1. SIMBA Sustainable ICT – a Model for Benchmarking Activities with Broadband Focus Final Presentation 23-05-2006 Csd2006-team7 Thomas Andersson Tamara Bengesai Anna Isaksson Jens Sörvik Gudrun Wicander

2. BIld från Tanzania …. Har ni foto Anna ??? Klassrum eller annat… hitta en intro historia… vads vi kommit på där nere. Background

3. Areas of Usage The purpose is to build a model that can be used for: Pre project evaluation Monitoring Post project evaluation Analysis - Comparison over time

4. Work flow Developed on further The KTH Strategy Indicators Field Study Draft Model The Simba Benchmarking Model See notes fot text

5. Field study Methods  Interviews  Survey  Impact study  Conference Major findings  More local policies and strategies  National Content, Languages  What did we remove, Anna?  Info on three levels, international, national, local/project specific Result two separate presentational approaches, with three levels

6. SIMBA-Model

7. SIMBA Online Model http://simba.hopto.org/simba.php (hopefully we will run all the analysis online) http://simba.hopto.org/simba.php

9. Analysis with online model Overall (this text in notes in final version)  Sstrengths in the Institutional Framework and services  users are average  infrastructure is relatively weaker  both compared to the average of the group as well as compared to the top level values Institutional Framework  the relative strength is in policies and institutions  regulation and governance indicators are average  whereas the business environment is relatively poor Infrastructure  Power supply is relatively strong and so is physical delivery  Internet and telephone indicators are weak Services  human capital is strong,  public services on average  private services very poor Users  the strength is in education and language skills,  affordability is on average,  where as the equipment side is really weak. All in all  Potential in Tanzania  Need to strengthen the business environment and the private sector

10. Comparison with Burundi and South Africa When comparing with South Africa, Tanzania is equally strong in the institutional framework, but notably lagging in all the other categories in particular services and user side. South Africa has much stronger results compared to the other countries in the model, especially for services and users. This highlights a drawback with the normalisation that we have used, a best case ranking. In relation South Africa’s values are much higher which leads to low values for the remaining countries. Burundi, Tanzania is relatively strong in most aspects in particular the category USERS, but with the exception of INFRASTRUCTURE, where they are equally poor. At the same time this is the area where Burundi has its relative strength. Text in notes in final model

11. Indicators Institutional Framework Policies Institutions ICT Regulation Business environment Governance Indicator

12. Infrastructure Power Supply Internet Telephone Physical Delivery

13. Services Private ICT services Public ICT services Quality/Availability of professional

14. Users Equipment Education and Language skills Affordability Presumptive numbers of users

15. Analysis using in-depth model Institutional Framework (lägg mesta av texten I notes eller använd till bilder ovan!!)  There is a national policy no local or sectorial policies, no strategies on how to work with ICT projects.  If all indicators was included in online model. Tanzania’s relative strength in Institutional framework would probably have dropped. Infrastructure  more IXPs than expected  little electrical power  few mainlines for telephony  low levels of Cable TV  The road network is not so developed  However, railroad system is pretty good, opportunity. Services side  The number of private services is increasing  Public services are increasing  the human skills level offer some hope Users  No clear message  Low values on equipment and affordability  Other subcategories not so strong  English capability is an advantage though.

16. Conclusions & Future suggestions Pilot model – work but can be refined (move text to notes)  The model is flexible, but still has some stability and consistency  Online model gives a broad overview of the relative situation of a country, internal and external  Online can be be used for monitoring, post project evaluation and impact analysis – in depth list is better. Improvements  Widen focus more broadly on ICT.  To incorporate alternative strategies and business models.  Gender indicators  Time series data  A wider selection of countries  Users could select which countries to compare with  Additional graphical presentations, e.g. staple diagrams  Dynamic page that automatically check for updates from databases Implications of the SIMBA model for impact analysis  Finding the right level of the analysis  Not to focus too narrowly on single tools, as this is a systemic approach.  Provide a general profile of the needs of ICT  Find beneficial areas of usage of ICT in the public and private sectors  Search for factors of a sustainable broadband (Harris, 2004), such as, is the financial viability, staff capability, community acceptance and service delivery sustainable ?

17. Thank you for your time! Questions? Suggestions: annai@kth.se