[kictanet] Who is ICT Board? - Capacity Building

Thu Apr 8 10:29:38 EAT 2010

Just for comparison’s sake:

The
Government of South Australia has an ‘ICT Board’. Their ICT Board provides
strategic leadership and governance of ICT services and initiatives, and
oversees strategic ICT planning activities, for the whole of the Government of
South Australia. The ICT Board directs, monitors and oversees the evaluation
and impact of all policy and planning decisions on ICT capacity and capability.
Visit their ICT Board page for more information. You can also visit their ICT
Governance Framework page for more information on realizing ICT Governance
Framework.

As a
result, I think the Gilda Team is ‘on course’ to help GoK and the Country to
'get it right' because as it is, even though ‘it is not broken’, the future is
very bleak if GoK doesn't change their ‘same-old-lax’ way of doing things. Am
afraid, neither our ICT Board (in my opinion, as it is today) can get us to
‘Canaan’ nor the Directorate of eGovernment. There is need for an informed
Institutional Framework for ICT management in GoK. As the Gilda Team gears
forward in forming committees or working teams/groups, (in borrowing examples
from others) top on the list should be:

1.          
Governance
of ICT committee – One that will engender and promote the concepts of good
governance of ICT in Government and the ICT industry at large;

2.          
ICT
Security and Risk Steering Committee – One that should aim to assure that
processes to address threats to government ICT assets (as well as Critical
Information Infrastructure for Kenya) are implemented, maintained and reviewed
appropriately.

3.          
Shared
Services Committee – Following the ‘connected government summit’, such a
committee would be quite useful in coordinating effective and efficient use of
sharable resources and ensure effective development of sustainable ‘shared
capacity’, to avoid duplication resulting to wastage.

LILIAN

--- On Wed, 4/7/10, Kamotho Njenga <kamothonjenga at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Kamotho Njenga <kamothonjenga at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Who is ICT Board? - Capacity Building
To: "Lilian" <l_wkaranja at yahoo.com>
Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010, 10:16 AM

Dr Waudo,

I have absolutely nothing personal against any entity or person whatsoever. The freedom to voluntarily associate under whatever banner is universally guaranteed and no one can purport to interfere with the same. The case I am trying to bring forth is straight forward: We stand to achieve more for the industry if we work jointly rather than in isolation. The raging debate appertains to the current status of Kenyan ICT institutional framework. Probably the reason why the matter keeps resurfacing is because its yet to receive a sufficient blow. The proposal to have a town hall gathering a reality offers an opportunity for all of us to take stock of the industry/profession. In so doing we might be able to celebrate the successes and if we are willing to ruthlessly face the failures/gaps resulting from our individual and collective misjudgements. 

By pointing out certain issues that are glaringly out of order, I am not doing so to demean any organization or because of what my organization has achieved. In deed I consider myself a culprit as far as the whole quagmire relates. My contributions are informed by some sense of reflection triggered by the unfoldings of this thread.

As to whether I would be willing to work under KEPSA, I would have no hesitation if my contribution would facilitate improvement. In my humble opinion it would be additionally important to have a professional point of reference for the industry. Obviously there exists some variations between the interests of the private sector and those of professionals and Academia.

Regarding the matter you have cited on formation of another association my position is clear. I am not advocating for the formation of an extra association. What would be more appropriate if agreeable is to have the different associations dissolve voluntarily so that we can reconstitute a formidable umbrella entity that would have structures to accomodate the various activity scopes of the multiple associations. My conviction is that if all the organizations can operate under one roof there would be more synergy since despite being detachable, all the facets of ICT are interdependent. Surely, it would be considerably easier to engage each other when working from a common secretariat than when there are organizational demarcations.

Kamotho Njenga

On 4/7/10, waudo siganga <emailsignet at mailcan.com> wrote:

Bw Kamotho - perhaps you cross-check your two mails from yesterday and today as there are some apparent contradictions. Yesterday you wrote that some time back together with some friends you decided to form an association. Today you are writing that "There is a peculiar propensity amongst the ICT folk to create multiple versions (splinter lobby groups) at the slightest excuse.eg ". Yesterday you also wrote "There are many ongoing efforts within the ICT sector but they are too fragmentary to realize any substantial gains. " - which is not consistent with forming yet another association.

The issue of an umbrella organization is another one that is being regurgitated on this list. KIF comprehensively dealt with this issue some years back. The other associations you mention such as LINUX, BPO, etc are to me also doing a good job except maybe ITSA which I think was formed by Prof and his buddies but appears non-operational.

Finally are there some achievements or activities of your association that you could share and is your association willing to work WITH others e.g. under KEPSA?

Waudo

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:23 +0300, "Kamotho Njenga" <kamothonjenga at gmail.com> wrote:

Vitalis,
Your view on the need to form an umbrella body "from a bird's eye view perspective " to guide the formulation and coordination of strategies in ICT sector is quite valid and realizable. There is absolutely no excuse for not having an authoritative reference point for such an enormous industry/pofession. But as you observe the process of getting every eligible person to see the need to board the common vehicle that you envision marks the point where the rubber meets the road. Its bound to be complex but as you say worth trying. For any solid progress to be registered the following realities attributable to the existing state of affairs warrant consideration.

1. ICT is a multifaceted discipline. It has seperate elements to do with Software design, Database issues, AI, Web Design, E-Learning, Mobiles, Hardware....Consequently there are those who argue that the specifics of ICT can not be accomodated in the wider ICT umbrella. The thrust of this opinion is not fully conceivable.

2. There is a peculiar propensity amongst the ICT folk to create multiple versions (splinter lobby groups) at the slightest excuse.eg we currently have some like ICT Association, Computer Association, Linux Association, BPO Association, ICT Consumers Society, IT Standards Association. In fact if the trend continues you will expect some associations to come in the following further versions: Mobile phone society of Kenya, Laptop Association of Kenya, Flashdisk consumers Association of Kenya, M-Pesa customers federation, Windows XP alliance. Word 2007 Self Help group, Blackberry movement of Kenya... name them. It's tantamount to having more preachers than the target congregation.

3. A large section of ICT people are indifferent. They love to mind their own business not the profession nor the industry. They dont see the quagmire

Advancement is possible if all stakeholders decide to abandon mediocrity.

Kamotho Njenga

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 7:33 AM, <bitange at jambo.co.ke> wrote:

Vitalis,

Brother Siganga and Kamotho are best placed to comment on your post.

Ndemo.

> For effective and long term strategicÂ development, the system needs to be

> looked at as aÂ whole, from "helicopter view, or bird's eye view
> perspective.Â  The right hand needs to know what the left is doing.Â 
> Duplication of roles and many centres of powers can only deter

> development. Starting from the global perspective, it was a big debate to
> arrive at the jus the name "Information, Commuinications and
> Techonologies." ItÂ took the world nations a number of forums and

> numerousÂ dicussions and dialogue sessions, before a concensus could be
> reachedÂ to coin the name, ICT.Â  TheÂ main reason was the the complexity
> dueÂ rapidly changing technologcal innovations, the changing needs of the

> people, the needs for governments to developÂ policicies, etc., Some
> polcies wereÂ were based on comand-and-control sytems approach, in
> theÂ indutries or sub-sectors, in what is now commonly known as the ICT

> sector.Â  At the beginning the indutry boundaries were distinct,
>  mainly revolving aroundÂ telecommunications and broadcasting.Â The life
> was easy because the enviroment was stable and the future wasÂ easily

> predicable. WithÂ theÂ techlological innovations in computing and
> communications,Â and the converegence of variuous technologies,Â industry
> boundaries have become more maleable. ThisÂ this is a challenge as well

> as an oppotunity that we are facing and need to be addressed, at all
> times. There is needÂ for an umbrella body "from a bird's eye view
> perspective " to guide inÂ formulation and coordination of strategies in

> ICT sectorÂ to achieve the long-term national objectives. Otherwise we
> will end-up with fragmented development plans, with very little impact on
> the sytem as whole at the national level. Â Â 

>
> Controbutions have been made includingÂ mentioning about professional
> bodies/assocaiations in othe fields, e.g. ICPAK, KMA, etc. Also there are
> variuos governmental authorities in this country. Apart from the ICT

> Board, there are the Roads Boad,Â Coffee Board, etc. which may or may not
> be professionally based. However, it is important to note that ICT is wide
%

----------------------------------------------

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
---------------------------------------------
"easy access to the world"

_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list
kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke

http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: kamothonjenga at gmail.com

Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kamothonjenga%40gmail.com

_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list
kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: emailsignet at mailcan.com
Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/emailsignet%40mailcan.com

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list
kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: l_wkaranja at yahoo.com
Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/l_wkaranja%40yahoo.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20100408/95024cf3/attachment.htm>