This article was downloaded by: [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich]On: 21 December 2014, At: 17:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Information Technology for DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/titd20

Computers, myths and developmentPar Lind aa Department of Industrial Economics and Management , The Royal Institute of Technology ,StockholmPublished online: 12 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Par Lind (1986) Computers, myths and development, Information Technology for Development, 1:2, 99-117,DOI: 10.1080/02681102.1986.9627063

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02681102.1986.9627063

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Information Technology for Development Volume 1 Number 2.© 1986 Oxford University Press.

Computers, Myths and Development

Par Lind Department of Industrial Economics and Management,The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

Abstract The paper discusses the question of the extent to which computerscontribute to the development process of the Third World. Ananswer is not easily found as long as the evaluation is primarily quanti-tative and the most common measure seems to be the total numberor value of computers installed. The computerization process isdiscussed from both global and developing perspectives and, withreference to other writers, the importance of qualitative measures isemphasized. The case of Egypt is taken as an example: the numberof installed computers seems impressive but as most of these belongto the technology of the mid-1970s Egypt has a low computercapacity at a high cost. Finally, the paper raises the question ofwhether the contribution of computers to the development processis a myth.

In the vast majority of developing countries the focus oncomputer technology is unmistakable and even if the level ofcomputerization varies between countries the expectations ofthe new technology are highly pitched.1

'Computers for development' is a subject addressed byseveral writers although mostly dealt with on a macro-levelwhere detailed analysis of development-related applicationsis scarce. Most cases are about scenarios and what computerscould be good for in those scenarios, few are dealing within-depth analysis and real experience. Focus is mainly onpotential benefits rather than 'success-stories', possibly be-cause the latter are so few.

Müller (1979) draws the attention to careful analysis ofneeds for computerization from a quantitative point of view:

'With the continued advances in computing technology, with thebroad spectrum of available computing capabilities and with thediversity that is now possible in computing applications, it isunderstandable why there is international interest in computers fordeveloping countries so that they too can benefit from computing.

1 See for instance Nag (1981); Iau (1981); Longe (1981).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

100 P„ Lind

This interest must however be tempered by the other challengesconfronting developing countries and the many competing demandsmade on their limited financial resources'

From a qualitative perspective, i.e. the appropriateness ofcomputer-based solutions to problems in developing coun-tries, the transfer of computer technology and the attempts todiscern relevant levels of ambitions as to the use of compu-ters, the current situation in a majority of developingcountries is more influenced by marketing considerationsamong computer suppliers than of indigenous computerpolicies and strategies set out to conquer the market byimposing products for which there were no local demands andoffering solutions to problems which they themselves identi-fied.

In addition to this, misconceptions regarding computersand their ability to cope with development issues is afrequently reported problem2 and in a report from India(Kuhn and Kaiser, 1982) it is reported that:

'development-relevant computer applications were suggested thatappear to be born out of the enthusiasm of computer scientists toserve their country without recognizing the severe limitationsenforced by the socio-economic environment'.

Thus a relevant combination of problems and solutions inviews of advanced technology is a critical issue. Stewart (1978p. 275) points out that the characteristics of a technology areconditioned by the environment for which it is developed andKaiman (1981) suggests that appropriateness of informationtechnologies be determined in the light of the social andtechnical capabilities of a country.

Having made these general comments on computerizationin developing countries we will now set out to discuss thecomputerization process in some detail. As it seems that theterm has different meanings to different writers a somewhatdeeper analysis of the word seems to be appropriate.

What is computerization? Computerization as a concept is not readily visualized anddefined. Is it, in its semantic/conceptual form, analoguous towords like 'industrialization' or 'urbanization' i.e. periods inan evolutionary process, or more a word like 'automatiza-tion', a way of work-organization, a chosen alternative out ofmany?

2 See for instance 'Computing in Kuwait', Datamation, December 1981.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Computers, Myths and Development 101

Does computerization refer to the effects of using compu-ters (like impact on employment) or, if possible to separate,to the number of computers installed or to both? Quite oftenthe number of systems is used as an indicator of computeriza-tion. In a previous attempt to define computerization (Lind,1982), the following was suggested:

Dataprocessing is the technique of manipulating data, usinga computer.Computerization is the accumulated adoption of data-processing.

The term 'computerization' as defined here can be appliedto the firm-level as well as to the country/region-level.However, as the uses of computers are aggregated up tocountry/region level, this is the perspective we will use here.Furthermore, a firm may use an advanced computer system ina so-called turn-key solution, e.g. a complete plant is installedin a country with no local service etc. In this case the presenceof a computer does not necessarily start a computerizationprocess.

Taking the macro-perspective (country, region) it is, on theother hand, difficult to determine when computerizationbegins and it is also a complex task to determine whethercomputerization is a limited process and thus assessable in abefore-after perspective.

From a developing perspective, computerization is a tech-nology transfer process from developed countries and as such,models and approaches for description can be used. Stewart(1982) argues against the rational idea in technology transferin the sense that developing countries do not have the optionto select and choose technology from a shelf but rather have topick what they can get from a 'moving staircase'. The meaningof this is that change in technology gives developing countriesa limited selection of choices for their computerizationprocess. This is a major issue that will have a quantitative aswell as qualitative impact on the computerization process inmost developing countries.

A difficulty encountered when trying to assess the com-puterization process is, as already indicated, to use a relevantmeasure. Müller and Rayfield (1977) point out that:

'One finds overly simplistic measures such as the number ofcomputers installed or their values, often presented in terms oforiginal purchase price. Sometimes one finds these figures modifiedby an adjustment designed to take into account the state of thedevelopment of the country based on its per capita GNP. Onereason for not dwelling on such measures is that they ignore the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

102 P. Lind

question of effectiveness of use and the extent to which thecomputers are used for high priority needs',

Underutilization of computer technology is a frequentlyaddressed issue in this context. Maruf (1981), to take oneexample, shows from the public sector in Malaysia that 80 percent of all installed computers (48 installations) had autilization of less than 50 per cent.3 The figures do not seem tobe of any exceptional nature.4

Quoting number of computers installed without taking intoaccount the effective use may thus be misleading. Forinstance, two countries may possess the same number ofcomputers but the yields may differ substantially due todifference in efficiency. Comparison between developing anddeveloped countries in this context is for this reason ofteninappropriate, at least on an aggregate level. Down onfirm-level, however, individual companies may be found indeveloping countries where computers are as effectivelyutilized as in technically more advanced countries.5

Already around 1960, ten years after the first commerciallyavailable computer appeared in the West,6 countries like

From a global perspective I n d i a ' ^d°™f a n d Egypt, just to mention a few, wereintroduced to the use of computers. The growth rate, ratherslow in the beginning increased during the 1970s, and towards1980 the number of installed computers was in India 540, inIndonesia 400 and in Egypt 190.7

These figures are purely 'raw-figures' and do not take intoaccount the effective use of the computers. For the figureshaving the same source the relative difference can be ex-pected to be roughly the same even after compensation foreffectivity factors. Numbers quoted and compared fromdifferent sources do however too often show inconsistencybetween each other as the grouping of different types ofcomputers is arbitrary. And to make things worse, groupingshave a tendency to change over time as performance under-goes the rapid development that is so characteristic for thistechnology (see Table 3 below).

In 1982, one idea of computer groupings had the followingstructure:

3 The same result from Malaysia is shown by Lau (1981).4 Egypt: interviews with computer professionals; India: report by Kuhn and

Kaiser (1982).5 MacFarlan (1981, 1983).6 The first commercial computers installed in Sweden were IBM 650 for two

major insurance companies in 1954-5.7 See for instance Lind (1985).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Computers, Myths and Development 103

Minicomputers*DECPDP,VAX*HP 1000,3000*DG Eclipse, Nova

General Purpose Computers*IBM 360,370,4300,30XX,3081*IBMS/3,38»Burroughs, CDC, HIS, NCR, UNIVAC

Small Business Computers*IBMS/32,S/34*DEC, Datasystem 300,500»Burroughs B80,90,800,900* Wang 2200

Microcomputers Desk-top Computers»IBM PC»Tandy»Apple

Fig. 1. Grouping of different types of computers (Source: InternationalData Corporation, IDC).

The somewhat confusing classification language concern-ing computers results in inconsistency between figuresquoted as types and models are sometimes arbitrarilyassigned to different groupings.

Attempts have been made to compare figures of computer-ization, on an aggregated level (regions) where value is usedinstead of numbers. This does not eliminate the problem ofeffectivity but partly reduces the classification problem. Rada(1983, p. 205), in quoting Diebold,8 thus states that

Tn terms of the value of data processing equipment the consultingfirm Diebold (Europe) estimates that the United States, Japan andWestern Europe accounted for 83 per cent of the world total in 1978.The 17 per cent share held by the rest of the world will have risenonly marginally to 20 per cent by 1988. Most of this figure isaccounted for by Eastern European countries and by some develop-ing countries. Large Western banking firms possess more computerpower than the whole of India. During the period 1978-1988 the'gap' in the value of equipment between Western advanced coun-tries and the others is expected to grow by a factor of more than two'.

From a time perspective the world distribution of dataprocessing equipment has however changed significantly asshown by the following table:

8 Diebold is an internationally operating consultant firm analyzing trends anddevelopment in computerization.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

104 P. Lind

Table 1: World Distribution of Data Processing Equipment inpercent (value). Total in billions of Swiss francs. (Source: Rada1980).

USAWestern

EuropeJapanOther

CountriesTotal

196070

204

6100

(7.9)

197062

275

6100

(93.9)

197353

287

12100

(147.3)

197846

298

17100

(265)

198343

327

18100

(440)

198841

328

19100

(622)

The distribution of value for type of equipment hashowever changed significantly over the years:

Table 2: Distribution of Value by Type of Equipment (per cent)(Source: Rada/Diebold)

ComputersPeripheralsTransmission

196075220.6

197063267.5

197358309

1978434015

1983354024

1988313830

Any conclusion based on these figures need however takeinto account the change in price/performance during theperiod as shown in the following table:

Table 3: Price/performance change (Source: Datamation)

Cost in 1975 as Cost in 1985 as% of cost in 1960 % of cost in 1975

Computers 0.5 20Peripherals

(mass storage) 2 10Communication

(line cost) 61 53

What kind of conclusions can be drawn from these tables,except for the obvious ones? Unfortunately no figures relatedto developing countries are explicitly shown in Table 2.1 butare included in the figures shown for 'Other Countries'. Wemay however try a qualified guess: Kalrnan (1984, p. 231)shows, not quite surprisingly, that trade with computers(import and export) grows with growing GNP per capita.Figures for the period 1960-80 show that most of the oil

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Computers, Myths and Development 105

exporting countries, the so called newly industrialized coun-tries and the East-European countries show the highestgrowth rate in GNP whereas the least developed and mostother developing countries had a significantly lower GNPgrowth per capita.9 It can then be repeated that in the growthin value of dataprocessing equipment between 1960 and 1980,the least developed and developing countries have a verysmall share of this computerization. But even the technicallymore advanced developing countries are far behind the mostadvanced developed countries. Jamin (1981, p. 13):

'Of importance is (. . . in this context . . .) the difference incomputerization level among the developing countries, levels whichvary from beginners to the more advanced countries. According to asurvey by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology only 26developing countries have reached a computerization level compa-rable to that of West Germany in 1965. Among these countries canbe found Chile, Colombia, Malaysia, Peru, The Philippines, Korea,Singapore, Taiwan, Argentina, India, Mexico and Brazil. Themajority of the developing countries are still in the very beginning ofadopting computer technology'.

A technology transferperspective

As already noted the transfer of computer technology fromdeveloped to developing countries, a pre-condition for com-puterization to take place, is not an entirely rational choicefrom a variety of available products and solutions but ratherlimited in many aspects. Stewart (1978, p. 1) gives thefollowing view:'Technology consists of a series of techniques. The technologyavailable to a particular country is all those techniques it knowsabout (or may with not too much difficulty obtain knowledge about)and could acquire, while the technology in use is that subset oftechniques it has acquired. It must be noted that the technologyavailable to a country cannot be identified with all known techni-ques: on the one hand weak communication may mean that aparticular country only knows about part of the total methodsknown to the world as a whole. This can be an important limitationon technological choice. On the other hand, methods may be knownbut they may not be available because no one is producing themachinery or other inputs required.'

Stewart (ibid.) presents the following figure:

All knowntechniques(wT)

Availability

communication

Technologyavailableto thecountry (cT)

Selectionmechanism

Technologyin use(uT)

Fig. 2. How world technology (wT) is narrowed down to technology in usein a country (uT).

9 World Development Report 1982, Table 1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

106 P. Lind

He makes the comment:'if the technology in use is thought to be inappropriate, it may beinappropriate because world technology is inappropriate, or be-cause an inappropriate subset is available to the country, or becausean inappropriate selection is made, or for some combination of thethree reasons. Confusion is caused by failing to distinguish betweenthe three.'

On the other hand, appropriate use of technology does notonly require a selection to be done but also adaptation totechnical as well as socio-economical environments. With thisnotation the second half of Fig. 2 could be modified asfollows:

Technologyavailableto country

Technicaladaptation

Socio-econ.adaptation

Non-adaptabletechnique

-5k

Technologymuse

Fig. 3. Selection and adaptation.

In Fig. 3, non-adaptable technique refers to situationswhere certain technical characteristics are not suitable to thetechnical conditions (e.g. communications oriented compu-ters where telecommunications network is insufficiently builtout or unreliable) or where the organizational requirementsto manage the technique in question cannot be fulfilled withinthe existing socio-economic infrastructure. Narasimhan(1984, p. 10) gives an example of this:'Software practices, such as distributed processing and word proces-sing, assume new dimensions in countries where the telecommunica-tion infrastructure is undeveloped, or where the local script andmode of writing differ radically from those in European countries'. '"

Narasimhan thus implicitly draws the attention to a veryimportant issue in conjunction with computer technologytransfer as compared to most other advanced technology.

In the transfer of computer technology from developed todeveloping countries, computer hardware may be treated, inthis context, like any other advanced technology; and soft-ware, going with the hardware as systems software" can betreated like hardware. Application software, however, repre-senting solutions to specific problems in administrative,industrial, financial etc. areas, is often related to conditionscharacterized by the application areas in the country where aspecific application has been designed and developed. Many

10 See also Muller (1976); Rada (1983); Lind (1984); Kalman (1981).11 Systems software is, for instance, operating systems and utility programs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Computers, Myths and Development 107

writers address these issues and claim that application soft-ware is not value-neutral but possesses qualities which areattributed to a western, and in particular anglo-saxon, valuepattern.12

Narasimhan (1984, p. 8) further distinguishes between twokinds of application software: software products (packages)and software-supported systems. Software products, likeaccounting packages and other well-defined solutions towell-formalized problems, would still need to be modifiedbefore they become practically usable, but'this is, in general, the simpler of the two cases to cope with.Software supported systems, on the other hand, almost always haveto be tailor-made to suit the specific end-user environments. Even ifsimilar systems are in use elsewhere, transporting them, modifyingthem, and fitting them to match local needs may not be easy. In fact,in many cases, local specifications may be a preferred solution. Thestructures and expertise needed to create such systems may have tobe dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Also transfer of knowledge inthese system design areas is likely to be less straightforward. Butprecisely these applications areas are the ones of great immediateimportance to developing countries. It is in meeting these needs inthese application areas that available software production models inthe developed countries are likely to be of very little relevance.

Existing models in the developed countries are likely to be morevaluable and applicable to (. . . applications that relate to increasingproductivity in the industrial sector . . .) But even in these cases, thelocal conditions and contexts may require the creation and use ofnew structures. Industrial production establishments in the develop-ing countries—even in the more advanced ones—seldom have thelevel of information-awareness that is usually taken for granted insuch establishments in the developed countries. Information proces-sing practices, and software packages created to implement suchpractices in the developed countries, cannot therefore be trans-ported to developing countries and made to function effectively in astraightforward way.'

A central issue in the transfer context is also the role of thevarious actors involved, e.g. vendors/suppliers as well as localagents and users. The availability communication in Fig. 2as well as in Fig. 3 is to a great extent a function of attitudesand conscious strategies of the suppliers,12 who in turn aredepending on market sizes for their capital-intensive productsdevelopments. IBM, as an example, follows very strict andformalized internal routines when judging whether a hard-ware or a software adaptation can be justified. A salesrepresentative files a Request for Price Quotation (RPQ)regarding modification of a product in a sales situation; afavourable decision requires a positive cost/revenue analysis

12 See for instance Lind (1985); Kalman (1981); Rateau (1981).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

108 P. Lind

which is often very conservatively weighted due to the riskthat the so called multiple effect, i.e. subsequent sales whichresult as a consequence of the first one, will not occur and,thus, the cost break-even will not be achieved. As the limitedpotential in a developing country cannot absorb the highvalue required to keep the price low, the result is often that noadaptation is carried out. As a matter of fact, with a prioriknowledge among marketing personal, it is likely that veryfew RPQ's are filed.13 A navigable way for both suppliers andusers is therefore to copy already existing solutions, promotedby the suppliers. This is very much reflected in the currentcomputer solutions.

Historically, computers were introduced into those sectors ofthe industrialized countries where formalized routines didalready exist and where the expected benefits of computeriza-tion were most adequately articulated. Organizations tofollow these patterns were, for instance, banking/insurancecompanies and government institutions where electromecha-nical devices such as collators and sorting machines had longbeen used for processing large amounts of data registered onpunched cards.

A similar pattern can be observed as computers were andare being introduced into developing countries. As howeverthese more basic applications do not automatically matureinto more advanced applications such as production planning,process control or financial simulation systems, the level ofcomputer usage is still comparatively low.14 A survey fromKuwait15 shows that computer output mostly consists ofsummary reports which are distributed to low level manage-ment and are of limited value to middle and top management.The report also reveals that only few organizations, mainly inthe oil and banking sector, have been able to move towardsdatabase decision-oriented systems used for managementcontrol and strategic planning. A great number of reports ofsimilar character is available.16

The reason for the comparatively slow growth in moreadvanced computerization in most developing countries isclaimed to depend on a variety of factors like:

13 An IBM executive in Tunis thus stated that due to the small Tunisian marketit is useless to even file a Report for Price Quotations (RPQ). At the IBMlaboratories in Sweden responsible for system software development andRPQ-support on the international market, no RPQ from a developing region hadbeen filed, at least not for the last four years (interview).

14 See for instance Narasimhan (1984); Lind (1985).15 See p. 100 fn. 2.16 Examples of reports on applications, e.g. Narasimhan (1984); Kuhn &

Kaiser (1982).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Computers, Myths and Development 109

- financial constraints- lack of know-how- limited vendor interest

and an implicit question that arises, and which is alsoexpressed by several writers, is whether the computerizationshould be pushed in a direction where the benefits todeveloping countries themselves are not demonstrated orapparent.

The most common approach towards computing needs fordevelopment involve the following areas (Narasimhan, ibid.,p. 20):

1. Applications concerned with basic needs and the agri-cultural sector.

2. Applications in the government sector.3. Applications in the industrial and service sector.

A number of papers have addressed the use of computerswithin these three groups, albeit on a mostly general level,with emphasis on the first two.18 The relevance and potentialimportance of computer applications in developing industryshould however motivate more focus on this group.19

Industrial computer The nature of computer applications in industry may beapplications classified on a scale ranging from more administrative types

like payroll, accounting, order entry etc to process orientedapplications like machine monitoring and process control.

Administration oriented

payrollaccountingorder-entryinventoryengineering changepurchasing/goods receivingproduction controlMRPshopfloor controlmachine monitoringprocess control

Process oriented

Fig. 4. Scale of industrial computer classifications

17 See p. 108 fn. 16.. 18 See p. 108 fn. 16, but also Robson (1984).

19 At an international conference in Budapest in 1985 on Advances inProduction Management Systems where a great number of important paperswere presented, only one addressed the topic from a developing perspective:Lind, P., 'Some Notes on Production Management Systems from the Perspectiveof Industries in Less Developed Countries'.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

110 P. Lind

The scarce literature available on computerization indeveloping industries indicates that computers are found tosome extent in process industries where relatively advancedapplications occur, primarily in so called turn-key installa-tions, where the computer is an integrated component fordirect control of an industrial process like in oil refineries andsteel works.20 In manufacturing, very few computer installa-tions seem to be used for applications below the inventorycontrol level in Fig. 4, with the exception of local productionsites of transnational Industries which sometimes have com-puters for production planning but hooked up to their mainsystem at the headquarters.

The low penetration of industrial computer applications isprimarily attributed to lack of capital and know-how,21 butthe attitudes of the computer suppliers do not seem to havefavoured marketing of their industrial—oriented products,probably due to insufficient market potential.22 And asindustrial computer applications in general require skilledand frequent installation support,23 applications like owndevelopment of a computer based system for productionplanning and control are in practice economically unbearablefor most companies of small-to-average size in developingcountries.

Computerization in Computers were introduced into Egypt in 1962 and by 1979the number of computers had reached 120 in government andthe public sector,24 185 if the private sector is also included.25

The first computer to be installed at a university was in 1964(University of Alexandria), followed by Cairo University andAin Shams University in 1968-9.

With ICL established in Egypt already in 1934, only a fewmore computer vendors were entering the Egyptian market inthe early period of 1963-74, viz. IBM and NCR.2(' With thebeginning of the open door policy in 1974-5, a number ofcomputer vendors were attracted by the opening Egyptian

20 Still a number of convent ional process compute rs , e.g. IBM 1800, with-drawn from the marke t in the middle of the 1970s, are repor ted still existing in,for instance, India and Kuwait .

21 See for instance Bessant (1983).22 It is generally known that installing an industry software package involves

difficulties and takes a long t ime, thus requiring considerable support from thevendor . Scarce financial resources , however , tend to reduce the user 's ability tospend on this support , with bad systems performance as a likely result .

23 The total deve lopment effort for IBM's software product for product ionplanning and control (COPICS) has been est imated as 100 man-years .

24 Egyptian Computer Science Journal, January 1982.25 Official Statistics from C A P M A S , Cairo (Central Agency for Public

Mobilization and Statistics).26 IBM: Internat ional Business Machines ( U S A ) . ICL: Internat ional C o m p u -

ters Limited ( U K ) . N C R : Nat ional Cash Registers ( U S A ) .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Computers, Myths and Development 111

market and the number of vendors increased rapidly. Oneofficial source reports more than 30 firms were represented onthe Egyptian market in 1981,27 another reports 22 firms.28 Itshould however be noted that NCR, ICL and IBM, togetherstill represent nearly 60 per cent of all installed computers. Ofthe rest, more than ten vendors have sold only one or twosystems each, which is often too few for the critical volume ofestablishing a service organization and other kinds of supportto the users.29

A figure indicating a general level of performance andeffectiveness of computer usage in Egypt is not availablealthough a perception of low utilization and difficulties tofinancially motivate many installations is clearly observable.70 per cent of all installed computers are thus regarded as notoptimally utilized,30 which can be further precised as follows:

'It is not unusual to see an effective utilization of 5-10 per cent and ithas even happened that computers be unused for 2 and 3 years',31

A general conception is that about 10 per cent of allinstalled computers can be characterized as well utilized,efficient and achieving their objectives whereas 90 per centare regarded to be faulty in one way or another.

Contrasting to this are however quotations like:

'Egypt is quite advanced in computerization.12

Or'Egypt is one of those countries where for a long time dataprocessinghas been successfully implemented. (Ägypten gehört zu den Länd-ern, die die Datenverarbeitung seit vielen Jahren erfolgreicheinsetzen)'. (Jamin, 1981).

The seemingly contradictory Statements arise out of thedifferent definitions of computerization, with number ofcomputers installed as the primary indicator. As alreadyargued, a standpoint that focussed on benefits achieve wouldbe a better and more relevant measure.

Computers installed Available statistics on installed computers in Egypt shows thesituation at the beginning of 1982.

2 7 See p. 110 fn. 24.2 8 See p. 110 fn. 25.2 9 'In 1976 the average computer suppliers allocated 15-20 percent of the total

revenue for marketing costs and the same amount on service and maintenance forcustomer installations' (Lind, (1984), p . 83).

30 Interview with S. Wehab, Director of the Scientific Computer Center , AinShams University, Cairo.

31 Interview with general manager of a computer supplier (Egypt based) inCairo.

3 2 See fn. 30.33 See p . 110 fn. 25 .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

112 P. Lind

For classification of the material we use the one in Fig. 1('Grouping of differing types of computers'), i.e.

General Purpose ComputersMinicomputersSmall Business ComputersMicrocomputers/Desk Top Computers

As we also wish to introduce age-distribution we are facedwith the problems of ambiguity: a general purpose computerof the early 1970s may today in performance etc correspond toa small business computer. Instead of attempting to compen-sate for this in the tables below we prefer to give the raw data.One reason for keeping to this classification also in a timeperspective would be that the organizational requirements ofGeneral Purpose Systems (staffs of operators, systems spe-cialists etc.) have not undergone any significant change.

A summary of installed computers distributed according totype and age is shown in the following table:

Table 4: Distribution of Computers in Egypt according to type and date of installation as per December1980 (Not including military installations). (Source: CAPMAS)

General Purpose ComputersMinicomputersSmall Business SystemsMicrocomputers/Desk Top Computers

Total (%)

-197017—389

64(38)

1970-751518197

59(35)

1975-805

3033

41(25)

1980-———3

3(2)

Total (%)37 (22)48 (29)60 (36)22 (13)

167 (100)

From the table it can be observed that over 70 per cent ofinstalled computers were based on pre-1975 technology. Thisfigure is 86 per cent for General Purpose Computers, 37 percent for Minicomputers and 95 per cent for Small Business

0.15 -

0.10 -

0.05 -

Fig. 5: Price/performance development for computers. (Source: Data-marknaden inför 1980-talet. SIND 1978:1)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Computers, Myths and Development 113

Users and suppliers

Systems. 1975 is here taken, somewhat arbitrarily, to indicatethat the price/performance factor had by then reached a levelsignificantly lower than before.

It is thus relevant to state that, from a price/performancepoint of view, Egypt is to a greater extent using low-capacitycomputer facilities at a high cost.

The ten major computer vendors on the Egyptian market,with three or more installations, were in December 1980:

Table S: The ten major computer suppliers in Egypt per December1980 (Source: CAPMAS)

NCRICLIBMSiemensDigital EquipmentWangPerkin ElmerData GeneralBurroughsDatapoint

55342310138

12773

installed computers

Classifying the users into four categories, Ministries, Gov-ernment Organizations, Public Organizations and PrivateOrganizations, we get the following distribution:

Table 6: Distribution of computers among user categories (Source: CAPMAS)

MinistriesGovernment OrganizationPublic OrganizationPrivate Organization

(64)(26)(82)

Number ofComputers (%)

14(8)46 (26)57 (32)60 (34)

177 (100)

Major

SiemensNCRICL, NCR

IBM,

Suppliers(%)

NCR (57)

In addition to the foreign suppliers there are a number oflocal software and consulting houses e.g. National SG2Computer Co, Al-Ahram Computer Service, the ElectronicIndustrial Center of Research and Development. The majormissions for these firms are to develop or adopt softwarepackages, train computer professionals and provide on-sitesystem support.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

P. Lind

ijor application areas are accounting and general ledger,payroll basic costing and inventory accounting (stock con-trol). Dataprocessing is primarily batch-oriented (no termin-als) and only few organizations—mainly in banking andtourism (e.g. Egypt Air)—have been able to move towardsreal-time database systems.

Industry (mainly public) like textile, automobiles, iron &steel and chemical (including petrol) have adopted computersbut primarily for administrative applications as above. In theiron & steel sector, however, computers are in use for on-linemaintenance management as well as for process control and inthe automotive sector computer-based solutions for materialsmanagement are being tested.

The relatively low ambition as regards industrial applica-tions can probably be attributed to two factors. The computersuppliers (and software houses) do not take any particularinitiatives to promote their industrial products as the marketpotential is considered very limited and this type of applica-tion in general requires substantial support, before as well asafter the computer installation. In addition to this, the bondsbetween industry and universities are traditionally relativelyweak and good joint projects (like between Cairo Universityand the automobile sector) are exceptions rather than rules.34

One explanation for this weak interaction is that R&Ddepartments in universities and elsewhere (e.g. NationalResearch Center) strive for advanced research activities, notseldom for prestigious reasons, but also to keep pace withinternational R&D. Industry, on the other hand, faced withday-to-day problems demanding practical solutions, is ofteninterested in existing solutions based on proven techniquesnot necessarily on front-edge technology.

A similar discrepancy between theory and practice appliesto higher education in computer science where a strongemphasis on theoretical issues (data structure, algorithmanalysis, switching theory etc.) at the sacrifice of applicationoriented education can be noticed.36 With the current situa-tion, the users in industry must therefore to a great extent relyon educational activities performed by the suppliers.

Ss there a myth? By a myth we understand an imaginary thing spoken of asthough existing.37 When asking the question if there is a myth

3 4 See p . I l l fn. 31 but also U N I D O repor ts .35 Dr Abdal lah , Egyptian National Research Cen t re .36 'A Proposal for Comput ing Science Educat ion in the Faculty of Science in

the Egyptian Universit ies ' . (Sarhan, Baracat , Wa t r ab ) . See also Lind (1984),p . 84.

37 F rom Webster ' s New World Dictionary the definition of myth is bor rowed:'A traditional story of unknown authorship ostensibly with a historical basis, butserving usually to explain some phenomenon of na tu re , the origin of man , o r thecustoms, institutions, religion rites etc of a people ' .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Computers, Myths and Development 115

regarding computerization in developing countries we mayslightly rephrase the question and ask: Is there a widespreadassumption that the use of computer technology is, in asignificant way, contributing to the development process ofdeveloping countries? Many writers have, not surprisingly,addressed this issue and the opinions vary from enthusiasm toscepticism. Among the enthusiasts we find opinions like:'It is now an accepted fact that there are various areas in adeveloping country where the pace of development can be speededup significantly by the use of computers'. (Gupta, 1981, p. 61).or'We are many in developing countries who found our hope in thecomputer revolution. We see in it a way to realize our dream toovercome poverty and mediocrity and to reach a society of equityand welfare'. (Benmokhtar, 1984, p. 127).A different opinion is expressed by Rada (1982, p. 226):'It must be pointed out that the blessings from the new (computer)technology today still to a great extent exist on paper only'.

('Es muss jedoch darauf hingewiesen werden dass die Segnungender neuen Technologie heute wietgehend nur auf dem Papiervorhanden sind.').Similar disparity can be noted as computerization issues arenarrowed down to application areas like industrial applica-tions, albeit extreme standpoints tend to be more rare; andopinions focus on potential benefits rather than achieved onessimply because the latter are practically unexisting.'Industry in developing countries will greatly benefit by the explo-sive advance in micro-computer technology'.38

is contrasted by views like:'Industrial computer applications in developing countries are solelyof cosmetic character and it will take another fifty years before theywill be of any benefit'.39

or that the adoption of micro-technology for industrialoriented applications will make sense only in key-areas likeairport traffic control, telecommunication and statistics.40

In various UNIDO reports, guidelines and strategies aresuggested in order to achieve the potential benefits ofcomputers,41 however often on a very general level.

Coming back to the initial question of this section we canhardly claim to have delivered an answer. On the other handthe expectations from computers are in most developing

38 Arab ia , Islamic World Review, Dec 82/Jan 84.39 Interview with D P Genera l Manager in Cairo.4 0 Entwicklung und Zusammanarbeit, Köln, 11/82.41 See for instance U N I D O report from Vienna . June 1981. the U N I D O /

E C L A reports from Mexico, June 1982, and the U N I D O / E C W A report fromKuwait 1984.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

116 P. Lind

countries highly pitched and almost aggressive attitudes aresometimes met in the defense of computer technology as a'blessing' (to use the words of Rada, above) for development.It is. admitted that there is a significant difference betweenexpectations and myths. But as long as the contribution fromcomputers to the developing process is discussed on a mainlyconceptual and general level and as long as practical experi-ence, confirming or rejecting the appropriateness of sug-gested solutions, is rare, many ideas discussed belong to theshadowed borderland between realistic expectations andmyths.

References

Benmokhtar, B. (1984), 'Regional Computer Cooperation andSocio-Economic Development: Case of Morocco' in Kalman, R.(ed), Regional Computer Cooperation in Developing Countries,North Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam.

Bessant, J (1983), 'The Diffusion of Microelectronics' in Jacobsson,S. and Sigurdsson, J. (eds), 'Technological Trends and Challengesin Electronics', RPI, Lund.

El-Sayed Noor, 'Computing in Kuwait', Datamation 12/1981.Gupta, P. (1981), 'Policy Framework for Development of Computer

Technology and Applications' in Bennett, J. and Kalman, R.(eds), 'Computers in Developing Nations, North Holland Publ.Co., Amsterdam.

Iau, R. (1981), 'A Bold Approach: The Singapore ComputerStrategy' in Bennett, J. and Kalman, R. (eds), ibid.

Jamin, K. (1981), Die Bedeutung der Informations- und Kommuni-kationstechnologie fuer Entwicklungslaender, CDG, Köln.

Kalman, R. (1981), 'Eight Strategies for Informatics' in Bennett, J.and Kalman, R. (eds), ibid.

Kalman, R. (1984): 'Indicators for Regional Cooperation' inKalman, R. (ed), ibid.

Kuhn, M. and Kaiser, H. (1982), Computer Applications—Prospectsfor Developing Countries, COSTED, Madras.

Lau, C. (1981), 'Computer Technology in Malaysia' in Bennett, J.and Kalman, R. (eds), ibid.

Lind, P. (1982), 'Computerization in Developing and DevelopedCountries—a Model for Comparison', Technology and CultureReport Series No. 5, RPI, Lund.

Lind, P. (1984), 'Computer Competence Centre: A Model forRegional Cooperation', in Kalman, R. (ed), ibid.

Lind, P. (1985), 'The Advent of Computerization: South' in Elliot,K. and Lawrence, P. (eds), Introducing Management, Penguin,London.

Lind, P. (1986), 'Some Notes on Production Management Systemsfrom the Perspective of Industries in Less Developed Countries'in Brown, J. and Szelke, E. (eds), Advances in ProductionManagement Systems, North Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Computers, Myths and Development 117

Longe, O. (1981), 'Computer Applications to Basic Needs ofDeveloping Nations' in Bennett, J. and Kalman, R. (eds), ibid.

MacFarlan, W. (1981), 'Singapore Bus Services Ltd.', Case Report0-182-168, Harvard Business School.

MacFarlan, W. (1983), 'Sime Darby Plantation Div.', Case Report0-183-183, Harvard Business School.

Maruf (1981), 'Computerization in Malaysia', Paper, University ofMaracat.

Muller, M. (1976), 'Challenges in Using Computers in StatisticalApplications in Developing Countries', Conference Paper,Warsaw.

Muller, M. and Rayfield, W. (1977), 'Effective Computer Utiliza-tion in Developing Countries: Policy Questions and Implementa-tion Plans', Conference Paper, Bangkok.

Muller, M. (1979), 'Effective Statistical Computing in an Environ-ment of Changing Policies and Technology', Conference Paper,Manila.

Nag, B. (1981), 'Appropriate Computerization: An Instrument ofDevelopment and Social Change in Developing Countries', inBennett, J. and Kalman, R. (eds), ibid.

Narisimhan, R. (1984), 'Guidelines for Software Production forAchieving Software Self-Reliance in Developing Countries',UNIDO, Vienna.

Rada, J. (1980), 'Microelectronics, Information Technology and ItsEffects on Developing Countries', in Berting, J., Mills, S. andWintersberger, H. (eds), The Socio-Economic Impact of Micro-electronics, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Rada, J. (1982), 'Aussichten fuer die 3. Welt' in Friedrich, G. andSchaff, A. (eds), Auf Gedeih und Verderb, Vienna.

Rada, J. (1983), 'A Third World Perspective', in Friedrich, G. andSchaff, A. (eds), Microelectronics and Society, New AmericanLibrary, New York.

Rateau, O. (1981), 'Informatics: Evolution and Use in the 1980s,with Particular Reference to Developing Countries', in Bennett,J. and Kalman, R. (eds), ibid.

Robson, F. (1984), 'Factors Affecting the Construction of Com-puterized Educational Information Systems for Developing RuralAreas', in Kalman, R. (ed), ibid.

Sarhan, A., Barakat. N. and Wahab, S. (1982), 'A Proposal forComputing Science Education in the Faculty of Science in theEgyptian Universities', Egyptian Computer Science Journal,No. 5, Cairo.

Stewart, F. (1978), Technology and Underdevelopment, Macmillan,London.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

43 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014