Automation, governance, analytics and resource management, delivered through ICT technologies will be among the critical factors underpinning Nigeria’s socio economic development. Consequently, prudent investments in appropriate ICT technologies will be more important than ever before.
One of the important priority areas, in my view, for public and private sector will be how to organize, manage and secure digital assets. This may appear easy, considering the promises of advanced features often reeled out by technology solution providers. However, many deployments suffer badly from a mismatch between expectations and reality. Often times, greed, egocentric squabbling, turf wars, incompetence and a propensity to place personal priorities above national or enterprise ones, lie at the root of the implementation imbroglios. With the prevailing macro economic circumstances, FOREX pressures and extant priorities, it is now imperative to squeeze maximum value from every single dollar invested in technology.
The considerations in our climes are numerous, and require a cohesive approach to eliminate duplication of expenditure and commercial risks. Government should implement a National Database initiative that ensures all critical sectors maintain up to date databases, that can be aggregated into a National Data portal. From identity to baseline statistics. From crime management to licensing information. From education sector information to creative sector information. Data must be available to planners, stakeholders and investors based on different access rights, and must serve as a credible reference able source of truth. Our approach must also focus on eliminating duplicated expenditure, introduce scale economics and deliver a platform from which comprehensive analytics can be elicited for improved National planning and resource deployment. Without this, we are effectively planning in the dark, or even worse with skewed data baselines.
In acquiring technology though, there must be a change in the paradigm and thinking of decision makers and policy formulators. Acquisition and support costs ( support casts can trend as high as 18 – 22% per annum) placed on major OEM offerings are increasingly difficult to understand, considering these systems are sold on the basis of robustness. Implementation costs are often high, and implementation cycles themselves almost always extend beyond the agreed timelines. Many organizations, who take a support absence – for any reason – may find, especially with providers like Oracle Corporation, that they are required to pay up to 150% of their annual support fees, if they want to upgrade in the future or re-enter a support agreement, or forced into repurchasing what they already own. Some of the support reinstatement clauses upon which these fees are based, when scrutinised, replace the concept of ‘proration’ with ‘multiplication’, though the contracts do not mention multiplying this 150% support penalty over the years of absence. This has been a source of angst with many organizations and is perhaps one aspect that requires legal clarity to ensure Nigerian organizations are not haemorrhaging dollars needlessly.
These pressures will create an increasing interest in open source technology and “cloud’ options. This trend is already manifest in advanced climes with many governments now prioritising investments in these two areas. Enterprises like Apple, Netflix, Google, Facebook and many other intense users now leverage ‘Open source’ and ‘cloud’ technologies extensively. NOQSL ( Not only SQL ) databases, for example are increasingly popular and are taking significant market share from proprietary providers, not least because they can handle structured and unstructured data types, offer better economics and are easier to evolve to meet emerging demands. Cloud propositions offer better economics, allow internal resources focus on what really matters rather than managing infrastructure, and potentially deliver cost savings, for provider and client alike. However, cloudy dark spots lie in many ‘cloud’ propositions, and it will be important to hold up a magnifying glass to examine the commercial agreements in detail, as some may lead to data compromise, and even business continuity risks.
Another key priority is how Government fixes the communication gap with its citizens. A National Contact Centre initiative will be useful. This will drive job creation, enhance ICT and communication skills, and critically provide easy access to government institutions by the citizens for a range of matters including sector enquiries, emergency services, intelligence passing between citizen and government. Aggregated analysis will also be possible from proper Contact Centre environments as opposed to the disparate communication mechanisms, based on personal GSM numbers that still obtains in far too many institutions. It is still a source of puzzlement that we have not been able to muster a proper National emergency line framework ( I still notice individual GSM numbers advertised for critical communication platforms. This lacks the required cohesiveness and reliability of access, eliminates the ability to log and track incidents, and critically, denies too many citizens of ” reach out’ capabilities.
Connectivity is another area where government needs to build aggressively on the recommendations and strategies captured in the National ICT policy and the national broadband policy. Many indigenous organizations have invested heavily in connectivity resources, but distribution remains a challenge, not least because of the same factors that afflict other sectors; lack of cohesive planning, personnel interest supplanting the overall good, politics and overall dysfunction. Private sector corruption and inefficiency may also be an issue, as costs occasioned by ‘sharp practice’ ultimately gets transferred to the subscribers.This may be a factor in considering mandatory public listing for telcos, to achieve more probity and accountability, especially as citizens do not have the required confidence in the oversight frameworks at the National Assembly and see a regulatory landscape that despite the strong and professional regulatory posture of the NCC is somewhat tainted by the seeming confusion accompanying sanctioning, payment of ‘seemingly exorbitant’ consultancy fees of 3.4 billion payment on a 34b spectrum acquisition and other lapses, that erode confidence.
Attitudinal elevation in the ICT space is another critical aspect that must be urgently tackled. Far too many of our local talents,especially in the software and content development space, do not have the appropriate attitude to compete globally. Far too many have over inflated opinions of their skills, preventing new ideas and trends to be embraced. The get rich quick mentality that seeps from the high echelons of society has permeated the industry and prevents development and practice ethics. There is a sense of entitlement to monies even if work is shoddy or incomplete. Increasingly, there is a “hostage’ approach to development and ICT activity, which is disturbing, and which must have informed the insertion of some laws within the Cybercrime Act 2015. If care is not taken, at a time when we need to build local skills, scarce dollars will start to pursue development resources overseas, and this will worsen our per capita aspirations. Perhaps a National certification program is needed to ensure people who develop or manage ICT assets can be monitored, regulated ( in a light touch manner) and ultimately sanctioned for breaches of conduct. Failing to do this is akin to sitting on a “ticking time bomb”.
Finally, the administration must find the courage to address aspects of the regulatory environment that portend conflict, confusion and duplication of resources and effort. Spectral resource regulation should be placed under one regulator, the NCC being the most appropriate. Content, once broadcast on any device should be regulated by the NBC. Intervention should be under one agency, the NITDA (NICTDA) being the most appropriate for this. At the moment, all the agencies mentioned perform both regulatory and intervention activities in one form or the other, and this has led to huge confusion ( to investors and sector participants alike), and duplication/ wastage of intervention efforts. Courage must be found to streamline and organise these components regardless of the loss of influence ( determined by pool of expenditure available) that may be a fallout from the process. The overriding consideration has to be National development, not the development and expansion of fiefdoms or influence based on budget sizes.
At a time when we are aspiring to survive through diversification, and attain global competitiveness in the near future; technology represents an opportunity and also a threat. With the UK for example spending 89 billion GBP on education this year for a population of 64 million people ( almost three and a half times the size of our entire National budget for 170 million people), we must make every Naira count towards the National development agenda, invest in open source technology, demand trimmed down OEM propositions for our environment ( we can’t be paying the acquisition costs that obtain in the advanced economies if we are to truly leverage these technologies and build sustainable ROI cases for them), else we are setting ourselves up for an extensive period of ‘second slavery’, in a world that is increasingly borderless, and technology driven.
