Modelling a sustainability yardstick in modern energisation of rural sub-Saharan Africa

Abstract The bulk of rural Africa (as well as much of the third world) remains un-electrified and is underserved or poorly served by any other form of modern energy infrastructure. In case of a deep sub-Sahara African country like Kenya it is often dismissively argued that lack of finance and appropriate technology are the obvious causes. This argument would however not hold when applied to the more technologically advanced South Africa where a whopping 50% of rural households still suffer a similar fate. The common perception is that in the presence of modern technology the desired social change process will automatically commence. Unfortunately (and possibly due to pressure from donors) typical post project reports from the third world often contain deliberate commissions or omissions that essentially belie the grim reality on the ground. What seems to lack is a well-defined yardstick or standard check-off list as to the essential attributes of a sustainable energy dissemination project. Problems in modern society are now largely tackled using a wide range of software applications. However even with all the well-tested skills in computer coding endless consumer complaints abound. “Usability Engineering” is an example a state-of-the-art scientific tool that has been extensively used in recent times by the software design industry to tackle such problems as enhancement of the human/computer interface. This paper proposes that these modern scientific tools could be adopted to create a yardstick and break the intangible technological barrier to African rural modernization to better the lot of our communities.

[1]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Getting Reform Right: What Works and What Doesn't. , 1992 .

[2]  Frank Vanclay,et al.  Barriers to Adoption: A General Overview of the Issues , 1992 .

[3]  Njeri Wamukonya,et al.  Socio-economic impacts of rural electrification in Namibia: comparisons between grid, solar and unelectrified households , 2001 .

[4]  Karen Holtzblatt,et al.  Rapid Contextual Design: A How-To Guide to Key Techniques for User-Centered Design , 2004, UBIQ.

[5]  Brian Shackel,et al.  Human factors for informatics usability , 1991 .

[6]  Thomas W. Valente Network models of the diffusion of innovations , 1996, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[7]  E. Rogers Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[8]  G. Tarde The Laws of Imitation , 2009 .

[9]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[10]  E. Rogers,et al.  Communication of Innovations; A Cross-Cultural Approach. , 1974 .

[11]  B. Ryan The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities , 1943 .

[12]  Lawrence B. Mohr,et al.  Conceptual issues in the study of innovation , 1976 .

[13]  BevanNigel Quality in use , 1999 .

[14]  Pragasen Pillay,et al.  Energy services in sub-Saharan Africa: how conducive is the environment? , 2004 .

[15]  Em Griffin A First Look at Communication Theory , 2005 .

[16]  Nigel Bevan,et al.  Quality in use: Meeting user needs for quality , 1999, J. Syst. Softw..

[17]  Everett M. Rogers,et al.  The Intellectual Foundation and History of the Agricultural Extension Model , 1988 .

[18]  Garry Stephenson The Somewhat Flawed Theoretical Foundation of the Extension Service. , 2003 .

[19]  T. Mitsufuji How an innovation is formed: A case study of Japanese word processors , 2003 .

[20]  Julie A. Smith Solar-Based Rural Electrification and Microenterprise Development in Latin America: A Gender Analysis , 2000 .

[21]  Tim Jackson,et al.  Photovoltaics in Zimbabwe: lessons from the GEF Solar project , 2000 .