Most people today are aware that advanced technology drives the world forward. Information and communication technology (ICT) is the most widely used forms of advanced technology, and usually its benefits and convenience are taken for granted.
In the 21st century, the Information Age has given birth to the “knowledge economy.” Information and knowledge produces economic benefits. In one meaning of the knowledge economy, knowledge is a product; while in another, knowledge is a tool. As a product, knowledge (such as the services offered by call centers) has a price and is ‘consumed.’ As a tool, the initial costs of knowledge is absorbed in the higher value of the products and services that result from the use of such knowledge – for example in research and development, such as in the making of software or in pharmaceuticals.
Information and knowledge is not the same thing. According to management guru Tom Davenport, knowledge is information combined with experience, context, interpretation and reflection. On the other hand, Microsoft founder Bill Gates said, “Most of the ‘knowledge’ on which the knowledge economy is built is actually just information – data, facts and basic business intelligence. Knowledge itself is more profound. It’s the knowledge derived from information that gives you a competitive edge…”
ICT has the power to produce change in human lives and events. Knowledge transforms human potentials. Development is known as both a process and an end; knowledge should be understood in the same way. Tim Berners-Lee, who is the renowned inventor of the World Wide Web, describes knowledge as “more than the sum of its parts.” Concomitant with that awareness of knowledge is accepting the inevitability of change. By harnessing the transformative power of knowledge gained through the use of ICT, we can be empowered by the capacity to control how knowledge and change can bring us to our destiny.
Somehow that comes across as too general – neither here nor there. A more specific way to look at the “transformative power” of ICT is in the context of governance. We all know that any technology also has its pros and cons: when used correctly, technology enables more efficient businesses (including the business of governance), further democratizes education, and of course enhances communications, among others. Thus, ICT advances will hopefully lead to peace and greater human development or improved standards of living, as general outcomes aimed for by government. However, potential outcomes are not all positive – and it would be wishful thinking to believe that ICT’s potential outcomes would always be positive.
Greater efficiency in work through ICT would lead to changes in how much work is done – and this often disrupts many people (‘redundancy,’ then ‘retrenchment’). More communication means that not only good ideas but also bad or flawed ones could go around very quickly. Today’s “high-pressure marketing” methods are eroding people’s privacy and individuality (names, numbers and addresses in humongous databases). Changes in the economy could be beneficial in some places but harmful in others, which tend to widen the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” At the bottomline, it is not just the technology itself but, more importantly, how it is used.
But how many people really know and understand what technology is bringing to the table? Let’s face it – we are easily misled (for example, by the recent spate of alarmist media play-up of the dangers of the Fukushima nuclear plant mishaps, primarily because not too many people are privy to what really goes on in nuclear power plants). Leaders and politicians typically have superior information and tools (‘privileged information’ and ‘the mechanisms and perquisites of power’). Ordinary people (the majority) therefore are placed at a distinct disadvantage. Supposedly, there is a balance between government and the governed – i.e. government takes its cue from the mandate of the people, which is why ours is called a “republic” (which comes from Latin phrase res publica – “of the public or people;” also, commonwealth). However, only by being aware of how things should properly be (as, for instance, the delivery of basic services) that we are able to enforce our inherent moral right to expect government to perform according to expectations. With ICT, we have the best chances of increasing and improving our awareness – as well as our effectiveness in applying social pressure on government, its leaders/politicians, business corporations, and other social institutions.
At any rate, the question is – will ICT’s use be a boon, or a bane? This issue could shape up to become quite a lively debate!
Information and Communication Technology: Rx for Progress–Boon or Bane?
-