Ken Banks, creator of the terrific FrontlineSMS text messaging software, has some great thoughts today on why deep knowledge of on-the-ground circumstances is important to make great software.  And he points out that technologists usually have much lower understanding of development problems than the development specialists who've been studying those problems for years, or the on-the-ground folks who have been working on those problems (in health, in agriculture, etc) for years:

Do we know what ratio of “m4d” [mobile for development] projects are initiated by development practitioners (or sectoral experts in health, agriculture, conservation and so on) as opposed to mobile technologists, and what impact does this have on the success or failure of the project? In other words, if the problem solver is primarily a mobile technologist – the “m” part of “m4d” – then you might assume they have much less understanding of the on-the-ground problem than a development practitioner or sectoral expert might – the “d” part. [read the whole post here]

I think Ken's totally right about this: most technology-for-development projects fail because they rely on expensive (usually foreign) technologists for each and every implementation -- and those technologists almost always know less about malnutrition, farming, malaria, etc, than the folks who are on the ground (plus they're expensive!). So while Ken's experience in Africa was important for the initial creation of Frontline, the ongoing strength of FrontlineSMS comes because it is designed as a multipurpose communications tool that allows OTHERS -- who know their own situations, and their own needs -- to repurpose it as they like, when they like, how they like -- without Ken Banks' permission or assistance.  

And when I say "others" I mean regular people working on the ground in global health and development, not consultants or programmers: ANY bright, motivated person can use Frontline to set up a great SMS comm system without having to raise funding or hire programmers. In this way, FrontlineSMS has dramatically lowered the financial and expertise barriers to using SMS technology effectively.

This means Frontline can always be used in a way that is aligned with the current needs on the ground. It's not a tool to send text messages about malaria, or agriculture, or disasters, or what Ken thinks is important at any moment: it's a tool to send text messages about whatever the people on the ground think is important at that moment -- unfiltered by opinions in London or Washington.

In effect, Frontline was designed by Ken to diminish the weight of Ken's opinions at any one time: it's the local people who have all the say. Which is brilliant, in my opinion -- and exactly the same approach as Hotmail, Excel, Google Maps, etc, which all allow the people on the ground to determine the particular content that is important.

Likewise, our EpiSurveyor data collection system allows ANYONE to collect the data that they want, when they want to, how they want to -- without having to even speak to DataDyne.  EpiSurveyor, like Frontline, is a simple, low-cost, re-purposable tool that removes the need for programmers and consultants.  So if I personally think that someone in Zambia should be collecting data about X but they think they should be collecting data about Y . . . THEIR opinion wins: they can collect data about whatever they damn well please.  

And as local priorities and needs change, which they always do, Frontline and EpiSurveyor let motivated local people (what Bill Easterly, in his excellent White Man's Burden, calls "searchers") change their use of the technology -- without having to fly in a programmer or consultant from New York or Geneva.

This "let the user on the ground do it themselves" approach is a HUGE distinction from too many other "ICT4D" projects, which can only be implemented (and therefore can only scale) with the on-the-ground assistance of what Easterly would call "expensive foreign expertise". 

 As William Buchan (a physician and advocate of teaching patients to treat themselves) wrote in 1794: "No discovery can be of general utility, while the practice of it is kept in the hands of a few."  What that means for us working in technology today is that ANY technology that requires a consultant on the ground for each implementation won't ever be able to reach the vast majority of groups that could benefit from it.

* * *

[thanks to David Brown of the Washington Post for the Buchan quote, one of my favorites]