FIRST CYCLE, 15 CREDITS
STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2020,
Examining the concept of
computer hubs as an approach to increase technological inclusion in rural areas in low-income countries
A Field Study in Linga Linga, Mozambique
LUDVIG FRYKHOLM JACOB TORESSON
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
Projektet undersöker konceptet computer hubs och hur det kan användas som ett verktyg för att öka teknologisk inkludering på landsbygden i låginkomstländer. Konceptet utvärderades genom att
undersöka tre faktorer: användaracceptansen för datorer, computer hubs finansiella hållbarhet och den faktiska användbarheten hos datorer. Studien genomfördes i Linga Linga, en by belägen i provinsen Morrumbene i södra Moçambique. Linga Linga kännetecknas av låg teknologisk inkludering och invånare med låga eller inga inkomster. Intervjuer, frågeformulär, seminarium och fokusgrupper genomfördes för att undersöka konceptens genomförbarhet.
Studien indikerar att användaracceptansen hos datorer, mätt genom attityd gentemot datorer såväl som upplevd användbarhet och upplevd användarvänlighet för datorer, var tillräcklig för implementering.
Studien visar även att den faktiska användbarheten hos datorer är tillräckligt hög för implementering samt att den snabbt kan förbättras trots lite eller ingen tidigare erfarenhet av datorer. Studien visar även att en implementering av computer hubs är ekonomiskt hållbar ur ett affärsperspektiv.
Sammanfattningsvis kan implementeringen av computer hubs som koncept betraktas som ett hållbart
tillvägagångssätt för att öka teknologisk inkludering i landsbygden i låginkomstländer.
Abstract—
This project examines the concept of computer hubs as a tool to increase technological inclusion in rural areas in low- income countries. The viability of computer hubs as a concept was evaluated by looking at three factors among people living in such areas: acceptance of computers, the financial viability of computer hubs, and actual ease of use of computers. The study was conducted in Linga Linga, a small village located in the province of Morrumbene in southern Mozambique. Linga Linga is characterized by low technological inclusion and low income, which is typical for villages in rural areas in low- income countries. Interviews, questionnaires, workshops and focus groups were conducted to examine the viability of computer hubs.
The study indicates that the acceptance of computers, measured through attitude towards computers as well as perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of computers, was sufficient for implementation. The study also concludes that the actual ease is sufficiently high, and even in cases where it is not due to a lack of previous experience with computers, the time it takes to learn is low. In addition, it was found that computer hubs are financially viable from a business perspective. In conclusion, computer hubs can be considered a viable approach to increase technological inclusion in rural areas in low-income countries.
Index Terms— Computer hubs, Internet cafés, Technological inclusion, Rural areas, Internet, Digitalization, Field Study, Mozambique, Technology Acceptance Model
I. INTRODUCTION
Through digitization and increased connectivity, technological inclusion is at an all-time high [1]. The internet allows companies and customers to trade online, lets people communicate with each other instantaneously from different parts of the world, and provides access to an endless source of information at any time [2]. In other words, internet access has become essential for many, both on an individual level and a societal level, and has increased living standards profoundly.
The internet provides massive potential for economic growth.
It enhances the speed and quality of information flows which reduces transaction costs, provides greater opportunity for innovation and business processes, and leads to greater productivity of labor [3]. Thus, increased internet access contributes towards the UN 2030 goal of promoting sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and
productive employment, and decent work for all [4]. Not only
does the internet support economic growth; it also enables universal education through extended access to educational resources and accelerated knowledge sharing, relating strongly to the UN 2030 goal of quality education [4]. The internet offers free educational resources available to everyone online, and thus greater flexibility among students [3]. This could, in alignment with the UN 2030 goals, ensure equal access to affordable education for everyone.
Internet usage worldwide has grown rapidly in the past decade. From 2009 to 2019, the percentage of internet users worldwide increased from 24% to 59% [5]. Similarly, the share of households with access to a computer has grown from 34% to 50% in the same time period [6]. However, this means that as of 2019, only half of the world population has access to a computer at home, and 41% of households still lack access to the internet. In Africa, the percentages of households with internet and with computers are as low as 18% and 11%
respectively [6], meaning there exists a large connectivity gap between low-income countries and more developed countries.
In low-income countries, services that facilitate technological inclusion are generally available to some extent. Such services include internet cafés and other internet-access businesses, where there are computers and internet access available to the public, making users able to benefit from the advantages of computer- and internet usage without having to pay the fixed costs for expensive technology themselves. However, most internet cafés are located in urban areas [7], in spite of the fact that a majority of people in low-income countries live in rural areas [8]. This indicates that a big part of the world population lacks the technological tools necessary to access digital technology that would improve their standards of living.
This thesis is based on the desire to increase technological inclusion in rural areas in low-income countries. The study includes the implementation of a computer hub, meaning a venue where there are computers and internet connection available for public access, where users can benefit from the advantages of computer- and internet usage without having to pay the fixed costs for expensive technology themselves.
Rural areas in low-income countries are exemplified by the village Linga Linga in Mozambique, where the study was conducted.
Frykholm Ludvig, Toresson Jacob
Examining the concept of computer hubs as an approach to increase technological inclusion in
rural areas in low-income countries
II. RESEARCH QUESTION
The research question this study aims to answer is:
• Are computer hubs a viable approach to increase technological inclusion in rural areas in low-income countries?
The question will be answered by answering the following sub-questions:
• Is the level of acceptance of computers sufficient for implementation of a computer hub?
• Are computer hubs viable from a financial perspective?
• Is the actual ease of use of computers sufficiently high in order for a computer hub to be used as a tool to increase technological inclusion?
In addition, the study aims to answer the question:
• What are the requirements of a computer hub?
III. BACKGROUND
A. Theory
1) Technology Acceptance Model
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) provides a theoretical explanation of the motivations behind using computer systems from the user’s perspective [9]. According to the model, a potential user’s overall attitude towards a technological system is a major factor in whether or not they will actually use it. TAM proposes that the user’s overall attitude towards a system primarily is influenced by the perceived ease of use and the perceived usefulness of the system. The model proposes that external variables do not have a direct effect on the user’s attitude towards the system, but rather affect the perceived ease of use and the perceived usefulness, and thus only indirectly affect the user’s attitude through these two factors [9].
Fig 1. Technology Acceptance Model. Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of technology affect the attitude directly, and the three factors influence acceptance of the technology which affects future use.
2) Requirements
Requirements, in the context of human-computer interaction, are statements about a given product that specifies what the product should do or how it should perform [10].
Requirements should be specific and unambiguous, and clearly defined, in order to easily determine whether or not they are fulfilled. Requirements are typically determined by different forms of data-gathering, such as questionnaires, interviews, focus groups and workshops. Initial requirements
can be formulated to get the process of establishing
requirements started but should be adjusted based on feedback from users [10].
Traditionally, two types of requirements are identified:
functional requirements, which say what the product should do, and non-functional requirements, which specify the constraints on the product and its development [10]. Non- functional requirements include data-, environmental-, user- and usability requirements.
3) Questionnaires
Within human-computer interaction, a questionnaire is used to collect data from respondents within a population [11].
Questionnaires gather information by asking questions to a subset of people that are representative for a wider target group [12]. Questionnaires are particularly useful for gathering information about people's habits, interactions with technology or behavior. They can also be used to capture user awareness of certain systems, services, theories or features as well as compare user attitudes and experiences. In order to maximize response rates, questionnaires should be designed to be short and easy to understand [12].
4) Interviews
Semi-structured interviewing is a method of data collection in which a dialogue is conducted between an interviewer and a respondent [14]. A semi-structured interview consists of both closed- and open-ended questions and should be designed with flexibility in mind, in order to be able to ask follow-up questions for more detailed answers or discovering unforeseen issues. When formulating the questions for a semi-structured interview, the planned topics and questions should be outlined in an interview guide and should be adjusted over the course of the study based on feedback from recent interviews. The semi-structured interview has several advantages, such as its flexibility and possibility of probing [14].
5) Focus groups
A focus group is a session where users discuss certain topics and share experiences, with the purpose of collecting detailed data about the users. Focus groups usually consist of a semi- structured session with an informal setting moderated by a facilitator and the use of general guidelines. [15]. Focus groups give the participants an opportunity to be heard, which often makes them feel more comfortable than a more
structured setting; this can lead to rich stories with a high level of detail. Focus groups can be used to get a better
understanding of the participants’ attitudes and beliefs by providing context and perspectives which enables experiences to be understood more holistically [15].
6) Usability testing
Usability testing is used to evaluate a product by testing it on users with no previous exposure to the product [16]. The purpose is to measure the products capacity to meet its intended purpose [17]. Usability testing involves systematic observations under controlled situations to determine how well the users can use the product and the product’s usability.
Setting up a usability test includes creating a scenario where
the users performs certain task using the product being tested [18].
7) Break-even analysis
Break-even analysis is used to determine the level of sales at which a project would make zero profit [19]. In the break-even analysis, the break-even point is the point where total income from sales equals the total expenses, both fixed and variable.
Costs that are fixed are not directly affected by the production volume, while variable costs change when production output changes. Total fixed and variable costs are compared with sales revenue in order to determine the level of sales volume or price level where the project neither results in a profit nor a loss [19].
B. Earlier Studies
According to a study by Mozilla Foundation on barriers to internet usage, internet cafés are still a popular way to access the internet in areas with low internet- and computer
penetration [20]. The study found that users feel internet cafés are more useful than alternative ways of accessing the internet when they need to engage in data-heavy activities, such as downloading or watching videos, or for other activities, such as printing, scanning or writing documents. The same study also concludes that internet cafés are more popular in urban areas than in rural areas because of the lack of available options in rural areas, and that they often require the users to travel far to be able to use them [20].
One study on the evolution of internet cafés in Ghana claimed that internet cafés have had an important role in reducing the digital divide, and that it has been the primary way for people from developing countries to access the internet [21]. The study mentions two perspectives on internet cafés:
inclusionary, where internet cafés are seen as ways for impoverished people to access the internet, and transitional, where internet cafés are seen as outdated and unprofitable.
The study found support for the first perspective, and that internet cafés are still useful for people in poverty, although it claims that as technology becomes cheaper, internet cafés might cease to be profitable. In the study it is claimed that one of the most important factors for an internet café that defines its ability to succeed is its adaptability, and the study
concludes that internet café owners need to be resourceful, and identify the services they can provide that maximizes their profits [21].
According to a study that explored the ecosystem of public- access computing venues, the users tend to be young, moderately educated and low- to middle-income individuals, while the rural poor with little to no education all seem to be outside the area of influence of such venues [22]. In the study, it is claimed that it is important for a public-access computing venue to ensure that both staff and users are properly trained to use the equipment, technologies and services. The study also mentions that among commercial public-access computing venues, there exists a strong tension between the need for revenue generation and serving the needs for community development. The study claims that financial
sustainability gets more attention than social and cultural sustainability but concludes that more successful venues tend to have stronger community support and serve local
populations in a culturally appropriate manner [22].
One study regarding digitization in low-income countries came to the conclusion that information technology could reduce poverty [23], strengthening the motivations behind conducting this study. Another similar study about the effects of computer penetration on income in rural areas in China found that rural computer penetration tends to increase rural residents’ income over time, and the findings are claimed to have important implications regarding the urban-rural income gap [24].
Davis developed TAM in a study from 1989, but the model has been continuously studied since then. Davis and
Venkatesh formulated a theoretical extension to TAM, where perceived usefulness and usage intentions are explained in terms of social influence and cognitive instrumental processes [25]. Venkatesh et al. combined eight models on user
acceptance into one unified model with four core determinants of intention and usage: performance expectancy (which is practically equivalent to perceived usefulness), effort expectancy (which is practically equivalent to perceived ease of use) social influence, and facilitating conditions [26]. Thus, the foundation of TAM, where perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness are said to determine future usage, is still a dominant force in terms of user acceptance studies.
C. Linga Linga
Linga Linga, a small village located in the province Morrumbene in south Mozambique. The village is
characterized by low technological inclusion and low income, which is typical for villages in rural areas in low-income countries. Most people in Linga Linga are poor and live on a day to day basis. The most common field of work is small scale fishing and farming to provide food for the day. Linga Linga has access to electricity and a well working 4g internet connection. The technological inclusion in Linga Linga is low and must people had never used a computer and some did not even know what the internet what when we arrived. The population of Linga Linga is about 1200 according to the chief of the village.
IV. METHOD
In this study, three factors were identified as necessary in order for the computer hub to be considered a viable approach to increase technological inclusion. Firstly, the computer hub must be accepted by its potential users. Secondly, the computer hub has to be financially viable as a business.
Thirdly, the computer hub must be easy enough to use in order for it to be viable as a tool to increase technological inclusion.
A. Acceptance of the computer hub
According to TAM, in order for potential users to want to use a technological system, they must first accept it, meaning their
attitude towards the system has to be positive. In TAM, attitude is defined as the general impression of the technology [9]. In the present study, attitude was measured using questionnaires and interviews, where the questions were formulated in alignment with the definition above.
According to TAM, a user’s attitude towards a system is primarily influenced by the user’s perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of the system. Perceived ease of use is defined as the ease of which a user perceives the use of the system, while perceived usefulness is defined as the degree to which a user believes that the use of the system will improve their performance. Davis (1989) developed specific
measurement scales for perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, with six scale items per scale. The six scale items for perceived usefulness were work more quickly, job performance, increase productivity, effectiveness, makes job easier, and useful. The six scale items for perceived ease of use were easy to learn, controllable, clear and
understandable, flexible, easy to become skillful, and easy to use. These scale items were adjusted to fit the present study.
More specific definitions for the adjusted scale items can be seen in appendix 6. These scale items were examined at the end of the final workshop, after the users had been exposed to the computer hub.
The attitude towards computers, perceived ease of use of computers and perceived usefulness of computers, among its potential users, were examined in order to get an empirical basis on whether or not there is enough interest for computer hubs among the people in the village.
B. Financial viability of the computer hub
Measuring the financial viability of the computer hub gives insight in whether or not the computer hub can be
implemented in greater scale. For this reason, the financial viability of the computer hub was considered an important factor for successful implementation and was studied through empirical measurements of the financial conditions among potential future users, as well as a theoretical monetary break- even analysis.
C. Actual ease of use
Actual ease of use, not to be confused with perceived ease of use, is an important factor in whether or not computers, and by extension computer hubs, can be used as a tool for increasing technological inclusion. If the level of complexity of computers is too high, the users will not be able to use or understand its advantages, and thus computer hubs cannot be considered viable as an approach to increase technological inclusion. The actual ease of use was measured through observations during workshops, as well as interviews and focus groups.
D. Data collection 1) Questionnaires
Questionnaires were used in the beginning of the study to collect data about the people living in close proximity to the place where the computer hub would be implemented. The questions were mostly related to electricity access, internet access, mobile phone usage and computer usage, primarily to gather information about the level of technological proficiency among potential future users, attitudes towards computers, and the users’ willingness to pay for using a computer hub. The respondents’ age and gender were also asked for in order to analyze potential differences.
For the questionnaires, non-probability sampling was used over probability sampling due to the difficulty of selecting a perfectly random sample in the village, given circumstances such as lack of detailed data about the people living in the village. The sampling method used was convenience samples, meaning people readily available were targeted, which in practice were people within walking distance of the computer hub. This was advantageous from one aspect; the closer people are to the computer hub, the more likely they are to be potential users. However, non-probability samples are prone to high biases and thus decrease the level of representativity in the sample [12]. To combat this, the respondents’ age and gender were taken into consideration in order to determine whether or not the respondents were representative for the age and gender demographics of the whole village and for rural areas in low-income countries in general.
The questionnaire consisted of nine closed-ended questions and four open-ended questions, as well as three general questions about name, age and gender. Keeping the amount of open-ended questions low was considered important due to the relatively low levels of literacy that can be assumed in a rural area in a low-income country. In order to maximize response rates, the questionnaires were designed to be short and easy to understand. The closed-ended questions consisted of six single-choice questions and three multiple-choice questions.
The amount of questionnaire respondents was chosen to 68, as this would be approximately 5% of the population in the village. Nine of the respondents were chosen to be included in further interviews and to act as users of the system during workshops. The nine respondents were picked based on their answers to the questionnaires, to ensure that the users properly represented the population in terms of gender, age and previous exposure to computers and other technology.
2) Informal interviews with key stakeholders
Informal interviews were conducted with key stakeholders of the computer hub: the owner of the computer hub and the chief of the village. The questions asked were mostly open- ended and related to the prerequisites of the computer hub, as well as the general income levels in the village, to avoid asking sensitive questions directly to the users. An informal approach was suitable for these interviews due to the respondents’ knowledge of the topics being questioned and because it enabled a discussion about the findings from
previous workshops and questionnaires [27]. The answers to these questions were used as support for some of the assumptions made in the study.
3) First interview with users
Semi-structured interviews with the users were conducted, consisting mostly of open-ended questions about their attitudes towards, and experiences with, computers, mobile phones, computer hubs and the internet, with the main purpose of measuring the level of computer literacy among the potential users. In addition, the users were asked whether or not they were willing to pay to use the computer hub, and how much they would be willing to pay.
4) First workshop with users
In preparation for the first workshop, eight tasks with time limits and clear criteria for completion were created. The tasks were related to fundamentals of computer- and internet usage and were limited to activities that would be useful for users with low previous computer exposure. The tasks were also formulated so that they would be representative of similar tasks; for example, searching for a specific phrase on google would act as a representative for searching for anything on google.
The first ten minutes of the first workshop were used to teach the participants how to use the trackpad and the keyboard on the computer. In addition, approximately five minutes were spent on explaining basic concepts about the functions of a computer, such as what the internet and what websites and programs are as well as what they are used for.
Before the users were asked to perform each specific task, they were given one minute of introduction to the task and a walkthrough of what needed to be achieved to complete the task. The completion rate of these tasks was used to evaluate the computer hub’s actual ease of use. The task completion rate was calculated with a binary approach; meaning that a task was classified as complete only if the user was able to fulfill the completion criteria of the task, without assistance, within the given timeframe. The time to completion, i.e. the time it takes to complete the task, was measured for every individual task for every user. The average time to completion (ATTC) was measured only among the users that completed the task within the time limit.
The level of complexity and the time limits for each task were based on the level of computer literacy that would be
sufficient for completing similar tasks; this resulted in data about whether or not the actual ease of use was adequate for successful implementation. The tasks were divided into four different levels of difficulty: trivial, easy, medium and hard, in order to get a broad spectrum for later analysis. If a user was not able to complete a given task, they would receive assistance from one of the moderators present at the
workshop. In such cases, the time-on-task, i.e. the time spent on effective learning, was measured, in order to determine how quickly the users were able to learn how to complete the specific task.
5) Focus group with users
In direct connection with the first workshop, a focus group was conducted with the users. The first half of the focus group consisted of the moderator bringing up different topics, one topic at a time, and letting the users discuss them. This way, the users could speak freely about how the workshop had gone, talk about what problems had arisen, give more detailed explanations of their already established opinions and explore new ideas through brainstorming. This resulted in qualitative data that was useful when establishing requirements for the computer hub and for further assessment of how it should be adjusted to promote effective learning and higher ease of use, as well as how it could be made more attractive for the users.
In the second half of the focus group, the users were asked to discuss their everyday problems, with the purpose of identifying problems of which the solutions could be found using a computer. Based on each group’s discussion, new tasks were created for the second workshop. These tasks focused on solving and/or finding solutions to the problems identified during the focus group. Input from the chief of the village and the owner of the computer hub was also taken into account, in order to get different perspectives on the everyday challenges people in the village face.
6) Second workshop with user
The primary goal of the second workshop was to measure the perceived usefulness of the computers. The users were asked to perform a set of standardized tasks related to problems that people in rural areas in low-income countries face, and that can be solved using a computer. The standardized tasks were formulated based on the lack of general infrastructure such as information access and education that can be assumed in these areas. When formulating these tasks, feedback from key stakeholders, such as the chief of the village, was taken into account. For the standardized tasks, the completion rate, time to completion and time-on-task were measured, using the same method as in the first workshop.
In addition to the standardized tasks, each workshop participant was asked to find a solution to an individual problem that they identified during their focus group session.
The purpose of this was to ensure that the users understood that computers can be used to solve some of their everyday problems.
At the end of the second workshop, the users were asked to fill out forms consisting of the six scale items for perceived ease of use as well as the six scale items for perceived usefulness.
This was done in order to get quantitative measurements of the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of use of
computers among the users.
The improvements in actual ease of use compared to the first workshop were also measured. The users were asked to perform some of the tasks they performed during the first workshop, and the time to completion as well as the task completion rate was measured again.
7) Second interview with users
The second and final semi-structured interview with the users was conducted similarly to the first interview, with mainly open-ended questions. Here, the users were asked questions related to their attitude towards the computer hub as well as their willingness to visit the computer hub in the future as a paying customer, given the price determined by the break- even analysis. In addition, the users were asked about possible additions to the computer hub that would make it more appealing to them, in order to get more data used to establish requirements.
E. Requirements activity
The initial requirements were decided after a brainstorming session, and were identified to be functioning equipment and infrastructure, such as computers, electricity, tables and chairs, as well as monitoring during opening hours, for example through having an employee monitoring the computer hub. The requirements were then updated continuously during the study, based on findings from the questionnaires, interviews and focus groups as well as observations from workshops. At the end of the study, the final requirements were established.
The final requirements were evaluated by asking the
observers, i.e. people observing during the workshops, a set of quantitative questions on a likert scale of 1-5, where 1 was strongly disagree, 2 was disagree, 3 was neutral, 4 was agree and 5 was strongly agree. A weighted average of the answers was calculated, based on the observers’ involvement in the study, where more involved observers were given a higher weight. The questions were formulated to evaluate whether or not the established requirements were fulfilled, where the observers could answer based on what they had seen during the workshops.
F. Break-even analysis
The level of sales at which the computer hub would start to be profitable was calculated with a break-even analysis. The costs were limited to fixed costs of equipment and rent, as well as unfixed costs of internet connection, electricity, staff and depreciation. The costs were estimated using market prices.
The average data consumption per hour was estimated by measuring the data consumed during a session after the second workshop, where the users could use the computers for whatever they wanted. The monetary benefits were limited to sales revenue. The hourly rate was based on market prices for internet cafés in the closest city, adjusted for the lower income levels in the village and the answers to the questionnaire.
The amount sold hours per day was chosen as the variable in the break-even analysis, and was later compared to the answers from the questionnaires as well as interview
responses from the facilitating stakeholders and the workshop participants, in order to evaluate whether or not the actual demand in the village is sufficient for the computer hub to be profitable.
V. RESULT
A. Technology acceptance 1) Attitude
The overall attitude towards computers was positive; in the questionnaires, 80% of the respondents said that they would like to use computers more, despite that 96% of them never had used a computer. Furthermore, only 16% of the
respondents had electricity at home, which implies that there is a desire for a solution that allows people in the village to access and use computers outside their homes.
During the first interview, every respondent had a positive response when asked what they think of computers, and every respondent said that the reason they do not own a computer is that they can not afford one. This further implies that the attitude towards computers is positive among potential users, even though they do not have an easy and affordable way to access them.
In the second and final interview, every respondent claimed that they wanted to use computers more, and when asked if they would be willing to use the computer hub for a price of 50 MZN (~0.7 EUR) per hour, 44% of the users said yes.
Comparing this number with the answers on the questionnaire for the same question (22%) shows that more exposure to the computer hub improves the attitude towards computers and the willingness to pay to use them.
All of the users thought the computers were fun to use, and 34% thought the most fun part was to learn new things. 44%
thought that the most fun part was just to start the computer and try to navigate around on it; this indicates that their interest might only be temporary, and that they just wanted to use the computers to experiment because they never had used one before. However, the same users kept showing up to the other workshops and expressed interest in using the computer hub even after the study was finished.
Of the questionnaire respondents, only 4% had used a computer before, and nobody owned one themselves.
However, 88% of the respondents owned a mobile phone;
56% owned a smartphone while the rest owned a cellular phone. The most common usage of phones according to the questionnaires was texting and making phone calls, but a majority of respondents had also used their phone for listening to music or watching videos. 28% of the respondents also claimed that they used the internet regularly, more than 1 time per week. These results indicate that even though the
respondents have very little computer experience, they are comfortable using phones, and thus should have enough of an understanding of technological devices to be able to navigate around on a computer and use basic programs and functions, meaning their attitude towards technology should be sufficiently high for acceptance of computers.
2) Perceived ease of use
During the focus group after the first workshop, 56% of participants claimed that there was no task that was
particularly hard to do, meaning a majority of users felt they
could complete even the hardest tasks with minimal
assistance. On the other hand, 89% thought it was hard to get a grasp of what different tools on the computer were used for, such as the difference between internet, google and google chrome, which could be a sign that there is a need for a basic instruction manual. One user claimed that he thought it was hard to read and write in accordance with the instructions, which indicates that low literacy levels are a challenge that needs to be taken into account.
In the last interview, all of the participants claimed that they would want to use the computer hub again. 22% said that they would be able to use it without any assistance from a teacher, while the rest thought that teacher assistance would be useful to help them learn more about the basics of using a computer and the internet, such as general navigation and useful websites.
Based on the answers to the questions about the scale items on the ease of use scale, and calculating an average of the answers, the users thought it was slightly likely that learning to operate computers would be easy for them, indicating that the perceived ease of use is sufficiently high for implementation.
This is also strengthened by the fact that the users thought it was slightly likely that they would find it easy to get the computers to do what they want them to do and that their interaction with the computers would be flexible. However, the users claimed that it was slightly unlikely that their interaction with computers would be clear and understandable and slightly unlikely that they would find the computer easy to use, meaning the perceived ease of use might not be sufficient.
On the other hand, the users thought it was quite likely that it would be easy for them to become skillful at using computers, which implies that even if some aspects of perceived ease of use are insufficient for implementation, the users generally think they could overcome such difficulties easily. Based on the average of the answers, the general perceived ease of use of computers among the users seems to be sufficient for implementation. The full scale and an overview of the answers are presented infigure 2.
Fig. 2. Average user rating on perceived ease of use.
3) Perceived usefulness
Prior to the workshops, 67% of the participants thought a computer was useful and could list several reasons for why it would be more useful than a mobile phone, while 33% did not know what a computer could be used for at all.
During the focus group after the first workshop, 89% of the participants claimed that they wanted to use computers to
learn more things, and 67% could identify a problem they had in their everyday life that they thought a computer could help them solve.
In the second interview, after the workshops had been conducted, 33% of the participants showed a clear
understanding of internet basics such as what internet is, what google is and what google can be used for, indicating that they are aware of some of the most fundamental tools to make a computer useful. 78% claimed that they had used the computers to learn something during the workshops, though 22 % thought they could have learned the same things using different methods, listing methods such as asking
knowledgeable people in the village.
According to the answers to the questions on the usefulness scale, on average, the users thought it was slightly unlikely that using computers would increase their productivity, and also slightly unlikely that using computers would improve their performance in everyday tasks. However, the users generally thought it was slightly likely that using computers would help them accomplish tasks more quickly, that using computers would make it easier to do everyday things and that using computers would enhance their effectiveness. On average, the users also thought it was extremely likely that they would find computers useful. These results indicate that the perceived usefulness is sufficient for implementation. The full scale and an overview of the answers are presented in figure 3.
Fig. 3. Average user rating on perceived usefulness.
B. Financial viability
Based on the established market price, questionnaires and interviews, a price of 50 MZN (~0.7 EUR) was chosen in the break-even analysis. With a price of 50 MZN and costs according to the break-even analysis in appendix 5, the break- even point was calculated to be 7 sold hours per day. In comparison, 22% of the respondents in the questionnaires claimed that they would use the computer hub for a price of 50 MZN per hour, and in average they would use it 1,3 hours per week. With the assumption that the questionnaire answers are representative for the entire village of a population of 600 within the age span 15-50 (according to the chief of the village), that would mean an average of 25 sold hours per day;
which implies that the computer hub would be profitable according to the break-even analysis.
However, taking the answer to the question “would you be willing to walk more than 2 km to use the computer hub?” into account the number of hours per day would have been
decreased to 13, which is slightly above the amount needed to break even. With three computers available in the computer hub this would mean that the computer hub has to be open a minimum of 31 hours per week, and thus implying that one employee would be enough for a computer hub with three computers. Something that was not taken into account in the study was what time of the day and what weekday the users wanted to use the computers; meaning the actual demand might be lower than the measured due to possible queues being created at the computer hub in practice.
In conclusion, the measured demand for using the computer hub was above the break-even point, indicating that computer hubs could be implemented in a profitable way even in rural areas. However, it implies that it might be hard to implement a computer hub in a financially viable way in low populated- density areas, which often is the case in rural areas. In addition, it means that the geographical location of the computer hub is very important when implementing the computer hub to maximize profits.
C. Actual ease of use
The average time to completion (ATTC) and task completion rate (TCR) measured in workshop 1 and 2 are presented in the table below.
Table 1
The table shows average time to completion and the task completion rate for each standardized task in workshop 1 and 2. The average time to completion is based on the time to completion among the users that we’re able to complete the tasks within
the time limit.
Task Time
limit Workshop 1 Workshop 2 TCR ATTC TCR ATTC Open the computer and press the start button 00:30 95% 00:25 100% 00:20 Log in to the computer with a password 01:00 44% 00:43 90% 00:40 Find and click on the windows icon on the desktop 00:30 68% 00:20 100% 00:17 Open Google Chrome using the desktop icon 01:00 44% 00:40 89% 00:10 Navigate to google and google “Africa” 02:00 44% 01:32 - -
Navigate to google translate 02:00 78% 01:15 - -
Translate the sentence "I live in Linga Linga" with
google translate 03:00 78% 02:10 - -
Navigate to Youtube and start watching any video 03:00 67% 02:00 89% 01:15 Use the computer to find out how many people live in
Mozambique 05:00 - - 56% 03:15
Use the computer to find today's news about
Mozambique 05:00 - - 67% 02:56
Use the computer to find information about how to
plant tomatoes 10:00 - - 56% 08:05
Use the computer to find at least 3 ways to stop
spreading of COVID-19 15:00 - - 78% 13:40
The table shows that despite little or no previous exposure to computers, the 15 minutes introduction lecture in combination with as little as one minute of active learning was enough for most participants to be able to learn how to complete both
easy and intermediate tasks on the computer, indicating that the computer hub easily can become useful even for people with no previous computer experience. Furthermore, the table shows a great improvement in the computer efficiency between workshop 1 and 2, meaning that the users quickly were able to learn how to perform basic tasks and was able to remember how to solve them after a few days. This indicates that in terms of actual ease of use, the viability of the computer hub is high despite low earlier exposure to technology, and that even if there is a complete lack of computer experience, it does not take long to become comfortable enough with them to use them.
D. Participants overview and gender and age differences An overview of the participants in the workshops, their actual ease of use and attitude towards computers are presented in figure 4. The actual ease of use is based on the number of tasks that the users were able to complete, and the attitude was ranked based on the answers from the interviews.
Fig. 4. The figure shows an overview of the users in the workshop and ratings on the attitude towards computers and the ease of use of computers among the users.
A strong positive correlation (R=0.81) between the attitude towards computers and the actual ease of use was identified.
In addition, a moderate negative correlation (R=-0,67) between age and ease of use was identified; indicating that generally, younger users thought computers were easier to use than older users. The answers in questionnaire 1 showed a strong correlation between age and exposure to computers and smartphones, where the younger people were more likely to have smartphones and to have used internet more often, which could explain the findings.
Of the 68 survey respondents, 34 were female and 34 were male, meaning the results were representative in terms of gender distribution. Men used internet in average 40% more often than the women, and the number of men with
smartphones were also significantly higher than the number of women with smartphones; where 30 men had smartphones but only eleven women. Despite this, the interest for using computers was just as high among the women as among the men according to the questionnaire answers, and the interviews showed that the women had a more positive attitude towards computers than the men. Furthermore, during the workshops it was observed that women were more focused on learning and studying, while men tended to be more interested in entertainment.
Education had a strong correlation with other factors; every workshop participant that was currently enrolled in a school program thought it would be important with a printer at the computer hub and expressed interest in learning how to write documents using a text-editor. Among non-students, only 17%
thought a printer was important, and none of them wanted to learn how to use a text-editor.
E. Requirements
Because of the low percentage of respondents that had used a computer before, and the clearly visible struggle for most users to use the computers without assistance during the workshops, having a teacher present at the computer hub at all times was established as an environmental requirement. Not only is this necessary to provide necessary infrastructure to reach a fundamental level of ease of use, it can also be combined with the initial requirement of having an employee present to monitor the computer hub. This way, having one teacher present could fulfill both requirements.
Another functional requirement established was internet access. Every user that expressed interest in using the computer hub again claimed that internet access would be important; this was also reflected in the fact that most users wanted to use the computers for activities requiring internet when they could use the computers for whatever they wanted.
Through observations from the workshops, interviews and focus groups it was found that the low level of previous computer exposure made the majority of the participators feel insecure and nervous when using a computer. Based on this, having a low complexity level was established as a
requirement to promote a higher ease of use.
This could be achieved by creating a clear layout and minimizing the number of steps (clicks) necessary for completion of common tasks. Some of the solutions include making a clean desktop layout consisting of only the necessary shortcuts, such as a web browser and a text editor, not having a password upon login to the computers, and having direct links (bookmarks) to often visited webpages. Furthermore, it is vital that the number of pop-ups and other distractions event are limited as much as possible as it was found that they often made the users confused.
The evaluation of the final requirements can be seen in table 2.
Table 2
The table shows the evaluation of the identified requirements.
Requirement Rating
The computer hub is monitored and safe 4.8 / 5.0
The users of the computer hub can receive help when they need it 4.0 / 5.0 The complexity level of the computer hub is sufficiently low for efficient usage 2.5 / 5.0 The internet connection is sufficient for efficient usage 3.5 / 5.0 The quality of equipment is sufficient for efficient usage 4.3 / 5.0
VI. DISCUSSION
A. Linga Linga as a representative of rural areas in low- income countries
The study aimed to explore the concept of computer hubs in rural areas in low-income countries, exemplified by the village Linga Linga in Mozambique where the study was conducted.
This implies that if general conclusions about rural areas in low-income countries are to be drawn, it is of high importance that Linga Linga is representative of such areas.
Rural areas in low-income countries are typically characterized by a low population density, low levels of infrastructure, low income-levels and a high dependency on agriculture. This is also true for Linga Linga, according to the chief of the village. However, there are a number of factors that differ between different rural areas, such as culture and previous exposure to technology. Cultural differences can have a big impact on the attitude towards computers and thus the viability of the computer hub. This has not been taken into consideration in the study, and further research about this topic is required if the computer hub is to be implemented in areas with big cultural differences from Linga Linga.
B. Possible additions to the computer hub
The fundamentals for the computer hub are that there are working electricity and computers, stable internet connection, tables and chairs for comfortable usage, as well as a teacher present. However, there are a lot of potential additions that could make the computer hub more attractive for the users.
During the last interview, the users were asked about what they would want to add to the computer hub to increase its attractiveness. A majority (7 out of 9) answered that a printer would be a great complement that would make the computer hub more useful. Despite this, a printer was not classified as a functional requirement of the computer hub but rather an attractive addition, since most of the functions the computer hub provides do not rely on being able to print paper. In addition to the printer, some users thought that selling pens, notebooks and USB-sticks would be a great addition to the computer hub that would further increase its usefulness.
C. Future of the computer hub in Linga Linga
Project Vita aims to implement the computer hub and have opening hours on Sundays in the short term, in hopes of getting a better picture of the actual demand. Even if the demand is low in the beginning, the organization hopes that the demand will increase through word-of-mouth marketing to an extent where it would be financially sustainable to keep the computer hub open every day of the week.
If the actual demand is sufficient, there are plans to employ one person to monitor the computer hub. This employee will also be educated in basic computer knowledge so that they can assist the users if they need it.
Project Vita is making a manual that explains basic concepts and functionalities, in order to further increase the ease of use and thus make the computer hub more attractive for its users.
The manual is designed to be easy to read and includes plenty of pictures to reduce the complexity in the learning process.
VII. CONCLUSION
Considering the high interest for computers and an affordable solution, in combination with the empirically high level of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of computers, the acceptance of the computer hub can be considered sufficient for implementation.
The break-even analysis shows that the high level of acceptance can be turned into a profit given a business with costs estimated using market prices, meaning implementing a computer hub can be a self-sustainable project with additional social effects.
In addition, the actual ease of use was found to be sufficiently high for implementation, meaning the computer hub can be used as a tool to increase technological inclusion.
VIII. FUTURE RESEARCH
Further research and/or small-scale test implementations are recommended before the computer hub can be implemented on a greater scale in rural areas in low-income countries. The focus should be on measuring the actual demand as it could vary from the demand that was measured in this study. The long-term changes in demand implementation of a computer hub has, as well as the general impact on the society that the increased technological inclusion the computer hub brings, are also subjects for further research.
In addition, the benefits and importance of complements to the computer hub, such as a printer or a snack bar, are interesting for further research as it could increase demand through higher customer value.
The viability of the computer hub demands greatly on the culture and overall attitude towards computers in the society it is implemented in and further research is required to
understand to what extent the viability is dependent on such factors.
IX. AUTHORS
Ludvig Frykholm is a student at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, majoring in Industrial Engineering and Management with a specialization in Computer Science and Communications.
Jacob Toresson is a student at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, majoring in Industrial Engineering and Management with a specialization in Computer Science and Communications.
Fig. 5. Authors Jacob Toresson (left) and Ludvig Frykholm (right).
X. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project has been conducted in collaboration with Project Vita, a non-profit organization that has its roots in Sweden and Mozambique. Together with local communities, Project Vita finds solutions to everyday challenges by introducing new techniques and technologies that can then be reproduced sustainably at low cost by community members to improve their quality of life. The physical and technical contribution of Project Vita is greatly appreciated. Without their support, this project would not have been possible.
We wish to express our deepest gratitude to Michel Olofsson, director/founder of Project Vita, for providing guidance and helping us throughout this project. In addition, we would like to thank Sara Flygar, coordinator at Project Vita, for inspiring us to pursue the project and for connecting us with Project Vita. In addition, we want to thank every participant in the study, especially Jacinto Branquinho, Isabella Filipe Antonio and Sergio Antonio, for investing time and energy. You have all contributed to the meaningful findings of the study.
We would also like to thank Olov Engwall, professor in speech communications and our supervisor at KTH, for guiding us throughout the study. Lastly, we would like to thank Falck Global Assistance and the helpful staff of the Swedish Embassy in Mozambique and South Africa.
XI. REFERENCES
[1] Theinclusiveinternet.eiu.com. 2020. [online] Available at:
<https://theinclusiveinternet.eiu.com/assets/external/downlo ads/3i-executive-summary.pdf> [Accessed 30 May 2020].
[2] Castells, M., 2014. The Impact Of The Internet On Society:
A Global Perspective. [online] MIT Technology Review.
Available at:
<https://www.technologyreview.com/2014/09/08/171458/th e-impact-of-the-internet-on-society-a-global-perspective/>
[Accessed 30 May 2020].
[3] Www2.deloitte.com. 2020. [online] Available at:
<https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ie/Docum ents/TechnologyMediaCommunications/2014_uk_tmt_valu
e_of_connectivity_deloitte_ireland.pdf> [Accessed 30 May 2020].
[4] United Nations Sustainable Development. 2020. About The Sustainable Development Goals. [online] Available at:
<https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable- development-goals/> [Accessed 30 May 2020].
[5] Internetworldstats.com. 2020. Internet Growth Statistics 1995 To 2019 - The Global Village Online. [online]
Available at:
<https://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm>
[Accessed 30 May 2020].
[6] Itu.int. 2020. Measuring Digital Development - Facts And Figures. [online] Available at: <https://www.itu.int/en/ITU- D/Statistics/Documents/facts/FactsFigures2019.pdf>
[Accessed 30 May 2020].
[7] Gomez, R., 2012. Libraries, Telecentres, Cybercafes And Public Access To ICT. Hershey, Pa: IGI Global, p.422.
[8] Data.worldbank.org. 2020. Rural Population (% Of Total Population) | Data. [online] Available at:
<https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.rur.totl.zs?name_d esc=false> [Accessed 30 May 2020].
[9] Davis, F., 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3).
[10] Preece., Rogers. and Sharp., 2019. Interaction Design.
Indianapolis: Wiley.
[11] Chin, J., Diehl, V. and Norman, K., 1987. Development Of An Instrument Measuring User Satisfaction Of The Human- Computer Interface. College Park (MD): University of Maryland. Computer Science.
[12] Olson, J. and Kellogg, W., n.d. Ways Of Knowing In HCI.
[13] Wholey, J., Hatry, H. and Newcomer, K., 2010. Handbook Of Practical Program Evaluation, 3Rd Edition. John Wiley
& Sons.
[14] Krueger, R. and Casey, M., 2009. Focus Groups.
[15] Carey, M. and Asbury, J., 2016. Focus Group Research.
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
[16] Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability Engineering, Academic Press Inc, p 165
[17] Ibid, p 183 [18] Ibid, p 186
[19] Zerres, C., n.d. Handbuch Marketing-Controlling. p.112.
[20] Researchictafrica.net. 2020. Internet Use Barriers And User
Strategies. [online] Available at:
<https://www.researchictafrica.net/docs/RIA%202016%20 Comparative%20FGD%20study_Final_Web%20version.pd f> [Accessed 30 May 2020].
[21] LeBlanc, M. and Shrum, W., 2017. The evolution of Ghanaian Internet cafés, 2003–2014. Information Technology for Development, 23(1), pp.86-106.
[22] Gomez, R., 2013. When You Do Not Have a Computer:
Public-Access Computing in Developing Countries. Information Technology for Development, 20(3), pp.274-291.
[23] Aker, J., 2008. Does Digital Divide or Provide? The Impact of Cell Phones on Grain Markets in Niger. SSRN Electronic Journal,.
[24] Gao, Y., Zang, L. and Sun, J., 2018. Does computer penetration increase farmers’ income? An empirical study from China. Telecommunications Policy, 42(5), pp.345-360.
[25] Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F., 2000. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), pp.186-204.
[26] Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis, 2003. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), p.425.
Project Vita KTH
Name:
Age:
Gender:
- Man Woman
Have you used a computer before?
-
Yes NoIf yes, whose computer was it?
Do you have electricity at home?
-
Yes NoHow often do you use the internet?
-
Several times a day Once a day-
Once a week Once a month NeverWhat do you use the internet for?
-
Watching videos Listening to music-
Studying Watching news *Other*If other, please explain?
Do you have a mobile phone?
-
Yes NoWhat type of mobile phone do you have?
-
Smartphone Cellphone (non-smartphone) What do you use your mobile phone for?Calls Sending texts Watching videos
Listening to music Studying Watching news *Other
* If other, please explain?
Do you want to use computers more?
-
Yes NoIf a computer hub was implemented in your village, would you use it?
-
Yes NoIf yes, how many hours per week would you use it if the price was 50 meticais per hour and there was a teacher at site that could assist you whenever you wanted?
