Digital Development: What Is The Role of International NGOs? ICT For Development Programmes and Opportunities in The Horn, East and Central Africa

OXFAM DISCUSSION PAPER FEBRUARY 2017
Women read SMS about Polio prevention, Somalia, 2014. Photo: Ahmed Farah/Hijra
DIGITAL DEVELOPMENT: WHAT IS THE

ROLE FOR INTERNATIONAL NGOS?
ICT for Development programmes and opportunities in the Horn,
East and Central Africa
MATT HAIKIN AND GEORGE FLATTERS
Development is going digital and INGOs like Oxfam have a vital convening role to
play. This paper draws on ICT for Development in Oxfams programmes in the
Horn, East and Central Africa to consider what this role is. In order to realise the
opportunities associated with the digital landscape, Oxfam will need to build
internal and external capacity to implement ICT in programmes to enhance quality,
accessibility, and efficiency.
Oxfam Discussion Papers

Oxfam Discussion Papers are written to contribute to public debate and to invite feedback on
development and humanitarian policy issues. They are work in progress documents, and do not
necessarily constitute final publications or reflect Oxfam policy positions. The views and
recommendations expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of Oxfam.
For more information, or to comment on this paper, email AODonnell@oxfam.org.uk
www.oxfam.org
CONTENTS
Executive summary .................................................................................. 3
Key lessons ...................................................................................................... 3

Foreword .......................................................................................................... 5
About the authors ............................................................................................. 6
About ICT in Programme at Oxfam GB ............................................................ 7
Glossary ........................................................................................................... 8
1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 9
Background and context ................................................................................... 9

Research and methodology.............................................................................. 9
2 Improving effective use of ICT4D in HECA .................................... 11
2.1 Build on what works and Dont re-invent the wheel................................... 11

2.2 Think local to engage users and develop local capacity ........................... 14
2.3 Design iterative programmes involving real end-users.............................. 17
2.4 Understanding what scale means to you .................................................. 20
2.5 Avoid survey fatigue by collaborating on M&E .......................................... 25
2.6 Open development can create opportunities and reduce waste ................ 29
2.7 Understand organisations differing roles and goals ................................. 31
2.8 Dont forget about connectivity ................................................................. 34
3 Key ICT4D opportunities for INGOs in HECA ................................ 36
3.1 INGOs as convenors and helping to build local capacity .......................... 36

3.2 Collaboration with other NGOs, technology providers and local actors ..... 38
3.3 NGOs advocating to donors, funders, and governments .......................... 40
4 How can INGOs Improve their ICT in Programme work in Africa?

42
Appendix A: List of research participants........................................................ 45

Appendix B: Survey data summary ................................................................ 48
Appendix C: Tips on successfully scaling ICT4D pilots ................................... 50
Appendix D: Common misunderstandings about open technology ............... 52
Bibliography ................................................................................................... 54
Notes.............................................................................................................. 59
2 Digital Development: What is the role of International NGOs? ICT for Development programmes and
opportunities in the Horn, East and Central Africa
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Development is going digital and INGOs like Oxfam have a vital convening role to play.
This study into ICT for Development in Oxfams programmes in the Horn, East and
Central Africa set out to explore this role. In order to realise the opportunities associated
with the digital landscape, Oxfam will need to build internal and external capacity for
applying ICT in programmes to enhance quality, accessibility, and efficiency.
The World Banks World Development Report 2016, Digital Dividends, states that we are
in the midst of the greatest information and communications revolution in human history,
and invites us to take advantage of this rapid technological change to make the world
more prosperous and inclusive. (World Bank, 2016)
Transformative successes have been achieved by those harnessing information and

communication technologies (ICT) for development (ICT4D), and yet many people still
lack access to ICT, and there is a sense that more needs to be done to understand how
technology can best support humanitarian and development initiatives. In January 2016,
Oxfam commissioned research to explore these issues in the Horn, East and Central
Africa (HECA) region, where there is a burgeoning technology scene and numerous
development projects incorporating ICT.
The objectives of the research were: to explore what actors in the region consider good
and bad practice; to ask where they see the most interesting opportunities in the future;
and to bring this together in a form that informs the role of INGOs using ICT4D, especially
in the HECA region.
Between February and April 2016, following an extensive literature review, interviews
were conducted with relevant private, public and civil society sector professionals; a
workshop was held, bringing together diverse ICT and development practitioners from
several African countries; and an online survey was launched (receiving 284 responses).
This report provides the analysis and key lessons from this research, including
recommendations for Oxfam and other INGOs on the use of ICT.
KEY LESSONS
Many of the lessons from this research in the HECA region echo common ICT4D themes
1
(such as those raised in the Principles for Digital Development ). The report
recommendations include the implementation of principles which are not necessarily
acted upon, while others are new or specific to the HECA region:
Build on what works and dont re-invent the wheel: Most things have been tried
before, yet there can be an instinct to develop new tools from scratch. Where appropriate
tools are already available, programmes should instead adopt a policy of 'buy or adapt by
default'.
Think local to engage with users and develop local capacity: Local relevance and
local production of content is critical to engaging end-users. Models which have been
tried demonstrate lessons about dissemination and about supporting local organisations.
Design iterative programmes involving real end-users: Such approaches produce

better results for the development sectora truth almost universally acknowledged.
However, there appear to be skill gaps and structural factors limiting the take-up of these
ways of working.
Digital Development: What is the role of International NGOs? ICT for Development programmes and
opportunities in the Horn, East and Central Africa 3
Scaling is hard, but a common understanding helps: Scaling up from pilot projects is
difficult, as is sustainability at scale. A common understanding of concepts between
actors would helpas would funding specifically aimed at the scaling phase.
Combat survey fatigue by collaborating on monitoring and evaluation: The ease

with which ICT can be used for monitoring and evaluation has in some instances
contributed to survey fatigue. Collaborating across projects, programmes and even
organisational boundaries can help counter this.
Open development can create opportunities and reduce waste: There is widespread
confusion over the concept of openness in ICT4D (open source, open data, etc.),
leading to missed opportunities to share resources, reduce costs and improve results.
Understand how different private sector actors can integrate with NGOs duty of
care: For long-term success, local and international private sector actors are critical. A
more nuanced understanding of how INGOs can work with these stakeholders is needed.
Dont forget about connectivity: Access and connectivity are still significant barriers to
participation, despite an increasing perception to the contrary. NGOs have a role to play
in advocating for innovative last-mile connectivity solutions.
Convene, collaborate, and advocate: roles and opportunities for

Oxfam and other INGOs in HECA
The key messages that emerged from the research in relation to the role of INGOs active
in ICT4D are:
Act as conveners to improve the use of ICT across the region: There is an
unfulfilled role for a convener of different actors across different sectors to help them
work together, share best practice and develop capacity, particularly in the civil society
and start-up sectors.
Collaborate with NGOs, civil society and other actors: Local networks and long-
term relationships could enable Oxfam or other INGOs to take on this role, or to be
part of a network brokering connections and knowledge sharing between tech
organisations, NGOs, funders/donors and civil society partners.
Advocate at all levels: INGOs important relationships with delivery partners and
global and national funders allow them to play a valuable advocacy role, seeking to
ensure that best practice is mainstreamed in funding and partnerships.
Recommendations for Oxfam: develop a structure to enhance ICT

work in HECA
Finally, the report focuses on what the findings mean for Oxfams operations in the HECA
region and beyond. Oxfam should make digital literacyand knowledge of how to apply
technology to development problemscore competencies for delivery staff and senior
management. This would help maximise the potential of ICT in Oxfams future work.
It is also recommended that Oxfam should hire or train more business analysts, and
increase its in-country ICT in Programme staff. This should be done in a way that
ensures a level of global consistency and quality, perhaps using a matrix management
approach. While some of these recommendations are specific to Oxfams activities and
structure, many were echoed by the wider community and reflect opportunities and
challenges for other INGOs working in the region.
FOREWORD
Fragile and conflict-affected contexts and shrinking civil society spaces are two of the
major current challenges to Oxfams mission of working with others to alleviate poverty
and challenge inequalities. They are challenging our traditional approaches to
programming and increasing the need to consider how to promote social cohesion and
empower nations and communities to become inclusive and resilient to external and
internal shocks in the face of restrictions on movement and access.
The shifting digital landscape is changing the way that Oxfamand more importantly
those with whom Oxfam workscommunicate and access services. This has implications
for how stakeholders generate, access and use data, while trying to become ever more
transparent. The Horn, East and Central African region has a burgeoning technology
scene. However, it is not without ongoing challenges for connectivity and direct access,
which perpetuate inequality and invisibility of voice, and are restricting the effective use of
ICT to contribute to meaningful social change.
Oxfam commissioned this report to understand better how technology can help to
develop long-lasting and impactful solutions, paying particular attention to methodologies
being applied, programme design, enabling environments, business models and ethical
considerations. We have started to witness how ICT can unlock new options to reach
people. A number of initiatives and pilots at Oxfam have proven how the introduction of
ICT saves time and money, while enabling the organisation to be more accountable and
have a wider reach, even in some of the worlds most fragile contexts.
Oxfam has experienced a shift over the past five years: from marketing the benefits of
ICT to country programmes and partners, to facing significant demand to apply ICT in
innovative ways. There is a need to offer professional support to introduce tools and
uphold responsible data principles as we streamline and strategically invest in tools and
partnerships to deliver our ambitions. In some areas, we dont want to be an early
adopter, but to learn from others. In other areas, Oxfams assets, leverage and networks
open opportunities to influence how ICT in development and humanitarian programming
is shaped. We even have opportunities to advocate for a more open and level playing
field in regulatory and operational environments.
By sharing this research, Oxfam hopes to be true to the values of openness and explore
collaboration opportunities as more and more stakeholders enter the ICT4D space. We
are keen to engage in dialogue through networks about the value different actors can
bring to the table to ensure we harness the benefits and mitigate the risks of the
information age.
The phenomenal response to this research, not least the 285 responses to the
questionnaire, demonstrates the enormous interest in ICT4D across the region and the
urgent need to have this conversation.
Amy ODonnell, ICT in Programme Lead, Oxfam GB
Aniruddha Brahmachari, Regional Programme Quality Lead, Oxfam Horn, East and
Central Africa
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Matt Haikin is an ICT4D practitioner, researcher and evaluator currently working at
Aptivate in the UK. His primary interest is the use of technology to help communities
participate in and control their own development.
Matt has undertaken development/research work for DFID and the government of Nigeria
(managing the YouWin! platform), conducted primary research into the impact of online
technology on participatory budgeting in Brazil (to be published in 2017), and led the
team that developed the World Banks Guide to Evaluating Digital Citizen Engagement.
He has a Masters degree in ICT for Development from the University of Manchester; he
blogs intermittently and can be contacted via www.matthaikin.com.
George Flatters is a freelance consultant specialising in user-centred approaches to

ICT4D and M&E. He is an Associate at the Open Data Institute and has recently
consulted for the Global Resilience Programme, the Government of Rwanda and Tostan.
Before going freelance, George spent four years leading the Programme Development
Team at Aptivate, a pioneering digital agency with a rights-based approach to technology
accessibility in development. From 2005 to 2011 he was a consultant and systems
developer at Itad, a leading M&E consultancy, working with DFID, UN agencies and the
EC, among others.
George is on the steering committee for the Bond Technology for Development group,
and regularly speaks at ICT4D and M&E conferences. He posts occasional blog entries
on his LinkedIn profile: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/georgeflatters
ABOUT ICT IN PROGRAMME AT OXFAM GB
From monitoring water points to delivering electronic vouchers, agronomic or community
health information via mobile phones and digitising paper surveys and registration
processes, Oxfam has been exploring how ICT can offer opportunities to amplify and
improve the effectiveness of our work. This can be in terms of the way we improve
systems for our field staff and the way we engage communities directly using tools readily
available to them.
A small team has been in place for more than five years to pull together learning and offer
support on the applications of ICT in campaigning, development and humanitarian
programmes. It is a unique setup that sits within Programme with the support of the
Oxfam Information Services team, and offers services to the Global Humanitarian Team.
The ICT in Programme teams purpose is to support the enabling role of ICT in improving
the quality and effectiveness of Oxfams work. It aims to learn from best practice to
replicate initiatives that work, learn from mistakes and benefit from cost efficiencies to
demonstrate value for money. We believe that ICT offer a huge cross-cutting opportunity
to amplify and improve the effectiveness of our work, to enhance the quality of Oxfams
programming and contribute to fundraising by demonstrating how to appropriately adopt
ICT.
Meanwhile, it is important to acknowledge that ICT is only an enabler; solutions will only
work when they are embedded into programmes and suit contextual needs. At Oxfam, we
are keen to ensure ICT are considered as a means to an end. We start with the problem,
not with the tool, recognise limitations and ensure methodologies consider ethical
applications that integrate ICT in an appropriate way. Effective methodology and
programme design are critical for success.
GLOSSARY
Agile A methodology for iterative software development
CSR Corporate social responsibility
CSO Civil society organisation
CTO Chief technology officer
DFID Department for International Development (UK)
HCD Human-centred design (see also UCD)
HECA Horn, East and Central Africa
ICT Information and communication technology (or technologies)
ICT4D ICT for (international) development
INGO International non-governmental organisation
IoT Internet of things
IP Intellectual property
IS Information systems
ITU (UN) International Telecommunication Union
IVR Interactive voice response
Lean Startup An iterative business and product development methodology
M4D Mobile for development
M&E Monitoring and evaluation
MNO Mobile network operator (also referred to as Telco)
NGO Non-government organisation
RPU Revenue per user
SME Small or medium-sized enterprise
SMS Short message service (text messages)
Start-up Small business, typically under two years old, with about 510
employees
TelCo Telecommunications company (see also MNO)
UCD User-centred design (see also HCD)
UX User experience
WASH Water, sanitation and health
1 INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Trends in international development point to increasing investment in new technologies
and a more significant role for information communication technologies (ICT) in the work
of NGOs. The World Banks latest World Development Report focused on digital
dividendsthe broader development benefits from using ICT. DFID are going digital-by-
default, UNICEF is using ICT to remain relevant in the 21st century, and over 60
percent of survey respondents in this study agreed that the development sector is going
digital.
Any device that will store, retrieve, manipulate, transmit or receive information can be
considered an ICT. This includes personal computers, television, radio, email and mobile
phones. They offer a huge cross-cutting opportunity to amplify and improve the
effectiveness of development work, to enhance the quality of programming and to
contribute to fundraising.
Oxfam is already harnessing ICT to enhance the quality, accessibility and efficiency of its
work: from monitoring water points, to delivering electronic vouchers through mobile
phones and digitising protection surveys. But there is more to be done.
Participants in the workshop convened for this research said that Oxfam cannot run
away from ICT4D, we live in an increasingly digital world. HECA in particular was called
a very techy region, with lots of energy and enthusiasm. While some suggested that
Oxfam is a step behind the curve, others see an opportunity to get ahead of the game
and champion local technology solutions.
This report outlines key themes that emerged from the research, with recommendations
on where Oxfam has opportunities to improve its capacity, work and reputation in ICT4D
across HECA.
RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY

An extensive literature review was carried out, covering internal Oxfam documents,
academic and industry reports, websites and expert blogs.
This literature review informed the key themes and questions for 36 semi-structured
interviews undertaken in March and April 2016 with a variety of stakeholders, including
Oxfam staff, ICT4D practitioners from other NGOs, funders, civil society activists and
technology experts.
Throughout the interviews, a number of key recommendations, success factors and

warnings emerged. Early analysis of these emerging themes aided the design of a face-
to-face workshop in Nairobi and an online survey, which received 284 responses from a
wide range of stakeholders.
The workshop was held in Nairobi on 7 April 2016, bringing together Oxfam staff working
on ICT-related initiatives in seven countries (Kenya, Uganda, Somalia, South Sudan,
DRC, Ethiopia, and Tanzania) with ICT4D practitioners and technology experts from
across the HECA region (other NGOs, donors and private sector providers including Intel
2
and Accenture), and representatives of intra-governmental bodies. The workshop
allowed the presentation and discussion of initial results from the interviews and survey to
fuel deeper discussion of the topics and provided an opportunity for ICT4D practitioners
from different sectors to network and share ideas. It also created a space in which Oxfam
field staff working with ICT could seek support from each other and a wider group of their
peers to discuss their challenges.
The online survey garnered responses from those working in local and international
NGOs, civil society organisations, academic and research institutions, government
bodies, funders and large technology companies, as well as individual tech entrepreneurs
in HECA and other regions. The survey questions were designed, in part, to test how
widespread agreement was for the early findings from the interviews and literature
review.
Through further investigation and analysis of the data gathered from the literature review,
interviews, workshop and surveys, a series of key learnings and opportunities were
identified, along with accompanying recommendations of particular relevance to Oxfam
and other large INGOs.
Limitations and constraints
This research was undertaken in a short time with a limited budget. This led to more of
the interviewees and workshop attendees being based in Kenya or the UK than would
have been ideal.
The wide dissemination of the online survey mitigates this somewhat, but it should be
borne in mind that all participants were either self-selected or chosen by convenience
sampling. The results are not based on a statistically significant representative group of
the region and do not necessarily reflect the views of practitioners from all HECA
countries or all types of organisations. Therefore, while there are useful lessons to be
learned from this study, care should be taken with interpretation.
The results are presented as-is, or with simple or narrative analysis. No deep analysis or
regression testing has been undertaken.
If any data analysts are interested in accessing the raw data to explore it further, please
contact Amy ODonnell from Oxfam (AODonnell@oxfam.org.uk) to discuss.
2 IMPROVING EFFECTIVE USE
OF ICT4D IN HECA
The key themes that emerged from the literature and interviews are presented in this
section, combined with the views gathered through the survey where relevant. The
researchers offer analysis and discussion.
Some of these findings are well-known and echo previous research or agreements (such
3
as the Principles for Digital Development). They are included as it seems that, despite
any agreement, they are still not being acted on, so are worth reiterating.
2.1 BUILD ON WHAT WORKS AND DONT RE-

INVENT THE WHEEL
A principle of buy not build has been in place at Oxfam for over four years, and ICT4D
recommendations focus on using existing tools. Among ICT4D actors more generally,
many projects (both commercial start-ups and grant-funded programmes), start by
deciding to build a new tool. It is unclear why this is the case, given the overwhelmingly
common view that it is rarely required.
A challenge in the [mobile for development (M4D)] space is the high incidence of
people seeing a problem, thinking no-one else has addressed it, and jumping in to
build their own solution.
(Raftree, 2012)
Working with older technologies, adapting existing tools, compromising on requirements

and collaborating on building solutions all emerged as viable ways to improve the
situation.
Established technology works best for engagement
Its a very basic ideaold stuff, known technology, not trying to be fancythats
what works in Africa.
Interview with Erik Hersman, BRCK (Kenya)4
Such older technologies arereassuringlyalso the most used (77 percent of survey
respondents report experience in using SMS text messaging in projects).
This does not seem to stop NGOs from exploring new technologies, however. Despite the
fact that typically only 2030 percent of citizens in most African countries have internet
access (ITU, 2015), 73 percent of ICT4D practitioners in the survey reported having used
web and mobile apps; 70 percent have used social media.
While this exploration is exciting and, in some cases, positive and effective, the research
suggests that, for many programmes, focusing on well-known and older technologies
may be more effective.
Building from scratch is duplicating effort
Only 26 percent of survey respondents thought that NGOs should build products. Despite
90 percent of survey respondents considering adapting or customising existing products
important, several interviewees reported that this has not happened even if it would have
been the more sensible option:
NGOs tend to do [requests for proposals] to build something, rather than scanning
for existing services and just using one this wastes millions of dollars. Is it
information overload, culture, funding cycles?
Interview with Fabrice Romeo, Echo Mobile (Kenya)
Often, tools already exist to do some or all of what is needed, and much of the sector is
weak at using or improving these solutions or seeking to extend existing technologies.
Organisations waste time and effort when they do not try to work together or do not try to
re-use what already exists.
That is not to say it is never appropriate to build something new, but a suitable analysis of
the available options should always be undertaken before making a decision to build yet
another tool from scratch. Unfortunately, according to some interviewees, poor decision
making around whether to buy, build or adapt technology is evidence of a shortage of key
skills across the sector.
Oxfam has already adopted a clear default policy of dont build, buy or adapt where
possible. Adopting this stance in a stronger and more public manner could influence
other NGOs to follow suit. More INGOs adopting and communicating such policies (with a
clear justification required before budget is spent on building new tools) would send a
clear message across the HECA region that could help to shift this balance.
Does your solution have to meet 100 percent of your perceived

requirements?
The survey results show that, despite strong support for using or adapting existing tools,
having a product that meets ones specific needs is of greater concern. Only 4 percent of
NGO and civil society respondents said that a product designed for your specific needs
was not important.
Figure 1: Survey responses on whether or not to build a new product
Source: Authors survey
While this may partially explain why so many are designing their own tools rather than
adapting what already exists, there was a widespread feeling among interviewees that
significant amounts of public and private money are being wasted building these new
toolsmany of which are rarely re-used.
As one survey respondent reflects:
When we buy a car, we dont design it from scratch, we see what exists and
choose the best match. People dont see ICT in this way, they often want their
bespoke model. How many people build their own survey tools, despite the wealth
of existing survey toolkits? The problem is people dont necessarily understand
how to specify what they really need, instead of what they want or think they need.
Designed to meet your needs does not mean built especially for you.
Building something yourself should be a last resort you may think what you are
doing is unique, but it is probably not. Resist the urge to invent a better wheel
every time you plan a projectexplore what else exists first, and challenge
yourself to make it work.
Alexander Nash, Chartered Engineer, Atkins Water and Environment (Survey response)
However, for re-use and adaptation to become the norm, it must be relatively quick,
cheap and simple to find out what exists and judge whether it is suitable for your needs.
Unfortunately, this is not currently the case, leading to some projects choosing
inappropriate tools.
Less than a quarter of the initiatives described the tool they had chosen as a
success... only 6 out of 20 in Kenya... many organisations lack the capacities and
resources to make strong tool selections.
(Edwards and McGee, 2016)
With 53 percent of respondents reporting a lack of ICT capacity among their

organisations staff as a challenge, it is not surprising that robust analysis and selection of
tools is difficult.
Given that only 33 percent of NGO respondents reported being unable to find products
suitable for customisation, it seems likely that the key issue is not the availability of these
starting points, but the desire, skills or budgets to do the adaptation and customisation
itself.
Collaborate, collaborate, collaborate
Some interviewees reported (anonymously) cases in which INGOs or international

organisations chose to spend large budgets on developing their own solutions, despite
similar tools existing within other large organisations.
This lack of collaboration appears to be endemic across the sector, not just in the
international bodies. However, some NGOs are collaborating to build tools together.
Learning how these efforts have been effective could create valuable models for others to
follow:
We have built our platform through a shared investment by several large INGOs.
These organizations had never considered working together before, but now they
share their ideas in regular conference calls and technical meetings. All of the
investors, large and small, get to enjoy the benefits of the components they build,
and they share them with their local partners as well.
John Feighery, Co-Founder, mWater (Survey response)
Box 1: Key lessons: Build on what works
Default should be to re-use existing tech rather than build from scratch.
Need to challenge mindsets about requiring tools that meet every specific need.
Look for potential collaboration opportunities when developing technology.
Old and well-established technologies can be as useful as new innovations.
2.2 THINK LOCAL TO ENGAGE USERS AND

DEVELOP LOCAL CAPACITY
Oxfam already has a focus on in-country ownership rather than parachuted solutions
approach (Oxfam, 2014), but there are some strong views that this could be extended
further.
Countries in the developing world have largely been on the receiving end of most
content and lacking in the tools and infrastructure to support local content
generation [this] has slowly started to change, driven by increasing mobile
penetration, access to the internet and social networks.
(GSMA, 2013b)
These ideas resonated with practitioners in interviews and the surveytailoring content
for audiences is an important way to engage local users, and local creation of content
and tools can be a way to support local civil society and local economies.
Locally relevant content is more engaging and trusted
The literature suggests that people are more likely to try new ways of doing things when
the messages they receive are explicitly relevant to them and delivered by a trusted
messenger. Digital Green, for example, discussed their digital platform for sharing locally
created agricultural extension content. Combining this with human-mediated
dissemination, they have found, leads to seven times the uptake of new practices
compared with traditional extension work (Gandhi et al 2009).
A number of interviewees stressed that locally relevant and produced content is critical:
To give the best chance of success, the programme content has to be more
localised.
Interview with Alvaro Valverde, Private Sector Adviser (ICT), Oxfam GB
With this in mind, for ICT to improve programmes impact, it is vital to consider what
content works best, and how best to create or source local content. Thinking local may be
important for achieving impact.
Supporting local production of content and technology can develop

local capacity
This research shows strong backing for INGOs to actively support local enterprises. Over
50 percent of survey respondents agreed that content provided through ICT should be
locally produced (up to 67 percent among civil society respondents).
Figure 2: Content provided through ICT should be locally produced survey
responses
There is even stronger support when it comes to the creation of technology itself: 82
percent of NGO respondents and 94 percent of civil society respondents agreed that
NGOs should seek to work with local technology start-ups. There was also widespread
support for working with local suppliers in general (85 percent rated this as somewhat or
very important).
Figure 3: NGOs should partner with local technology start-ups survey responses
However, this seems to happen less often than such strong support would suggest.
The reasons for this are unclear. Inevitably, organisational procurement rules and tight
project timelines and budgets will play a role, but interestingly, the desire to have the
right partners involved early is seen as even more important than working with local
organisations (77 percent rated this as very important). Existing and established global
partnerships are typically much quicker to transfer to a new programme or region, which
could explain the disparity.
Figure 4: Survey responses on whether to work with local suppliers or have
partners on board early
Oxfam has well-established policies on interacting with local economies, so as not to

destabilise them when humanitarian assistance is being provided.
There is evidence that Oxfam programmes are designed sensitively and innovatively
around how to re-use content in contexts outside those in which it was created. There is
therefore a clear opportunity for Oxfam and other NGOs to build on this culture and
facilitate more local content creation and dissemination in their programmes,
remembering that supporting and developing the local economy can be a useful way to
promote wider socioeconomic development.
Revisiting who creates or deploys the content and technology used in development
programmes would help. While there is a clear need to have scalable and reliable
technology solutions, this does not have to mean excluding local suppliers. The example
of initiatives such as Digital Green also show that there are more creative ways to include
local actors while still improving outcomes.
Box 2: Key lessons: Think local to engage users and develop local capacity
When designing programmes, consider how to make messages explicitly

relevant to the receiver and delivered by a trusted (local) messenger.
As a check in design processes, constantly ask: what content works, who
creates it and who supplies the technology to deliver it?
Do not lose sight of the local context or the individual users perspectives.
Support local enterprises and provide frameworks to enable the creation and re-
use of local content and technology.
2.3 DESIGN ITERATIVE PROGRAMMES INVOLVING
REAL END-USERS
Despite the widely shared belief that iterative and user-centred approaches are the most
suitable when deploying technology for the complex environments found in most
development programmes, challenges remain, and such methodologies remain the
exception rather than the norm.
Involve users and work iteratively
The academic literature strongly suggests that iterative and adaptive approaches are
better suited to the complex problems ICT4D seeks to tackle, and that involving end-
users in design is likely to lead to more appropriate solutions. These ideas are reflected in
the Digital Development Principles adopted by much of the development sector. More
commercially sensitive M4D players are equally strong supporters of these approaches:
Business offering mobile-enabled services must design and modify around the
end-user user-centric innovation... iterative design-and-modify processes use
first, keep learning and improving [because] user-centred design (UCD) can
expose critical flaws early on.
(GSMA, 2013b)
The online survey also overwhelmingly supports this viewwith 85 percent believing
iterative/adaptive approaches are somewhat or very important (94 percent for
understanding the needs of the end-users and 93 percent for end-users should be
involved in product and project design). A surprising 78 percent even agree that end-
users should participate at every stage of product or programme development.
Figure 5: Survey responses on the importance of iterative approaches and

involving end-users
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Iterative approach (e.g. agile, Understanding the needs of the Involving end-users in designing a
lean) end-users product/program
Not important Somewhat important Very important No Opinion
One interview reflects that the critical issues are always user-related and rarely to do with
the technology itself:
Technology is not the main challenge. The challenge is always related to 2 points:
trust and incentive.
Interview with Stephane Boyera, SBC4D
The evidence seems clear, and there is consensus from all sectors: where practical,
taking an iterative and user-centred approach to developing technology produces better
results, especially in complex domains such as international development.
Focus on users or risk poor uptake of your technology
Unfortunately, there is much evidence that, despite overwhelming agreement, many

technology projects in the development sector are not adopting user-centred approaches:
Tools are chosen with only limited testing of their appropriateness for the intended
users in the intended contexts lack of success [due to] failure to sufficiently
understand the users neither user research nor trialling were well-represented.
(Edwards and McGee, 2016)
Design of the tools does not involve citizens for whom the tools are intended
[which] hinders a comprehensive capturing of the pressing needs of citizens little
indication from organisations running the tools that citizen opinions on priorities
informed the establishment of tools more successful implementation would be
achieved if citizens were involved in the design process.
(iHub Research, 2014a)
Many interviewees supported the suggestions in the literature that, outside of start-ups,
iterative approaches such as Agile and Lean are rarely used, and, in some cases, there is
a lack of awareness of their existence.
Poor uptake of technologies is one of the most widely discussed failures in ICT4Dfor
example, of the numerous systems designed to gather citizen feedback on service
delivery or corruption, many remain relatively unused and/or virtually unpopulated of data.
Insufficient understanding of target users is a widely accepted common reason for such
poor uptake.
When asked about this, interviewees had some interesting thoughts on why this might be
the case:
Development professionals may have poor understanding of who is their customer?
A lack of focus on incentives: whats in it for them?
A general sense that the development sector doesnt take audience analysis and user
discovery seriously, especially when compared with the private sector.
The reported lack of understanding of the target population is an inevitable consequence

of the rarity of user-centred approaches. Ironically, this lack of understanding would
become apparent much earlier if these programmes used iterative approaches, saving
time and money, and addressing such problems before the product is launched and the
budget spent.
Addressing structural barriers to iterative and user-centred
approaches
Perhaps one of the most interesting questions raised in this research is why, despite such
strong and cross-sector support for user-centred approaches and iterative
methodologies, they remain so rare in development organisations.
While there was little consensus, two possible explanations emerged:
A skills and capacity gap of sector professionals
A capacity gap across the sector may be partially to blame76 percent of survey
respondents agreed that development professionals should understand more about
iterative and user-centred approaches.
However, 28 percent of survey respondents actually reported being unable to adopt

iterative approaches, and 42 percent unable to do sufficient work with end-users,
suggesting that the underlying reasons are less to do with a lack of ability, and instead
relate more to external inhibiting factors.
Structural issues related to funding and a lack of support from funders and donors
Other factors discussed included: shortage of time, short-term funding models, fixed
deliverables and a lack of support from funders and donors for the longer time periods
(and sometimes increased cost) involved in undertaking robust design work with real end-
users. Reportedly, there is a reluctance to offer contracts that allow for iterative
approaches that adapt to suit real-world circumstances as they develop.
Need should be identified by the community, the initiative should be owned by the
community and co-created with end-users... iterative design and getting prototypes
in front of users... can be a challenge within typical development cycles of planning
and funding.
(Raftree, 2012)
Despite this perception among practitioners, it may be seen as ironic (and illustrative of
the institutional constraints under which people work) that almost all donor employees
interviewed or surveyed agreed that these ways of working are better: 100 percent
agreed that understanding the needs of end-users is a success factor; 70 percent agreed
that iterative approaches are similarly important; and 80 percent agreed that end-users
should be involved in the design of a product or programme. This is from a sample of ten
so, while it cannot be taken to represent a wider group of funders, it is nonetheless
interesting, as is the fact that of the five government respondents, all agreed with all three
statements.
Iterative methodologies such as Agile and Lean are now mainstream in the private
5
technology sector (and virtually compulsory in the UKs Government Digital Service), as
are user-centred approaches. In the development sector, similar ideas framed around
Adaptive Development are gaining traction with many, including some funders (Valters et
al., 2016). However, none of this is new. As one participant reflects:
Unfortunately, in the ICT4D sector, weve heard the same lessons learned
repeated again and again over the last 15 years: organisations coming to
conferences and saying that you must find out what language your audience
speaks, find out whether or not they can afford to access mobiles, find out whether,
culturally, access is allowed basic issues around understanding your audience
and their technology patterns and needs. These arent lessons, these are
common sense approachesand the fact they are still being re-stated shows that
we have not succeeded in bridging the gap between the people who are learning
and the people who are designing ICT4D projects.
Interview with Carol Morgan, HIVOS
So the question remains: why are these methodologies not the default choice in ICT4D?
Of course, not all programmes should use these approaches. One participant, working in
a humanitarian context told us that, in an emergency, they need something to deploy
immediately and have no time for iteration or user-centric design work. But for the
majority of development programmes, no such constraints exist and adopting best
practices would make sense, improve uptake, save money and improve results.
While training for those working in ICT4D would undoubtedly help, advocacy (and
training) aimed at funders and donors are also needed. So too is a more thorough
understanding of the structural barriers to adoption, intentional or otherwise. Further
research into these factors would also be extremely valuable.
Box 3: Key lessons: Design iterative programmes involving real end-users
Iterative, learning approaches are usually best.

Learn about your users and put them at the centre of your development
programme design.
If you dont know how to develop in an iterative and user-centred way, learn!
If you do, influence donors and others to do the same.
2.4 UNDERSTANDING WHAT SCALE MEANS

Scaling is hard. The results of the survey suggest that not everyone agrees, and that the
real difficulty is not scaling, but the move from pilot to scale, and achieving sustainability
at scale. Also, respondents suggested that some projects are unfairly perceived as
scaling failures, because as this was never a realistic or appropriate aim for them. These
are subtler problems, and the lack of a shared understanding or even a shared
terminology across the sector seems to be holding back the dissemination of valuable
lessons.
Oxfam has already identified this pivotal move from pilot to scale as an area it is keen to
improve, and many others report similar concerns:
Progress on using ICT4D to increase efficiency of our work is strong, however the
main weakness to date has been in moving from pilot to scale... few examples of
where we have worked with others to scale ICT4D and too many projects have not
transformed beyond the pilot stage.
(Oxfam, 2014)
Scaling is hard or is it?
There is a common perception in the ICT4D/M4D sector that scaling is rarely successful:
Efforts to scale M4D initiatives and make them sustainable have largely failed...
few examples of M4D at scale exist.
(Raftree, 2013)
Scaling up [M4D] services still proves to be a challenge and sustainable business
models continue to be elusive.
(GSMA, 2013b)
The research highlighted a gap between the survey response and the received wisdom in
the literature regarding successful scaling. Over half of respondents reported having
successfully scaled a pilot or small project.
Figure 6: Have you ever sought to scale a pilot project or small product? survey
responses
While for some, scale itself is problematic, many discussed more explicit concernsin
particular the shift from pilot to scale, and sustainability at scale. The findings below
describe the different views of how hard scaling is and offer some ideas for how to
improve the situation.
Different perspectives on the meaning of 'scale' make learning and

sharing lessons difficult
Among the participants in this study, there was confusion about the meaning(s) of 'scale'
and how to achieve it. A number of challenges were identified around funding models, the
perceived over-use of pilots, and how (or whether) to transition from pilot to scale.
For some interviewees (especially those from the private sector) successful scaling is
seen as reaching millions of people in multiple countries. To many others, successful
scaling is seen as any substantial increase in usage (from 100 to 1,000 people or from
one to five countries).
Understanding factors behind success and failure is further complicated by many not
appreciating the differences between different notions of scale (e.g. scale vs replication,
horizontal scaling-out vs vertical scaling-up), which can distinguish between growing the
size of a single programme and creating multiple versions of the same programme.
There was also confusion between scale, success and sustainability. In literature and in
discussions these concepts are also regularly, and unhelpfully, conflated.
Sustainability is not the same as success.
(Heeks, 2005)
Arguably, a more useful focus would be on creating impact at scale or maintaining

scale. Indeed, a shared taxonomy of related concepts would be a valuable first step to
enabling different types and sizes of organisations to share lessons on scaling. This could
help them design for the type of scale, success or sustainability that matches their
context and goals.
Do unrealistic expectations mean pilots are setup to fail?
A common charge levelled at ICT4D is that 'pilot-itis' prevails. This means that many
projects fail to scale and are perceived as donor-funded projects that dont last beyond a
project time-frame. The literature supports this, suggesting that the majority of
ICT4D/M4D work, while sometimes successful at local level, fails to achieve significant
scale.
Many start-ups get stuck at a stage where they cannot grow users beyond a small
scale primarily due to building a product without establishing whether there is a
sufficient market.
(Jung and Feferman, 2014)
While the confusion over terms outlined above may play a role, the unrealistic
expectations of start-ups and small teams also emerged as important.
A lot of ICT4D work is taken on by small technology start-upstypically involving no

more than three people. Expecting organisations like this to scale without significant time
and support is optimistic, even nave. In some cases, the organisations responsible for
successful small-scale pilots may simply not have the resources required and be
incapable of taking them to scale:
Organisations that pilot innovations may not be good at scaling up or at running

large scale programs readiness to hand off to institutions that are able to
manage the scaling-up process is key.
(Hartman and Linn, 2008)
Customer discovery is different to a small project or initial rollout
There were differences in participants understandings of what constitutes a pilot, as

6
described below:
Small-scale projectsmany projects are not meant to scale. A project which is
designed small and stays small is not a failed pilot, it is a valid outcome. It is only a
failure if it intends to grow and fails to do so.
Initial rolloutrather than launching a product globally, it might be trialled for three
months in one county to iron out bugs and help define a scalable rollout plan.
Alphapart of a Lean/Agile approach to product development, where an early-stage
prototype is used by real end-users, to discover whether there is a market, test the
functionality and, over time, evolve into something that meets a need.
While the last of these is an increasingly common way to develop for ICT4D (and an
industry standard in the wider technology sector), the funding, support and evaluation of
success is based on the former two types of initiative. That is, projects are being
launched which are (or should be) about customer discovery, research and learning, but
are being judged as if they are the first stage of a global rollout.
Designing for scale vs. iterative growth
For some, especially in large organisations, scale is not a problem:
Because of our size, we are always working at scale.

Interview with Geoffrey Okao, World Food Programme
Scaling from the beginning is easythe tricky bit is maintaining scale.

With enough money, you can scale anything, but that doesnt mean it will be
sustained.
Interview with Sean Blaschke, UNICEF
These organisations have the teams and/or budgets to design for scale from the
beginning, thus avoiding the problems associated with moving from pilot to scale.
However, there are mixed opinions over whether it is important to plan or design for
scale from the start. Some believe this is critical:
If you don't plan for scale at the beginning, you'll never get there.
Others believe that it is sometimes more important to start small and build from there
based on user need:
The principle of designing for scale is a worthwhile one, but at DFID we prefer the
concept of designing so that it could be scaled up. Designing for scale from the
outset is sometimes appropriate and other times not. We advocate an adaptive
approach, where priorities can be revised flexibly based on the user need. Users
should be at the heart of everything we do, and designing for scale could imply we
know everything from the outset and potentially limits flexibility.
Interview with Joseph Pakenham, DFID
This tension is borne out in the survey responses too: while 86 percent said that planning
for scale from the start is important, a similar number attest to the importance of iterative
and user-centric approaches, without (it seems) noticing the potential contradiction
between these two goals.
While it is not possible to say whether designing for scale or growing iteratively is better, it
is important to understand the differences in these approaches (in terms of programme
design, funding, and technology) and to decide early on which is a better match for the
specific organisation and context for which the technology is being designed. Helping
start-ups and NGOs understand these differences and the distinct needs of each
approach would be valuable.
What should scale: the project, the technology or neither?
The question of whether a project or programme itself should scale also emerged.
Many programmes are not meant to scale, but this does not imply that in a
different scenario the underlying technology doesnt have such capacity.
Interview with Sean Blaschke, UNICEF
Are you building a business or a product?

Private-sector interviewee, Nairobi (anonymous by request)
Both of these quotes point to the fact that projects are not necessarily the same as
scalable products or platforms. In some situations, the project itself should scale, in
others the platform could be re-used but not the project model, and in the remaining
cases, neither may be appropriate.
Scaling technology often has an underlying goal: to introduce new ways of working to a
huge population. This is clearly an enormous (and often unidentified) challenge.
We amplify products far too quicklygo for scale too early and get stuck with
100,000 users and never break through itwe pump too much money and
expectation into the successes and innovation achieved by small, local
organisations too quickly, and they get overloaded and then we lose it all because
we overwhelm them Products need to be well worked-through before putting
them on big platforms.
Interview with Allan Moolman, Oxfam Tanzania
Iterative funding that explicitly targets scaling stages

In the development sector, despite widespread acknowledgement that scaling is both
important and difficult, funding explicitly tailored around this stage of programmes and its
specific challenges are rare:
[there is] little systematic focus on scaling up among the donors.

(Hartman and Linn, 2008)
Innovative vehicles are needed for investing in M4D... Development funds do not
move as quickly as technology-based funds [and have] low tolerance for
uncertainty.
(Raftree, 2012)
This hole in the middle [of the funding cycle from idea to scale] is a drag on
progress and a barrier to scale... funders must think of two kinds of success here,
one (more traditional) model in which funding enables some specific sustainable
impact, and another (less traditional) model in which funding enables the discovery
of services that achieve a less pre-determined kind of impact, and are also
thoroughly designed around end-users. Crucially the latter discovery kinds of
successes feed the former scaled kinds of successes. We believe there to be a
general lack of funding and support currently provided for discovering user-centric
viable services.
(GSMA, 2013b)
Making All Voices Count is one funder that offers funds explicitly for scaling, in the field of
citizen participation, but few others do. Some 48 percent of survey respondents believe
that more funding for scaling should exist.
Perhaps development funders could learn from the models used by commercial and
social venture capital investors, in which it is common to have different funding, with
distinct structures, for early-stage businesses, high-growth phases and scaling phases:
There are different financial tools for funding pre-commercial phases of an

innovative approachi.e. (a) technical proof of concept; then (b) operational proof
of concept; then (c) commercial proof of concept; and finally (d) scaling-up proof of
concept for reaching breakeven volumes.
Ueli Scheuermeier, Director, Rural African Ventures Investment, Tanzania (Survey response)
A universally agreed set of concepts such as these would enable innovation-specific and
scaling-specific support for ICT4D to be targeted more effectively and appropriately.
NGOs need to consider the most appropriate stage at which they get involved, for
example:
Ideally wed take on tech once its functionality has already been tested and we
are convinced by its ability to deliver... The pilot should focus on the design and
how it is taken up in context, not whether the tech itself works, we should know that
by the time we take it on.
Interview with Amy ODonnell, Lead of ICT in Programme, Oxfam GB
While innovation funding is common, there is room for more innovative models that are
designed to explicitly encourage Agile and Lean approaches, including user-focused
discovery, user-centred design, and learning by experimentation.
Box 4: Key lessons: Understand what scaling means
Develop a shared understanding of concepts such as scale, success,

sustainability.
The real challenge is sustainability at scale, not just increasing in size or reach.
Differentiate between scalable-pilots and small projects in their own right.
Technology might scale even if the programme for which it is designed does not.
Know when to design for scale from day one, and when to grow iteratively and
naturally.
Support and advocate for funding explicitly designed to support scaling phases.
Some tips on successfully scaling pilots can be found in Appendix C.
2.5 AVOID SURVEY FATIGUE BY COLLABORATING

ON M&E
Several interviewees mentioned survey fatigue in different contexts. In part due to the
increasing use of technology, surveys are now easier and cheaper to undertake, so more
organisations and programmes use them. The same community might be surveyed by
multiple NGOs and donors in one year.
We are seeing major survey fatigue in regions where there are a lot of
development projects.
Survey response from Mark Leclair, Farm Radio International
People are reaching saturation points in some countrieswe risk exhausting the
population and it wont work for anyone in future.
Interview with Claudia Lopes, Head of Research, Africas Voices
Table 1: Survey and NGO activity in top five countries in sub-Saharan Africa by
development assistance received
2014 NGO Orgs Donors National National Change

Development projects present 2006 surveys surveys
Assistance* 2006 2006 16 1995 2006
16 16 2005*** 16***
(active (active
now)** (active now)**
now)**
Ethiopia $3.6bn 585 (98) 59 (27) 136 59 53 -10%
(43)
Kenya $2.7bn 755 66 (39) 139 19 36 +89%
(129) (62)
Tanzania $2.6bn 254 (70) 43 (28) 74 (34) 27 56 +107%
Nigeria $2.5bn 251 (39) 27 (13) 63 (17) 18 39 +117%
DRC $2.4bn 342 (86) 38 (25) 82 (35) 3 17 +467%
Sources: (*) World Bank, 2016; (**) InterActions NGO Aid Map, www.ngoaidmap.org; (***) International
Household Survey Network, www.surveynetwork.org
Table 1 illustrates the high level of NGO activity in some HECA countries (and Nigeria),
and the substantial increase in the number of national household surveys. The full picture
will be more complex: no data was available on how many of the NGO projects
conducted survey activities of their own. It is safe to assume that each project will
undertake some kind of data collection, and that each donor will require data about
resultsthereby increasing the burden on communities.
Ease and low cost may lead to over-use, which may result in low-
quality responses
The ease and low cost of surveying means that the situation may deteriorate further due
to the uninformed nature of some of these surveys, and often by a lack of feedback to
those being surveyed:
Because it is cheap, easy and accessible, and reaches a large number of people
very quickly, many more organisations are now doing SMS surveys. But many do
this without previous testing, without providing enough context, or with badly
designed questions. They end up reporting nonsense results or misleading
percentages. This creates a bad reputation for everyone.
Interview with Claudia Lopes, Head of Research, Africas Voices
Survey fatigue may lead to people, quite rightly, complaining, dropping out, refusing to
answer surveys or, where they have toe.g. to receive the services or benefits of the
programmeanswering as quickly as they can, giving data of dubious value. The quality
of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data and the lessons that can be drawn from it will
suffer.
Insufficient cataloguing of survey data: who did what where?
With the technology-enabled proliferation of surveys, it is surprising that it can still be

difficult to establish what has already been done with a given population in terms of data
collection, which risks exacerbating the situation further:
When we needed information about wells in a certain area, it was impossible to
find out if such data had been collected previously by other NGOs or by the
municipality itself. Data was not catalogued nor easily accessible by others.
Survey response from Marta Domini, PhD student, CeTAmb Lab, University of Brescia
There are resources available that could, with increased uptake, go some way to
alleviating this problem, but there are gaps. The International Household Survey
7
Network catalogues national surveys undertaken by donors and governments. One of
8
their stated goals is to improve collaboration and sharing of data. NGO Aid Map provides
a database of NGO projects and donor activity by country. The significant gap is that the
survey activities conducted by NGOs and projects are not catalogued.
Oxfam are already exploring an approach to cross-organisation communication and

sharing of information which would be easy to implement and might begin to fill this gap:
This is in progress with the creation of a survey bank to include previous approved
questionnaires (questions only, not answers) for programme staff to browse and
borrow from to avoid starting from scratch. The survey bank will be a storage point
for standard survey templates available for teams to edit and use as needed. Not
only will this save valuable time, it will also facilitate best practice survey design
and make a start towards standardising our common indicators which could lead to
some level of global reporting. More on this can be found at http://policy-
practice.oxfam.org.uk/blog/2016/09/mobile-surveys-the-past-the-present-the-future
Survey response by Amy ODonnell, Lead of ICT in Programme, Oxfam GB
Sharing data responsibly
Beyond the idea of a catalogue of surveys is the idea that data could be shared between
organisations, thereby reducing the number of overlapping surveys.
There are so many donors, NGOs and government departments creating their own
separate databases on the same people. There is a lot we could explore to find
areas where we can join up or even share the same data.
Interview with Joseph Pakenham, DFID
Communities are there continually, yet we do M&E at an artificial project level.

Why arent we working with communities outside of the context of individual
projects?
Interview with Fabrice Romeo, Echo Mobile
It may be comparatively simple for large NGOs such as Oxfam to leverage ICT to make
M&E a cross-cutting activity that happens above the level of individual projects and
programmes internally. It would be more challenging to make M&E an activity that cuts
across entirely separate organisations.
I observed a great need for a platform sharing data between institutions and NGOs
working in the same area.
Survey response by Marta Domini, PhD student, CeTAmb Lab, University of Brescia
I can see projects and larger government programs combining M&E efforts to
lessen this impact. ICT could play a major role in soliciting feedback from citizens
on large scale through mass media, [interactive voice response] etc.
Survey response by Mark Leclair, Farm Radio International
This approach seems to have support or may even be inevitable. Some 76 percent of
survey respondents agreed with the statement In the future M&E will become a
continuous ongoing process, outside of the boundaries of projects or organisations.
In order to approach this, organisations will need to consider how this could be done
responsibly, with the upmost care for the rights of the people whose data has been
collected. Oxfam is among the first NGOs to develop a policy on the responsible use of
data. The policy is based on the following rights:
the right to be counted and heard;
the right to dignity and respect;
the right to make an informed decision;
the right to privacy; and
the right to not be put at risk.
9
The Responsible Data Forum describe this as:
The duty to ensure people's rights to consent, privacy, security and ownership
around the information processes of collection, analysis, storage, presentation and
re-use, while also respecting the values of transparency and openness.
The definition of responsible data offered above alludes to the tensions between the
equally laudable principles of data privacy and data openness. Add to this the practical
difficulties of gaining consent (e.g. is it reasonable to assume one can get informed
consent from a semi-literate smallholder farmer to share her data with a network of
NGOs?) and transference of the data between different organisations systems, and one
has a heady mix of countervailing issues that will require determined effort and leadership
to address.
Collaborations among NGOs
To take these ideas further will require a concerted effort from the senior management of
organisations, combined with the support of those who understand the legal, technical,
process-based and cultural challenges to make it happen. Despite these challenges, it
can be done. Indeed, collaborations are happening already:
Water Aid have initiated this in the WASH [water, sanitation and health] sector
bringing together CEOs of three major technology providers at World Water Week
to start hammering out interoperability between their systems to allow the free flow
of data. The hope is that this will help in tackling the data silos for more informed
decision making across the sector, reducing the need for duplicating surveys.
Interview with Mike Smith, Water Aid
Our partnership with CARE and World Vision [Everyone Counts] offers a
compelling example of collaborative M&E. It looks at harmonising how teams
collect field level data from community scorecards, aiming to create a shared data
source to inform joint advocacy, planning and evaluations based on citizen-
generated data. We are also piloting harmonised M&E with the South African
government, bringing together data across multiple departments at different levels.
Interview with Rob Worthington, Kwantu
Community-owned M&E data collection?
Considering the issues of survey fatigue, privacy and collaboration raised in this section,
along with the principles of user-centred design outlined earlier in the report, one must
consider: what would user-centred M&E look like?
Communities are there continually, yet involved in M&E as a one-way

conversation. Two-way loops should be emphasised by feeding back the
information collected throughout the M&E process to beneficiaries, so they can
appreciate that their individual contribution has been taken into consideration and
what is the action plan after the M&E findings.
Interview with Fabrice Romeo, Echo Mobile
If development professionals truly wish to empower the people they work with,
communities themselves (not just NGO staff) must be considered a primary user of M&E,
and make the latters needs central to the design of M&E tools and processes. This may
look very different to the status quo: making M&E an ongoing community-level activity,
outside individual projects or even organisations.
Box 5: Key lessons: avoid survey fatigue by collaborating on M&E
Seek opportunities to combine M&E across different projects and programmes

within the same organisation.
Seek opportunities to collaborate externally on M&E activities.
Technology can help to make M&E an ongoing community-level activity, outside
the context of individual projects or organisations.
2.6 OPEN DEVELOPMENT CAN CREATE

OPPORTUNITIES AND REDUCE WASTE
The research uncovered widespread confusion and disagreement over the need for
openness in ICT4D (open source, open standards, open data, open development),
leading to missed opportunities to share resources, reduce costs and improve results.
A confused landscape with common misunderstandings
While most of the ICT4D practitioners surveyed support using and developing open
source products, most also believe owning IP is important (see Figure 7). This appears
contradictory and, judging from discussions in the workshop, reflects wider confusion
over the implications of such choices.
Figure 7: Survey responses on open source vs. proprietary products
During the Kenya workshop, it was also apparent that people from different sectors had
different views on the pros and cons of topics like open source and open standards, and
10
also had different ideas of what the core terms actually meant. Some of the concepts
were either badly understood, had multiple competing views of their meaning, or were
being used with differing assumptions.
This not only means some practitioners are not able to make the most suitable choice of
technology for their situation, but makes it difficult to share lessons learned across
different organisations and sectors.
Opening standards to exchange data
While some tools make it easy to migrate data to another tool, or to share data with other
systems, many do not. Some interviewees reported feeling locked in (particularly on
certain commercial cloud-hosted platforms) or that moving to new systems was time-
consuming and expensive. Our survey showed considerable support for open standards,
as in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Survey responses on the use of open standards

However, this does not seem to be translating into commercial demands from NGO
customers to technology vendors. Unless the customersespecially higher-spending
large NGOs and donorsinsist that the solutions they buy support open standards, there
is no reason for software vendors to follow these standards or build functionality to allow
easy sharing or migration of data between systems.
Although data standards for WASH and identification are gaining traction, for many
aspects of ICT4D, the standards themselves do not yet even exist.
Inter-operable systems are important
Without agreed and adopted standards, opportunities for collaboration could be missed,
along with opportunities to share data between different projects, organisations and
sectors. Opportunities to combine data for research and learning, or simply to migrate to
more appropriate platforms based on an assessment of users needs may also be
missed.
Large NGOs such as Oxfam are in a key position to be able to draw together consortia of
usersNGOs, governments and civil society organisations (CSOs)and developers to
insist these discussions around open standards happen and enable the systems they are
all using to talk to each other. These discussions are already taking place (in fora like
Nethope, ELAN, MERL Tech etc.), and NGOs could play a valuable role if they were
more involved.
Box 6: Key lessons: open development can create opportunities and reduce
waste
There is confusion and disagreement over the need for openness in ICT4D,
which requires further conversation to settle.
Open standards are not translating into commercial demands and, in many
cases, the standards themselves do not even yet exist.
Large NGOs could engage in networks and draw together consortia of users and
developers to insist discussions around open standards happen.
2.7 UNDERSTAND ORGANISATIONS DIFFERING

ROLES AND GOALS
For long-term success in many development initiatives, the local private sector and large
corporate players have important and different roles to play. A more nuanced
understanding of how INGOs can work with these stakeholders is needed.
Confusion over the meaning of 'private sector'farmers and traders

are not just 'beneficiaries'
In the workshop and other discussions, there was a lot of debate on the role of the
private sector, but very little shared understanding of what this term meant. In some
contexts, the private sector was taken to mean major corporatesmultinationals and
mobile network operators (MNOs or Telcos), while in other contexts it was taken to mean
local SMEs.
Of more concern, the two very different groups are often conflated. Some would refer to
the need to support economic development by building the countrys private sector,
when in reality their work involved partnerships with large multinationals headquartered
overseas.
One interviewee explicitly made the connection between development or aid and
supporting the local private sectorhelpfully identified as commercial actorsfarmers
and traders themselves. Anecdotally, farmers are sometimes treated as beneficiaries by
NGOs rather than private sector actors, which may be inappropriate in certain contexts.
As more development funding is being channelled towards private-sector and market-

based programmes, it will be essential to develop a fuller understanding of different
private sector actors, the roles they may take on, and the different roles NGOs need to
play when partnering with them.
What can NGOs get from helping private sector access new markets?
The money's got to come from somewhere.... MNOs are not doing this for
corporate social responsibility, they are doing it for the market they are going to get
now or the market they are going to get in the future because of these ICT4D
interventions...
There is evidence of NGOs harnessing this dynamic to further developmental goals.
One programme asked MNOs to submit bids for offering nutrition messaging services
with a clear plan for sustainability. In this way, the programme outsourced the
responsibility for coming up with the sustainability model to the private sector and
accepted that MNOs can offer entertainment and other revenue generating content
alongside nutrition messaging. It included a financial incentive from the donor for the
private sector actors.
One NGO identified an MNO new to the market that was keen to build a customer base in
rural Tanzania, outside the crowded urban markets. In exchange for the NGO facilitating
access to people in rural areas who wanted access to agricultural extension video
content, the MNO offers discounted smartphone handsetsproducts that farmers want
and which will be crucial to delivering the NGOs content.
Another NGO mentioned how, in place of traditional ICT4D models in which the
government or end users pay for services, they have developed a partnership with MNOs
across Africa in which the MNO pays. They do this by bringing local content to the MNOs
with wide appeal to their subscriber base, and track increases in revenue per user (RPU),
gateway (adoption of other paid services) and increased customer loyalty among their
user base. These kind of mutually beneficial partnerships are likely to be more
sustainable in the long term than relying on MNOs goodwill.
Working with MNOs is essential, as they will play a significant role in improving Africa's
connectivity and access to technology. For NGOs, it may therefore be a matter of
reaching an accommodation with this fact and learning to work with and influence
companies for the most positive developmental impacts.
NGOs' duty of care when collaborating with the private sector
Over 80 percent of survey respondents thought working with the private sector was
important (see Figure 9).
Figure 9: Survey responses on working with the private sector
However, feelings about accepting support from the private sector in exchange for access
to people were much more mixed, as can be seen in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Survey responses on exchanging access for services
While there is no denying the duty of care that NGOs have for the people with whom they
are working, one respondent questioned the premise of the question: do you own access
rights to your beneficiaries now?
Oxfam has done innovative work in figuring out ways to work with the private sector for
mutual advantagewith cash transfer partnerships and nutrition messaging. It has also
taken a leading role in building consensus on responsible data policiesone of the key
areas of concern when working with companies.
It will become increasingly important for NGOs to navigate this tension between
representing the needs of their stakeholders and developing mutually beneficial
relationships with MNOs and other private sector partners.
Box 7: Key lessons: long-term success needs better partnerships and new
business models
Develop more mutual understanding around types of private sector actors.

Working with the private sector is essential as it will play the dominant role in
improving Africa's connectivity and access to technology.
Ensure duty of care in working with private sector for mutual advantage with a
view to developing a set of policies around private sector engagement.
2.8 DONT FORGET ABOUT CONNECTIVITY

Initiatives to promote basic connectivity and access to the Internet are not new or
innovative, and some of the literature suggests that it is no longer a problem. This is not
the case.
Connectivity in HECA remains a barrier to participation and will be so

in to the future
Access to ICT and the Internet will remain a major development problem for the
foreseeable future.
McKinsey reported in 2014 that 4.4 billion people remained digitally disconnected
(McKinsey, 2014). Statistics from the UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
suggest that only 21 percent of citizens across Africa use the Internet (ITU, 2015). In
some HECA countries it is even lower (e.g. in South Sudan, 15.9 percent). This is
perhaps summed up best in the World Banks Development Report on Digital Dividends
(2016):
Nearly 60% of the worlds people are still offline only 31% of the population in
developing countries had [internet] access in 2014 women are less likely than
men to use or own digital technologies nearly one fifth of the worlds population
is illiterate.
This echoes the findings of the survey, in which 69 percent of respondents reported
bandwidth or connectivity having been a barrier to their work. They also saw no signs of
this changing in the near future67 percent of those surveyed believed connectivity and
accessibility would continue to be a problem for at least the next five years.
It is important that, in the rush to embrace new technologies, smartphone apps, mobile
surveys, etc., NGOs remember that significant numbers of the people they are seeking to
reach are not connectedthese are often the ones who are in most need of help.
Box 8: Key lessons: dont forget about connectivity
Dont believe the hypeconnectivity remains the problem and will be for some
time to come.
Ensure that design considers who you are excluding, especially when using
online technologies.
Consider how to extend connectivity to those who need it most.
3 KEY ICT4D OPPORTUNITIES
FOR INGOS IN HECA
The key messages that emerged from this research in relation to Oxfam and other large
INGOs are:
The most valuable role they can play in the technology sphere is as convenors and
capacity builders, not directly creating technology themselves;
Better collaboration between NGOs, civil society, and other players would improve
outcomes; and
NGOs have a unique position to advocate to funders and governments on behalf of
wider groups.
3.1 INGOS AS CONVENORS AND HELPING TO

BUILD LOCAL CAPACITY
In the survey, the views of the appropriate roles of NGOs in the technology space in
HECA were extremely mixed. Some welcomed their involvement, while others suggested
that local organisations should be doing the work.
There was strong consensus among interviewees and survey respondents that there is a
need for someone to convene different partners. INGOs are considered well placed for
this: 88 percent of survey respondents believe INGOs should play a convening role; 84
percent a capacity-building role; and 87 percent that partnering on ICT initiatives should
be about collaboration and co-creation (only 1.5 percent disagree).
Bringing together the different players from different sectors, helping them work together
to share best practice and develop capacity would be invaluableparticularly for the local
civil society and technology start-up sectors.
Developing shared guidance on how to choose products
As a convener, Oxfam could help avoid duplication and offer guidance on how to source
appropriate off-the-shelf products. There are significant opportunities for a convener,
adviser and capacity builder to help people avoid waste and duplication and co-ordinate
(or spark) collaborations, thereby delivering wider benefits to the sector. There is
widespread confusion about what products are available and the extent to which they can
be customised:
People don't know where to go to find out what ICT4D projects already exist in
their countryand what lessons already exist globally.
For example, Oxfam HECA staff at the Nairobi workshop related how difficult it can be to
find the best way to meet their technology needs. The Engine Room reported that, among
the 38 organisations in their 2015 study on ICT in accountability initiatives, less than one-
quarter were happy with the tools they chose.
There are toolkits available to help people find the right tools, but these are not widely
11
known or used. Oxfams ICT in Programme team has developed toolkits for mobile data
collections and is working on other areas, for example an electronic cash catalogue with
12
ELAN.
There is an opportunity to build on the work of the ICT in Programme team, to survey the
marketplace for ICT solutions that meet other common requirements in the region and
provide recommendations, or at least assessments. Guidance on how to find and
evaluate products and suppliers would also be useful.
In this way, Oxfam can change perceptions of development professionals and help the
sector pivot from a default inclination to build, to a position where collaboration and
adaptation are the norm.
Supporting skills development around iterative and user-centred

approaches to development
One of the reasons cited for the lack of involvement of users and the rare use of iterative
methods was a lack of understanding of how to do this by those applying technology to
development problems.
However, much of the training that is being offered would appear to be missing the mark.
Necessary components of entrepreneurial management skills include opportunity

recognition, product design, organisational planning, leadership, customer
discovery, marketing, early-stage financing, partnership negotiation, revenue
model development local Kenyan solutions are to utilise narrow training
programs from large organisations on project management and technical product
development, designed for managers within big companies, not adequate to needs
of start-ups
(Jung and Feferman, 2014)
Convening those who do and those who do not have these skills to discuss and learn
from each other would be very valuable.
Bringing together different actors to develop a common

understanding of scaling
Those developing technology in HECA would benefit from a shared understanding of the
terms, concepts and factors related to pilots, discovery and scaling outlined earlier.
Oxfam could convene a group of other ICT-focused NGOs and technology providers to
develop such a shared understandingand then ensure that all Oxfam information
systems (IS) and programme staff, partners and projects adhere to this.
Addressing this widespread confusion of concepts is important as, to learn from one
others successes and failures, it is vital to be able to compare consistently.
In particular, a model of the type of support, partnerships and funding most suited to
discovery, rollout and scaling phases would be a valuable tool for the entire sector.
Facilitating the creation of an ICT4D agenda from and for the global
South
There is a clear demand for an ICT4D agenda coming from HECA, Africa and/or the
global South as a whole. While INGOs obviously should not seek to lead thisit must be
driven by Southern NGOs, CSOs and tech providersthey can play an important role in
supporting and facilitating it.
Their size and partnerships also mean that they can add significant value by linking
governments, donors, and the international community. Oxfam and other INGOs can play
an invaluable role in helping convene these organisations, facilitating dialogue and
sharing experiences from other regions, which may fuel discussions and agreements.
As convenors, NGOs like Oxfam can facilitate formal and informal activities to help ICT4D
actors across the region develop a shared voice. Informal activities might include
organising events, hosting relevant sessions at conferences, bringing together diverse
people to explore existing uses of and lessons about ICT, critical design considerations
and simply to share experiences (as happened at the workshop for this study).
A more formal role would need to emerge from the Southern actors themselves, which
might involve the creation of more structured partnerships or advocacy groups to
increase the impact of ICT4D activity across the region.
The range of stakeholders that could be brought together under this convening role is
large. There are the typical 'ICT4D players' (NGOs, donors, etc.) but also all those using
technology for social purposes, such as CSOs, private and charitable tech organisations,
start-ups, tech communities and innovation hubs.
Even in Nairobi, the tech capital of the region, there is a palpable sense of people
working in silos with few opportunities to communicate and meet among social-tech
actors outside their immediate circles. Anecdotally, while in Kenya, the researchers
organised some ICT4D events (in addition to the Oxfam workshop), and there was a lack
of similar convening happening and a clear desire among participants for more.
3.2 COLLABORATION WITH OTHER NGOS,

TECHNOLOGY PROVIDERS AND LOCAL ACTORS
Another cross-cutting theme that emerged was a feeling that the sector, and larger NGOs
in particular, could be collaborating more, and more effectively. Particular demand was
evident in the following four areas.
Collaborating on developing products or product requirements
In addition to the suggestions around adapt dont build for individual organisations, there
is an opportunity for NGOs to collaborate and develop or adapt/extend technologies
together.
This might actually mean pooling budgets to develop new products (or better, new
features for existing products), or simply coming together to present better a shared set of
requirements to technology providers.
If done on a wider scale than just projects or programmes, this could also mean
convening a forum of key regional actors to develop shared ICT requirements, presenting
a unified voice to technology vendors, and making clear the needs of the customers,
thereby producing more appropriate tools and saving money in the process.
A more collaborative approach to local partnerships
Successful and effective partnerships between INGOs and local organisations appear to
be elusive and problematic (36 percent report difficult relationships with implementing
partners), and anecdotal reference to hierarchical and competitive overseas NGOs and
donors was common.
In order to address the need expressed by participants, the partnerships convened would
have to be geared towards collaboration, co-creation and capacity development, not
based on implementation or service delivery. Unfortunately, what seems to be more
typical is a relationship in which an INGO is the lead and the other partners are sub-
contracted.
Developing and managing more equitable and supportive relationships with local partners
requires changes to culture and processes in both the INGOs and the partners with
whom they work.
Convening both INGOs and local partners to create a better understanding of the needs,
desires and problems of each would be valuable. Distilling some best practice which can
be shared and inform future partnerships and contracts would be a useful tool that a
convenor could create.
Sharing expertise in engaging with the private sector
Some NGOs, including Oxfam, have considerable experience of working effectively with
private sector actorssmall and large; multinationals and local technology start-ups.
Convening a forum to understand these nuances better and share this knowledge with
other NGOs and civil society actors would be useful. This could even form the basis for
developing a set of shared policies and best practices for private sector engagement,
allowing the NGO sector to fulfil its duty of care to people, while better harnessing the
resources of the different actors in the private sector.
Collaborative M&E beyond individual projects
To combat the survey fatigue outlined in Section 2.5, INGOs (which probably undertake
the majority of M&E survey work) could collaborate on minimising the impact on the
communities with which they are working.
A simple catalogue of who did what where (which Oxfam are already exploring through
survey banks) would be a good place to start. This could kick-start the collaboration
without the need to tackle the complex legal, technical and cultural issues around data
sharing. NGO Aid Map and the International Household Survey Network would be
potential partners in this endeavour.
A more in-depth option would be to actively collaborate on M&E. For example, if multiple
NGOs and the government are operating in the same region, they could combine their
M&E needs into one survey instead of four separate overlapping ones.
While the challenges are significant (especially regarding partnerships with certain
governments), the direction of travel seems unavoidable, and is an opportunity for larger
NGOs such as Oxfam to lead, rather than trail behind while waiting for technology
providers to facilitate this. It is inevitable that NGOs would need to rethink their role with
respect to M&E if this happens:
Disintermediation of existing players will create a greater emphasis on working in

networksdata sharing will mean the end of reports and create a greater
emphasis on standards as the basis for M&E in the future.
Interview with Rob Worthington, Kwantu
While some data sharing already takes place (for example, Oxfam published results
13
through the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) registry, and through the
14
UK Data Service ), it tends to be primarily related to donors and reporting, rather than
directly sharing data between projects/organisations working in the same regions or with
the same people.
Ignoring the challenges of sharing data across organisational boundaries, a lot of value
could be gained by seeking to make M&E a cross-cutting activity internally. This means
sharing M&E needs (and data) across silos, programmes and departments to ensure
different projects are not surveying the same people or communities unnecessarily. This
would be a good start and could help to pave the way for external collaboration in the
future.
3.3 NGOS ADVOCATING TO DONORS, FUNDERS,

AND GOVERNMENTS
INGOs such as Oxfam are in a unique position, with relationships to both delivery
partners and global/national funders, and could play a valuable advocacy role.
This would mean seeking to ensure that the best practices identified in this research and
elsewhere become institutionalised in how funding and partnerships operate. In
particular, promoting the idea that access is not just about infrastructure and affordability,
but how people use technologywith related factors such as literacy, confidence, and
perceptions, as well as the availability of timely, relevant contentbeing critical.
Oxfam in particular has been considering how its advocacy role and technology interact:
How can ICT4D best support the influencing agenda?

(Oxfam, 2014)
However, this research identifies the reverse as another valuable influencing role of
organisations. i.e. actively advocating and seeking to influence how the major
international players fund, manage and support/inhibit the success of ICT4D.
The key areas for advocacy recommended are those outlined earlier in the report:
Improved funding models so that they actively encourage iterative and user-centred
approaches, rather than structures which, however unintentionally, prevent them;
More nuanced funding that is designed to support customer discovery, pilots or
scaling phases;
Funders to use their influence, money and roles to facilitate better collaboration across
different actors in the ICT4D space;
Active support for shared approaches to M&E across projects and funders;
Agreement on and dissemination of best practices in delivery, methodologies and
product selection; and
Advocacy for improved connectivity and, in particular, funding of alternative options for
last-mile connectivity to help combat the continuing problems with not reaching the
poorest or most isolated communities.
On the latter, Oxfams expertise in advocacy, influencing and lobbying could be put to
good use if joined with those organisations advocating for connectivity, such as the
Alliance for Affordable Internet and Emergency Telecom Cluster. In this way, Oxfam
could explore not just the mainstream rollout of mobile/fibre connections, but innovations
in last-mile connectivity and the related issues of power. Connecting those who are not
commercially viable customers for multinationals will only happen if it is demanded. As
two participants reflect:
Although we have good infrastructure, some parts of Kenya are yet to benefit.
Last-mile interventions are required.
Survey response by a Kenyan government employee (anonymous)
If we can combine solar and connectivity so that we can rely on mobile phones
and data working everywhere, it would transform the sector.
Interview with Geoffrey Okao, WFP
Oxfam's local networks and long-term relationships mean it could be well positioned to
lead or join partnerships for convening, collaborating and advocacy. Oxfam could use its
networks to broker connections and help share knowledge between tech organisations,
NGOs, funders/donors and civil society partners.
4 HOW CAN INGOS IMPROVE
THEIR ICT IN PROGRAMME
WORK IN AFRICA?
This section focuses on the changes an organisation like Oxfam might seek to make if it
wishes to tackle the challenges outlined in this report and is keen to take on the
convening, collaborating and advocacy roles discussed in Section 3. While it is tailored
to the specific situation of Oxfam GB in the HECA region, much of it may have wider
relevance.
The key question for Oxfam and others is whether they wish to be seen more as a
'convenor' and less as a 'doer' when it comes to technology programmes. Oxfam is
developing a position on this, and it is hoped other NGOs will follow suit:
Oxfam needs to establish the extent to which it can innovate or be an early

adopter in certain areas of ICT, or whether it is better to facilitate, and follow in the
footsteps of, advances by other initiatives.
Interview with Amy ODonnell, Lead of ICT in Programme, Oxfam GB
For any NGO that is serious about playing a major rolewhether delivery, supporting,
convening or advocacy within the ICT4D space, there is a necessary level of
understanding of the key issues relating to technology and, more importantly, to the
application of technology to development problems that must permeate every level of the
organisation. It is hoped that the recommendations below would help make this a reality.
A change process to address skills gaps and capitalise on

enthusiasm
Oxfam, along with many other NGOs, faces significant gaps with ICT skills and capacity
with limited time, money and strategic-level buy-in. There is, however, great enthusiasm
for learning and collaborating on ICT among frontline staff.
A change process is recommended, to create a culture in which ICT is a cross-cutting

part of all of Oxfams work in HECA and digital literacy, as applied to programmes, is a
core competency for all staff.
While there are ICT skills and capacity gaps in general, Oxfam staff in HECA are seen as
having good digital literacy overall. The key capacity gap is in the understanding of how
to apply ICT to development and programme problemsa role played by what other
sectors typically refer to as an IT/Business Analyst. Related to this are the various other
skills gaps concerning best practice when applying ICT to development, which are
outlined in detail in other sections (e.g. Agile, Lean and iterative ways of working, user-
centred design, systems that work in environments with low or no bandwidth, etc.).
This view is shared across the region, with 53 percent of those surveyed reporting that a
lack of internal ICT capacity among staff is a challenge in their work. Some 88 percent
agree that organisations benefit from staff who specialise in applying ICT to development
problems (89 percent of NGO respondents and 94 percent of civil society).
This finding was the one echoed most by others working in the region outside of Oxfam. It
seems that there is a widespread acknowledgement of the need for more knowledge and
skills relating to the application of technology to development programmes at every level,
whether this gap is met through training, hiring or partnerships.
Make digital literacy a core competency for all staff and senior
management
Oxfam participants called for more support for ICT4D from senior management,
suggesting that taking ICT4D seriously would be Impossible without buy-in and genuine
support at country-director level and when ICT is reflected in Oxfam Country Strategies
this may be possible, not before. While of course it is not relevant or appropriate for
every country to place ICT as a core part of its strategy, what does seem vital is for every
country and every senior manager to develop an understanding of if and how ICTs impact
their strategy and how ICTs can be used to increase their impact, whether ICT in
Programme activity or as a cross-cutting theme underpinning other strategic goals.
Without this focus, ICTs are likely to be overlooked, sidelined and under-funded, risking
missing out on their potential benefit to Oxfams work. They also requested more
regional-level coordination and capacity developmentparticularly to anchor different
activities, connect up staff and projects and to help establish more multi-country ICT
programmes.
If Oxfam expects to keep up with the increasingly rapid pace of technological change in
the sector, it may need to make digital literacy a core competency for all staff, not just the
IS and ICT in Programme teams. In particular, senior managers in-country should
understand the strategic aspects of applying ICT to development programmes to enable
them to allocate budgets better and manage teams doing this work. This is not a
suggestion that all staff become experts in ICT4D, but simply an extension of Oxfams
stated aim to improve ICT4D literacy rather than get staff to the same level of
competence as existing ICT4D staff (Oxfam, 2014).
There are different levels of knowledge and detail that would be required by different
staff, so final decisions on how this is implemented should be made by managers with an
understanding of Oxfams human resources and capacity development processes. One
example of a possible supporting structure is that of the 'matrix-managed' ICT team, used
by Cisco, among others (see below for more information on matrix-management).
Hire more business analysts
ICT people need to be able to talk development language and vice-versathe

classic business analyst bridges the divide.
Interview with Steve Ball, Farm Africa
There is an acknowledged shortage of analysts across the entire development sector. To

keep ahead of the game, Oxfam could recruit more people with these skills. These could
be from an international development background, from a commercial software
environment (consultancies such as ThoughtWorks regularly have adverts for analysts
which cover the same skills Oxfam and other INGOs would require), or could mean
recruiting ICT4D graduates who are explicitly trained in subjects relevant to Oxfams work
(covering programme areas, Agile, UCD, bandwidth issues etc.). It is worth noting that
competition for skilled analysts will increase as other organisations also begin to
recognise this gap.
Better regional knowledge management
Oxfam has already begun to develop guidelines for some key ICT4D areas, such as
choosing data collection technology. This could be developed further with more
guidelineson many of the topics outlined throughout this documentand ensuring
these are accessible to all on internal shared platforms. DFID is doing something similar
with its Digital Grid (to which Oxfam has already contributed), and there may be room to
look at combining these efforts or extending Oxfams internal knowledge management
beyond its borders to include partners and donors, etc.
Oxfam country staff from the HECA region said that they found tremendous value and
inspiration in meeting each other at the workshop. They were able to meet each other for
the first time in most cases and learn about each other's experience with ICT4D.
Oxfam workshop attendees said it was good to mix with techies and saw the event as a
great opportunity to learn from people who know how ICT works (or doesnt!), while
others were excited about opportunities for knowledge exchange with other NGOs. A
couple of participants reported finding potential suppliers with whom they are now
following up. There was unanimous agreement that these types of internal and external
networking and learning opportunities should happen regularly.
As knowledge management improves within Oxfam, more opportunities emerge to

convene and collaborate to share this knowledge with a wider audience. Other NGOs are
unlikely to have the same structures as Oxfam, but anecdotal feedback suggests that the
core problems are the same across all but a few, and the above suggestions could be
adapted to different situations.
The development sector is going digital. The key question for Oxfam and for other NGOs
would seem to boil down to one thing: how can they develop a wider range of staff
expertise in applying ICT to development programmes? Whether by retraining existing
ICT/IS teams, deploying staff differently, hiring or partnerships, NGOs will need to rise to
the challenge if they hope to improve the impact of development programmes using ICT.
This will be especially important if they aim to support the wider sector through
convening, collaboration, advocacy or technology delivery.
APPENDIX A: LIST OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
The table below lists all the key informants who were involved in this research, either
through semi-structured interviews conducted between 3 March and 2 April 2016 or
through participation in the 7 April 2016 interactive workshop at Oxfams offices in
Nairobi, Kenya.
All are either based in a country in the HECA region, or have extensive experience of
working in one or more of these countries.
Table A1: Key informants list
Name Organisation Role

Alex Pitkin FrontlineSMS CTO
Allan Moolman Oxfam (Tanzania) Head of Programme
Amy ODonnell Oxfam GB ICT in Programme Lead
Rashida Shariff Oxfam (Tanzania) Gender Justice Programme Manager
Alvaro Valverde Oxfam (ICT in Programme) Private Sector Adviser (ICT)
Andy Haxby Competa IT/Code Pamoja Secretary
Angela Kabari Making All Voices Capacity Development Officer
Count/Ushahidi
Aniruddha Brahmachari Oxfam GB (HECA region) Regional Programme Quality Lead
Anna Kondakhchyan Oxfam GB ICT in Programme Humanitarian
Adviser
Anne Salim Eneza Education COO
Anthony Kimani World Vision International Advisor, Humanitarian Technologies
Anthony Njage DFID Kenya Social Development Advisor
Anusha Aiyar Accenture Development Engagement Manager
Partnerships
Ayaz Manji Kenya Red Cross Head of WASH
Bellah Mikangi Internews Network Africa Regional Program Associate
Benjamin Weber Welthungerhilfe ICT and Program Consultant
Beryl Aidi Amnesty International Regional Content Manager, East
Africa
Caleb Gichuhi Institute for Social Communications Officer
Accountability
Carol Morgan Hivos (Making All Voices Head of Communications
Count)
Dennis Gichangi Dew CIS Solutions Ltd Director, Development
Diana Mukami Amref Health Africa eHealth Programme Manager
Dr Claudia Lopes Africa's Voices Head of Research
Ed Anderson World Bank Senior ICT Policy Specialist
Elaine Chang Taro Works Senior Manager, Global Market
Development
Emily Tomkys Oxfam (ICT in Programme) ICT in Programme Officer (MEAL)
Emma Nielsen Every1Mobile Project Manager
Erik Hersman BRCK (Ushahidi) CEO
Fabrice Romeo Echo Mobile Business Development Manager
Francesca Reinhardt Oxfam (DRC) EFSVL Coordinator DRC
Geoffrey Okao World Food Programme Chief, IT Competence Centre
Regional IT Officer, Eastern/Central
Africa
Hannah Metcalfe Human Networks Country Manager
International
Harriet Mbabazi Oxfam (Uganda) Programme Officer
Jack Kaburu Catholic Relief Services ICT4D Specialist EARO Region
Jacob Korenblum Souktel CEO
James Mwololo Farm Africa Head of Agriculture
Jimmy Eddy Team Courage Movement Activist and Communications
Joe Pakenham DFID Digital Adviser (Knowledge and
Capability)
John Kitui Christian Aid Kenya Country Director
Joseph Pearce IRC Wash Governance, monitoring and systems
expert
Joshua Ogure Map Kibera Trust Project Coordinator
Joyce Kabue Oxfam (Kenya) Communication and Information
Advisor
Kellen Eilerts Human Network International Regional Director (East and Southern
Africa)
Kevin Barassa Kenyan ICT4D Entrepreneur Self-employed
Kisuma Mapunda Oxfam (Tanzania) Programme Officer, Communications
and Learning
Lakshmi Iyer Digital Green Director (Africa Programs)
Mark de Blois Upande limited CEO
Martin Kinyua IntraHealth International Assistant Director, Technology and
Innovations
Maryanne Smith Mobenzi Account Manager (Oxfam)
Matt Berg Ona CEO
Mercy Khamalla Oxfam (Somalia) Nutrition Programme Manager
Mike Smith Water Aid Systems Architect
Modong Florence Oxfam (South Sudan) Programme Manager-Urban
Programme
Monica Nthiga Making All Voices Count South to South Lab Manager
(Ushahidi)
Muriuki Mureithi Summit Strategies ICT Consultant
Ric Tighe Oxfam (ICT in Programme) Business Lead, Beneficiary
Information Management (LMMS)
Richard Kananga Oxfam (Rwanda) Participatory Governance Lead
Sammy Mbogoh Oxfam (Somalia) Public health promotion advisor
Sean Blaschke UNICEF Technology for Development
Coordinator (Health Systems
Strengthening Specialist)
Solomon Medhane Oxfam (Ethiopia) Senior Livelihood Programme Officer
Steve Ball Farm Africa Country Director
Suraj Shah Intel Africa Program Manager
Suvojit Chattopadhyay Adam Smith International Senior Manager, Results and
Learning
Teemu Seppala Tanzania ICT Chief Technical Adviser
Tesfaye Ararsa-Bededa Oxfam (Ethiopia) Early WarningEarly Action Project
manager
Tim Chong Accenture Development Manager, Growth Strategy for Amref
Partnerships Health Africa
Tim Kelly World Bank Lead ICT Policy Specialist
Timo Bange Accenture Development Senior Manager
Partnerships
Varyanne Sika Hivos, Making All Voices Country Engagement Developer
Count
Violet Mbiti Youth County Projects Kenya Founder
Wairu Kinyori-Gugu Oxfam (Kenya) Tax Justice Project Manager
Wouter Dijkstra Trac FM International Founder
Zipporah Wanaswa VSO Kenya Programme Development and
Funding Manager
APPENDIX B: SURVEY DATA SUMMARY
The online survey was hosted on Survey Monkey and live for responses from 2 to 19
April 2016. Listed below are the key questions and demographics from the online survey.
For practical reasons, demographic questions, branching options, and details on possible
responses have not been listed.
Table A2; Top-level survey questions

In the last three years, have you been involved in initiatives with which end-users/customers based
in HECA countries?
In the last three years, have you been involved in initiatives working in any of these thematic
areas?
Please describe interesting elements of your approach or the effects of these ICT-related
initiatives (how you sourced/chose the technology, design, delivery, deployment, audience
research, technology sourcing, partnership/business models, intended/unintended effects,
positive/negative outcomes, short/long-term impacts, etc.)
Which of the following areas of technology are you experienced with or looking into?
Have you ever sought to scale a pilot project or small product/initiative and enable it to reach a
large audience?
In your experience, how important are the following factors in whether an ICT initiative may be
successful?
Have you encountered any of the following challenges in your own organisations work?
What, in terms of the funding and investment environment, needs to change to better support ICT
initiatives with a social purpose?
Which of these roles should large INGOs play in relation to ICT?
Which organisations (particularly NGOs) do you see as playing an active and useful role in regards
to ICT in the region?
To what extent do you see Oxfam as currently playing a visible and active role with ICT in the
HECA region (Horn, East and Central Africa)?
Please rate how you think Oxfam in your country and the wider HECA region rates with regards to
these factors.
Please share projects, colleagues and partners who are exhibiting excellence or could be ICT
champions in the region.
Please rate your overall experience of working on ICT-related projects with Oxfam.
What one thing would you like to see Oxfam in HECA do (using, or in relation to, ICT)? (For
example, an idea for using ICT directly support citizens, to enable you to achieve greater impact,
to make your work easier, etc.)
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the role of ICT in the
development space?
15
Table A3: Key demographics about survey respondents
Total responses 284
Gender 64% male
34% female
2% prefer not to say
Country Horn, East or Central Africa 39% (21% Kenya)
Other Africa 7%
Europe 31%
North America 12%
Asia 3%
Type of organisation 38% NGO
21% Technology provider
13% Civil society
11% Academia
11% Private sector (other)
5% Donor/Funder
4% Government
If you would like more detailed information on the survey or on the responses to any of
these questions, please contact Amy ODonnell at Oxfam to discuss
(AODonnell@oxfam.org.uk).
APPENDIX C: TIPS ON SUCCESSFULLY SCALING
ICT4D PILOTS
Successful scaling is a complex and context-specific process, and this report cannot offer
a guide on how to do it. However, during the course of the research, a number of
interesting and potentially useful comments where provided by participants. These are
collated below, as they may be useful for a wider audience.
Scaling can be growing in size, but it can also be replication. Others copying your
ideas and implementing them elsewhere is a valid and useful form of scaling.
A key challenge is generating evidence that it works, then sharing this with sector
peers so others will take it up or partner on it
Interview with John Kitui, Country Manager, Christian Aid Kenya
Longevity is critical. Few projects scale immediately.
Anything that really does scale takes 510 years of persistence. We are lucky to
get 2, maybe 3 years of focused funding before whims change.
Interview with Wayan Vota, Digital Entrepreneur
It took decades for Apple to get where it is. We expect our projects to work in 6
months.
Interview with Fabrice Romeo, Echo Mobile Kenya
Scale is difficult to define, as must go through multiple iterations of learning The

problem is that people expect it to happen too quickly
Interview with Ed Andersen, World Bank Kenya
Things that have scaled all have something in commonyears of investment and
marketing by a dedicated team, usually with core support of the platform.
Interview with Wayan Vota, Digital Entrepreneur
There is no quick and dirty way to test services locally. They all need months if not
years of field testing... getting the business right often takes 12 years of
adjustment and several millions of dollars of investment.
(Carvalho et al, 2012)
Channel partners can be a vital resource to reach scale.
We kept our very local approach, and scaled up by training and working with local
organisations and initiatives to reach 30,000 additional subscribers in only three
months.
Survey response by Rachel Brown, Founder and former CEO of Sisi ni Amani Kenya
Partner with larger organisations. The most common route to successfully scale a
pilot scale is through partnership with larger organisations who already know how to
take things to scale.
National-level partnerships with ministries and MNOs really make scale work.
Interview with Jacob Korenblum, Souktel
[m-Pesa scales because] it piggybacks off widely deployed infrastructure [of retail
village shops].
(Mas and Radcliffe, 2010)
Dont lose sight of your original objectives in your quest for more numbers and
greater reach
Making scaling more important than the concerns of our participants, we risked
losing the interest of our user base and partners, potentially leading to project
failure.
Interview with Joe Press, Royal Holloway University London
Remember that someone will have to pay.
Many projects have mistaken population need for consumer demand, providing a
service that the targeted end-users were not willing to pay for
(Carvalho et al, 2012)
Who is your customer? The person paying That might be the same as the target
end-user or beneficiary, but it might be someone elsegovernment, an NGO, a
funder, an intermediary Dont forget you need to service the needs of your
customer as well as your end-user or theyll stop paying!
Interview with an Oxfam staff member (anonymous)
The devil is often in the detail. A number of people raised specific factors that have
been responsible for the success or failure when attempting to scale.
If systems and structures dont already exist, then scaling can be relatively easy. If
existing systems need changing, that is much harder.
Interview with Ed Anderson, World Bank Kenya
Some INGOs care more about ego and credit than resultstheyd make more
impact at scale if they were more willing to partner with organisations which have
things and support their agendas.
Interview with Erik Hersman, BRCK Kenya
A clear dissemination, rollout and maintenance plan was key.

Interview with Natasha Dyer, Communication for Development specialist
Key scaling success factors were: speed to release a minimum viable product,
testing early and repeatedly, rapid prototyping/Lean methodologies and an
experienced development team.
Interview with Geoffrey Okao, World Food Programme
APPENDIX D: COMMON MISUNDERSTANDINGS
ABOUT OPEN TECHNOLOGY
While some participants exhibited a degree of confusion and misunderstanding about
concepts relating to openness, it was around the implications of open source
technologyor policies such as open source by defaultwhere the most confusion and
conflicting definitions were observed.
Below are some clarifications about some of the key issues relating to open source that, it
is hoped, will help when decisions are being taken about the use of open source and
proprietary tools.
Licensing
Definitions: free, paid-for, commercial, sustainable etc.
The workshop discussion reflected that many believe all open-source software is free,
and that open-source developers do not make money or profit. This is sometimes true
(particularly in public-sector funded open-source frameworks), but there are many for-
profit companies that use and build open-source products, and various licensing,
installation, support and enhancement models for revenue generation. There are also
many free-to-end-user examples of closed-source software.
Ability to extend/enhance tools
Similarly, the workshop revealed that some believe only open-source products can be
customised. In fact, most commercial companies are willing to adapt and customise their
(open- or closed-source) products for paying customers. An open-source modification will
almost always be released back to the wider community, while a modification to a
proprietary product may or may not be added to the core product (the latter has been
seen in Oxfams work with mobile data collection providers).
However, it is often easier to enhance open-source software, as it can be done by

anyone, not only by paying the original developers, which reduces capacity problems.
Ethics and ideologies around intellectual property and open/closed

source
Intellectual property was raised in many interviews and the literature in regards to
supporting an emerging private sector in Africa. In reality, there are very few products
relevant to the ICT4D market that have any significant intellectual property to protect
(most are variations on data collection, survey tools, case management systems or
dashboards, which have existed in various forms for decades). This position also seems
to confuse a laudable desire to support the local economy, with a misunderstanding that
open-source equates to the public/voluntary sector. As an example, one of the Oxfam
workshop attendees suggested that in emergency contexts we need to have a tried and
tested commercial solution ready to deploy at high speed. The sentiment is entirely valid,
but conflates tried and tested, ready to go with commercial. There are many examples
of enterprise-class tried and tested open-source solutions that can be deployed instantly
(such as Ushahidi, DHIS2 and ODK).
Practicalities of reusing available tools
Many release their code as open-source on principle. However, from background

research, it is clear that only a fraction of this so-called open-source code is reusable in a
meaningful way. Organisations need to spend time re-factoring their code, writing
documentation and guidance, and promoting their products if other organisations have a
realistic chance of reusing or extending them, or collaborating with them.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Accenture. (2016). Accenture Technology Vision 2016.
Accenture Development Partnerships. (2016). Digital for Development Questionnaire.
Action, P. (2016). Technology Justice: A call to action.
Andjelkovic, M. and Kelly, T. (2014). Expanding the Mobile Apps Market: Making Mobile
Work at the Base of the Pyramid. World Bank Blogs. Available at:
http://blogs.worldbank.org/psd/expanding-mobile-apps-market-making-mobile-work-base-
pyramid.
Boncana, H.G. (2016). Leaping into the Principles for Digital Development. ICT Works.
Available at: http://www.ictworks.org/2016/03/07/leaping-into-the-principles-for-digital-
development/.
Carvalho, A. de, Klarsfeld, L. and Lepicard, F. (2012). Leveraging Information and

Communication Technology for the Base Of the Pyramid: Innovative business models in
education, health, agriculture and financial services.
Dolan, J. and Burns, C. (2014). Beyond M-Pesa, Kenyas market slow to scale mobile
solutions. Devex.
Edwards, D. and McGee, R. (2016). When Does the State Listen? Men and Women of
Words: How Words Divide and Connect the Bunge La Mwananchi Movement in Kenya
Introduction: Opening GovernanceChange, Continuity and Conceptual Ambiguity. IDS
Bulletin 47(1).
Gandhi R., Veeraraghavan R.,Toyama K., Ramprasad V. (2009). Digital Green:

Participatory Video and Mediated Instruction for Agricultural Extension. Digital Green.
GSMA. (2010). True Money and M-PESA: Two Unique Paths to Scale.
GSMA. (2015). Accelerating Digital Literacy: Empowering women to use the mobile
internet.
GSMA. (2013a). mAgri Case Study: Nokia Life Agriculture Service.
GSMA. (2013b). Scaling mobile for development: A strategic opportunity for operators
with a presence in emerging markets. GSMA Intelligence. Available at:
http://www.gsma.com/newsroom/blog/scaling-mobile-for-development-a-strategic-
opportunity-for-operators-with-a-presence-in-emerging-markets/.
GSMA Connected Women. (2015). Women and Mobile Money: Insights from Kenya.
Haikin M., Bailur S., Berdou E., Dudding J., Belcher M. (2016). Evaluating Digital Citizen
Engagement: A Practical Guide. World Bank Group.
Haikin, M. and Duncombe, R. (2013). A Framework to Assess Participation and

Empowerment Impacts of ICT4D Projects.
Hartmann, A. and Linn, J.F. (2008). Scaling Up: a Framework and Lessons for
Development Effectiveness From Literature and Practice.
Heeks, R. (2005). Sustainability and the Future of eDevelopment.

Heeks, R. and Foster, C. (2013). Innovation and scaling of ICT for the bottom of the
pyramid. Journal of Information Technology 28(4).
Horst, N. (2011). EthnoCorder in Burundi: innovation, data collection and data use.
Participatory Learning and Action 63.
Huggins, C. and Frosina, N. (2016). ICT-driven projects for Land Governance in Kenya:
Disruption and e-government frameworks. GeoJournal.
iHub Research. (2014a). ICT and Governance in East Africa: A Landscape Analysis in
Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania 2014.
iHub Research. (2012). Technology in Solving Societys Water Problems in Kenya.
iHub Research. (2013). Role of technology in promoting transparency with Local

Stakeholders in the Water Governance Sector.
iHub Research. (2014b). Investigating the Potential for Digital Job Creation in Kenyas
Information and Communication Technology Innovation Landscape.
iHub Research. (2014c). Financing Technology Businesses in Kenya.
iHub Research and GSMA Mobile for Development. (2014). Digital Entrepreneurship in
Kenya 2014.
iHub Research and HIVOS. (2013). Uchaguzi Kenya 2013: Monitoring and Evaluation.
iHub Research and infoDev. (2012). Mobile Usage at the Base of the Pyramid in Kenya.
IBM. (2013). Building Africas innovation ecosystems.
ITU-T Technology Watch. (2010). ICT as an Enabler for Smart Water Management.
ITU. (2015). ITU ICT Facts and FiguresThe world in 2015. Available at:
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2015.pdf
Jung, R. and Feferman, F. (2014). The Development of the Kenyan Mobile Ecosystem.
Larman, C. (2014). Agile and Iterative Development: A Managers Guide. Addison-

Wesley.
Loureiro, M. et al. (2016). When Does the State Listen? IDS Bulletin 47(1).
Making All Voices Count. (2015a). Testing the Waters: A qualitative comparative analysis
of the factors affecting success in rendering water services sustainable based on ICT
reporting.
Making All Voices Count. (2015b). MAVC Policy Brief: How can ICT initiatives be
designed to improve rural water supply?.
Marais, M.A. (2015). ICT4D and Sustainability. In R. Mansell and P. H. Ang (eds.)
(2015). The International Encyclopaedia of Digital Communication and Society (IEDCS).
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Mas, I. and Ngweno, A. (2010). Three keys to M-PESAs success: Branding, channel
management and pricing.
Mas, I. and Radcliffe, D. (2010). Scaling mobile money.
McGee, R. and Gaventa, J. (2010). Review of Impact and Effectiveness of Transparency
and Accountability Initiatives: Synthesis Report.
McKinsey and Company. (2014). Offline and falling behind: Barriers to Internet adoption.
Available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high-tech/our-insights/offline-and-falling-
behind-barriers-to-internet-adoption
Mills, E. (2016). You Have to Raise a Fist!: Seeing and Speaking to the State in South
Africa. IDS Bulletin 47(1).
Moraa, H. (2012). Innovation spaces in Kenya. iHub Blogs.
NetHope. (2016). SDG ICT Playbook: From innovation to impact.
Neuman, L. (2016). The Right of Access to Information: Exploring Gender Inequities. IDS
Bulletin 47(1).
Otieno, D.C., Kabala, N., Scott-Villiers, P., Gachihi, G. and Ndungu, D.M. (2016). Men
and Women of Words: How Words Divide and Connect the Bunge La Mwananchi
Movement in Kenya. IDS Bulletin 47(1).
Oxfam. (2014). ICT 4 Programmes Review October 2014.
Oxfam. (2015a). ICT for PMEAL Strategy 2015-2018.
Oxfam. (2015b). Oxfam ICT in Programme Theory of Change.
Oxfam. (2015c). ICT in Programme: Amplifying and improving effectiveness.
Oxfam. (2015d). ICT in ProgrammeGovernance.
Oxfam. (2015e). Citizen Monitoring of the Justice Sector in Rwanda: Making the justice
institutions more responsive to the concerns of citizens. Security and Justice Innovation
Fund Proposal.
Oxfam. (2015f). ICT in Programme Team Plan 2015-17.
Oxfam. (2015g). ICT in Programme at Oxfam Charter.
Oxfam. (2015h). ICT in Programme Strategic Alignment.
Oxfam. (2015i). Report of an Assessment: ICT for MEAL Project (Bangladesh).
Oxfam. (2015j). Applying PMEAL on ICT in Programme.
Oxfam. (2016a). SHINE Learning Event Report.
Oxfam. (2016b). ICT4D Online Course. Draft.
Paviour, B. (2016). Expensive NGO Phone Apps Gather Digital Dust. The Cambodia
Daily.
Peixoto, T. and Fox, J. (2016). When Does ICT-Enabled Citizen Voice Lead to
Government Responsiveness?
Practical Action. (2015). Capability statement: mobile technology for development.
Principles Working Group. (2015). From Principle to Practice: Implementing the Principles
for Digital Development.
Raftree, L. (2012). ICT4D and Sustainability. Wait What? bridging community
development and technology. Available at: https://lindaraftree.com/2012/03/13/ict4d-and-
sustainability/.
Raftree, L. (2013) Scaling the Use of Mobile Technologies for Development. ICT Works.
Available at: http://www.ictworks.org/2013/08/28/m4d-mobile-for-development/.
Roggemann, K. (2016). ICT Innovation Corps: Teaching Digital Principles to Non-Techie

Staff. ICT Works. Available at: http://www.ictworks.org/2016/03/30/ict-innovation-corps-
teaching-digital-principles-to-non-techie-staff/.
Roumis, D. and Rostapshova, O. (2015). Sensors for MERL: What Works? What Does
Not? What Have We Learned? ICT Works. Available at:
http://www.ictworks.org/2015/11/23/sensors-for-merl-what-works-what-does-not-what-
have-we-learned/.
Sambuli, N. (2016). Tech Scene in Kenya. iHub Blogs.
Schouten, T. (2013). Changing relationships: ICT to improve water governance. World

Water Week.
Stone, H. (2016). 6 ways to reach rural women. ICT Works. Available at:
http://www.ictworks.org/2016/03/04/6-ways-to-reach-rural-woman-via-mobile-phones-
even-if-they-do-not-own-one.
TANZICT (2015). TANZICT: Strengthening the Innovation Ecosystem in Tanzania

(20112015).
Trere, E. (2016). The Dark Side of Digital Politics: Understanding the Algorithmic
Manufacturing of Consent and the Hindering of Online Dissidence. IDS Bulletin 47(1).
UNICEF (2014). The State of T4D and INNOVATION in ESAR.
UNICEF (2015). Innovations in ESAR: Lessons Learned and Best Practices.
Unwin, T. (2015). Beyond the Digital Divide: Developing Local Capacity to Deliver Local
Content. Blog. Available at: https://unwin.wordpress.com/2015/02/03/beyond-the-digital-
divide-developing-local-capacity-to-deliver-local-content/.
Valters C., Cummings C. and Nixon H. (2016). Putting learning at the centre: adaptive
development programming in practice. ODI.
Vota, W. (2016a). Fixing M&E with Sensors and the Internet of Things. ICT Works.
Available at: http://www.ictworks.org/2016/03/11/fixing-me-with-sensors-and-the-internet-
of-things/.
Vota, W. (2016b). How Can We Harness the Internet of Things for Global Development?
ICT Works. Available at: http://www.ictworks.org/2016/01/20/how-can-we-harness-the-
internet-of-things-for-global-development/.
Welle, K., Williams, J. and Pearce, J. (2016). ICTs Help Citizens Voice Concerns over
WaterOr Do They? IDS Bulletin 47(1).
Wilson, C. and de Lanerolle, I. (2016). Test It and They Might Come: Improving the
uptake of digital tools in transparency and accountability initiatives. IDS Bulletin 47(1).
World Bank. (2016). World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends.
Zoltner, J. (2015). The Future is Here with Sensors and Geospatial Analytics in
International Development. ICT Works. Available at:
http://www.ictworks.org/2015/06/15/the-future-is-here-with-sensors-and-geospatial-
analytics-in-international-development/
NOTES
1 http://digitalprinciples.org
2 See Appendix A for a full list of interviewees.
3 http://digitalprinciples.org
4
3 See Appendix A for a full list of interviewees.
http://digitalprinciples.org
5
4 https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/service-standard
See Appendix A for a full list of interviewees.
5 See https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/service-standard
6 A more thorough discussion of different project types and a push back against a dualistic
perception of 'pilot vs. scale-up can be found in Heeks and Foster, 2013.
7 www.surveynetwork.org
8 www.ngoaidmap.org
9 https://responsibledata.io/responsible-data-and-project-design
10 Some of the terms most commonly misunderstood or with the widest variation in how people
used them have been collated in Appendix D in the hope this could be the start of developing a
shared language to avoid future misunderstandings, and help practitioners make the best
choices for their particular circumstances.
11 For example, Engine Rooms Tool Selection Assistant (https://toolselect.theengineroom.org/),
NetHope (https://nethope.org/), ELAN (http://www.cashlearning.org/elan/elan), Kopernik
(kopernik.info), OpenFM (open.fm/).
12 http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/blog/2016/09/mobile-surveys-the-past-the-present-the-future;
and http://www.cashlearning.org/downloads/cn-product-catalog-v3-2.29-final-1.pdf
13 http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-approach/accountability-and-transparency/our-data
14 http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/blog/2015/09/data-revolution-will-ngos-miss-the-boat
15 Note that not all questions were mandatory, some questions allowed multiple responses and
responses with very small numbers have been ignored, so the results do not necessarily total
100 percent.
Oxfam Discussion Papers
Oxfam Discussion Papers are written to contribute to public debate and to invite feedback on development
and humanitarian policy issues. They are work in progress documents, and do not necessarily constitute
final publications or reflect Oxfam policy positions. The views and recommendations expressed are those
of the author and not necessarily those of Oxfam.
Oxfam International February 2017.
This publication is copyright but the text may be used free of charge for the purposes of advocacy,
campaigning, education, and research, provided that the source is acknowledged in full. The copyright
holder requests that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in
any other circumstances, or for re-use in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, permission
must be secured and a fee may be charged. E-mail policyandpractice@oxfam.org.uk.
The information in this publication is correct at the time of going to press.
Published by Oxfam GB for Oxfam International under ISBN 978-0-85598-900-2 in February 2017.
Oxfam GB, Oxfam House, John Smith Drive, Cowley, Oxford, OX4 2JY, UK.
OXFAM
Oxfam is an international confederation of 20 organizations networked together in more than 90 countries,
as part of a global movement for change, to build a future free from the injustice of poverty. Please write to
any of the agencies for further information, or visit www.oxfam.org.
Oxfam America (www.oxfamamerica.org) Oxfam Japan (www.oxfam.jp)

Oxfam Australia (www.oxfam.org.au) Oxfam Mexico (www.oxfammexico.org)
Oxfam-in-Belgium (www.oxfamsol.be) Oxfam New Zealand (www.oxfam.org.nz)
Oxfam Canada (www.oxfam.ca) Oxfam Novib (Netherlands) (www.oxfamnovib.nl)
Oxfam France (www.oxfamfrance.org) Oxfam Qubec (www.oxfam.qc.ca)
Oxfam Germany (www.oxfam.de) Oxfam South Africa
Oxfam GB (www.oxfam.org.uk)
Oxfam Hong Kong (www.oxfam.org.hk)
Observer:
Oxfam IBIS (Denmark) (www.ibis-global.org)
Oxfam India (www.oxfamindia.org) Oxfam Brasil (www.oxfam.org.br)
Oxfam Intermn (Spain) (www.intermonoxfam.org)
Oxfam Ireland (www.oxfamireland.org)
Oxfam Italy (www.oxfamitalia.org)
60 Digital Development: What is the role of International NGOs? ICT for Development programmes and opportu-
nities in the Horn, East and Central Africa
www.oxfam.org

Digital Development: What Is The Role of International NGOs? ICT For Development Programmes and Opportunities in The Horn, East and Central Africa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital Development: What Is The Role of International NGOs? ICT For Development Programmes and Opportunities in The Horn, East and Central Africa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital Development: What Is The Role of International NGOs? ICT For Development Programmes and Opportunities in The Horn, East and Central Africa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OXFAM DISCUSSION PAPER FEBRUARY 2017

DIGITAL DEVELOPMENT: WHAT IS THE

Oxfam Discussion Papers

For more information, or to comment on this paper, email AODonnell@oxfam.org.uk

Executive summary .................................................................................. 3

Key lessons ...................................................................................................... 3

Background and context ................................................................................... 9

2 Improving effective use of ICT4D in HECA .................................... 11

2.1 Build on what works and Dont re-invent the wheel................................... 11

3 Key ICT4D opportunities for INGOs in HECA ................................ 36

3.1 INGOs as convenors and helping to build local capacity .......................... 36

4 How can INGOs Improve their ICT in Programme work in Africa?

Appendix A: List of research participants........................................................ 45

Transformative successes have been achieved by those harnessing information and

Design iterative programmes involving real end-users: Such approaches produce

Combat survey fatigue by collaborating on monitoring and evaluation: The ease

Convene, collaborate, and advocate: roles and opportunities for

Recommendations for Oxfam: develop a structure to enhance ICT

Amy ODonnell, ICT in Programme Lead, Oxfam GB

George Flatters is a freelance consultant specialising in user-centred approaches to

CSR Corporate social responsibility

CSO Civil society organisation

CTO Chief technology officer

DFID Department for International Development (UK)

HCD Human-centred design (see also UCD)

HECA Horn, East and Central Africa

ICT Information and communication technology (or technologies)

ICT4D ICT for (international) development

INGO International non-governmental organisation

IoT Internet of things

ITU (UN) International Telecommunication Union

IVR Interactive voice response

Lean Startup An iterative business and product development methodology

M4D Mobile for development

M&E Monitoring and evaluation

MNO Mobile network operator (also referred to as Telco)

NGO Non-government organisation

RPU Revenue per user

SME Small or medium-sized enterprise

SMS Short message service (text messages)

TelCo Telecommunications company (see also MNO)

UCD User-centred design (see also HCD)

WASH Water, sanitation and health

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY

Throughout the interviews, a number of key recommendations, success factors and

Limitations and constraints

2.1 BUILD ON WHAT WORKS AND DONT RE-

Working with older technologies, adapting existing tools, compromising on requirements

Established technology works best for engagement

Building from scratch is duplicating effort

Does your solution have to meet 100 percent of your perceived

Figure 1: Survey responses on whether or not to build a new product

Source: Authors survey

As one survey respondent reflects:

With 53 percent of respondents reporting a lack of ICT capacity among their

Collaborate, collaborate, collaborate

Some interviewees reported (anonymously) cases in which INGOs or international

2.2 THINK LOCAL TO ENGAGE USERS AND