THE ASSOCIATION OF AFRICAN UNIVERSITIES (AAU)
ICT AND BANDWIDTH INITIATIVE
REPORT
THE PROPOSED ROLE OF THE AAU:
ENABLING MEMBER AND ASSOCIATED
INSTITUTIONS TO ACCESS
MORE BANDWIDTH AT LOWER COST
F F Tusubira
tusu@dicts.mak.ac.ug
http://www.fftusubira.com/
Nora K Mulira
nora@dicts.mak.ac.ug
http://www.makerere.ac.ug/dicts/mulira.htm
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. BACKGROUND
At the 11th General Conference of the Association of African Universities (AAU), AAU was
given a mandate to establish a “Working Group on Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) to guide the Association’s support of the ICT capacity of its member
institutions and, especially, the development and implementation of an action plan to set up a
network of African higher education institutions to negotiate the acquisition of higher
bandwidth at lower cost.”
To this end, AAU engaged consultants with the following major goals:
(i)
To assist AAU in identifying a strategic niche that serves as the cornerstone of its
regional ICT programme starting with access to and effective utilization of
bandwidth;
(ii)
To advise AAU on possible options, strategies, and steps in order to achieve lower
bandwidth costs and increase management and technical capacity of participating
institutions;
(iii)
To advise the AAU on terms of reference and appropriate membership of an ICT
Advisory Committee;
(iv)
To facilitate the development of a coherent ICT programme for AAU.
This report and recommendations have drawn upon various studies and documentation on
bandwidth initiatives, best practice visits to consortia, person to person exchanges, and the
expert knowledge and analysis of the consultants.
II. BROAD ISSUES RELATING TO BANDWIDTH CONSORTIA
The following broad issues relating to bandwidth consortia have been used in focusing the
thinking:
a) Articulation of the need for bandwidth and how it relates to the strategic objectives of the
institution. This leads into quantification of required bandwidth through balancing
strategic need and resources, and is a critical element in sustainability.
b) Ability to utilise bandwidth efficiently. This calls for a coordinated ICT services and
systems policy; the presence or provision of a minimum of intranet infrastructure; a
competent or trainable human resource; and some focus of putting local content on line.
c) Access to Internet vs intra-African bandwidth: It is necessary that the airline syndrome is
not entrenched by losing sight of the critical need to intra-connect African institutions.
d) Consortia: It is necessary to recognise and create synergy among the three groups of
consortia that will be involved in any initiative: consumers (institutions); suppliers (local
and international private sector); development partners.
Consumer consortia must work through an organisation that has credibility and trust of
the owners, and must be driven by the real needs of institutions. They need to use a
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
ii
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
procurement approach that ensures a downward trend in costs through continuing
competitive pressure at the supplier end.
Supplier consortia would be commercially driven to supply a large market. Assurance of
the service levels agreed requires reliable participation by the local private sector in the
supplier consortia.
Consortia of development partners are the biggest challenge. Development partners are
all driven by their national agendas that have their specific focus and priority countries
(and sometimes specifically excluded countries). Access to more and cheaper bandwidth
has become an “in” development challenge, and while the altruism of most of the
initiatives cannot be questioned, the contradictions and dissipation of resources through
uncoordinated efforts is also evident.
III. EMERGING DIRECTION
a) Cost and Funding
The difference in cost in African countries compared to economically developed countries,
combined with income difference, leads to bandwidth in Africa costing, in real terms, about
5,000 times more. If the purpose of intervention is creating some level of equity, this
should guide the level of financial intervention as well as its duration, and points to a
measure of sustained recurrent support before African institutions can take up the entire
load.
b) Consumer Consortium Leadership
The Association of African Universities is the most widely accepted forum fulfilling the
requirements of ownership and trust for academic and, increasingly, research institutions.
The initiative has already been legitimised by the formal resolution passed by AAU
members about bandwidth consolidation. AAU therefore provides a ready made
organisation with a mandate to talk to and negotiate with development partners,
establishing a fast track for results. In taking up this role, AAU must address the challenge
of creating the necessary capacity.
c) Governance and Operations
It is recommended that a representative Executive Board to give policy level and strategic
guidance to the initiative is established under the auspices of the AAU. Operations will be
handled by a two-person secretariat
d) Combining Bottom Up and Top Down approaches.
A combination of Bottom Up and Top Down approaches as describe below is
recommended.
Bottom Up
A key component of any intervention or action must aim at ensuring integration at the
national level, leading to national level consortia. This points to national level university
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
iii
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
associations. The next level in the bottom up approach is the multi-national level, driven by
associations of universities of the type that emerge under the various politico-economic
groupings like SADC, EAC, ECOWAS, COMESA. Examples are the Inter-University
Council for East Africa and SARUA. The highest level, the continental consortia, will
require a marriage of the different approaches that will evolve in the different regions.
Top Down
The Top Down part of the solution captures the proposed role of the AAU in developing a
coordinated framework for intervention across Africa, working with and enabling existing
and emerging consumers’ consortia, and also giving coordinated focus to the various
interventions by development partners. AAU should see itself in the role of catalysing
strong networking from the national to the continental level, playing a transitional direct
role where necessary, and creating capacity to enable its exit from direct involvement.
e) Development Partners
A major challenge this initiative faces is getting development partners to act in unison,
pooling funding to a common objective. A clear master plan for the initiative, with
distinctive but related components, that can be separately funded by the development
partners would however enable entry points for them at different levels, in different
countries, or in different regions.
IV. ROLE OF AAU IN OPERATONALISING THE INITIATIVE
The AAU should:
a) Put together a Master Plan that will provide both African Institutions and Development
Partners with a roadmap for the initiative. This will include a framework for establishing
or strengthening the different consumer consortia at national and regional level, as well as
a long term sustainability strategy.
b) Translating this initiative to the higher level that uses consortia driven by learning,
research, and community outreach to work together in addressing the bigger challenge of
integrating ICT services and systems in the different institutions, with focus on the role of
consortia in the definition and development of common shared systems, platforms, and
resources. This broad activity defines the long term role of the Executive Board.
c) Document (already started as an AAU activity) and give guidance to member institutions
and association on best practice approaches related to putting in place the necessary
environments (policy, strategy, human resource, procedures, and funding).
d) Mobilise funding (recognising the option for some elements of the Master Plan to be
funded directly through national or regional consortia).
e) Lobby at the regional and continental level to ensure that policy and regulation are
favourable to inter-institutional networking.
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
iv
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
f) Work with existing consortia for consolidation; and enable the formation of national and
regional networks where they do not exist. Consortia will be supported to increasingly
add value until the main focus is networked learning, research and community outreach.
g) Monitoring and evaluation.
V. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO DELIVER THE ROLE
a) The Executive Board
The AAU should establish an Executive Board to give policy level and strategic
guidance to the initiative, balancing wide participation with operational efficiency:







Chairperson appointed by AAU - initially the AAU Secretary General.
The Executive Head of one of the member institutions of the AAU.
The IT or ICT Executive Head of one of the member institutions.
A representative of the African Telecommunications Union.
A representative from NEPAD.
1 Representatives identified by key Development Partners.
A representative from one of the specialised regional research networks in Africa
b) The Secretariat
It is recommended that the structure of TENET is emulated, but with a secretariat of
only two people (at least one of the two a woman) since AAU is not likely to get
involved in actual operations, except in a few exceptional cases – to be implemented at
the regional or national level. AAU will provide support functions to the secretariat
through its existing organisation. Capacity building for the secretariat, through
attachments to organisations like TENET, executive development in key areas (ICT
Policy and regulation, high level management skills), and understanding university ICT
environments, must be part of the plan.
VI. SHORT TERM ACTION PLAN
The following short-term Action Plan (12 months) for the AAU is recommended. The time
line is given in relative time. A longer-term plan is needed, especially capturing the functions
that will relate to the general challenges of integration ICT services and systems in institution
is required, but ownership and success demand definition working with and through the
stakeholders and Executive Board. Resource requirements for the short term action plan have
been estimated at $340,000.
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
v
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
TABLE 1
SHORT TERM ACTION PLAN
Item
1
2
Activity
Approval of short term action plan
Obtain seed funds
Time Frame
By end Month 1
By end Month 1
3
Identify and engage members of
the Executive Board
Identify and recruit secretariat staff
Capacity
development
for
secretariat
By end Month 2
Develop framework and indicative
budget for PMP
Preliminary funding application to
development partners
First meeting of the EB to give
input to PMP
Draft PMP using input from EB
and online consultation with
stakeholders
Stakeholders forum to adopt PMP
Formal funding application to
development partners based on the
Master Plan
Start Master Plan Implementation
By end Month 2
AAU SG
Head of Unit;
Concurrent/integrated with the
functions of operationalising the
initiative
Consultant engaged by AAU
Month 3
AAU SG
Month 3
Head of Unit
By end Month 3
Head of Unit
Month 4
Month 5
AAU SG
Head of Unit
Month 8
Head of Unit
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
By end Month 2
From Month 3
Responsible/Remarks
AAU Secretary General (SG)
AAU SG, based on provisional
commitments in Maputo
AAU SG
vi
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................vii
1. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 1
2. BANDWIDTH, AND CURRENT EFFORTS IN CONSOLIDATION ...................... 2
3. BROAD ISSUES RELATING TO BANDWIDTH CONSORTIA ............................. 4
3.1
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4
3.2
The Need for Bandwidth ......................................................................................... 4
3.3
Are the institutions able to efficiently exploit this expensive resource? ............. 4
3.4
Efficient utilisation ................................................................................................... 5
3.5
Access to the Internet or Intra-African bandwidth? ............................................ 6
3.6
Consortia................................................................................................................... 6
3.6.1
Consumer Consortia ......................................................................................... 6
3.6.2
Supplier Consortia ............................................................................................ 8
3.6.3
Development Partners consortia ...................................................................... 9
4. EMERGING DIRECTION ........................................................................................... 10
4.1
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 10
4.2
The Cost and Funding ........................................................................................... 10
4.3
Consumer Consortium Leadership ...................................................................... 10
4.4
Governance and Operations ................................................................................. 11
4.5
Combining Bottom Up and Top Down approaches. ........................................... 11
4.5.1
Bottom Up........................................................................................................ 11
4.5.2
Top Down ........................................................................................................ 12
4.6
Development Partners ........................................................................................... 12
5. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON OPERATONALISING THE
INITIATIVE........................................................................................................................... 12
5.1
Putting together a Policy and Master Plan .......................................................... 13
5.2
Defining the Long Term Role of the Executive Board ....................................... 14
5.3
Best practice and guidance .................................................................................... 14
5.4
Mobilisation of Funding ........................................................................................ 14
5.5
Lobbying ................................................................................................................. 14
5.6
Working with existing consortia and enabling the formation of national and
regional networks where they do not exist ...................................................................... 15
5.7
Monitoring and evaluation .................................................................................... 15
6
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO DELIVER THE ROLE ................................. 15
6.1
Executive Board ..................................................................................................... 15
6.2
The Secretariat ....................................................................................................... 15
6.2.1
Required skills and/or experience .................................................................. 16
6.2.2
Education ........................................................................................................ 16
6.2.3
Desirable attributes ......................................................................................... 16
6.2.3
Capacity Building............................................................................................ 17
7
SHORT TERM ACTION PLAN .................................................................................. 18
8
INDICATIVE BUDGET FOR 12 MONTHS .............................................................. 19
ANNEX: FINDINGS FROM BEST PRACTICE CASE STUDIES ................................. 20
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
vii
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
1. BACKGROUND
At the 11th General Conference of the Association of African Universities (AAU), AAU was
given a mandate to establish a “Working Group on Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) to guide the Association’s support of the ICT capacity of its member
institutions and, especially, the development and implementation of an action plan to set up a
network of African higher education institutions to negotiate the acquisition of higher
bandwidth at lower cost.”
To this end, AAU engaged consultants with knowledge of the African university
environment, ICT and bandwidth challenges, and demonstrated experience and ability in the
management of such institutional resources, to provide guidance in:
1.1 Defining the form, content and scope of AAU’s possible role as a focal point in the
various bandwidth-related initiatives on the continent;
1.2 Identifying a role for AAU in the formation and operation of a regional consortium for
purchasing bandwidth, if such a consortium is recommended;
1.3 Formulating an action plan for an initiative aimed at ensuring effective utilisation of and
greater access to bandwidth resources for African higher education institutions;
The specific goals were stated as:
(v)
To assist AAU in identifying a strategic niche that serves as the cornerstone of its
regional ICT programme starting with access to and effective utilization of
bandwidth;
(vi)
To advise AAU on possible options, strategies, and steps in order to achieve lower
bandwidth costs and increase management and technical capacity of participating
institutions;
(vii)
To advise the AAU on terms of reference and appropriate membership of an ICT
Advisory Committee;
(viii) To facilitate the development of a coherent ICT programme for AAU.
Apart from the consultants’ direct experience in the area of using ICT in supporting
organisational transformation and specific experience of leading ICT implementation in
Makerere University, key references that have guided this work to date include:
(a) The work of 11 African Universities, the AAU, and the Partnership for Higher Education
in Africa who are trying to consolidate bandwidth purchase to achieve economies of
scale, integrated with better bandwidth management. The consultants have direct
experience through participation in this initiative. This work is captured in both country
and a consolidated report by the BAND-ITs (Bandits) as well as the Partnership for
Higher Education in Africa, and, as a follow on, the report by AVU.
(b) The ATICS survey, focused on ICT infrastructure in African universities, and the PAREN
Study, aimed at promoting academic research networking in Africa, both of which have
been supported by IDRC.
(c) The Commission for Africa Report to the British Prime Minister.
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
1
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
(d) “A survey of investment in education and research networking in Africa be development
agencies and other organisations” prepared by Kate Wild for IDRC-Connectivity Africa
PAREN programme.
(e) Visits to and discussion with existing national consortia. To date, discussion have been
held with TENET (D. Greaves) and KENET (V. Kyalo). A third visit to Asia has been
scheduled for August 2005 to round off the planned best practice studies.
(f) Discussions with key players (These include, to date, A Sawyerr – AAU, Taye Asefa AAU, Richard Fuchs - IDRC, Steve Song – Connectivity Africa, Heloise Emdon - IDRC,
Mike Jensen – Independent Consultant), as well thinking gathered from the 3rd
International Open Access Workshop, Maputo.
(g) Email contacts – AAU, L. Levy – Partnership for Higher Education, A. Johnson –
Carnegie Corporation)
(h) The African Universities Bandwidth Consortium (AUBC) stakeholders discussion list.
This report is the output of the work of the consultants responding to the TORs and giving
specific guidance to AAU as required.
In Section 2, the report addresses, in a holistic manner, issues that are pertinent to the entire
question of consolidation for purposes of getting access to cheaper bandwidth. This
highlights key considerations, and challenges. Section 3 gives the emerging direction,
defining the roles of AAU and the Development Partners, as well as the general strategy to be
followed. Section 4 details the specific action recommendations to AAU, while Sections 5
describes the proposed structure to deliver AAU’s defined role. Sections 6 and 7 give the
short term activity plan and the associated budgets respectively.
The following qualification to the report is made by the authors: while the focus of this report
relates mainly to the challenge of getting access to more bandwidth at a lower cost, the
authors feel very strongly that this alone does not provide a sound platform for the role of the
AAU. The role of the AAU must be seen within the broader context of using its unique
positioning to enable the higher level benefits of a consortium approach to learning, research
and community outreach, with the integrating ICT services and systems in institutions as an
enabling layer. This particular function has been highlighted in the report as the long-term
justification for the AAU initiative, bandwidth being just one facets of the many challenges.
2. BANDWIDTH, AND CURRENT EFFORTS IN CONSOLIDATION
Bandwidth literally defines the size of the pipe connecting to the internet: the bigger the size,
the faster the rate of transfer of data (containing information) either up or down. The
fundamental challenge for Africa is the cost of such piping that, due to policy, regulation,
and technology challenges, is typically (in monetary terms) fifty times as expensive as
bandwidth in economically developed countries. This means African institutions have to use
limited capacity pipes due to cost constraints, leading to high inefficiencies in all operations
that need access to the internet – learning, research, communications, and regional as well as
global market reach. This challenge can be mitigated through large volume procurements
(consortia); good procurement practice, and efficient management and utilisation (human
resource capacity); improvement of policy and regulatory environments (lobbying);
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
2
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
addressing physical access constraints (technology); and targeted financial support
(development partners).
No attempt is made here to restate or discuss the various initiatives aimed at consolidating
bandwidth, as these have been thoroughly covered by the cited references. The following
commonalities are evident in most them:
2.1 The target has been mostly academic or research institutions in the priority countries of
different development partners, or research institutions involved in subject specific
research. In this, the drive has been a high level motivation. The initiative supported by
the Partnership for Higher Education in Africa, for example, was triggered by concerns,
expressed very strongly at a workshop in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, about the very slow
access to library and information resources on the internet.
2.2 A starting point has been the justification for a consortium approach. This has combined
with decisions on the consortium design and the bandwidth procurement model.
2.3 Technology has been defined by the current method of access to the internet and the
maturity of the national or regional data backbone. The consortia have tended to ride on
the data network that has evolved through the local private sector to provide access and
interconnection among members (TENET, KENET). Technology risk has therefore been
largely taken up by the private sector. There is an insistence on VSAT for those regions
and countries that do not have access to the international fibre backbone. (The various
studies give details about a lot of satellite based access options, both current and planned.
They also provide similar information about fibre networks that either provide current
access, or are planned to give access, to the international fibre backbone).
2.4 Development partners have enabled the start and the operations of the networks, with
different levels of participation from the consortium members.
Lessons for AAU:



The resolution by AAU was: “…Working Group on Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) to guide the Association’s support of the ICT capacity of its
member institutions and, especially, the development and implementation of an action
plan to set up a network of African higher education institutions to negotiate the
acquisition of higher bandwidth at lower cost.” It would be prudent for AAU to
review this through its members to change “and, especially” to “including” to
change what looks like a bandwidth-centric resolution one that simply recognises
bandwidth as a current major challenge.
The need to work with development partners.
Access technology is dynamic with a lot of possibilities: avoid technology based
decisions, and avoid technology risk – these should be left with the private sector; and
avoid long term commitments.
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
3
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
3. BROAD ISSUES RELATING TO BANDWIDTH CONSORTIA
3.1 Introduction
This Section lays out the key issues that need to be addressed in a holistic consideration of
bandwidth consolidation, and the discussion of these issues helps in pointing to options
and/or viable approaches in defining and implementing the roles of the different players.
3.2 The Need for Bandwidth
The need for bandwidth is always assumed without consideration of the fact that such need,
in many institutions, is stated as a fad rather than a need that responds to real challenges in
the activities and/or transactions of organisations. This is based on the fact that emerges from
various studies: most institutions do not have their bandwidth needs and projections of such
needs documented anywhere. This relates directly to institutional willingness to commit its
own resources and therefore to sustainability. The following issues will be specific to any
institutions that claims to need access, or increased access to the internet:
3.2.1 What is the key driving motivation for access to the internet, and how is this best
served? High level need and justification are critical factors in resource allocation
and sustainability.
3.2.2 How much bandwidth is needed by each University now? What is the projection
over the next five to ten years? In many of the studies, guidelines for realistic
assessment of needs have been given. The amount of bandwidth per networked PC,
assuming good practice in bandwidth management, is a better indicator of real need
as opposed to campus population.
3.2.3 At what level would the cost be considered reasonable? This will relate to the
funding model of the university. Most public universities are still grossly underfunded, and yet they are constrained in avenues of income, realistic fees based
structures being generally politically undesirable. This is compounded by the
dissipation of the limited resources on over-staffed administrative functions that use
antiquated manual systems. Reasonable cost, in this context, will vary from
institution to institution.
3.2.4 How much money is each institution able to spend on bandwidth? This challenge is
related to 3.2.3 in a resource limited environment with multiple demands. It would
be best, in the African context, to work out a percentage of gross income that should
be reasonably spent on ICT services and systems, and specifically bandwidth access.
The gap between the gross value of such percentage expenditure and the cost of
what is considered reasonable bandwidth per networked PC will give a guide to
development partners about required support for each institution. This is discussed
further under Section 3.6.3 of this report.
3.3 Are the institutions able to efficiently exploit this expensive resource?
The inevitable high expenditure, and the opportunity cost of such expenditure, makes is
mandatory to ensure that its use fully supports the core activities and strategic objectives of
the institutions. The following then become pre-conditions for effective participation in a
consortium by any institution:
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
4
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
3.3.1 Is there a coordinated framework for the integration of ICT services and systems in
the university? ICT, of which access to internet is the highest recurrent cost
component in most African countries, is expensive. The consortium supported by
the Partnership for Higher Education in Africa, for example, is likely to deliver
bandwidth at a medium term cost of about $2.5 per kbps per month (factoring VSAT
and other management related costs). In environments with limited resources,
acceptability and sustainability of such cost are possible only if the role of ICT is
defined, justified and accepted at all levels, and accordingly captured in the highest
level documents: the Mission and Strategic Objectives/Priorities. Similarly, the ICT
Policy, master plan, owned by all stakeholders, are critical elements.
3.3.2 Is the necessary infrastructure in place? This refers especially to good intranets and
access points (PCs).
3.3.3 Are there requisite institutional arrangements for Information Resource Management
(IRM), and does the institution possess managerial and technical competence for
IRM? This will also link back to the use to which ICT services and systems are put,
especially in the core business processes of the institution. It also leads to decisions
about developing in house capacity or outsourcing.
3.3.4 Has the content (nature, source, cost) been defined in a way that will ensure the data
piping leads to sustainable organisational benefit? Access to the internet does not
necessarily lead to sustainable organisational benefit unless issues including
information literacy; cost of credible online resources (a high level consortium
issue); and a reasonably balanced two way flow of information are simultaneously
addressed. The typical large downlink/small uplink is symptomatic of the
unbalanced flow of information and is not sustainable. There is a lot of content in
African institutions that is inaccessible due to a combination of various factors that
in themselves are a major set of issues: need for digitisation; lack of specific
institutional policies on intellectual property; facilities and demands of putting
information online.
3.4 Efficient utilisation
It must be accepted that for some years to come, bandwidth will be very expensive relative to
the resources of the institutions in Africa. Efficient utilisation, that calls for good bandwidth
management, is therefore a necessary part of the solution. Bandwidth management here refers
to the policies, procedures, expertise and infrastructure necessary to ensure that procurement
volume is minimised in an environment of dynamic allocation, proper utilisation, and
minimisation of peaks and troughs in the usage pattern.
3.4.1 It is a given that expertise and resources for dealing with viruses and spam must be
in place before bandwidth management starts: these should pre-requisites, rather
than elements of bandwidth management.
3.4.2 Line staff (eg in Libraries) and IRM staff must acquire capacity to address issues
ranging from bandwidth management to mirroring content; negotiating, monitoring
and enforcing service level agreements, not only to the local point of presence, but to
what is accepted as the Internet backbone.
3.4.3 Capacity building challenges and ability to negotiate copyright issues (to enable
mirroring, etc) are components of efficient utilisation.
3.4.4 Creating common platforms that support interactive online work within a bandwidth
limited environment is a related component in efficient utilisation. KEWL
NEXTGEN, the e-learning platform developed by a consortium of African
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
5
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
Universities led by the University of the Western Cape is a very good example of
this approach (supported by IDRC).
3.5 Access to the Internet or Intra-African bandwidth?
The current greater emphasis in most initiatives is access to the internet, which for Africa
unfortunately still means access to servers in Europe and the Americas, rather than the
establishment of intra-African connectivity as the underlying platform for internet
connectivity. There is a need to detrench (our word), not entrench, the airline syndrome. It is
the considered view of the authors of this report that this is only a quick-fix solution that will
be very useful in the short to medium term, but cannot be sustained in the long term unless
we accept the consequence of growing inequity. It tends to blind many stakeholders to the
real challenge: intra-African connectivity. A perpetuated situation where an institution in
Africa links more easily to institutions outside Africa than to those within the same country
or within Africa is not tenable.
Providing the short-term solution should always be accompanied by a component that
addresses intra-connectivity, first at the national level, and then across borders.
3.6 Consortia
The starting point has been taken as the formal acceptance by the AAU members that a
consortium approach is necessary. We also recognise that there are several national as well
as regional (in the sense of cutting across national boundaries) initiatives – the former tending
to have a broader approach and latter mostly focusing or enabling specialised research
activities.
There are three types of consortia that are likely emerge, forms of which already exist, as the
joint bandwidth initiative rises from national, to regional to continental level: consortia of
consumers (academic, research, and tertiary institutions); consortia of suppliers (especially
for regional and continental consortia of consumers); consortia of development partners, that
might also involve governments and inter-governmental organisations.
3.6.1 Consumer Consortia
Design
In designing the consortium, the thinking of the stakeholders and ownership of the structure
and plans are important to success. The issues raised here are more to guide thinking than to
make specific recommendations.
(i)
What are the elements of a successful consortium? The strength and weaknesses as
well as successes and failures of existing consortia give lessons into these. In our
assessment, these include:

Ownership and commitment by members. Taking ownership by consortium members
is critical even when the project is initiated (championed) outside the institution. For
each member institution, analysis and conception should never be confined to IT
directors and IRM staff. End users of the system and business analysts must be
involved to bring in fresh insights.
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
6
AAU Bandwidth Initiative





(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
Minimum imposition of standards on organisational operations to accommodate all
differences. Synchronising the core system activities to meet the big discrepancies in
capacity or requirements has proved difficult and led to failed consortia.
Cultural fit where political agendas are of less importance should give a more
successful consortia formula.
An agency or independent operating / coordination body external to the universities is
required. This should be lean to minimise overheads.
Strategy should not be technology driven. Adding value through unique services
through shared implementation should be the goal.
Clear and enforceable contractual relationships: bitter experience with continental
organisations in Africa should not be ignored. Contracts will spell out pre-conditions
of membership; rights and obligations; benefits and responsibilities.
The initial motivation is bandwidth. Is there higher level motivation and high level
benefits to add value to the consortium? This would be the desirable outcome.
Bandwidth alone will not make strong consortia, and AAU should, at the earliest,
work with members to address the high level benefits of integrating ICT services and
systems into the different institutions.
Is it going to be a closed exclusive network, or an open network that other institutions
can automatically join by meeting the agreed pre-conditions? The legal instruments
defining the consortium must be specific about this, and will be the basis for specific
contracts.
How will policy, regulatory and legal challenges across national borders be
addressed? In this context, it should be noted that both TENET and KENET are
national in scope, operating in the same policy, regulatory and legal environment.
Challenges faced by SARUA, right from the formative stage, will provide continuing
lessons for the consortium. National consortia are likely to be the easiest to form,
followed by regional consortia that fall in the same economic and regulatory blocks
(SADC-TRASA; EAC-EARPTO, ECOWAS-WATRA, COMESA-ARICEA).
Different policy, regulatory, legal, technology (eg access to fibre) and procurement
environments indifferent countries/ regions mean that realistically, we should expect
different solutions. AAU and development partners should be looking at enabling
national and regional consolidation in the short term, rather than a grand scheme
that is continent wide.
Management
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Which organisation is most suited to be the high level home of the consortium? Such
entity must have the credibility, trust, ownership and confidence of members in order
to take on the role. This includes financial trust and assurance. Such an entity would
also be the Agent of the consortium, either by establishing a full secretariat, or a small
secretariat that manages en external entity engaged to play an outsourced role for the
Agent.
Who will set policy level direction and how?
How will representation, ownership and equity be assured?
Procurement
(i)
The need to follow the procurement laws and regulations in different countries are a
major consideration. To what extent can the individual institutions participate in a
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
7
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
regional or continent wide procurement while abiding by the rigours of transparency
that have gained prominence on the continent?
Maintaining competition at all times is necessary to assure a downward trend in costs.
What model can ensure that there is competitive pressure at the upstream end, rather
than a de facto captive market after the first agreement(s) are signed? It is noted here
that both TENET and KENET are captive to one supplier at the moment, and it can
rightly be questioned whether they are getting value for money in the environment.
True, they all started at a time when sector regulation left no alternative – which also
points to the challenges of sector policy and regulatory environments in enabling or
impeding achievement of the best value for money.
Local supply chain: What kind of local representation of the supplier will be required
to assure sensitiveness and timely response to customer needs and complaints? What
is more desirable in ensuring reliable service: an upstream provider with low prices
and no local presence, or a local provider, maybe with higher prices? If local
providers are used, what model would ensure that benefits of large volume purchases
across a region are realised? Companies with local presence also provide de facto
national consolidation of bandwidth: this must always be remembered as a key part of
the equation.
Is it necessary to consider technology? Is this a valid issue for both national and
multi-national consortia? If the solution requires possible acquisition of technology,
technology risk must be considered and integrated into the cost of ownership over a
given period of time. Technology risk here refers specifically to VSAT technology.
The experience of the authors of this report, and their considered view, is that supply
chain technology options, ownership, risks and management should be left to the
supplier.
What kind of contractual relationships are necessary? Is the relationship going to be
supplier to institution or Agent to institution? While the latter scenario reduces the
centralised procurement risks, it dilutes the core business value agreed among
consortia members as resource disparities dictate individual institution procurement.
If Agent to institution, is the Agent able to take on the risk of ensuring service levels
on the one hand, and payment risks (failure by any single or several institutions to
pay) on the other hand? Where is the Agent located, and how responsive would they
be to the needs of the institutions as customers?
Is it not necessary to have bandwidth consolidation at national level first? What needs
to be done to promote such national consortia where they do not exist? Where they
exist, do they have the flexibility and is there value added in linking into a bigger
consortium?
One thing is clear from the multiplicity of questions and scenarios that relate to procurement:
that there can be no fixed solution. This points to the need for a flexible and dynamic
approach that avoids long term contractual commitments, or contracts with easy exit
conditions.
3.6.2 Supplier Consortia
It is understood that the international upstream providers have individually got capacity to
meet the aggregated need. They however lack local presence and will not be responsive to
the needs of the consumers. They can deliver through VSAT, but it cannot be pre-supposed
that for any given institution, and depending on their bandwidth needs, this is the most costeffective. All payment for bandwidth does not flow through the national private sector or tax
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
8
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
systems, distorting the market and denying poor countries much needed revenue. It is not
only wise, but necessary to have a local supply chain.
Nationally, a single company can meet the local supply chain requirements. Regionally, only
companies with a regional presence would be able to do so. Consortia of suppliers are likely
to be needed to meet the local supply chain requirements of regional consortia. On a
continental basis, supplier consortia are necessary to establish local supply chains for
continental consortia of consumers.
The modalities for setting up any such consortium would be addressed by the suppliers
themselves in responding to the advertised needs and minimum SLA requirements of the
consumer consortium. By making the presence of an acceptable local supplier chain
mandatory, the international upstream providers or the local companies would respond
through a consortium.
The supplier consortia are largely a procurement issue, but it has been addressed here for
specific focus on their possible nature, and to give a different perspective to consolidation of
demand. Many telcos and ISPs are acquiring regional and pan-African presence either
directly or through commercial alliances. They are already procuring consolidated bandwidth
for their various consumers.
The local private sector will have a direct interest in local consumer consortia which
consolidate bandwidth, provide a reliable base demand, and reduce customer management
overheads. How can a consumer consortium build on to this for mutual benefit?
3.6.3 Development Partners consortia
Paradoxically, consortia of development partners are the biggest challenge. Development
partners are all driven by their national agendas that have their specific focus and priority
countries (and sometimes specifically excluded countries). Others are driven by corporate
missions and objectives. With a few exceptions, development partners want to drive the
agendas and indeed control directions of the initiatives they fund – responding more to their
objectives and than the needs of the countries or institutions they assist. This constitutes a
major challenge around which AAU must construct its solution: aeroplanes do not fly
because of gravity, and ships sail against the wind.
Access to more and cheaper bandwidth has become an “in” development challenge, and the
continent is littered, so to speak, with prophets, and disciples, each trying to implement their
solution. The altruism of most of these cannot be questioned, but the contradictions and
dissipation of resources through uncoordinated efforts is also evident.
The following have to be jointly evaluated with potential development partners:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
To what extent are the Development partners willing to work together through the
joint funding of a common agenda?
To what extent are the Development partners willing to accept the direction set by
consumers’ consortia?
What are the short and long term roles of development partners? This should really be
enabling, rather than long term. Enabling includes support for the process, and
financial underwriting for agreed period with an agreed exit strategy. This however
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
9
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
poses a dilemma: Avery optimistic projection of consolidated bandwidth cost would
be $1,000 per Mbps per month, ten times the current costs in economically developed
countries. If one factors in per capita GDP disparities, an institution in Africa, in the
bet case scenario, would be paying about 200 times what institutions in say America
and Europe pay. Is it then realistic to demand short term sustainability? It would
appear to be more realistic to look at a cycle of support lasting at least five years. One
would expect, especially with the recent decisions on debt cancellation tied to good
governance, fairer trade opportunities, and reduced corruption, that many African
economies will go over the hump of the vicious cycle in that period.
A reasonable guide to the required level of intervention builds on what has been
outlined in Section 3.2.4:
a. Given the campus population, what is an acceptable minimum number of networked
computers? Intranetworking and PCs, driven by an appropriate policy and master
plan, will be the first point of intervention in many institutions.
b. For that number of networked computers, what is an acceptable minimum internet
bandwidth, and what is the cost of that bandwidth?
c. What minimum percentage of gross income should an institution spend on bandwidth
in order to qualify for development partner support?
d. What is the difference between the cost of bandwidth (b) and what the institution can
pay (c)?
4. EMERGING DIRECTION
4.1 Introduction
This section focuses on the key issues that put the challenge of funding in perspective and
also defines the niche and role of the AAU, as well as the recommended strategy.
4.2 The Cost and Funding
As been correctly observed in the various studies and reports, African institutions typically
pay up to 50 times what is paid in economically developed countries for bandwidth. What is
not reflected is that the per capita GDP in such countries can be as much as 100 times higher
– making the real cost of bandwidth say 5000 times higher than the cost in say Europe and
North America. Any serious initiative that attempts to address this gap must keep this in
focus. It relates to the level of financial intervention as well as its duration. It points to a
measure of sustained recurrent support before African institutions can take up the entire load.
It will not be cheap, but it is even more expensive not to intervene.
Development partners will have to take the courageous and correct decision: if the intention
is to create some measure of equity, sufficient resources must be invested, including recurrent
support (albeit on a phasing out basis), for some time.
4.3 Consumer Consortium Leadership
Ownership and trust are critical elements in a consortium. It is our considered opinion that
The Association of African Universities is the most widely accepted forum fulfilling these
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
10
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
requirements for academic and, increasingly, research institutions. The initiative has already
been legitimised by the formal resolution passed by AAU members about bandwidth
consolidation. AAU therefore provides a ready made organisation with a mandate to talk to
and negotiate with development partners, establishing a fast track for results.
AAU however faces the challenge of capacity. The correct and sustainable approach is to
build its capacity rather than disenfranchise it. This very strong recommendation has also
been expressed by the Commission for Africa report to the British Prime Minister. Capacity
building is further discussed in Section 6.
AAU also faces the challenge of shifting its target from the bandwidth challenge that has
gained prominence by its immediacy, to the long term goal of catalysing the formation of,
and alliances among national, regional and continental consortia.
4.4 Governance and Operations
It is recommended that a representative Executive Board to give policy level and strategic
guidance to the initiative should be established under the auspices of the AAU. The role of
this Board must extend beyond the bandwidth challenge: It must address the bigger
challenge of integrating ICT services and systems in the different institution, with the focus
of the role of consortia in the definition and development of common shared systems,
platforms, and resources. The overall objective will be enabling consortium approaches to
learning, research and community outreach. This role is defined further in Section 5.
Operations will be handled by a small secretariat under the AAU – also elaborated further in
Section 5. Because of the urgency of actually delivering cheaper bandwidth in the shortest
possible time, actual operations at the start could be through a contracted external Agent.
Such Agent would be engaged by and be fully answerable to AAU.
4.5 Combining Bottom Up and Top Down approaches.
It is our considered opinion that fast and successful implementation must have a combination
of Bottom Up and Top Down approaches as describe below.
4.5.1 Bottom Up
It has been recognised in the studies that consortia are national, regional, or continental.
Most of the examples cited that are prima facie successful, with the exception of regions
where there is a very high level of economic and a large measure of procedural (regulation,
laws) integration such as the European Union, are at the national level. This realistically
defines what should be the initial point of focus. A key component of any intervention or
action must aim at ensuring integration at the national level, leading to national level
consortia.
The next level in the bottom up approach is the multi-national level, driven by associations of
universities of the type that emerge under the various politico-economic groupings like
SADC, EAC, ECOWAS, COMESA. Examples are the Inter-University Council for East
Africa and SARUA. The politico-economic groupings are increasingly establishing
procedural integration, enabling associations of academic or research institutions to more
easily add a consortium approach to bandwidth procurement to their mandates. Such
consortia also need to be enabled.
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
11
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
The highest level, the continental consortia, will require a marriage of the different
approaches that will evolve in the different regions. Because of the different existing access
environments and access challenges among the major regions of Africa, continental level
consortia are more likely to have common approaches rather than common solutions.
Northern Africa, for example has access to high capacity fibre. Western and Southern Africa
have access to fibre, but both capacity and inland penetration (especially in Western Africa)
are limited. East Africa and areas in the center of Africa are totally isolated from fibre.
4.5.2 Top Down
The Top Down part of the solution captures the proposed role of the AAU in developing a
coordinated framework for intervention across Africa, working with and enabling existing
and emerging consumers’ consortia, and also giving coordinated focus to the various
interventions by development partners. This will inevitably create the temptation for AAU
to make itself indispensable at all levels: the authors strongly believe that this would be a
mistake. AAU should see itself in the role of catalysing strong networking (start up,
alliances, etc) from the national to the continental level, playing a transitional direct role
where necessary, and creating capacity to enable its exit from direct involvement to take on
other challenges.
The specific activities in the Top Down approach are amplified in Section 5.
4.6 Development Partners
There are many development partners working to support access to cheaper bandwidth in
Africa. On of the biggest challenges this initiative faces is getting them to act in unison,
pooling funding to a common objective. This is as hard as it is probably unrealistic.
The other way of working with the development partners is to have a clear master plan for the
initiative, with distinctive but related components, that can be separately funded by the
development partners. This is the realistic approach. Development Partners need to come
out clearly and indicate which model they will work with so that false starts and stops can be
avoided. Development Partners also need to cede, and be seen to cede, direction and control
to the African institutions within an agreed framework.
5. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON OPERATONALISING THE INITIATIVE
AAU’s niche is defined by the set of roles and activities that, through continental level of
presence and acceptance especially among universities, only it can carry out effectively. This
niche should be recognised in the context of coordination and monitoring of sub- projects that
will normally be executed by national and/or regional networks. A direct AAU project
management role will be anticipated in cases where no national or regional networks exist. It
is recommended that the first two years of the initiative are treated as a project phase.
The following set of activities should be undertaken by AAU to exploit its unique positioning
and to actualise the decision of its members at the Cape Town meeting.
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
12
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
a) Putting together a Master Plan that will provide both African Institutions and
Development Partners with a roadmap for the initiative. This will include a
framework for establishing or strengthening the different consumer consortia at
national and regional level, as well as a long term sustainability strategy that
provides an exit path for development partners.
b) Translating this initiative to the higher level that uses consortia driven by learning,
research, and community outreach to work together in addressing the bigger
challenge of integrating ICT services and systems in the different institutions, with
focus on the role of consortia in the definition and development of common shared
systems, platforms, and resources. This will include research networking, shared
learning management platforms and resources, information systems, and library
resources. This broad activity defines the long term role of the Executive Board.
c) Documenting and giving guidance to member institutions and association on best
practice approaches related to putting in place the necessary environments (policy,
strategy, human resource, procedures, infrastructure, and funding).
d) Mobilising funding (recognising the option for some elements of the Master Plan to
be funded directly through national or regional consortia).
e) Lobbying at the regional and continental level to ensure that policy and regulation
are favourable to inter-institutional networking.
f) Working with existing consortia for consolidation; and enabling the formation of
national and regional networks where they do not exist. While initial focus might
be on bandwidth, consortia will be supported to increasingly add value until the
main focus is the higher level motivation of networked learning, research and
community outreach.
g) Monitoring and evaluation.
5.1 Putting together a Policy and Master Plan
The size and scope of the initiative is such that successful coordination and implementation
requires a Policy and Master Plan (PMP), owned and approved by the various stakeholders.
This PMP will:






Define the expectations, objectives, boundaries, functions and procedures of the
initiative. This will extend to the long term role of AAU in enabling the integration
of ICT services and systems in its member institutions through a consortium
approach.
Define roles and responsibilities as well as rights and obligations of participants in
the initiative.
Break down the overall objectives into detailed sub-activities with resource
requirements (human, financial, infrastructural, etc) and time lines, thus providing a
coordinated and logical framework for implementation. Such a framework will also
provide development partners with a matrix through which they can provide support
targeted to specific sub-projects, or specific regions and countries, or both – a faster
path than trying to create a common pot for development partner funding.
Define the activities and actions to be undertaken, and by which parties, in
implementing each sub-project.
Establish a baseline as well as the framework for monitoring and evaluation
(formative, ongoing, and summative).
Address sustainability and provide an exit strategy for development partners.
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
13
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
The process of developing the PMP is as important as the actual PMP if ownership and
support from the diverse stakeholders, key elements of success, are to be achieved.
5.2 Defining the Long Term Role of the Executive Board
Even as the Executive Board deals with the immediate challenge of bandwidth, they must
define the long term mandate of enabling a consortium approach driven by learning, research,
and community outreach. This includes various elements:





Enabling national and regional research and learning networks
Integration of ICT services and systems in institutions
Joint development of learning content, including definition and development of
common learning platforms
Definition and development of shared information systems
Sharing of library resources
It is through these that long term value will be delivered to the African academic and
research institutions by AAU. More importantly, this respond to the broader mandate of the
AAU.
5.3 Best practice and guidance
This will be an ongoing activity, providing knowledge support to AAU and stakeholders in
implementing the PMP in a way that is responsive to and supports the higher level functions
of both AAU and the stakeholders. This will include putting in place the necessary prerequisites for effective and beneficial participation in national and/or regional networks.
5.4 Mobilisation of Funding
This is a crucial ongoing activity that will be based on the Master Plan. Development Partner
involvement (at a consultative level) in the PMP formulation, and a clear owned PMP are
critical elements in creating confidence and obtaining resource commitment. AAU must
work with identified key Development Partners to obtain seed funding to undertake the
activities that support activities for an initial period of at least 12 months, including the
formulation of the PMP.
5.5 Lobbying
Active engagement at both national and regional level will go a long way in establishing
policy and regulatory environment that recognise the importance of enabling national and
regional networks, and creating favourable conditions for them to operate successfully.
Entry points for engagement and lobbying include national governments and regulators,
regional regulatory associations (TRASA, EARPTO, TRASA, WATRA) and continental
organisations (AU, ATU, NEPAD) to all of which AAU should have easy access.
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
14
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
5.6 Working with existing consortia and enabling the formation of national and regional
networks where they do not exist
It is through success in this particular aspect that AAU will be said to have achieved the
aspirations of its members – initially verbalised as access to more and cheaper bandwidth, but
in the long term aimed at the higher level benefits of institutional networking.
5.7 Monitoring and evaluation
This is expected to be an ongoing rather than a post mortem activity, enabling continual
improvement of the strategies adopted to meet the challenges of an evolving environment.
6
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO DELIVER THE ROLE
To respond to the proposed functions, AAU should establish an Executive Board to give
policy level and strategic guidance to the initiative, and a secretariat to handle operations.
6.1 Executive Board
There is need to balance wide participation with operational efficiency: this suggests a Board
of at most seven members composed as follows:







Chairperson appointed by AAU (Because of the importance of this initiative, it is
recommended that the AAU Secretary General assumes this role during the initial
period).
The Executive Head of one of the member institutions of the AAU.
The IT or ICT Executive Head of one of the member institutions.
A representative of the African Telecommunications Union (This is the common
forum for the national regulators from the African Union member countries, and
therefore relevant in establishing cross-cutting policy and regulatory environments
with respect to national and regional education and research networks).
A representation from NEPAD (Currently the recognised point organisation in
addressing continent wide development priorities).
1 Representatives selected by key Development Partners (IDRC, Connectivity Africa,
Partnership for Higher Education, Sida/Sarec – so far identified as the most active or
having the widest coverage in addressing the internet bandwidth challenge in African
universities)
A representative from one of the specialised regional research networks in Africa
6.2 The Secretariat
AAU should establish a lean secretariat responsible for the initiative. It is recommended that
the structure of TENET provides a good starting point, but with smaller secretariat of only
two people since AAU is not likely to get involved in actual operations: Actual operations
will be implemented at the regional or national level. A second justification for the
sufficiency of a two person secretariat is that AAU will be able to provide the finance
management and accounting skills from its existing organisation.
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
15
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
6.2.1 Required skills and/or experience





Policy level management
1. Policy synthesis and planning
2. Familiarity with ICT policy and regulatory environments on the African
continents
Communication and negotiation
1. Working with development partners and member institutions
2. Proposal writing and funds mobilisation
3. Marketing
4. Public Relations
Information resource management
1. Policies, procedures, and practice
2. Technology
3. Information systems
Project Management
Procurement, including familiarity with some of the international procurement
guidelines (eg IDA)
6.2.2 Education

Masters to PhD level with a very strong component of information and
communication technology either at Bachelor’s or Masters level
6.2.3 Desirable attributes





Good communication skills
Good inter-personal skills
Good email culture
Results oriented
Preferably bilingual (English and French)
While it is conceivable that a single individual could possess the complete skills and
experience set, the sheer scope of continental coverage would render that person, working
alone, inefficient. It would also be a high risk situation for such a large initiative (absence for
whatever cause or even disengagement). The following guide is recommended in identifying
two individuals
The Head of the Unit: The Head should be a high profile individual who will find easy
acceptance among academic and research institutions, means they should hold a PhD,
preferably with a track record of research. There will be greater focus on the Top Executive
level skills. The Head of the unit should have served for at least three years in a position with
similar demands and challenges as are expected in this job.
The Deputy: Greater focus on the ICT technical skills. The Deputy should have specific
experience (minimum three years) related to information resource management, with capacity
to acquire executive level skills.
At least one of the two people shall be a woman.
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
16
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
6.2.3 Capacity Building
The two people recruited, depending on their specific training and experience, will require
capacity building, partly through formal short training, but mainly through attachments. The
following are envisaged.







TENET – apparently the most advanced consortium. Attachment of up to two weeks
to understand the full range and challenges of running a consortium.
Attachments to selected universities that have demonstrated ability or innovativeness
in policy and master plan formulation and implementation as well as information
resource management. This should include universities within and outside Africa.
Short intensive courses exposing them to ICT policy and regulation with specific
emphasis on the African continent (eg the NetTel@Executive Development
Programme for telecommunications policy makers and regulators).
Short and intensive executive development programmes (eg at ESAMI).
Attachments to selected telecommunication service providers and telecoms/IT
regulatory bodies – to help in achieving a better understanding and appreciation of
supply challenges, technology challenges, as well as challenges and approaches to
regulation.
Short intensive courses (one to two weeks) in procurement and common procurement
guidelines.
Introductory study visits to NEPAD, ATU.
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
17
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
7
SHORT TERM ACTION PLAN
The following short-term Action Plan for the AAU is recommended. The time line is given
in relative time. While a longer term action plan would have been desirable, ownership and
success requires that this evolves with the participation of stakeholders, especially the
Executive Board and the secretariat.
TABLE 1
SHORT TERM ACTION PLAN
Item Activity
1
Approval of short
action plan
2
Obtain seed funds
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Time Frame
term By end Month 1
By end Month 1
Identify
and
engage By end Month 2
members of the Executive
Board
Identify
and
recruit By end Month 2
secretariat staff
Capacity development for From Month 3
secretariat
Develop framework and
indicative budget for PMP
Preliminary
funding
application to development
partners
First meeting of the EB to
give input to PMP
Draft PMP using input from
EB and online consultation
with stakeholders
Stakeholders forum to adopt
PMP
Formal funding application
to development partners
based on the Master Plan
Start
Master
Plan
Implementation
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
Responsible/Remarks
AAU
Secretary
General (SG)
AAU SG, based on
provisional
commitments
in
Maputo
AAU SG
AAU SG
Month 3
Head of Unit;
Concurrent/integrated
with the functions of
operationalising
the
initiative
Consultant engaged by
AAU
AAU SG
Month 3
Head of Unit
By end Month 3
Head of Unit
Month 4
AAU SG
Month 5
Head of Unit
Month 8
Head of Unit
By end Month 2
18
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
8
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
INDICATIVE BUDGET FOR 12 MONTHS
This indicative budget is based on the short-term activity plan. Staff salaries run for only 10
months of the short term activity plan. Scales used are based on the AAU salary and benefits
structure.
TABLE 2
INDICATIVE BUDGET
Item Particulars
Units
Quantity Rate
1
Salaries and benefits for Months 10
$6,500
Head of Unit
2
Salaries and benefits for Months 12
$5,500
Deputy Head of Unit
3
Meetings of the Executive Nos
3
$10,000
Board
4
Stakeholders forum to adopt Nos
1
$20,000
PMP (most self-funding)
5
Capacity development (5 Nos
10
$4,000
attachments/
training
sessions per person, total 10
weeks per person)
6
Travel (engagement of Nos
20
$2,000
stakeholders and lobbying
activities)
7
Capital costs in setting up Nos of 2
$5,000
and equipping secretariat persons
(furniture, computers, lap
tops, etc)
8
Provision for all external Item
input (consultancy support,
etc)
9
Provision for all support Months 12
$1,000
services
Sub-total
Add:
15%
AAU
Administrative charge
TOTAL
RECOMMENDED BUDGETARY PROVISION
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
Total
$65,000
$55,000
$30,000
$20,000
$40,000
$40,000
$10,000
$20,000
$12,000
$292,000
$43,800
$335,800
$340,000
19
AAU Bandwidth Initiative
Report, Draft 3, 3rd August 2005
ANNEX: FINDINGS FROM BEST PRACTICE CASE STUDIES
(To be inserted after the visit to Korea and Taiwan planned for August)
F F Tusubira and Nora K Mulira
20