Puvan J. Selvanathan view complete profile

These examples depict situations based on the speed of information; how trained personnel handle it; and how inputs, outputs and processes are codified as knowledge for the future. These are the basic deliverables of any integrated information management system – and no distinction can be drawn between Developed Countries and Developing Countries to suppose that one is in any less need of such systems than the other. Wherever we are, we all today would use ICT for economic growth if available to us. 2. One Size Does Not Fit All Distinctions between Developed and Developing Countries arise when we consider effecting, nurturing or catalyzing growth as opposed to sustaining growth. Developing Countries have challenges that are entirely different - for example brain-drain vs. brain-gain – which drastically affect the ability of these countries to ramp-up quickly and competently to balance inequalities. Jeffrey Sachs, Special Advisor to the UN Secretary- General on the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), contends that ‘one-size-fits-all’ policies by development agencies are anachronistic and can be dangerous. He advocates country specific ‘Differential Diagnosis’, applied in a coordinated fashion, to achieve MDG targets [4]. This can be extended to support the Brownfield / Greenfield premise when determining how to approach ICT4D in a given development scenario. Unsurprisingly, an issue such as Poverty Alleviation has no common reference between Developed/ Developing views: the understanding of absolute poverty as benchmarked against relative poverty is entirely academic to a society that doesn’t have the requisite US$1 per person per day that allows a line to be drawn.

Common reference increases in Water, Healthcare and Education – which can be positively benchmarked between what already exists in Developed Countries and what Developing Countries can aspire to have. Whether the gauge cites infant mortality, years of primary education, purity of piped water or numbers of teachers in a given geography, the difference between Developing and Developed Countries is knowable with achievable targets – should the domestic will and international resources be mobilized in a timely, productive fashion. It is the comfort of attainability that allows the MDG to endure. Whilst many remain sceptical that MDG targets will be met, that they are or not does not negate their necessity. Until the time that they are reckoned, MDG targets provide much-needed hope to drive the global community.

3. ICT4D - Empowering Governance
Where absolute alignment exists between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ is in the notion of Good Governance. Unlike the other arena in which ICT4D lends a Developed hand to a Developing need, this realm requires the assertion of sovereignty of both hand and need equal to each other. The premise of ‘good’ maintains zero tolerance on most aspects of governance – the most notable being corruption. That maps toward Good Governance are charted in Developed terms is immaterial; democratic, global free-market ideologies define what ‘good’ means, and it is the same in Developing and Developed. This manifests first in ICT4D projects for E-Government, with strategies comprising components such as:

1. Human / Institutional Capacity Building for the skills and knowledge necessary to deliver, operate and apply E-Government.
2. Infrastructure / Info-structure Development to ensure connectivity, protocols, equipment, technology and technicalities required to effect E-Government.
3. Realization & Sustainability Planning to apply resources effectively and sustain them beyond initial implementation by training; technical support; upgrading; etc..

These components are common to the E-Government strategies of nations in significantly different states of economic and social development. They all articulate a focus on the citizen-centric delivery of information and services; ambitions of a Knowledge-based Society; and empowerment of all sectors of their society for the future. They explicitly state the need for interface between citizens and government; and that ‘information’ and ‘knowledge’ are of greater relevance than the technology itself.

E-Government strategies operate both ‘topdown’ and ‘bottom-up’ [see Figure 1] ‘Top-down’ means a high-level Vision - the opportunities, objectives and value proposition to the nation. These broad terms enable ‘buy-in’ from all stakeholders not only within Government, but also citizens and the Private Sector. ‘Bottom-up’ builds enabling infrastructure so that investments in E-Government by stakeholders at every level contributes to a greater whole that is not self defeating or duplicitous. These efforts are typically manifest as an array of products and projects, each with different champions, drivers and targets. Where ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ meet benefits are realized with a shared understanding of what greater goals E-Government aims to achieve. A test of E-Government success is a measurable betterment in quality of interactions with government by citizens and business in order that goals are fulfilled in their own sectors.

4. A Landscape for E-Government
If E-Government strategies are consistent in Vision and expectations of benefits to be delivered, regardless of being Developed or Developing nation, what then is the context for E-Government as ICT4D leading to Good Governance? Countries with a longer history, access to their own funds and a strong, diverse Private Sector view the challenge of E-Government quite differently to countries without such provisions. It is not necessarily a benefit or detriment to be without such provisions. For example, a Less developed Country’s reliance on donor funding to meet project needs provides another level of check-and-balance that might mitigate the risk of project failure and increase the likelihood of more efficient resource allocation; whereas a Developed Country’s strong economy coupled with existing sufficiently satisfactory levels of Public Sector service may make the overall execution and sustenance of projects more expensive and thus less viable in a cost-benefit analysis.

In developing an E-Government Strategy for Mozambique [6], the need arose to delineate how this context would be best represented to meet the expectations not only of the various facets of the Government of Mozambique; but also the international donors whose funds were required to support the project. To meet these varying expectations, a matrix was constructed to capture relevant differences between each group to represent the value of E-Government in its own development context. Also how the proposed E-Government program would be perceived; organized; delivered; and structured. The Government of Mozambique and the community of international donors were direct proxies for Developing and Developed Countries (respectively). From these perspectives, two significantly different landscapes for E-Government as ICT4D were identified:

1. The Brownfield for more developed countries seeking to:
• Inform / Empower Public Sector with ICT
• Improve upon an existing level of service delivery
• Fulfill satisfaction with Government (a ‘better’ experience)

2. The Greenfield for developing countries seeking to:
• Reform / Enable Public Sector with ICT
• Establish a standard for service delivery
• Facilitate interactions with Government (a ‘productive’ experience)

It is acknowledged that the ‘Greenfield’ model may, and usually does, embody some Brownfield traits (e.g. Developing Countries with a colonial administrative history). However this form of legacy is typically confined to bureaucratic procedures and data collection not as yet migrated to any interoperable technology platform.

The differentiating factors between Brownfield and Greenfield landscapes are summarily noted in the table below. These can be said to be the comparison of resources that would have to be applied in order that an E-Government program could be effected and sustained in one landscape as opposed to the other.

Human Resource
Brownfields (Developed Countries) primarily re-train an entrenched and well-performing Public Sector; whereas the Greenfield (Developing Country) must first train existing staff, then the many new staff entering the expanding Public Sectors of growing economies. Appreciably and fortunately, it is more likely that newer recruits in Greenfield areas are younger, more dynamic and more attuned to the benefits of ICT generally.

Information
Brownfields have structured (albeit manual or silo-based) information resources. This requires translation and integration into updated technology to allow users to ‘pull’ information and apply it. However Greenfields typically would not have information resources structured in a manner that can allow technology-assisted migration (because existing databases would probably be paper-based); hence they must first collect data, create channels by which it can be delivered and accessed, and lastly ‘push’ that information onto the desktops of officers whom may not have been used to working with such resources at their fingertips.

Technology
In technology, Brownfields will probably have at least one generation of technology requiring upgrading. The extent of upgrade, together with the ancillary requirements of training and familiarization are incremental as compared with the acquisition and first-time training required by a Greenfields – which require large capital outlays to build their basic hardware and software systems.

Need
This is determined in regard to E-Government relative to the Public Sector as it exists. In Brownfields, E-Government is laid upon an enduring history of governance, with almost every citizen understanding and accepting the role of Government; and acknowledging its validity in the context of sovereignty and nationhood. However this may not be the case in Greenfields where the Government may have only recently acquired a mandate, perhaps for the first time in that nation’s history, and has yet to impact every citizen to an extent that allows self-validation beyond any doubt. Indeed, we can assume that in a few extreme cases not all potential citizens may even be aware that they are subject to a government. For this reason the advent of E-Government is relatively less important in a Brownfield, as compared with the immediate need of Greenfield governments which require any and all channels (ICT driven or not) which could rapidly scale to establish or consolidate themselves and their responsibilities in the eyes of those whom they seek to govern.

Opportunity Cost
Simplistically understood as the value foregone in a venture by committing resources to different venture. To Brownfields, the opportunity cost of E-Government is a budgeted matter that is represented as a line-item amongst many expenditures in a given period that will have been allocated for operation of government in a self-sustaining economy. However Greenfields are likely to have to choose between E-Government and another tangible and no less important venture, such as food-aid or infrastructure.

Absolute Expenditure
Given that technology and training will already figure within the budget of a Brownfield, the factor of Absolute Expenditure is variable within an overall outgoing; however E-Government in a Greenfield requires a capital investment in order to commence and then be scaled to achieve even a minimal presence in every Public Sector jurisdiction.

Relationships
A Brownfield enjoys sophisticated relationships between the various bodies that constitute its Government, with protocols and practices being well established; and (for the most part) transparent and logical. The effect of E-Government therefore is one of streamlining those existing relationships so that they become more relevant to meeting new challenges. E-Government in a Greenfield seeks to establish relationships for the first time, generating complex interactions on various levels that can become the basis of simpler resolution throughout the working of government for the benefit of all.

Drivers
The driver for a Brownfield move to E-Government is the Past - a need to electronically consolidate the existing structure and information of the government into a framework that will allow the Government to continue delivering services with increasing value to society. E-Government in a Greenfield is a key component of the Future of that Government, becoming both a conduit and catalyst for change and performance based on what they aspire to have and deliver to their society.

Best & Worst Cases
As such the Best and Worst Case scenarios for Brownfields and Greenfields are stark comparisons of the potential value of E-Government to the development of the country. E-Government in a Brownfield can, at best, produce happier citizens more able to interact with their Government for a better experience - and at worst there is little change to the already satisfactory experience these citizens have the benefit of. However, the worst case in a Greenfield is a detrimental further distancing from the technologies that are becoming the basis by which economic competitiveness is sustained; with the best case a developing country could hope for being the closing of that gap.

5. Conclusion – Establishing A Valid Viewpoint
Understanding the differences of Brownfield or Greenfield starting points allows consideration of how an ICT4D intervention should be designed and applied in a given national context [7]. Whilst is has been heavily implied that ‘Brownfield = Developed Countries’ and ‘Greenfield = Developing Countries’, it is important to note that such delineation is simplistic. The reality of dual-economies, operating between urban and rural areas in both Developing and Developed Countries alike, means that Brownfields and Greenfields cannot be generalised, and responses to each in whatever context must be tailored accordingly. However applying a Brownfield or Greenfield mindset (in understanding why, when, how and if a given project should happen in a certain way on the basis of what we know to be true about the context in which that project will operate) remains valid and necessary to avoid the pitfalls of a one-size-fits-all approach, or presuming that a Developing Country advocates a certain development project in order to become Developed.

ICT4D projects, whether donor-driven, privatised or self-funded, should have the benefit of several perspectives on any development issue upon which ICT is set to task. This multiplicity of viewpoint is learning in itself that can inform each player in a project prior to cultural, technological and social escalating issues which may impact that project

We are still transitioning into Information and Knowledge Societies. The shape and form of these societies are as ambiguous today as descriptions of any uncertain future will tolerate. Further work remains on determining where tipping-points may lie in development cycles that will allow societies with a critical mass of ICT-capacity to tumble into virtuous circles of endogenous growth based on the proliferation of information and knowledge. If these measures can benchmark how ‘brown’ or ‘green’ a field might have to be at the time that an ICT4D project such as E-Government is effected, and how rapidly consequent effects such as e-governance may then be realised, then billions of dollars and man-hours can be more constructively applied at more effective points in the development cycle.