological category identifies infrastructure issues that are only
implied by the CSFs. Planning in remote rural projects begins with
infrastructure to enable software applications. Infrastructure includes
electricity, telephony services, possibly water for cooling, and other basic
needs that developed countries assume.
To summarize, the reasons for failure often mirror CSFs but also highlight
basic needs that may be assumed by many project coordinators. Next, how
KM might apply to CSFs and reasons for failures are discussed.
3.3. Relating ICT4D best practices and shortcomings to KM
In this section, the contents of best practices and key failure components are
summarized to determine the extent to which KM development activities
might be developed to address the activity. Items given in Tables 1 and 2 are
combined for this discussion. Table 3 addresses the issues at a category level
but that is insufficient because it ignores key issues of individual project CSFs
that can benefit from KM. Therefore, this discussion includes both the
category level of discussion and key issues from the individual CSFs.
Table 3. CSF summary and KM contribution.
Key requirements for success
Relationship to KM
Economic
? Historical and decision information across projects and across
time on the same project
? Sustainability estimates
Economic-social
? KM for sustainability
? Reduce, over time, the need for original developer involvement
Economic-social-technological
? Metrics storage
? Metrics dashboard
Social-political
? KM development with user involvement
? Sensitivity to local language and computer literacy
? Support indigenous knowledge storage
? Develop local project support staff
Social-technological ? Document decision, problems-solutions, training for
each individual, etc.
Social-technical-political
Technological
As Table 3 discusses, KM in ICT4D could play various integrating roles as well
as the traditional KM role of providing documented accessibility to project
information. Making all of the technology available via smart devices, such as
phones, may also expand the reach of KM efforts by allowing the rural people
to access the KM data stores via cell phones, which have above >80%
penetration in South Africa, about half of which is by remote rural users
(Reuters, [58]).
Economic aspects of projects might benefit from KM in providing historical
and decision information across projects and across time on the same
project. The economics of projects tend to become critical if financial
requirements are underestimated or for sustaining use, which seems to be
omitted from the planning of many projects. A KM facilitates sustainability
and, without a KM, sustainability becomes less probable (Robinson et al.,
[59]).
The economic-social category relates to strategy, goals, and sustainability. A
project strategy needs to include KM for sustainability to reduce the need for
original developer involvement over time. Without the development of local
skills, supported by KM efforts, sustainable operation untethered from the
original developers becomes questionable (Chuang, [10]; Marais, [46];
Masiero, [47]). Further, supply of resources, particularly human resources
(HR), is always scarce in ICT4D projects. By treating both project knowledge
Local project support people require multiple types of declarative, process,
causal, conditional, and relational knowledge that may be both tacit and
explicit (Zack, [71]). Thus, this may be more than one person, for instance,
one person for educational content, one person for hardware support, and
one person for software support. With a KM, the local support leaders can
train backups and share the burdens of growth in number of users supported.
Without the development of local skills, supported by KM efforts,
sustainability becomes questionable (Chuang, [10]; Marais, [46]; Masiero,
[47]; Pannu & Tomar, [54]).
The economic-social-technological category relates to monitoring and
evaluation of all aspects of project work. KM might mitigate risks of
underestimation in the above category if metrics are documented and
compared over time both within and between projects. Storage and retrieval
of metrics in a way that allows drill-down to budgetary, technological, and
usage aspects of projects and that have planned outcomes against which
project success is measured can all be facilitated by a KM capability (Barki &
Hartwick, [ 3]). Metrics dashboards for display of metrics could be developed
to provide the needed capabilities. Further, like other aspects of an ICT4D
project, evaluation of the KM should be conducted and used to provide for its
continuous improvement (Best, Thakur, & Kolko, [ 6]; Nanaka, [48]).
The social-political aspects of projects could benefit from the development of
an appropriate mechanism for KM designed with the users and their usage in
mind preferably with their participation. The KM component to a project
must also be sensitive to needs of local grammar, vocabulary, and language
as well as computer literacy levels as needed to ensure use and continued
development (Bidwell et al., [ 7]; Marais, [46]; Masiero, [47]; Tow Venable, &
Building of trust transcends KM but has a KM component in that
communication requires some understanding of local culture, past decisions,
and transparency to develop trust, which can be facilitated through explicit
KM (Bidwell et al., [ 7]). A KM facilitates the needed partnership building and
networking, especially if a KM can be shared across many similar projects
In addition, to address political concerns, the “what’s in it for me” issue should
be addressed explicitly for each person with a political stake in a project’s
success. A KM might be able to help address those concerns.
Social-technological issues deal with contextualizing project designs. By
developing local competence in a variety of ways, one of which could be KM
development as described above, can help develop and sustain community
commitment and enthusiasm (Jeon et al., [41]). However, the development
and continuance of sustained local leadership is a complex problem that goes
far beyond what can be accomplished by KM.
Technological aspects of projects relate to working appropriate technology
that has maintenance and ongoing usability developed through local leaders.
IT projects require a certain amount of improvisation (Barrett, [ 4]; Verjans,
[68]). A KM that documents decisions, problems?solutions, capability
development, etc. can facilitate learning across projects and across time
(Conger & Probst, [13]).
In summary, KM might substantively increase the probabilities of project
success and of sustaining and growing a user community of practice. By
making KM information accessible to more than computer and English
literate people, the problems of accessibility can be partially alleviated.
Training with KM capability support seems to be the most critical aspect of
sustainable technology use.
4. LLiSA projects
The South African government created and sponsors the LLiSA program, a
collective of projects conducted through universities that provide networks,
computers, and applications for use in remote rural villages. Most of the
projects also have NGO and industry partners, for instance, the Meraka
Institute and Nokia, from Finland under the Cooperation Framework on
Innovation Systems between Finland and South Africa (COFISA) (Eliasz & von
Staden, [23]; Pitse-Boshomane, [55]). Six labs are currently active with three
others in planning stages (Cunningham, Herselman, & Cunningham, [16]). The
project oversight organization is the Meraka Institute that is part of the
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, a quasi-governmental
organization that is held in proxy by the Minister of Science and Technology
(http://www.csir.co.za/).
LLiSA projects seek to develop computer skills, introduce the Internet, and
exploit smart phones in remote rural South Africa. One very successful
project was conducted in Mpumalanga Province (east of Johannesburg), by
SAP AG, to teach collaborative ordering for bread via smart phones (M.
Herselman, personal communication, Septe
