DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 7554

Is Nigeria’s Democracy Working? Let Us Try Technocracy, That Will Certainly Work

0

First of all, I am going to readily admit that I am no political expert. I’m just a little boy with a brain that happens to work (at least, most of the time). So these are not necessarily the opinions of an expert or someone who even claims to be even slightly knowledgeable in the area of political science. However, the important thing is that I have an opinion and even more important is the fact that I have the right to have one.

 

Nigeria has had a democratic government for almost 12 years. Arriving at democracy definitely did not happen easily. The country had to go through many military dictatorships typically characterized by brutality and utter disregard for the opinions of the Nigerian people. Finally, we were able to wiggle our way to democracy. But is the system of democracy being practiced in the country actually working? How did we arrive at the kind of system we currently run?

 

Nigeria is the fourth largest democracy in the world. A VOLUNTARY handover of government from military to civilian rulers is quite unusual in an African setting similar to Nigeria’s. The change in government was quite smooth. Also, Nigeria was brave enough to break away from their colonial constitutional heritage, rejecting Britain’s parliamentary form of democracy and modeling the nation’s democracy after the American model instead.

 

Just like the United States of America, the Nigerian president has a four-year term, with the possibility of a second term thereafter, the national assembly is bicameral (composed of two chambers) with a Senate and a House of Representatives distributed among the states of the population, the independent judiciary has at the apex of its federal structure a supreme court, each state has a governor and a deputy-governor, a unicameral House of Assembly and an independent judiciary. Certain procedures are also similar to the American model.

 

For instance, appointments to the cabinet, the Supreme Court, and ambassadorial posts require Senate confirmation. So, fundamentally, the Nigerian democratic government system can be said to be a copy of the American system albeit with a few very slight differences.

 

It is said that the choice to follow the American model was basically because, just like Nigeria, America is large, complex and heterogeneous. However, is it safe to say that America and Nigeria are similar enough to share the same type of government structure? Frankly, I believe Nigeria is a much more complex nation both in terms of the kinds of humans that form its population as well as the myriad of sociocultural challenges the nation faces. It is easy to see that most of the “well-to-do” nations of the world have their own unique forms of government that seem to work, at least to a certain appreciable extent. Examples include Germany, China, Britain and Japan. Of course, we have to admit that they also have their own unique problems as well.

 

But, this is where the issue lies. As a nation that had been independent since 1960, why did Nigeria not just come up with its own UNIQUE democratic system based on about 39 years of experience as an independent nation? It is no news that Nigeria and Nigerians are quite unique in almost every way and usually cannot be said to be exactly like any other nation on the planet. For instance, the vast majority of Nigerians would vote according to ethnicity and religion rather than according to party ideology or individual principles. This can hardly be said of the Americans we so gallantly copied. Americans are known to be quite individualistic in their decisions, especially those that have to do with politics.

 

Wouldn’t it be logical to have a governmental system that is just as unique as the people it is formulated to govern rather than just a copy of some other model? Unfortunately, Nigeria has not even been successful in copying the American model. Instead, the democratic system we now practice seems to be a poor copy much like a poor Chinese imitation of an American product. This is obvious from the many problems the country is currently grappling with.

 

I know there would be some people out there who have been able to come up with their own ideas of a unique governmental system for Nigeria. However, it is pretty obvious that such things have been ignored, especially considering the fact that the present system seems to be working for some very few people who have been able to enrich themselves through the present system. Am I alone in thinking that the present political system makes it quite easy to find a large chunk of the national cake to steal? So many possible political appointments to clinch both necessary and unnecessary… Just a thought.

 

These are the kinds of things I believe our universities are meant for. Universities that have political science departments need to make a significant impact on the country’s politics. Novel political theories and systems that work, and are specifically tailored to the unique complexities of Nigeria are to be found in our universities’ political science departments. If these are not found there, then these departments probably do not deserve to exist. However, there is no denying the fact that even if all this resarch is done and put forward, it is likely to be ignored. This is just simply unfortunate.

 

During the military era, which many would agree was a terrible time for the country, democracy was touted as the magic solution to the country’s problems. Finally, we found democracy where we had hidden it. But from what we can now see, democracy is not, in and of itself, a solution to a nation’s problems but a mere stride towards possible solutions, and the present form of democracy we practice in Nigeria does not seem to work effectively. This is not to say that making adjustments to the democratic system would be another magic solution, but it might help.

 

I strongly believe Nigeria needs to restructure its governmental system to more accurately reflect the complex nature of the Nigerian people rather than copy some foreign system that happens to work for some other nation. Of course, this can only be done after a comprehensive study of the things that make us unique as a nation as well as the many challenges we face as a result of our complex nature. The resulting system of government emanating from such a study and a consequent revamp might not be deemed absolutely palatable by the globalization-crazy international community but it might go a long way in helping.
Nigeria make giant strides towards being a nation that would be a model for others rather than a hapless copycat.

 

Editor’s Note: Of course if the democracy has not worked well, technocracy will just do. Thanks David for bringing this political commentary on Tekedia. Few will not know that there is no technology without government policy.

Corporate Websites And The International Credibility Of Nigerian Universities

0

A few weeks ago, I received this message from a friend and colleague of mine.

thanks 4 d reply david …
I dont know if you’re aware …. but this site has been down for over six months … repeated tries give the classic server unavailable response …

I talked to a friend in 9ja today, and it appears the site works in nigeria …
However, it does not work from US, Greece and UK … and probably other places …. i suspect there are DNS issues with the hosting server …

Kindly confirm again if this site opens from your end ..
I hope this issue is fixed soon, because it casts general doubts on the validity of our academic claims from the purview of the international community who CANT see a valid website ….

 

Many universities in Nigeria simply do not understand the importance of online presence and how it affects their standing in the international community. They handle the issue of web presence with an annoying amount of levity.

 

I have always been of the opinion that if a university claims to have a computer science department, one test of the quality of this department should be based on an assessment of the computer software used in running the institution. If the majority of the software used within the university is not built by staff and/or students of the university in question, then the university’s computer science department is simply not credible enough to exist.

 

This is something that has really bothered me. Most universities have very bright students year in, year out, who if given the opportunity and the right kind and amount of encouragement, can make great contributions to their universities in terms of IT development. However, as was evident in my undergraduate days, students, for some reasons often associated with a kind of paranoia I have constantly failed to understand, are simply alienated from the ICT concerns of most universities.

 

It simply appalls me to think that a university would not make their corporate website one of their top priorities. A corporate website is the face of any institution on the web. As very aptly put by my friend and colleague in his very succinct mail, the inability of the international community to access a university’s corporate website, cast general doubts on the academic claims of graduates of that university especially those from the computer science department.

 

The National Universities Commission (NUC) is generally responsible for ensuring that the quality of education in Nigerian universities meets an acceptable standard. I am of the opinion that one of the metrics of assessing computer science departments should be based on the level of in-house contribution to the development of all software used within the university.

 

I am currently taking part in the National Youth Service Scheme in my country and I have been given the opportunity to work with the Federal University of Technology in Akure (FUTA), Ondo State, Nigeria. I have worked in FUTA for about two months now and I am slightly impressed by their dedication to the ICT concerns of the university. For a start, they have a functioning corporate website. But not just that. I was further impressed by the fact that the grade management software (which, however, still has ample room for improvement) was built with a lot of in-house contribution to the development of the application. I do not see any reason why I would and should not believe that the computer science department in FUTA is much stronger than that of a university who makes little or no in-house contribution to the development of software used within its walls, and/or does not even have a properly functioning corporate website.

 

Having a properly functioning corporate website is just the first step towards improving a university’s international corporate image. It is also important the the content of such a website be thoroughly comprehensive. A university website is meant to serve as a one-stop portal of information for everything concerning the university that owns it. It is amazing to see how empty the vast majority of the corporate websites owned by institutions in Nigeria actually are, that is, for those who have actually managed to create one. Information about departments, courses and degree programs offered by the university are often simply non-existent, there is no official contact information, or contact information is simply not valid. These are FUNDAMENTAL pieces of information that people outside the geographical confines of a university need in order to influence their academic choices and/or aspirations in relation to the universities in question.

 

Problems with a university’s corporate website are issues that need to be resolved immediately. Such issues should never be toyed with. As alumni of our various universities, we are still heavily affected by the management and administrative policies being formulated within the walls of our alma maters. As we strive to represent our alma maters in the best light possible, we also expect that our universities do the same for us by taking issues that have to do with the (international) image of the university with absolute serious-mindedness.

 

Generally, the use of information technology is still far below an acceptable standard in the Nigerian educational sector. This can be attributed to the many problems faced by the country, not excluding our problems with electric power and internet connectivity. However, with a little more effort, dedication and determination, I believe we can reach an acceptable standard. Nigeria has some serious problems, but it is amazing how we still have a way of achieving great things in the midst of these problems. Nigeria might not be the most advanced country on this planet, and Nigerians might not be the most dependable set of humans to have ever existed, but Nigerians are definitely one of the most hardworking people you could ever encounter. We have somehow learnt to function in the midst of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. This rare characteristic is something we can put to

…So, What Exactly Is A Startup?

1

There are certain buzzwords in information technology that can get quite confusing. One very good example is the term ‘Web 2.0’. Can anyone actually give a short, one or two-sentence definition of the concept of ‘Web 2.0’?

The word ‘Startup’ is one of these overly used words that can get quite confusing at one point or the other. The term became popular internationally during the dot-com bubble when a great number of dot-com companies were founded. Given the ease with which it rolls off various tongues these days, it might seem somewhat naive to wonder what the term ‘startup’ actually means. What exactly is a startup? Can Twitter and Facebook still be classified as startups? At what point does a company stop being a startup? What is the difference between a small business and a startup? These are all questions with answers that might vary amongst a large number of people.

Most startups begin small, but definitely not all small businesses are startups.

We have all heard wonderful stories of startup companies that have now become multibillion dollar conglomerates (Google, HP, Apple, Facebook, etc.) It is hard to forget the really inspiring stories of how most of these companies were started in garages by one or two “geniuses” who ingested lots of caffeine, never slept at night, dropped out of school and took outrageous risks. These stories are great and have gone a long way in shaping the average individual’s basic conception of what a startup actually is. But this basic conception that most people have seems to be flawed in quite a number of ways.

Such stories tend to give people the impression that any time they see a couple of guys attempting to put up a web site/application or some sort of other contraption together, then that is automatically a startup. Also, the word ‘Startup’ has now become so widely used in relation to computing and technology that numerous other kinds of startups that appear in other settings are simply ignored or not considered to be startups (in the real sense of the word). There are remarkable similarities between small businesses and startups, but that does not mean that any small business is a startup.

So, what is a Startup? In order to adequately define a startup, one has to shake free of the mental shackles created by the most famous startups we have today.

In this blog post by Eric Ries, one finds quite an interesting definition. Eric Ries says:

A startup is a human institution designed to deliver a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty.

 

This seems like quite a good definition of the term. Eric Ries first of all makes it clear that startups are HUMAN institutions. He says:

 

…we so often loose sight of the fact that startups are not their products, their technological breakthroughs, or even their data. Even for companies that essentially have only one product, the value the company creates is located not in the product itself but with the people and their organization who built it. To see proof of this, simply observe the results of the large majorities of corporate acquisitions of startups. In most cases, essential aspects of the startup are lost, even when the product, its brand, and even its employment contracts are preserved. A startup is greater than the sum of its parts; it is an acutely human enterprise.

 

Eric Ries goes ahead to explain some other very important aspects of his definition. You can check out his blog post here.

One thing that is worthy of attention in the definition above is the part that talks about “delivering a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty”. In Nigeria today, we find so many Twitter and Facebook clones that want to call themselves startups. Even in the small business scene, we find an ever-increasing number of people providing the same products and/or services provided by everyone else. There seems to be an acute lack of innovation in our tech scene. What we seem to do most of the time is open up new “businesses” that are exact clones of other existing businesses. Businesses of this nature are simply not startups. Eric Ries rightly said:

Startups are designed to confront situations of extreme uncertainty. To open up a new business that is an exact clone of an existing business, all the way down to the business model, pricing, target customer, and specific product may, under many circumstances, be an attractive economic investment. But it is not a startup, because its success depends only on decent execution – so much so that this success can be modeled with high accuracy. This is why so many small businesses can be financed with simple bank loans; the level of risk and uncertainty is well enough understood that a reasonably intelligent loan officer can assess its prospects.

True startups face unknown risks, not challenges that have been surmounted over and over again by thousands of other wanna-be startups. Why do you have to build another social network or “SIMPLEMACHINE” forum when there are other viable services you can offer (in Nigeria especially). This is the same question Aito Ehigie (Pystar) asked in his blog post, Dear Wanna-be Startup Founder…. He also went ahead to outline some viable services that are as yet unexistent or improperly implemented in Nigeria that desperately need a midas touch from adequately skilled people. You might want to check out his blog post here.

Startups might face unknown risks, but this does not mean that they operate under high risk situations. The risks are just not yet known. A startup might not necessarily be building a “risky” product but products of true startups are often characterized by the fact that is usually impossible for anyone to know ahead of time, just how successful such a product would be. Due to the uncertainties startups face, running a startup is usually quite different from running a traditional business. Apparently, and just like Eric Ries has noted, the most sensational startup failures result when people are running a startup (without knowing it) and are rather trying to run it as a traditional business, failing to recognize what running a startup actually means for the behaviour of an entrepreneur.

The phrase “startup company” is most often associated with high growth, technology oriented companies. It turns out that the growth rate of a company is an important element in determining whether the company is indeed a startup. True startups are notorious for their extraordinary growth rates while adding enormous value to themselves. This is usually achieved through significant outside funding. This outside funding could be provided by venture capitalists and/or angel investors.

Another important feature of a startup is that these sorts of businesses are often TEAM DRIVEN, at least if they are to successfully manage the extraordinary growth rate that is typical of a true startup. A fast growing company needs a vast array of skill sets and expertise and no single individual can hope to manage the growth of a startup alone. Small businesses are typically run by a single entrepreneur and growth rates are usually quite manageable and less than extraordinary.

Eric Ries’ definition of the term ‘Startup’, says absolutely nothing about the size of the company involved. Does this mean that the size of a company has nothing to do with whether or not the company can be said to be a startup? When does a company stop being a startup? Can we still call Facebook or Google startups? Facebook and Google, as far as I am concerned, are definitely no longer startups. A startup typically starts with the intention of building a product or a service. Let’s call this product/service X. Once they build X, they become a business that sustains and develops X further. Once the startup moves from the initial product/service build to having to sustain and maintain it, and once the startup has been successful at figuring out a stable business model, such a startup becomes a business. Another popular opinion is that a company remains a startup as long as it is still growing and only ceases to be one when it levels out and stops growing significantly. This is true to an extent.

These days, almost every business, especially in the Information Technology sector, seems to be termed a ‘startup’. Whether or not this is wrong or right is not exactly the focus of this article. Nevertheless, the next time you are tempted to use the term ‘startup’, take a moment to think about the qualities of the business you are referring to, and then decide if it is actually the right term to use in referring to the business in question. It could be that the company you are referring to is closer to being a ‘small business’ rather than a ‘startup’.

There are definitely quite a number of people that would disagree with what has been said in this article. Do you agree (or disagree) with these views? Please feel free to make your contributions in the comments section.

Do Certifications Really Matter In Technology? – Yet, Be Careful!

0

This is coming on the heels of an excellent blog article I read a long time ago written by Jeff Atwood at the coding horror blog. Jeff Atwood starts off his article by saying:

Name any prominent software technology, and you’ll find a certification program for that technology. For a fee, of course. It’s a dizzying, intimidating array of acronyms: MCSD, SCJD, RHCE, ACSA. And the company offering the certification is quite often the very same one selling the product. No conflict of interest there.

 

There are all sorts of certification programs out there with all sorts of acronyms. As has been aptly noted by Jeff Atwood, the companies that offer the certification courses are quite often the very same ones selling the product. Are these certification courses just another means of generating revenue for the company offering the products? It might not be exactly right to say so. However, it definitely does not do any harm to their balance sheets.

The purpose of this article is not to incite an argument as to whether or not certification courses are just a rip-off. Rather, the concern to be addressed here is whether or not certifications are to be relied upon as a metric for judging the competence of their holders. Are they credentials that can be depended upon? And just like Jeff Atwood asked in his article, “Do people who have these certifications perform better than those who don’t?”

It is funny how certificate-oriented our society has become. The average Nigerian employer of skilled labour (and in most other countries as well) seems to be easily impressed by people who have a dizzying array of certifications so much that they have a tendency to ignore the question of whether or not the persons holding these certificates can actually competently carry out the tasks required of such a technical position. Many people who have written some professional certification exams in such technologies as Oracle, MCSD and the rest of them, can probably testify to the fact that one does not really need a hands-on technical knowledge of these technologies in order to pass their corresponding certification exams. Now, the question is, how is it possible to pass a certification exam without actually knowing the technical nitty-gritty of the subject? Well, maybe we can blame it on the testing system. For many certification examinations, all you probably need is a good set of question dumps. Once you can master and/or memorize the question and answer patterns in these dumps, you already have a good chance of passing the examination since the examinations do not vary a great deal from the dumps you are likely to have already seen. In fact, the questions might be exactly the same. This is especially true of certification examinations that follow the multiple-choice question pattern.

This is not to say that certification exams are pointless. However, they have become slightly abused. It is necessary to note that whether or not someone actually succeeds in gaining or improving a skill after preparing for and writing a certification exam, is often dependent on the individual’s purpose for trying to get certified. If an individual actually goes through it for the purpose of acquiring knowledge and technical adeptness, there is nothing stopping him/her from actually getting the knowledge and skill he desires while getting certified at the same time. Unfortunately, it seems the intents of the vast majority of people getting certified are less than “noble”.

Why do some people go through the pains of preparing for and writing these exams if they know that it may not necessarily give them a comprehensive technical knowledge of the subject? Shouldn’t knowledge and skill acquision/improvement be the goal of getting certified in any field? Apparently, this is not always the goal.

From things that can be seen and heard, I have come to the conclusion that the the goal is often simply to increase one’s chances of getting a job. Who is to blame for this? And is this necessarily a bad thing? I would say it is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. However, I would love to go on to say that the problem primarily lies with employers who have been given the impression that certificates are an appropriate metric for measuring technical competence. This is an impression that has been made almost permanent in their minds without them even knowing it. The danger in this is that employment based solely on how many certification examinations you have managed to pass, would inevitably lead to employment of individuals who are less than competent in their various fields. In other words, the primary question employers need to ask, especially employers who hire programmers/software developers, is not “how many certifications do you have?” but “what have you done with the skills you claim to have?”.

Jeff Atwood put it very succinctly when he said:

Your credentials should be the sum of the projects you’ve worked on, and specificially how much you learned from your failures. Certainly, your actual experience, your portfolio, counts for a lot more than whether or not you passed some arbitrary, one-time test.

 

Truth be told, there are a lot of people who have bagged a large number of certifications, and still have close to no idea what they are doing. There are a lot of SCJPs, MCADs and the rest of them who cannot write the simplest of programs to acceptable quality standards. It is quite unfortunate really.

The debate on certification has raged on for years. Many people have different opinions on the issue and each argument has its valid points. The questions I might not be able to give satisfactory answers to are: What is the real rationale behind certification? Is certification something implemented for the benefit of society or for the benefit of the certifiers? Do people who have these certifications perform better than those who do not?

Conclusively, just like Jeff Atwood, I do not believe in certifications. He made the reason clear when he said:

The certification alphabet is no substitute for a solid portfolio; you should be spending your time building stuff, not studying for multiple choice tests.

 

Of course, certifications are not worthless, as long as an impressive portfolio can be presented along with them. I would rather hire the founder and creator of Gistcaster, than hire someone with all the certification acronyms in existence with nothing to show of it.

The Benefits Of Mobile Apps In Marketing And Business Development

1

Editor’s Note: This post was adapted from a proposal justifying the need of a mobile app for a client. We have redacted some sections of it. It was developed by Fasmicro Apps Division.

 

In this young century, most businesses have websites. They want to get ahead and stay visible to their customers. Social media networks have been a key business strategy. Organizational webinality, i.e., web presence is vital to continuous business success.

 

 

Website remains important. But something is redesigning the business ecosystem. That is mobility. We mean, more people are moving to the mobile ecosystem than going to the web. How? The world has not sold its one billionth computer, after more than three decades, but it has sold excess of 5 billion mobile devices in less than a decade. So, while the web has been doing fine, the mobile environment has got a bigger buzz.

 

What can firms do? They have to be where the people are. If more people are using the phone, it is right that companies must pursue to sell them services and products in that domain. This is where having a mobile business development strategy becomes important.

 

We propose two ways:

 

Mobile apps – in the mobile environment, mobile app is your website. It is a software application that runs on mobile devices. That is what people see with their smartphones. For most that do not have time to visit websites, that is all they use. When they search the mobile apps market, just as they search on Google, will your business show up? As website was to Google, so is the app is in the iTunes, Android market, Ovi, and more. If you are not there, you are disconnected from the youth that disproportionally use these apps.

 

SMS system – Mobile apps is static. It is like having a website. The engine that will make that mobile strategy go further is the SMS. That is your email system in the mobile ecosystem. Without it, you have a website with an email. SMS is a great tool for communication because it is instantly read and that is what you want from your customers.
A combination of these two services will provide your firm with armor to compete and succeed in the tough market. You need differentiation. You need presence and visibility. The Apps and SMS system will provide those. When they need your information, news, products, promo, you must be there in the mobile space. There are 800,000 apps in the Android market and 300,000 in the Apple marketplace. Every firm needs one! And you are one of those firms.

 

At Fasmicro, we are creating apps, not just for Nigerian companies, but US and European firms. Few weeks ago, we signed a partnership with Paris-based Clam Magazine on apps development.  We know this very well and will be delighted to drive your transition from cyberspace to the mobispace.

 

We will provide not just the apps but the environment to distribute the apps. As more people buy Ovim tablet, they will come to know about your brand because the apps will be ready for them to install.

 

Financially, having an app will jumpstart your branding and business. It will make the product youthful since it will be seen as extremely tech-savvy. We cannot predict your sales impact, but we are sure that more people will know this brand in a very positive way.

 

Fasmicro Apps Division

Owerri, Nigeria

Originally published in 2011