Improving diffusion of Information Technology in communities in a developing world context

  • Ronell Alberts
  • Vreda Pieterse
Part of the IFIP – The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 274)


Diffusion of information technology in a developing world context is difficult due to the fact that most of the targeted communities are in market neglect environments. Market neglect environments are characterised by a failure of the market to make an impact. In these environments the client base is marginalised, small or with low economic power. Consequently, the prospect for immediate return on investment or profit in the short or medium term is low in these environments. Software development for market neglect areas faces a number of unique challenges while still needing to produce products of high quality, on budget and on time. Traditional software methodologies have been applied in these areas with limited success, but due to the unique challenges within these areas, it has become apparent that a new or adapted software methodology is needed to ensure the effective diffusion of technology in market neglect communities. In this paper, we aim to pin down the unique problems experienced when developing for market neglect areas and to identify tools and methods required in a software development methodology to address these problems in order to improve the diffusion of information technology in market neglect areas.


Software Development Requirement Elicitation Soft System Methodology Traditional Software Information System Development 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    D. Avison and G. Fitzgerald. Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools. McGraw-Hill Education, 3rd edition, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Avison, A. T. Wood-Harper, A. T. Vidgen, and J. R. G. Wood. A further exploration into information systems development: The evolution of multiview2. Information Technology & People, 11(2):124-139, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. E. Avison and V. Taylor. Information systems development methodologies: A classification according to problem situation. Journal of Information Technology, 12(1):73-81, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. E. Avison and A. T.Wood-Harper. Multiview - an exploration in information systems development. Australian Computer Journal, 18(4), 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Beck. Extreme programming explained. Addison-Wesley, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Y. Borochowitz. Teaching a qualitative research seminar on sensitive issues an autoethnography. Qualitative Social Work, 4(3):347-362, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Checkland and J. Scholes. Soft Systems Methodology in action. John Wiley & Sons, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Cockburn. Crystal Clear: A Human Powered Methodology for Small Teams. AddisonWesley, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Economist. Market failure., Last accessed: 2007/04/30.
  10. 10.
    B. Glaser and A. Strauss. Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Sociology Press, 1967.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Gonzalez-Perez and B. Henderson-Sellers. Templates and resources in software development methodologies. Journal of Object Technology, 4(4):173-190, 2005.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    U. H. Graneheim and B. Lundman. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2):105112, 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Grimaldi and N. von Tunzelmann. Assessing collaborative, pre-competitive R&D projects: the case of the UK link scheme. R&D Management, 32(2):165-173, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. Jacobson, G. Booch, and J. Rumbaugh. The unified software development process. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Johnson and J. Duberley. Understanding management research. London: Sage, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. K. Klein and M. D. Myers. A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, pages 67-93, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Y. Lincoln and E. Guba. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn. Sage, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Martin and J. T. Scott. The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research Policy, 29(4-5):437-447, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. McCormick. Technical opinion: Programming extremism. Commun. ACM, 44(6):109119, 2001.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. Mumford. Designing Human Systems: The ETHICS Method. Manchester Business School, 1983.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. L. Munhall. Nursing research: A qualitative perspective. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    P. Quintas and K. Guy. Collaborative, pre-competitive R&D and the firm. Research Policy, 24(3):325-348, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. Walsham. Interpretive case studies in is research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2):74-81, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronell Alberts
    • 1
  • Vreda Pieterse
    • 2
  1. 1.Meraka InstituteCouncil for Scientific and Industrial ResearchPretoriaZA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaZA

Personalised recommendations