One of the reasons why a school should think twice before accepting second hand equipment was discussed in the previous posting: one may become a dumping ground for e-waste of others.
But what about refurbished computers? Is that not something different? Before one makes a decision in this regard there are some important issues to consider.
What is the great attraction of refurbs? It could only be the initial purchase price. Why else would you buy a second hand item rather than a new one? But one has to consider the total cost of ownership (TCO). The experience of Khanya over the past years indicates that the TCO of new computer equipment is not higher than that of refurbished computers.
Where does the refurb come from? It was decommissioned by a company that did not deem it cost efficient to continue maintaining it. From a cost of ownership perspective it was better to replace it with new equipment but the company must get rid of the old equipment in one or other way. Since it takes considerable effort (and expense) to dispose of their e-waste in a responsible way, it is much easier to give it to companies who could clean it up and give it to schools.
Should schools not be grateful for these gifts? There is a saying that half a loaf is better than none (the Afrikaans equivalent is "a half an egg is better than an empty shell"). In other words, something is better than nothing. But why must the poor always be satisfied with half measures? Maybe we should ask a different question: If companies really want to help poor schools, should they not donate new equipment to them?
The digital divide will never be narrowed if one provides old technology to poor schools, whereas more affluent schools can afford to purchase new state of the art equipment. It is only complete loaves and eggs that will ultimately lead to equity.
| related link
First there was e-mail. Then came e-government, e-learning, e-citizens and all the other e-s. It is inevitable that, following the laws of input and output, there must be e-waste left in the wake of all the e-development that is taking place.
Exactly what is e-waste? It is a fairly loose term that is applied to consumer and business electronic equipment that is near or at the end of its useful life.
The main reason why e-waste is drawing considerable attention is that certain components of some electronic equipment contain hazardous material that is potentially toxic, corrosive, reactive, or ignitable. Such substances can clearly not be trashed in the normal way. The problem is that these harmful substances are often present in fairly small quantities, which makes it a cumbersome and expensive task to harvest and recycle.
Over and above these harmful substances, one must also consider the plastic and metal casings that form part of the body of electronic equipment, which are regarded as not eco-friendly.
What does this have to do with computers in schools? Very simple. What should be done with computers when they come to the end of their useful life? One cannot simply throw it on the trash heap. It must be discarded in a responsible way. This places a big responsibility on schools.
The consequence of this is that one should see the donation of used equipment to schools in a different light. Why are companies that are decommissioning their old technology so keen to donate it to schools?
Is it perhaps an easy way of e-dumping?
| related link
The previous three postings dealt with software and made the point that one must be cautious of the hidden hooks in the bait of free lunches. This should not be misinterpreted as implying that all suppliers of software are sharks and that one should never accept anything with a "free" label. Note the following two points:
The first is that schools and ICT projects must consider all claims of free software very carefully. Is it really free? Are there any hidden catches? By accepting the software, is one creating reasonable expectations on the part of the vendor that future purchases will be made? Is there any way in which such software could lock you into a supplier that may prove to be your disadvantage later?
It is not necessary to be paranoid about this, only sensible.
Secondly, vendors must also handle the situation with discretion. They must act with integrity and openly declare the full cost of the software, as well as their expectations beyond the gift.
There is something else vendors can do to support the education system. They all have products that have been developed, either by themselves, or by other parties whom they are representing. It would be senseless to try and superimpose these products on schools or education authorities without the assurance that it will be a good fit. They should therefore, before starting to market the products, ensure that they have a clear understanding of the needs of the prospective clients and then only present products that will satisfy those needs. They should never present a solution and then expect the school to change its problem to fit into the solution. No amount of free software will make up for this.
The moral of the story? Both parties should ensure a mutual fair deal.
| related link
Some animals such as dogs and horses are controlled by leashes or reigns, or to put is simply, by means of pieces of string. If it is not necessary to restrict their movement, there are no strings attached to them. Are there stings attached to free educational software?
From our experience with FOSS and MS we should be convinced that there is no free lunch when it comes to software and that there are, indeed, strings attached. Why is it then that in education we keep on scrounging? Or what else can we call it if we insist that educational software providers (and the same principle also applies to hardware vendors) should provide us with free products during our initial experimentation processes? At times we expect them to pay for our indecision and inability to select the most appropriate ICT products for educational use.
Of course, sometimes a vendor may offer a product for evaluation purpose. That seems fair enough, as long as there is a clear understanding on the side of both parties that the gift is to assess suitability and there are truly no strings attached. The vendor must understand that the answer may be: "No, we cannot use this product." But in fairness to the vendor, the gift should not be accepted if one does not need the particular product and if the chances are slim that that it would be purchased. Otherwise the parties are wasting each other's time and resources. An unintended consequence of this could be that the vendor may be forced to increase prices to cover fruitless marketing.
Recently many companies have been coerced into joining consortiums where great sums of money were spent in the hope of making sales on a large scale. Their hopes are still waiting to be realized.
Be careful in the demands we make of software vendors. Good educational software is crucial for the success of ICT in education and one does not want the goose that is laying the golden eggs to be killed by the attached strings.
| related link
When fishing, a person may conceal a hook in a piece of bait in the hope that the unwary fish will be fooled into thinking that an unexpected morsel of food has come its way. The fisherman is, in effect, offering the fish a free lunch. But since there is no such thing as a free lunch, the fish has to pay the price and become a lunch itself.
One should take a lesson from this. Beware of anything that seems to be free. Investigate carefully to determine where the hook is. In the case of free and open software, one has to look carefully at the hidden costs and then decide whether it would be expedient to go the free and open route.
But the free lunches take different forms. A product that is overtly commercial may be offered to schools at no cost. The generous Microsoft license agreement to schools in South Africa comes to mind. According to this agreement, the use of most products from this company that a school may need is free. So the question immediately comes up: what is the hook?
Could it be that schools are made so dependent on this brand of operating software that they are locked into its use? If schools have this software installed on their networks they will purchase educational software products that run only on this platform. Once an investment has been made in software, it would be very hard to switch to a system which may require additional expenditure.
It has also been argued that the hook is even more subtle. Learners are getting used to a particular software platform. When they later purchase their own computers or become the decision makers in companies where they will be employed, there would be no question about their preference of operating software.
Are we prepared to take the bait and swallow it with the hook, line and sinker?
| related link
Back Next
Kobus van Wyk - Blog
|
      Copyright © Kobus van Wyk 2008
|
|
Calendar