Namibia’s tech investment test
Namibia has set itself a clear digital direction. The Sixth National Development Plan aims to digitise all government services by 2030 and increase the ICT sector’s contribution to the economy from 1.6% in 2024 to 4%. The networks are being built to support this ambition. In September last year, the Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia (CRAN) reported that N$1.2 billion had been invested in the ICT sector over the preceding 12 months. CRAN’s latest quarterly figures show that revenue in the ICT sector increased by 12% between April and June this year.
Organisations are following suit, investing in technology of their own. I see this most clearly in boardrooms that are being equipped for hybrid meetings. Ten years ago, a boardroom had a projector. Today, clients identify video conferencing as the most important feature of the room. Council chambers are going paperless. Lecture halls stream lessons to students who are not physically present. Churches, venues and broadcasters produce content for audiences online as well as in person.
The question is no longer whether to invest in technology. It is what that investment delivers.
Bought as a list of products
Many technology projects still begin with a specification: a screen of a certain size, a camera and a set of microphones, often from a particular brand. Suppliers quote against the list, and the lowest compliant price wins. The project is considered complete when the equipment is installed and switched on.
The most common failure I see is customers buying equipment without fully understanding what they are buying or what it needs to achieve. They make decisions based on a brand name, a price or a specification sheet, only to end up with equipment that works on its own but does not solve their problem. The money is spent, but the problem remains.
On paper, the organisation has invested. In practice, the room may not work as intended. People joining remotely cannot hear the discussion. The system needs a technician to start a meeting. Nobody has trained the people who use it every day. When something fails, there is no one nearby who understands how the system was put together.
None of this is necessarily a failure of the equipment. It is what happens when technology is bought as a collection of products rather than as a solution to a problem. It can also happen when a supplier delivers the equipment but fails to provide a complete, turnkey solution that ensures a positive experience for the people using it.
The cost does not appear on the invoice
A system that fails to deliver rarely appears as a separate line item in the budget. Its cost is reflected in meetings that start late, decisions that are delayed until the next session, staff who find workarounds and equipment that is replaced years before it should be.
Start with the problem
Getting value from technology does not necessarily require bigger budgets. It requires a different starting point.
Define the desired outcome before choosing the equipment. Who will use the space? What needs to happen there? What should the user experience be like? What problems need to be addressed? The answers should determine the technology, not the other way around.
Specify outcomes, not just products. Tenders and project briefs can set out what a system must achieve and include training and support in the scope of work, so these elements are not cut to win a contract on price. Public tenders can also take account of lifetime costs and local support, rather than focusing solely on the lowest compliant price.
Ask for certified professionals. Whoever supplies and installs the system should have the appropriate certification. One recognised industry qualification is AVIXA’s Certified Technology Specialist (CTS) certification.
See the system working first. Where possible, the people who will use the system should see it operating in a real-world setting before the money is spent.
Plan for the system’s entire lifespan. Training, maintenance and local support help determine whether an investment will continue to deliver value in five years. Equipment may be the same everywhere, but the difference lies in whether someone in Namibia can repair it on a Monday morning and whether staff have been trained to use it.
Developing local technical skills is part of the investment and a responsibility we have as Namibians.
Before signing off on a project, organisations should also decide who will be responsible for the system after installation and how its performance will be measured.
Namibia’s digital ambitions are clear, and investment is following. Whether that investment pays off will depend on how each organisation spends its money: on technology alone, or on solutions to the problems it needs to solve.
