Authored by: Mark Beckford

I guarantee that anybody reading this blog takes for granted the wealth of information at their fingertips.  Looking for something?  Google it.

But for the billions of of people in the developing world that don't even have a mobile phone, what do they do?

Last year at SoCAP '08 I met a young woman with an intriguing social venture called Open Mind.  She had attended the panel I was hosting on ICT for Development and approached me after the session about a project called Question Box.  Her name was Rose Shuman and she had an idea for a free telephone hotline service to bring information to those in the developing world that don't have access to a phone or computer.

The value proposition she presented was remarkably simple: put a box in rural communities where people don't have fixed-line or mobile phone service.  They just push a button and are connected to an operator who has a PC with an internet connection.  The operator can look up the question using the internet and provide that information for free.

She was looking for feedback on the idea, and if I recall correctly, I believe I told her I saw two potential obstacles.  The first was the ability to scale a non-profit project that was dependent on manufacturing and deploying these devices to villages across India.  The second was the proliferation of the mobile phone and how she could tap into that device as a way to deploy the service. Both of these had to do with getting the business model right.

I hadn't talked to her about the project since then, but last week she forwarded me an article about Question Box in the New York Times.  She has since partnered with the Grameen Foundation and has received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, so I'm happy to see her finding early successes.

She has expanded this service to Africa.  In Uganda, they had to modify the service away from a device-centric model to a mobile-phone centric model.  Africa has terrible broadband connectivity.  Wayan Vota, who writes and manages the OLPCNews and Education Technology Debate blogs, sent me this screen shot of his broadband speed in Nigeria:

As you can see above, he was getting modem speeds of around 14.4 to 28.8 kbps.  Open Mind thus decided to hire Question Box  "agents" who have mobile phones and wear prominent shirts in order to identify them.

These agents then phone into the a call center in a central location with decent broadband connectivity and ask the question on behalf of the individual.  The agents get compensated with free cellphone air time.  They plan to expand the service to existing mobile phone users who can text or call the center directly.

A new similar service recently cropped in the US cryptically called KGB.  You text a question to 542542 (which is KGBKGB on your phone key pad) and for 99 cents they text you back the answer.  The service wasn't that impressive when I tried it out specifically for this article.  I asked the question: "Are there other similar services like KGB in developing countries like India?"  The unhelpful answer was: "KGB does have simmular services in other countries but we do not divulge the mane of the services." That is not my incorrect spelling, that answer is verbatim from my mobile phone.  And there are other services.

I have often discussed the three requirements of a disruptive innovation.  It must be simple, easy to use, and provide a unique value to the user.  And to be successful, it needs to adopt a business model that works for that specific user group.  Rose's venture meets all of these requirements, especially in simplicity.

You can't get much simpler than a service that requires you to just push a button.

Authored by: Mark Beckford

It originally made sense to me when the NextBillion editors asked me to cover the panel titled "Sometimes it Doesn't Work: Lessons Learned" at SoCAP'09 this year as my last blog entry was titled "A Lesson Learned."  The one that learned the most lessons with me as it was clear that the financing mechanisms for social ventures is highly complex and I realized I knew very little about the business.

The panel featured Bart van der Vaart from Small Enterprise Assistance Funds (SEAF), Candace Smith from Microvest, Cliff Kellogg from Shorebank, and moderator Debra Schwartz from the MacArthur Foundation in a discussion on the various social ventures each of their respective firms have funded and the key learnings and challenges they found in the process. 

The firms finance a range of ventures, from small private-sector businesses in developing countries to microfinance institutions to solar/alternative energy companies with a social mission.  Each member of the panel has been in the business for years and had the following observations:

• Foundations tend to be slow and generally don't invest in enough.  You can almost burn as much money trying to get money FROM them.  
• "If you know ONE foundation, then you know ONE foundation." Foundations are all very different. You really need to understand the motivations of that particular foundation and what the decision makers care about. 
• Leveraging the individual personalities of foundation members that were involved in funding deals was important.  Some investors "were squeaky wheels, some were quiet."  For example, Shorebank would do weekly calls, using the more proactive personalities to get things moving. "The chemistry of the deal team can make a big difference."
• Non-foundation investors had never played on both levels of the risk ladder before.  They had a program need to implement something, say in Africa,
• The "chicken and egg" problem - sometimes in order to get the funds, the investment firms needed to develop a pipeline of companies to invest in.  Often many companies were not ready to take the two to three million dollars needed create a business. 
• In countries with strong government involvement in the economy (e.g. China, Vietnam), things could get set up very fast.  The government would say "though shalt lend" and the money flowed.  And then with a full pipeline of companies to invest in, the government would say "though shalt not lend." 
• "Super transparency is critical."  Every deal needs to have high levels of communication and reporting.  You need to retain your credibility, so communicating the good AND the bad is critical.
• All the investors were starting to see more for-profit/nonprofit interaction than before which they hadn't seen before.

While the technicalities of investing went over my head (I never could figure out what a PRI is), the key learnings sounded very similar to any engagement I've had working with NGOs, international financing agencies (e.g., World Bank, USAID) and governments. 

• Things move very sloooowwwww. Patience is required.
• A ton of proactive engagement is required on the part of the firm trying to make things happen.
• "Understand than be understood" is important no matter what type of engagement you are in. 

I certainly learned a lesson.  Thanks to the panelists for an enlightening panel.

Authored by: Mark Beckford

Last month, Wired hosted a conference called "Disruptive by Design," the first conference that I know of focused mostly on disruptive business models. In talking about Disruptive Leadership, I have often emphasized that a disruptive business model must accompany the disruptive innovation when addressing the bottom of the pyramid. CK Pralahad talks in detail about this in the Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid.

One of the featured speakers was Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon. Given the success of Amazon's Kindle and its impact to the "business model" of the publishing industry, that was the primary topic of discussion. You can watch Jeff's entire talk on Wired's conference site (as well all the other speakers). I myself got a Kindle a few months ago and haven't read a physical book since. I absolutely love it. It isn't just the slick design (it looks and feels like an Apple Ipod/Iphone), but I was floored by how easy and fast it was in getting it setup and buying and downloading my first e-book. It literally took me two minutes from start to finish, from opening the package, going online (through their Whispernet wireless service in a parking lot somewhere), searching for a book I wanted, buying it, downloading it, and getting to the first chapter).

So what does this have to do with "next billion?" The device is expensive at ~$400 -- far out of reach of most. Amazon's online store is primarily a mature market phenomenon.

Continue reading this story...

Authored by: Mark Beckford

Infodev and UNESCO have developed a new discussion and debate forum to explore the role of ICT in learning in developing countries. Called the Educational Technology Debate, it promotes a multi-week discussion over one month with two participants debating two sides of an argument, and additional user comments supporting or refuting either side. Check out the latest debate between myself and Walter Bender, CEO of Sugar Labs, the non-profit organization that provides the software for the XO laptop of One Laptop Per Child, and recently, the "Sugar on a Stick v1 Strawberry" which allows users to experience Sugar on any computer through a USB flash device.

I started the debate with a position that supports shared access computing as a more economically feasible approach than 1:1 computing (1 computer per 1 student), the premise being  that with very limited resources available to governments, it is better to get more students access to a shared computing device part time than it is to significantly fewer students access all the time.  

Over the next few weeks we will post additional responses and potentially evolve our position.  So join the debate and comment on the current discussion at 1:1 Saturations and Computer Labs: Can Their Benefits Bring a New Model?

Authored by: Mark Beckford

For those of you who read the print version of BusinessWeek, you know that Jack and Susan Welch write a weekly column on the last page. This week's article is "Corporate Social Responsibility in a Recession" or his edgier online title "Giving in Unforgiving Times." It's a good primer on corporate social responsibility (CSR), which they categorize nto three types:

• Donating money, products or services
• Community involvement
• CSR as a corporate strategy

Its conclusion essentially states the obvious: in tough times companies will likely have to cut back their CSR activities, just as they will have to streamline other areas of business.

But what caught my eye is the calling out of CSR as a specific corporate strategy. The cynical view of CSR is that large corporations do it just to make themselves look good, or to help in some way to improve revenue growth or the bottom line. The opposite is what you read on the company CSR reports or web pages, like this one:

"By working with others, we are finding opportunities to apply our technology and expertise to help tackle some of the world's greatest challenges-from climate change and water conservation to education quality and the digital divide. Paul Otellini, CEO letter, Corporate Responsibility Report 2008. Growing a profitable business AND doing good in the world do not have to be mutually exclusive. I learned this by experience: by starting a business group that developed products that will help bridge the digital divide."

CSR has to be part of a larger corporate strategy that will support the core business (creating and delivering products and services that will bring tremendous growth and profitability). Many large, successful technology companies do that today. About a week ago, this announcement went over the wires:

"The Intel Foundation today announced top winners of the world's largest pre- college science fair, the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (Intel ISEF), a program of Society for Science & the Public. Tara Adiseshan, 14, of Charlottesville, Va.; Li Boynton, 17, of Houston; and Olivia Schwob, 16, of Boston were selected from 1,563 young scientists from 56 countries, regions and territories for their commitment to innovation and science. Each received a $50,000 scholarship from the Intel Foundation. This year, a record number of 1,563 high school students from over 50 countries representing 1,226 projects will be competing for nearly $4 million in awards and scholarships. Intel International Science and Engineering Fair Finalists are selected annually from more than 550 affiliated fairs around the world."

Continue reading this story...

Authored by: Mark Beckford

This post is the second part of a two-part series on thought leadership for computer makers in emerging markets. Part 1 focused on the companies striving for thought leadership over the last several years ... OLPC, Intel, Microsoft and AMD. Part 2 discusses the characteristics companies will need to develop if they want to become a "thought leader.

What is a thought leader?

There is a great quote from an unknown author that I believe is a perfect definition of thought leadership:

Thought leadership is recognition from the outside world that a company deeply understands its business, the needs of its customers, and the broader marketplace in which it operates. Thought leadership is built on what others say about you. When you have it, companies look to you for insight & vision, journalists quote you, analysts call you.

So you can't grant yourself thought leadership status. Others must seek you out due to your perceived expertise and credibility in a specific niche. Was Negroponte, Intel, Microsoft, or AMD ever a "thought leader" based on this definition? I think so. Negroponte got Koffi Anan, the UN Secretary General at the time, to endorse his effort. Craig Barrett of Intel, shortly after World Ahead, got invited to chair the UN's Global Alliance on Information Society Development (UN GAID).

The deeper question I have is: did coming up with a fancy name with supporting pillars and proof point make a difference? Probably. Whether one has expertise or not, creating awareness of this expertise is key to establish credibility, one needs a "messaging platform" and a communication strategy. This is really marketing 101. What's your message and how do you communicate it?

OLPC had a very simple messaging platform. "One Laptop per Child." Every child in the world has a laptop. As you peel back the onion, you find it is not just a cheap laptop, but a laptop with content and learning tools tailored for the unique needs of school children. Then one needs to get that message out through a massive marketing communications campaign, including PR, events, and direct engagement with key influencers worldwide. OLPC did this through Negroponte's "celebrity" status in the industry and his relentless global travels.It was harder for Intel. Because we did so many things in emerging markets, we were lost in the complexity and comprehensiveness of what was already being done. Intel needed to:

1. Simplify and put more focus on specific areas that supported the goal of accelerating computer access to those that couldn't afford it (e.g. training teachers).
2. Develop the proof points to support these focus areas, and fill in the gaps of what Intel wasn't doing enough of (e.g. not training enough teachers)
3. Communicate this focused and simplified story more effectively. (e.g. improving a student's education by training more teachers and getting more computers into classroms)
4. Say it over and over again. (e.g. after the initial global launch, we re-launched World Ahead country-by-country and announced PC donations to schools and a specific number of teachers we would train).

Simple, right? It would seem so on the surface, but it took many man-hours over many months to get this right.

The leadership void

I think a leadership void currently exists in this space. I also think this void will only get bigger. Thought leadership is not based on market share. It is based on perception. Perception can be short-lived and fickle. The emerging market initiatives from Intel, AMD, OLPC, and Microsoft have been around for several years. Time will erode the luster of these initiatives because:

1. Hype always fades away (applies to all)
2. Excessive public scrutiny heightens missteps (OLPC)
3. The program loses its initial focus and evolves and becomes more complex (Intel)

On point #3, when intel turned World Ahead into a sales division, the World Ahead charter was expanded to encompass "all-things emerging markets" at Intel. (e.g. selling high-end processors in emerging markets while also pushing affordable computing.) In addition, as companies come under increased financial pressure from plummeting computer demand and shrinking IT budgets, these programs will come under increased scrutiny. When AMD's business began struggling against its rival Intel in late 2006, it had to cut back significantly on 50x15. Ultimately, AMD spun AMD off as an independent foundation. Will something similar happen at Intel and Microsoft? .Possibly. In tough times, companies' often put renewed focus on their "core" or mainstream business, Strategic, long-term initiatives often get left on the cutting room floor.

Who will fill the leadership void?

I think the time is right for somebody to fill this void. I mentioned in a previous post on my blog on this "mother of all disruptions" (the economic crisis) will create new losers and winners, Emerging markets are definitely struggling, especially those that are over-reliant on exports. Budgets are being cut. But stimulus investments could offset those cuts. Technology is still perceived as an important component of economic development. Thus, I believe the opportunity is still there. But I think governments, development banks and NGO's will be receptive for something new and different. All the "thought leaders" I have mentioned thus far have done a tremendous job convincing the world that computing is an important part of education and economic development. In my recent travels, every Ministry of Education I have visited has an ICT department. Large bids for computers are still being tendered. I believe the following criteria must be met for somebody to become a candidate for thought leadership.

• The technology or product/solution from the candidate must be a "disruptive innovation." Something that truly changes the game for computers in terms of technology, business model, affordability and unique value add.
• The potential candidate can't do it alone. It will need to create or lead a consortium of private and public entities that is build around a common purpose or goal.
• Any new thought leader must show tangible results. OLPC, Microsoft, Intel and AMD all had grand stories and goals. But have they truly delivered to these goals? A thought leader built on press announcements vs. results will be heavily scrutinized. The negative attention in the press and blogosphere on Negroponte is a great example of this.
• They will need to follow the four steps outlined above in creating a thought leadership platform, specifically: 1) a simple and focused messaging platform, 2) tangible and real supporting proof points, 3) an effective communications strategy, and 4) global and local communications. .

So who are your candidates for the next thought leader?

Authored by: Mark Beckford

Four years ago, Nicholas Negroponte announced the One Laptop per Child initiative and the $100 laptop to much fan-fare at Davos in Switzerland. He captured the imaginations of world leaders with promises of ultra-affordable computing for school children around the world. He talked about changing the way children learn, improving their education and ultimately accelerating their access to the knowledge economy by deploying hundreds of millions of laptops. 

That same year, Intel's nemesis, AMD, launched the 50x15 program with the goal of increasing internet access to 50% of the world's population by the year 2015. Unlike with Negroponte's announcement, AMD launched their program with an actual existing product, the Personal Internet Communicator (PIC).

These announcements put Intel, my employer at the time, on notice. The press from these two initiatives got under the skin of the the company's executives. The typical complaint was "We invest millions in emerging markets, and ship millions of low-cost PC's, but we we get no recognition from it." Intel's "thought leadership" effort was thus born. I was asked to pull a strategy and plan together to help Intel gain the perceived leadership position in bringing computing and internet access to under-served markets that currently don't have access.

We launched the World Ahead program in 2006 with the stated goal of giving one billion new users access to affordable, broadband computing. The three supporting pillars were accessibility (affordable computers), connectivity (broadband access), and education (training and digital content). These pillars were supported by the introduction of the unique computing platforms (e.g. the Classmate PC), broadband initiatives (Wimax deployments) and an expansion of Intel's Teach to the Future training program to an additional 8 million teachers emerging markets. The press we recieved from the launch was tremendous. Parallel speeches by Hector Ruiz of AMD and Steve Ballmer at the same event (the World Congress of IT) paled in comparison to Paul Otellini's speech about World Ahead. Later that year, Intel reorganized their emerging market sales for into an official "World Ahead" organization.

Then Microsoft jumped on the bandwagon with the launch of Unlimited Potential in mid-2007 with similar goals but an arguably more comprehensive initiative encompassing new of unique software solutions, marketing initiatives and sales programs.

The leaders lose their "luster"

As of this writing in March 2009, all of these programs still exist. OLPC, 50x15, World Ahead and Unlimited Potential are all still functioning. Some are struggling ... recent announcements by OLPC that their were cutting their staff by 50% and relying more on volunteers is just one example. Yet all of these organizations are still very active in the effort to increase computer access to under-served markets. On a trip this week to three countries in South America, both OLPC and the Classmate PC have been deployed, or are about to be deployed. Awareness and preference is very high for notebooks and netbooks. But none of these efforts could be called a stand-out "thought leader" today. A combination of time (hype can only last so long), previous challenges, and the capacity to continue to fund these projects all challenge their ability to lead. All of this is leading to what I believe will be a leadership void in the effort to bring affordable internet and computer access to emerging markets. But before I talk about this void and who could possibly fill it, I think it would help to explain what thought leadership is, and how a company can become one.

This post is the first part of a two-part series on thought leadership for computer makers in emerging markets. Part 2 will discuss the characteristics companies will need to develop if they want to become a "thought leader.

Authored by: Mark Beckford

I've always thought that the next major technology disruption would come from the developing world. This could partly be just a bias on my part (most of my career has been developing computer businesses in emerging markets). The underlying logic behind this belief is that disruptive innovations are cheaper, easier to use, and bring some type of end user value that doesn't exist in the current mainstream solution.

Emerging markets clearly require a more affordable solution. They also require something that is easy to use due to higher illiteracy rates and limited skills. Finally, in order for them to decide to use their hard-earned money on something, it has to be useful for them. Take a look at the PC. Even if someone gave PC's away for free, you still wouldn't see PC's sales go through the roof. Sure, there'd be a big bump, but not to the penetration level you see with TV's and other basic household appliances.

Even if a PC was made so easy to use (e.g. streamline and simplify the interface with large, logical icons) so someone that couldn't read or had no computer skills could use the PC easily, they likely wouldn't see that much value in it. The missing element is some unique value for consumers and micro-enterprises at the bottom of the pyramid. I don't think this value exists in PC's today.

Continue reading this story...

In my view, Negroponte's legacy should be about his role as the pioneer that established the value of computer access to under-privileged students in under-served markets.

Continue reading this story...

Analysts didn't believe in the strategy ("Analysts Say Intel Is in Denial about Its Future"). But the analysts were wrong. The bet paid off big-time. The R&D investment resulted in Centrino and Core 2 Duo, Intel's flagship notebook and desktop products that have fueled their competitiveness since 2003. The manufacturing investment in new fabs (each costing a few billion dollars to construct) allowed them to meet growing demand as they started going online in 2003. The investment in developing new emerging market business helped fill the gap from declining revenues from mature markets between 2001 to 2005.

Scott Anthony, one of the key thought leaders on disruptive innovation, recently wrote an article titled "Should Startups Focus on Growth or Profits?" His blog entry was prompted by a recent article in BusinessWeek that described how Facebook was continuing to hire and focus on expanding their user-base, while Myspace was "hunkering" down. Another article in the New York Times compared how two micro-blogging sites, Twitter and Yammer, were doing the same thing. It will be interesting to look back to see which model was more effective once they emerge from the downtown.

Streamline your business.

In boom times, companies often add employees and projects too fast. The result can be under-performing projects and personnel. Downturns are an excellent opportunity to beef-up spending & hiring discipline, increase operational excellence (OpX), cut back bloat, and shut down under-performing projects and personnel.

Never burn bridges.

Over my 20 year career, I have been on both sides of corporate downsizing, lay offs, employment reductions, re-deployments and <insert euphemistic phrase for being canned here>. I was laid off from my first job after college due to the impact of the recession in the early '90's. At Intel, I unfortunately had to lay off managers and employees from my team more times then I care to remember.

The adage "never burn bridges" applies to corporations just as it does to individuals. A lay off is the singular most professionally unpleasant experience for the manager and the employee. But it is significantly worse for the affected employee, so it is critical that the company and manager handle the layoff just like as they would handle winning a new customer...with due diligence, positive communication, empathy and respect. Key tactics include:

• Timing of communication - Ensure that all employees are informed at the proper time of potential actions. Communicating too early can cause productivity paralysis and unnecessary stress. Communicating too late can cause resentment. The manager should also check in with the affected employee routinely to see how the job search is going and offer whatever help he/she can provide.
• Make it personal - Communicate the news face-to-face if at all possible. Include your manager as well. I always attended all re-deployment notifications unless the manager requested that I not attend.
• Be as generous as possible with the severance package - It typically takes many months to find a new job. Of course what severance can be given depends on the financial state of the company, but being as generous as possible goes a long way to retain goodwill with the company.
• Don't force an affected employee to work once notified - When I was laid off early in my career, I was given four months until my last payday, but I was expected to continue to work while I received salary. You can imagine the impact to my performance. At Intel, an employee is given a choice of 2-4 months to find a job within the company. That employee is not required to do work, and if they do work, it extends the time until their last day.

Continue reading this story...