from <b><font size="2">Information Society: Voices from the South</font id="size2"></b> - submitted by Satish Jha - India
For a knowledge economy to become a knowledge society is a long walk. And Gurumurthy is right that we have not even come close to becoming a knowledge economy beyond becoming an outsourcing backyard to those who can afford. Where I find the disconnect in what she hopes the state policy can do and what is realistic is as follows:
Most thinking policy makers would like to suggest that it is <b>the abdication rather than the intervention by the state that has led India to achieve a little more than usual</b> (compared to exporting diamonds, garments, tea etc) in exporting IT services - from plane body shopping to BPO outsourcing.
The state does not have the requisite skill to intervene productively in the process. The state does not create the technology and at best can learn how to use it better and let others find ways of using it better. IT also needs to learn to understand how to use the resources available within and outside the economy better.
There is no denying that some of our companies have moved up the experience curve and are credible enough in doing their jobs globally sp as to be able to compete globally and that should be an opportunity for others to learn from.
However, the state has been woefully behind times and is once again failing us by the lack of experience in dealing with technology issues, the use of technology for social purposes, using it for making governmental process more efficient and setting a national direction to benefit from this new opportunity afforded us by the creators of technology.
Nearly all the projects supported by the state have been the victims of the
following:
There is no capacity within the governmental system to benchmark any of its technology initiatives to an accepted standard anywhere else, including among the top five technology companies in the country.
The projects that have been identified as successful have been led by a very small set of individuals that have been driven to achieve them (Bhoomi and Rajiv Chawla being the foremost example of an acceptable project and Gyandoot and Rajesh Rajora belonging to the other side of intellectual strength with little resources, skills and opportunities to deliver and the rest falling in between).
NIC despite its technical capabilities has followed the same output curve as Independent India in the first half a century of independence- a lot of talent within and little to show for that save a size that can stunt growth and a positioning that can lose opportunities for the state.
Small hyped up examples of success are necessary as they create an awareness for someone else to do a better job and keep the innovation cycle going.
But all this does not add up to much from the point of view of creating a knowledge economy, much less a knowledge society.
Our industry is still a very skeletal user of the capabilities offered by the information technologies as it is hard for them to understand what is helpful from what is expedient. Their budgeted expenses on technology are nowhere close to what the rest of the world does as a share of their output and it is unlikely we will be able to catch up by wishful thinking alone.
In the social space there are a number of experiments going on that add up to a significant noise but stand up as little in the face of the opportunities available.
In the event, how do we change the scenarios and take the path of what is doable rather than what may just be an eminently laudable wish and hope for the nation?
For a knowledge economy to become a knowledge society is a long walk. And Gurumurthy is right that we have not even come close to becoming a knowledge economy beyond becoming an outsourcing backyard to those who can afford. Where I find the disconnect in what she hopes the state policy can do and what is realistic is as follows:
Most thinking policy makers would like to suggest that it is <b>the abdication rather than the intervention by the state that has led India to achieve a little more than usual</b> (compared to exporting diamonds, garments, tea etc) in exporting IT services - from plane body shopping to BPO outsourcing.
The state does not have the requisite skill to intervene productively in the process. The state does not create the technology and at best can learn how to use it better and let others find ways of using it better. IT also needs to learn to understand how to use the resources available within and outside the economy better.
There is no denying that some of our companies have moved up the experience curve and are credible enough in doing their jobs globally sp as to be able to compete globally and that should be an opportunity for others to learn from.
However, the state has been woefully behind times and is once again failing us by the lack of experience in dealing with technology issues, the use of technology for social purposes, using it for making governmental process more efficient and setting a national direction to benefit from this new opportunity afforded us by the creators of technology.
Nearly all the projects supported by the state have been the victims of the
following:
There is no capacity within the governmental system to benchmark any of its technology initiatives to an accepted standard anywhere else, including among the top five technology companies in the country.
The projects that have been identified as successful have been led by a very small set of individuals that have been driven to achieve them (Bhoomi and Rajiv Chawla being the foremost example of an acceptable project and Gyandoot and Rajesh Rajora belonging to the other side of intellectual strength with little resources, skills and opportunities to deliver and the rest falling in between).
NIC despite its technical capabilities has followed the same output curve as Independent India in the first half a century of independence- a lot of talent within and little to show for that save a size that can stunt growth and a positioning that can lose opportunities for the state.
Small hyped up examples of success are necessary as they create an awareness for someone else to do a better job and keep the innovation cycle going.
But all this does not add up to much from the point of view of creating a knowledge economy, much less a knowledge society.
Our industry is still a very skeletal user of the capabilities offered by the information technologies as it is hard for them to understand what is helpful from what is expedient. Their budgeted expenses on technology are nowhere close to what the rest of the world does as a share of their output and it is unlikely we will be able to catch up by wishful thinking alone.
In the social space there are a number of experiments going on that add up to a significant noise but stand up as little in the face of the opportunities available.
In the event, how do we change the scenarios and take the path of what is doable rather than what may just be an eminently laudable wish and hope for the nation?