Options for structuring ict sector level cooperation and governance


Published on

Options for structuring ict sector-level cooperation and governance for Higher Education in Ethiopia

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Options for structuring ict sector level cooperation and governance

  1. 1. Options for structuring sector-level ICT cooperation and governance author: Eric Kluijfhout, eric.kluijfhout@gmail.com   This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/devnations/2.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.  
  2. 2. Options for structuring sector-level ICT cooperation and governance Eric Kluijfhout Towards an ICT Strategy for the Ethiopian Higher Education Sector Addis Ababa, 24-25 November 2009 Ministry of Education of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia & Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  3. 3. <ul><li>When does sector-level cooperation work? </li></ul><ul><li>When all involved profit! </li></ul>
  4. 4. Reasons for IHEs to cooperate at sector-level <ul><li>Shortage: share or exchange scarce resources </li></ul><ul><li>Efficiency: address common problems - solve once, implement many </li></ul><ul><li>Interoperability: develop and operate a shared infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Create clout: strengthen common position </li></ul>
  5. 5. Reasons for Government to delegate to sector-level <ul><li>Ownership: problems are best addressed at the level where they occur </li></ul><ul><li>Academic autonomy: separation of responsibilities </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of capacity: qualitative and/or quantitative </li></ul>Conditions <ul><li>Quality assurance </li></ul><ul><li>Financial transparancy </li></ul>
  6. 6. Cooperation model dimensions <ul><li>Who defines the service to be developed/ delivered? </li></ul><ul><li>Who receives the services? </li></ul><ul><li>Who supplies the services? </li></ul><ul><li>Who pays for them? </li></ul><ul><li>Who monitors and formally accepts upon delivery - is responsible for quality assurance? </li></ul>
  7. 7. Some governance models <ul><li>Government agency </li></ul><ul><li>Delegated responsibility </li></ul><ul><li>Self-organisation </li></ul><ul><li>Mixed model </li></ul>
  8. 8. Government agency <ul><li>The sector-level governance mandate is vested in a Government agency, possibly (a Department of) the Ministry of Education. </li></ul><ul><li>The main advantages of this option are its proximity to strategy development, decision making and budgeting process; and the fact that financing and staffing is in the same hand. </li></ul><ul><li>Potential pitfalls are a focus on control instead of innovation, and aloofness from the real problems ‘on the ground’ (bureaucracy). </li></ul>
  9. 9. Delegated responsibility <ul><li>The mandate for sector-level ICT issues is vested in an independent body. This body will most likely be financed by Government, and its Board may comprise representatives from both Government and the universities. </li></ul><ul><li>The major advantage of this option is the independent – and thus in theory impartial – position which allows it to balance the interests of both the Government and of the HEIs. </li></ul><ul><li>The main pitfall here is the tendency of such agencies to become inward looking and bureaucratic, and lose sight of their service function. </li></ul>
  10. 10. Self-organisation <ul><li>In this option the HEIs self-organise the ICT governance structure at national level. </li></ul><ul><li>The major advantage of this option is its proximity to, and understanding of, the real problems ‘on the ground’. </li></ul><ul><li>Potential problems are a) financing this structure, and related to this b) the differences in ICT maturity between the HEIs; and c) the lack of ICT staff to function at sector level while they are already spread thin in their own HEI. </li></ul>
  11. 11. Options for self-organisation in the HE Proclamation <ul><li>Article 58, sections 1-10 (Forum of public institutions) </li></ul><ul><li>Article 88, sections 7, 9, 11, and 12 (Powers and duties of the Ministry) </li></ul><ul><li>Article 93, sections 1 and 2 (Outsourcing of services ) </li></ul>
  12. 12. Yesterday’s priority areas <ul><li>Setting up a sector-level Governance infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Joint capacity building, developing the knowledge infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Internet services & technical platform coordination </li></ul><ul><li>Applications infrastructure, standards & joint development </li></ul><ul><li>Sharing information, experiences & expertise </li></ul><ul><li>Fund raising & supporting the new universities </li></ul><ul><li>Interconnectivity to share resources for learning and teaching </li></ul>
  13. 13. Dilemma <ul><li>Disparity between the old and the new universities. </li></ul><ul><li>Any proposal on a structure for sector-level coordination should therefore address: </li></ul><ul><li>How the old universities can benefit from cooperation among themselves </li></ul><ul><li>How the new universities can benefit from cooperation among themselves </li></ul><ul><li>How the old and new universities together can benefit from cooperation </li></ul>
  14. 14. Today’s assignment <ul><li>Propose a governance structure that will facilitate sustainable sector-level cooperation in ICT, meeting the needs of a), b) and c) above. </li></ul><ul><li>Indicate specific activities from the seven priority areas that are especially relevant for: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cooperation between the old universities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cooperation between the new universities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cooperation between the old universities and the new universities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Report in the plenary meeting, preferably through a PowerPoint presentation </li></ul>