No doubt, our challenges are many and mounting as we speak. Indications from different perspectives and sectors show we have grave problems and are heading for even the worst of times. Government and big business alone do not have sufficient resources, capacity and even credit rating to resolve many of these challenges facing society. But these important role players can enable extensive socioeconomic development to occur rapidly, thereby reverse our current malaise sooner. Such progress is achievable if attitudes and behaviour are changed. By Nimroth Gwetsa, 30 April 2020.
I speak for no one, but myself, though there could be many agreeing with my thoughts. My opinion is premised on the saying that the chain is as strong as its weakest link.
What is then the weakest link I am referring to before exploring opportunities we could pursue?
Government and many big corporations haven’t yet awakened from realising they can achieve greater results in a shorter timeframe and with less, the more open and inviting they are to the enterprising. They still believe in ownership of the entire value chain if they can achieve and maintain it. But this mainly limits their potential and ability to earn more with less.
Fact is, many spend much of their budget funding legacy infrastructure and keeping it suitably operational. And many have wrongly undertaken initiatives to replace their legacy infrastructure and systems with new. As a result, many in such positions are unwilling to develop new services and capabilities to expand into new offerings. We should not rush to condemn them because there is, necessarily, no right or wrong strategy. Failure is usually caused by wrong execution or miscalculation of risks or the occurrence of many unforeseen severe circumstances.
Not all legacy infrastructure and systems are the same, as many can and could be leveraged to enable completely new and modern offerings. Let’s for now, imagine what possibilities and opportunities could be realised if government and large corporations were to create application programming interfaces (APIs) to enable other and independent parties’ unrelated systems interact with those corporates and government legacy systems.
APIs are to enterprising technology based SMMEs, what spectrum is to telecommunication operators and service providers. Together, those are keys holding back development, investment and money-saving services to ordinary consumers.
Likewise, if big corporates and government were to develop APIs, or allow us develop them for them, not just for their internal business systems integration and exchange of information needs, but the needs of external parties too, many independent businesses will find it worthy investing in technology solutions to improve and increase services provided to consumers willing to pay for them. And when government and those corporates are freed from having to lay out extensive physical infrastructure to cover those services already taken care of by independent parties, they (government and corporates) would be freed to spend their resources on other important service delivery and business needs.
For example, if the Department of Safety and Security were to allow authorised and thoroughly screen third parties use APIs to access some information, many communities and entrepreneurs would build services around security information, to help communities improve their safety, or have relevant information for decision making, and all these could be done without placing any further burden on government and/ or its funds. In that way, people in need would be served and government spared from having to invest in that capability themselves. Government may even profit handsomely from such interactions by receiving payment for such access. The same can be said about all other departments, such as, Justice, Trade and Industry, Treasury and Transport among others.
Likewise, corporates would gain similar benefits from opening up, as other independent players could supplement services in the participants’ “ecosystem” and enable all the players gain more materially.
Understandably, our failure to have such openness is not always owing to the reluctance of government and big corporates to share information giving them a competitive advantage, but security concerns and need to protect personal information. Good things can be easily destroyed by the bad done by a few. Thus, we should not trivialise the extent of damage that could result from wrongful access to sensitive information.
Corporates and government making available such APIs can adopt similar stringent measures banks and other financial-services providers have put in place, allowing independent parties gain access to their sensitive information.
Banks, though they too were reluctant to grant access to independent parties unless “pushed into a corner”, can teach many a lesson on allowed use of APIs to access proprietary and sensitive information.
FinTechs providing payment devices and services to retailers have forced the hand of banks through the proliferation, in the market, of nonbank point of sale and payment devices. Eventually, banks saw benefits of allowing independent players enter their economic space, as it meant they no longer needed to invest in having a national workforce to provide maintenance services for devices to those retailers. They opted to rely on independents taking over that responsibility. In turn, independents participating in the scheme were subjected to stringent banking regulations. Each applicant was and are thoroughly screened for participation, their operations and facilities diligently audited initially and continuously, thereafter.
The relationship between banks and FinTechs is working and has resulted in all parties thriving, with each focusing on core-competencies while many consumers continue receiving and enjoying the delivery of much-needed services.
Government and other big corporates can enjoy the same symbiotic relationships with progressive and enterprising technology sector SMMEs.
Many of us can build enterprise and consumer-based solutions rapidly and with ease, and are open to different commercialisation models to simplify and reduce acquisition and ownership overheads. Many of us do not need funding, but an opportunity to integrate our offerings with those of big corporates and government without having to be subjected to onerous and mainly corruption prone processes.
We remain hopeful and will continue finding creative and sustainable ways to also compel government and big corporates finally accept we exist, just as banks were compelled to embrace the role of independent players. When that day dawns, ordinary citizens and consumers will be winners and beneficiaries, and many benefits will accrue to all involved.
My prayer is for the dawn of such a day before the Disaster Management Lockdown is ended!
Aluta continua!