Communications - June 2009

Understand the true costs and risks, as well as benefits, of innovation. IT innovation like the XO may offer great benefits but also involves costs and risks. The purchase of a laptop is merely the start of a stream of ongoing costs. The total cost of ownership for a laptop program could include infrastructure investment, training, tech support, hardware maintenance, software licenses and upgrades, and replacement expenditures. Cost can also include the opportunity cost or the foregone investment in teachers, facilities, or other educational materials cited by

7

India’s education ministry as its main reason for not joining OLPC. ⁶

There is also a risk that the expected benefits might not be realized. Problems in implementation could limit actual use, and the need for ongoing funding means that the innovation might not be sustainable beyond some initial period. ²^, ¹³ Another risk is investing in a technology platform that might not be supported in the future; for instance, investment in software, content, and training for the XO platform could be wasted if OLPC would disappear.

Policymakers are able to reduce the risk if they make major acquisition decisions only after careful evaluation of pilot projects that enable learning firsthand how the technology fits with their educational goals and environment. Learning from other countries’ experience can be valuable even when the context is different; Al-Gahtani¹says that successful pilot projects by peers in other developing countries help reduce the perceived risk of adoption.

Adopting organizations need to develop internal capabilities and set priorities. Although governments might receive outside assistance for trials, they must be able to sustain the innovation in the development of digital educational content, training of teachers to integrate ICT-based educational materials in the teaching-learning process, and design and installation of supporting IT and power infrastructure. For example, one independent evaluation concluded: “While the Uruguayan government is making a great effort in providing funding for the hardware, there is no funding for designing and developing software and content for use with the laptops or for conducting a thorough evaluation of the edu-

cational and societal outcomes of the project.” ¹³ Other evaluations argue that the countrywide deployments envisaged by OLPC are simply beyond the resources of any developing country, saying that governments must set priorities regarding goals and the regions, sectors, and schools to be served. ⁸^, ¹²

Conclusion

The potential significance of the XO, as well as of other IT innovations, in developing countries calls for systematic, independent evaluation—a true “grand challenge” for the computing and social science communities. Researchers can provide value by conducting well-designed studies of the diffusion and results of such innovation. The knowledge created promises to prevent wasting a great deal of money and effort and lead to quicker diffusion and better use of innovations that prove beneficial. While OLPC has so far fallen short of its goals, there is much yet to be learned by studying this case of IT innovation.

acknowledgments

The Personal Computing Industry Center ( pcic.merage.uci.edu/) is supported by grants from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the U.S. National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sloan Foundation or the National Science Foundation.

References

11. al-gahtani, s.s. computer technology adoption in saudi arabia: correlates of perceived innovation attributes. Information Technology for Development 10, 1 (Jan. 2003), 57–69.

22. avgerou, c. information systems in developing countries: a critical research review. Journal of Information Technology 23 (June 2008), 133–146.

3. avgerou, c. the significance of context in information systems and organizational change. Information Systems Journal 11, 1 (January 2001), 43–63.

4. bbc news. sub-$100 laptop design unveiled (sept. 29, 2005); news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4292854.stm.

5. bray, h. cheaper laptop promised; negroponte remains determined to realize vision. Boston

Globe (feb. 11, 2009); www.boston.com/business/ technology/articles/2009/02/11/cheaper_cheap_ laptop_promised/.

66. einhorn, b. a crusade to connect children. india criticizes an mit professor’s quest to provide

‘one Laptop Per child,’ but he’s forging ahead elsewhere. Business Week.com (aug. 16, 2006); www. businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/aug2006/ gb20060816_021986.htm.

7. farrell, g. ict in education in rwanda. in Survey of ICD and Education in Africa: Rwanda Country Report. World bank information Development, Washington D.c., Dec. 2007; www.infodev.org/en/ Publication.423.htm.

8. haertl, h. Low-Cost Devices in Educational Systems: The Use of the ‘XO-Laptop’ in the Ethiopian Educational System. report distributed by the Division of health, education and social Protection, information and communication technologies, gtZ-Project, Deutsche gesellschaft fur technische Zusammenarbeit, eschborn, germany, Jan. 2008; www.gtz.de/de/ dokumente/gtz/2008-en-laptop.pdf.

9. hamm, s., smith, g., and Lakshman, n. social cause meets business reality. Business Week in Focus (June 12, 2008), 48; www.thefreelibrary.com/ cial+cause+meets+business+reality-a01611563648.

10. hansen, L. Laptop deal links rural Peru to opportunity, risk. Weekend Edition. national Public radio (sunday, Dec. 14, 2008).

11. hiser, s. bill gates criticises oLPc. Plexnex blog (mar. 16, 2006); fussnotes.typepad.com/plexnex/2006/03/ bill_gates_crit.html.

122. hooker, m. 1: 1 Technologies/Computing in the Developing World: Challenging the Digital Divide. global e-schools and communities initiative, Dublin, ireland, may 2008; www.gesci.org/index. php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 75&itemid = 64.

133. hourcade, J.P., beitler, D., cormenzana, f., and flores, P. early oLPc experiences in a rural uruguayan school. in Proceedings of CHI 2008 (florence, italy, apr. 5–10). acm Press, new york, 2008, 2503–2511.

14. kirkpatrick, D. negroponte on intel’s $100 laptop pullout. Fortune (Jan. 4, 2008); money.cnn.com/ 2008/01/04/technology/kirkpatrick_negroponte. fortune/ index.htm.

15. krstic, i. Sic Transit Gloria Laptopi. ivan kristic blog (may 13, 2008); radian.org/notebook/sic-transit-gloria-laptopi.

16. o’Donnell, b. Worldwide Mini-Notebook PC 2008-2012 Forecast Update and 3Q08 Vendor Shares. market analysis. iDc, framingham, ma, Dec. 2008.

17. reuters. intel calls mit’s $100 laptop a

‘gadget.’ cnet news.com (Dec. 9, 2005); news. com/intel+calls+mits+ 100+laptop+a+gadge t/ 2100-1005_3-5989067.html?tag=html.alert.

18. rogers, e.m. Diffusion of Innovations, Fifth Edition. free Press, new york, 1995.

19. shah, a. oLPc struggles to realize ambitious vision. PC World (Dec. 20, 2007); www.pcworld.com/ article/140698/olpc_struggles_to_realize_ambitious_ vision.html.

20. simon, s. Laptops may change the way rural Peru learns. Weekend Edition. national Public radio (saturday, Dec. 13, 2008).

21. stecklow, s. and bandler, J. a little laptop with big ambitions. WallStreetJournal.com

(nov. 24, 2007); online.wsj.com/public/article/ sb119586754115002717.html.

22. Vota, W. omg: oLPc just gutted: 50% staff cut

& more. oLPc news forum post (Jan. 7, 2009); www.olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=4228. msg28414#msg28414.

23. Vota, W. a brightstar oLPc give one get one xo computer distributor. One Laptop Per Child News (oct. 12, 2007); www.olpcnews.com/implementation/plan/ brightstar_xo_computer_distribution.html.

24. Vota, W. oLPc nepal creates content while negroponte dismisses it. One Laptop Per Child News (Jan. 31, 2007); www.olpcnews.com/countries/nepal/ negroponte_curriculum_content.html.

25. Walsham, g. and sahay, s. research on information systems in developing countries: current landscape and future prospects. Information Technology for Development 12, 1 (feb. 2006), 7–24.

26. Warschauer, m. Dissecting the ‘digital divide’: a case study in egypt. The Information Society 19, 4 (sept./ oct. 2003), 297–304.

Kenneth L. Kraemer ( kkraemer@uci.edu) is a research professor in the Paul merage school of business, co-Director of the Personal computing industry center, and associate Director of the center for research on information technology and organizations, all at the university of california, irvine.

Jason Dedrick ( jdedrick@uci.edu) is co-Director and a project scientist in the Personal computing industry center at the university of california, irvine.