You are currently browsing the archive for the News category.

Guitar Hero

In 69 Joe Cocker jumped around the stage caressing an imaginary guitar belting out ‘With a Little help from My friend’.  In the 80s  metal rock warped our minds into bad fashion long hair and dancing with  invisible guitars.  Today; festivals, games and now even rehabilitation specialists have opened up to the idea of the ‘air guitar’.

Guitar hero is  a popular music game, that lets the player use a guitar-shaped controller with various colored buttons to simulate the playing of rock music. The game continuously provides a visual stimuli (dots on the screen that have to be played), upon which the player responds to by pressing the buttons on the guitar controller. If the player presses the correct combination it will hear the correct guitar riff for that part of the song.

Rehabilitation specialists at Jonhs Hopkins University are using  Nintendo’s Wii game console and ‘Guitar Hero’ as a way to help motivate patients during physical therapy and rehabilitation (  With a few electrodes and some sophisticated programing, amputees can hit all the notes  of a rock classic using electrical signals from their residual muscles.

The next step is to use it to train people who use less advanced commercially available artificial arms. Their goal is to create tools that will prime the pump of prosthetics innovation but “won’t consist of several thousand dollars of computing equipment.” In fact,they are in  process of making the APL-created video-game interface software open source (free distribution).
A popular open source clone of Guitar Hero named ‘frets on fire’ has been developed to allow visually impaired people to play the game with a haptic glove (  Traditionally the game relies on people being able to see but the game has been developed to operate from physical feedback from a glove.

Source : Financial Times

TechnoServe received a $2.9m grant from Microsoft last August. The grant was not a donation towards one of the non-profit’s programmes, which equip entrepreneurs in the developing world to establish businesses that create jobs and reduce poverty.

It was for an information technology upgrade, allowing the organisation to standardise IT tools across its offices worldwide.

However, for many non-profits, this kind of grant remains an elusive dream. Too often, funding comes with strings attached – strings limiting the spending to programme work rather than on support functions such as staff training, improved IT systems or HR management.

“Funding that is targeted to programmes almost exclusively, with minimal overhead allowances, remains a major problem,” says Raj Kumar, president and co-founder of the Development Executive Group, which provides business intelligence and recruiting services to the development community.

Yet, as many in the sector point out, boosting operational efficiency by investing in technical training, HR management or streamlined procurement systems not only helps organisations work more effectively but can also mean more cash for mission-driven activities.

Online system offers aid for managing grants

As non-profits seek ways to become more accountable to their funders, one technology solution could help. This is an online grants management system provided by the PhilanTech company.

The system, called PhilanTrack, streamlines the creation of grant proposals as well as the reporting on how grants are spent. The idea is to allow non-profits to spend less time on reporting, and help re-direct resources towards mission-related activities.

While the service is designed to help donors handle proposals from non-profits and oversee the grants they give, the grantees benefit too. “We’ve constructed it in a way that makes it easier for [non-governmental organisations] to manage their reporting to multiple donors,” says Dahna Goldstein, PhilanTech founder.

With the help of Elizabeth Keating, a Boston College professor, PhilanTech is also designing an analysis tool to give foundations a more accurate view of the financial status of an organisation, from its funding mix to its liquidity and debt-servicing ability.

The PhilanTrack system emerged from work Ms Goldstein did on an internship at Ashoka, the social entrepreneurship organisation, while taking her MBA at New York University’s Stern School of Business. Ms Goldstein was given the task of evaluating the social impact of Ashoka’s fellowship programme. “As I was interviewing their peers and looking at the content, I discovered that everyone was doing their reporting on paper,” she explains, “I had a background in technology and this seemed ridiculous to me.”

Ms Goldstein designed a system for Ashoka that was a modification of the balanced scorecard used in the corporate world that enabled the organisation to assess individuals at the start of their fellowship and have them report three years later against the social scorecard criteria she devised. This led her to develop a centralised system serving the needs of funders and NGOs.

As a result of working with IBM on a shared procurement system, for example, the Georgia Center for Nonprofits, which helps organisations make better use of their resources, found charities could cut procurement costs by up to 30 per cent. By standardising processes, they could cut associated administrative costs in half.

And for a charity that, say, delivers emergency relief supplies, investments in training for logisticians would be money well spent because it could help the organisation deliver those supplies faster.

What makes it hard to attract money for such initiatives is that employee training, IT systems and office efficiency measures are invisible and do not provide the kind of images that appeal to donors and cannot be easily turned into compelling stories that link to alleviating poverty, improving access to healthcare or saving a portion of rainforest.

Moreover, individual donors are often unaware of the importance of back office operations. “There’s a naivety in thinking that their £10 floats magically across the world and turns itself into food that goes in the mouth of a starving person,” says Gib Bulloch, director of Accenture Development Partnerships, part of the Accenture consulting and technology services group that provides services to non-governmental organisations and non-profits in developing countries.

“They don’t understand the fact that investing in people, technology and systems may actually have more impact on poverty, health and education than this race to the bottom on overheads,” says Mr Bulloch.

The focus on overheads as an efficiency measure troubles many in the non-profit sector. In the absence of hard measures, counting spending on overheads has been raised to a prominence seen as unhelpful. “It’s one of the few quantitative and universally comparable measures so it gets a lot of attention,” says William Foster, a partner at Bridgespan, a non-profit spin-off of consultants Bain & Co that offers services to foundations and non-profits. “It’s not what people aspire to as an end goal but, because it’s so measurable, it’s given outsized attention.”

A symptom of this, according to Mr Kumar, is that non-profits are starting to bid for government contracts from agencies such as USAID – contracts that were once the preserve of private sector companies but now attract non-profits as they provide funding for overhead investments.

Another, less positive, effect of funding restrictions is that organisations may mask overheads as project costs in their accounting. When Bridgespan, in a report*, calculated the cost of doing business for four organisations and compared that with the overhead spending those organisations reported, it found that while they stated rates of 13 to 22 per cent, actual rates ranged from 17 to 35 per cent.

Interviewees complained about funder expectations. “Donors often ask me about our administrative costs,” said one finance director. “It seems that they always want to make sure that we’re under 20 per cent. I always end up launching into my spiel about the importance of effective administration. It’s so frustrating!”

The finance director’s frustration reflects a bigger problem – the fact that donors’ focus on low overheads prevents organisations from becoming more efficient. “It constrains non-profits from investing in forward-thinking initiatives, such as IT, developing new funding streams, and strategic planning, because all of these require overheads,” Mr Kumar says.

There is, of course, another side to the story: the ability of non-profits to improve their accountability and measurement of the impact of their programmes – something that might encourage donors to relax their scrutiny of overhead expenditure.

Paul Shoemaker, director of Social Venture Partners Seattle, a network of donors that partner with non-profit organisations, believes that in this respect the funding issue is “a two-way street”.

“People ask whether, if you want less restricted funding and more flexibility, [non-profits] become unaccountable – and the answer is absolutely not,” he says. “Accountability in any sector is a good thing. We’ve just created the wrong kind of accountability mechanisms in the non-profit sector.”

Mr Shoemaker believes donors must become more flexible and effective in their funding practices, while non-profits need to do a better job of demonstrating and communicating the impact of their activities.

Some examples of this type of relationship exist. The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, which helps low-income young people gain access to services and programmes that will improve their lives, has strict demands for accountability from its grantees. The foundation makes funds available for things such as leadership development, with grants for executive coaching and search, succession planning and board development and recruiting.

“They are well known for giving larger than normal grants over multi-year periods of time that are unrestricted,” says Mr Foster. “Which is exactly what non-profits need to build long-term organisational strength that creates impact.”

And TechnoServe will certainly feel the impact of this kind of grant making. With Microsoft’s money, it will integrate throughout its operations Microsoft Office and other applications and operating systems such as Exchange, SQL Server, SharePoint and Outlook.

“As we grow, we need to upgrade IT and recruitment systems,” says Bruce McNamer, chief executive of TechnoServe. “Because we need to run our organisation in an efficient way.”

Chances are, the new systems will not appear in photographs in glossy brochures or annual reports. But TechnoServe’s enhanced efficiency will ultimately have an impact, allowing it to support more developing country entrepreneurs as they build businesses, generate incomes and improve prospects for their families and their communities.

* Nonprofit Overhead Costs: Breaking the Vicious Cycle of Misleading Reporting, Bridgespan Group, April 2008

source :

Poverty is a global problem, which is not limited to third world developing countries. Even mature developed nations like United States has ~18% poverty rate. There are many reasons and causes of poverty, which includes but not limited to, natural disasters, war, disease, politics, religion, and over-population and so on and so forth. Some of these causes are beyond our control while others are beyond our means. There is no single factor that can totally eliminate poverty, even the almighty latest Linux Kernel release; but many ideas and anti-poverty initiative can come together to reduce the causes of poverty.
What can Linux do?


There is a popular saying that goes like; “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to use a cheap Linux powered computer and you have fed him for a lifetime” (something to that effect). OLPC is such a program whose mission is “ create educational opportunities for the world’s poorest children by providing each child with a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning.” Based on Fedora, there is an estimated 550,000 XO laptops sold in 23 countries since the program started. While it’s too early to say if the mission is a success, we can only see the effect of this program a decade or so from now when this generation of XO laptop users grow up. There are other large scale adoptions of Linux in Education Institute:

  • Government officials of Kerala, use only free software, running on the Linux platform, for computer education, starting with the 2,650 government and government-aided high schools.
  • In Indiana, 22,000 students has access to Linux Workstations at their high schools.
  • In Germany, 560,000 students and school stuff migrate to Linux.
  • By 2009 all computers in Russian schools are to be run on Linux.
  • One of India’s 28 states plans to distribute 100,000 Linux laptops to students.

Price is right.

Linux can also play a crucial role in government offices and administration as they can be easily deployed with very low-powered computers, thus bringing the cost of computers within their reach. Especially in third-world developing nations, this can play a vital role as an increase number to talented work force can finally afford to compete with the help of low-cost, “legal” software and operating system. There are several large-scale adoptions of Linux powered computers by government in many countries:

  • In January 2006, law in Venezuela went into effect, mandating a two year transition to open source in all public agencies.
  • The Federal Employment Office of Germany has migrated 13,000 public workstations to OpenSuse.

Long way to go.

While these examples are very little compare to the amount of work that is needed to help empower local government and educate children in poor nations by adopting Linux and open source software. This is a step towards the right direction to help reduce poverty, even by a very small amount, with the help of Linux.

Currently the ICT4DEV working group blog and mailing list has focused on the ideas of software.  However, hardware is the initial step in the word of ICT in development.  Recently I visited a Boot Camp held in Cambodia. A ‘ Boot Camp’ allows for anyone to share and express ideas concerning the ICT industry.

I came across a demonstration by the Open Insititute on low cost computing.  The idea was to research the use of a portable / low power consuming computer that could be deployed in isolated areas within Cambodia.

Four different scenarios were researched;

Brief Description of two scenarios.

Scenario 1 : A low powered, portable but secure solution for Windows and Linux.
Scenario 2 :  A central computer with multiple users over multiple monitors and keyboards.

One solution was available for under 300 USD running under 9 Watts.

The conclusions of the experiements can be found here on a wiki.

« Older entries