Abstract- The role of information in promoting development has been well researched and documented, and there has been much interest in harnessing ICT (Information & Communica-tions Technology) for this purpose. The dynamics of this transfer and its overall effectiveness depends on social capital and how the synergies generated by social capital can impact the co-ordination between member-nodes which is necessary for the sustenance of a digital network depends. Conventional network design featuring a central node has not been as suc-cessful in building sustainability in projects as anticipated. We propose that adopting a more community centric design for these interventions can improve their sustainability and lead to the evolution of a more complex and multi functional ICT enabled socio-technical system. In this context, we present the concept of digital ecosystems for using ICT as a means of in-formation delivery to the masses. A digital ecosystem (DE) de-scribes an ICT enabled network that displays associative and autopieotic properties capable of self sustenance and of expan-sion through heightened inclusion and growth. We conclude by presenting the case of the DEAL (Digital Ecosystem for Agriculture and Livelihood) project, a rural development ini-tiative in agriculture in Northern India to illustrate the DE approach.

Keywords- Development, ICT, Social capital, Digital ecosystem

1. INTRODUCTION The process of knowledge generation and exchange is now recognised as a central feature in modern economies and a primary source of economic and employment growth as well as competitive strength. Strides in ICT have made technology a crucial parameter affecting the speed and flow of information. The role of technology as only process en-hancing, a mere tool to speed up the transaction without al-tering the structure or nature of relationships, has changed. Studies of ICT implementation indicate that usage and out-comes of different of applications in real world settings, be it an organization or educational community, are difficult to predict or replicate as the social fabric plays a dominant role. Social relations, denoted by membership in formal and informal networks used by an individual in entering both market and non market transactions, appear to be causally to information flows. Trust, reciprocity and cooperation have become key concepts to describe the impact of infor-mation on transactions. In this paper, we first discuss the change in perceived role of ICT in supplementing development and consequently its increasing significance in the service deployment of various development initiatives. We identify why conventional ICT deployment has not completely been successful in meeting sustainable development objectives. As a possible solution to overcome some of the lacunae , we propose a Digital

Ecosystem (DE) approach to ICT implementation. Finally, as an illustration of the DE concept, we present the DEAL (Digital Ecosystem for Agriculture and Livelihood) project, a rural development initiative in agriculture in Northern In-dia discussing its impact on the existing social network.

2. ICT , DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY

A. Definition and the new paradigm

Ideas about knowledge-based economies have co-evolved with studies of the effects ICTs on growth, productivity, employment, and organisations, which are cautiously opti-mistic regarding the returns that may be gained from public and private investment in knowledge creation and distribu-tion (David and Foray 1995). At the same time, ICT has created a medium that accommodates the interaction of many participants across geographies while being identity neutral; thus curbing discrimination against users based on gender, caste, religion or other social labels. Given its enormous impact both these spheres of human activity, there is a growing interest in harnessing ICT to develop and implement human development projects. The concept of human development has undergone a paradigm shift over the course of its evolution from characterizing human wel-fare in terms of aggregative economic measures – like GNP, GDP, income etc, and development was seen as an improvement in these indices to understanding develop-ment in terms of human wellness. Promoting human wel-fare entails both economic growth and social inclusion. Most of all, the aim of development is to remove impedi-ments to decision making- provide users both the tools and information, while enabling them to exercise their right to choose; underlining the philosophy that the individual freedom of choice is central to well being (Sen et al, 1999).Thus, while the potential of ICT applications in health care, education, e-governance and so on is huge, the true contribution of ICT is that it would enable the ‘margin-alized’ and weaker sections (the recipients) to decide how best they wish to be benefited, as equals. This it does by maximising information sharing and knowledge flows. While it may seem incongruous to talk about computers and the internet to people living below the poverty line, in dire need of basics: nutrition, health, education; postponing IT access till other goals are achieved means increasing the digital divide and further marginalizing the underprivileged by denying them the right to choose their way to a better life.

B. Sustainability and Project Design The resource intensity associated with any ICT project, in terms of investment, infrastructure and trained man power makes it difficult for it attain sustainability in the long run. The problems in designing sustainable development pro-

Radhika Rajagopalan1, Runa Sarkar 2

1 OPAALS , Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India, e-mail : radhika@iitk.ac.in 2 Industrial & Management Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur ,India, e-mail: runa@iitk.ac.in

A Digital Ecosystem Approach to using ICT for Sustainable Development in Communities

This work has been funded by The European/ Union’s 6th Framework Programme of research under the project Open Philosophies for Associa-

tive Autopoietic digitaL ecosystemS (OPAALS)

2008 Second IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (IEEE DEST 2008)© 2008 IEEE.

413

jects are not limited to the ICT domain alone. Irrigation, agricultural extension problems have all been plagued the same issues. In ICT projects however, given that the objec-tive is to support a more two-way, multi party communica-tion dynamic, a different approach to modelling informa-tion flows was sought As a parallel, we look at research in network architecture. Previous studies have shown that a centralized network is ineffective for knowledge sharing (Fahey and Prusak, 1998; Markus, 2001) as it is resource intensive, error prone and more crucially, does not potentially encourage re-deployment of the stored content. The best solution for ef-fective content creation and sharing is a decentralized net-work supported by peer-to-peer (P2P) technology where the responsibility of running the network is distributed and the resources are shared by keeping them in a common pool. Peer-to-Peer network is defined as a collection of heteroge-neous distributed resources which are connected by a net-work (S. Wray; T. Glauert et al 1994) where the partici-pants share a part of their own hardware resources (process-ing power, storage capacity, network link capacity, printers) necessary to providing the service and content offered by the network which are accessible by other peers directly, without passing intermediary entities (W. Kellerer, 1998). This network architecture enables a non resource intensive, decentralized knowledge sharing system where load on each participant or node is balanced, so that the workload of a dedicated group of knowledge producers can be dramati-cally reduced (Parameswaran et al., 2001). A P2P sup-ported information network is an example of how collabo-ration, instead of competition, can help more efficient utili-zation of limited resources. These characteristics make the P2P an attractive model for ICT interventions. The nature of services encourages multiple sources and the presence of more providers in the network signals competition and would in fact improve the quality and accuracy of informa-tion and services provided. Easier collaboration between nodes easier and helps customize content for local con-sumption: a service feature which needs decentralized in-formation flow along the network. Continued success of a P2P network however, depends on the level of participation of members and their contribution to the network resources. Differences in terms of size of members, access to resources and individual capacity affect the level and quality of member participation. For example, bounded rationality – where a member constrained by communication or capability limits may fail to pick up the best strategy that maximizes its expected utility or the free-riding problem - where a member benefits from content ac-cess but opts not to contribute to the group’s common wel-fare by not adding to the information pool. Free-riding in this context is more nuanced in the sense that it is brought on not necessarily by the game theoretic rationale typified in the Prisoners dilemma game, but more of real world technical and social constraints to information sharing. For instance, in the Indian agricultural sector which is predomi-nantly populated by rural communities, free riding is some-times a consequence of the inequality of the participating nodes – in terms of size, access to resources and individual capacity to contribute to the network. Given these constraints, implementing a development ICT using a pure P2P would not be effective, and thus a modi-fied (or Hybrid) P2P structure is suggested. Hybrid Peer-to-Peer network is one which requires a central entity to pro-vide parts of the offered network services. Hybrid P2P net-

works differ from the centralized networks discussed earlier because the feature of the nodes to share resources is sub-stantial in "Hybrid" P2P networks (Schollmeier, 2002). The selection of a central entity is a critical success factor. In the initial stages a new ICT intervention faces the risk of a collective action failure, i.e., while all members or groups would be better off buying into the new system, the ten-dency is to wait and watch if other groups/members are adopting the same can inhibit participation and thus jeop-ardize the system. The fear of getting locked into a system which is not the standard deters members from making commitments. To break this deadlock, the presence of a node that inspires trust and is acceptable to all other par-ticipants is vital. Trust stimulates economic investment and growth (Knack and Keefer, 1997) while strengthening sus-tainability (Owen and Videras, 2007). An actor taking up the position of a central node must give other participants confidence to be part of the network As the network devel-ops and moves to a more P2P setup, the central node is gradually phased out and a more sophisticated reputation management systems develop (Kollock, 1999; Keser 2002). We look at the Indian ICT adoption story where the infor-mation flows in the various projects have been modelled on the Hybrid P2P philosophy to evaluate the success and limi-tations of this approach.

C. ICT entrenched development solutions: the India story The earliest appraisal of the potential of computers in rural development in India was done by academics during 1975-80 (Patel,1979). Initially, computers were seen as effective monitoring tools of existing projects (Bhatnagar and Patel,1988), but gradually, with hardware prices declining, their use became more widespread and non-specific. Under the patronage of Rajiv Gandhi, the pace of IT use at the dis-trict level gained momentum and many programmes, like DISNIC ( District Information System of National Infor-matics Centre) which promoted computerization of all dis-trict level offices and CRIS (Computerized Rural Informa-tion Systems Project) which developed software for plan-ning and mentoring of IRDP (Integrated Rural Develop-ment Programme) , laid the groundwork for future ICT en-abled projects. We examine now these projects in terms of grass root level development programs and extension ser-vices.

D. ICT based Development Projects : There are over fifty grassroots projects currently using modern ICT for development in India. While many are Government aided (Central/ State), quite a few are champi-oned by research institutes (IVRP1) or corporate entities (eChoupal2). Government interest has however been more marked in supporting e-governance initiatives to make gov-ernance more transparent and delivery of certain essential services corruption free, as responsible governance will automatically encourage economic growth and social de-velopment. There are surprisingly very few comparative studies on these projects, evaluating technologies imple-mented or financial sustainability, scalability and cost re-cover. Drawing on the extensive reports by DIT and Infosys (2005), APARC and NIC (2005) etc, , we analyzed the per-formance of each in context of the goals they were to set to achieve, while also comparing the various ICT projects and

1 ICT project for rural development in Pondicherry, India 2 E –Supply chain initiative of ITC corporation, India

2008 Second IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (IEEE DEST 2008)© 2008 IEEE.

414

evaluating their aggregated performance. 3We noted that the solutions were not as effective as intended. All of them re-quired constant supervision and involvement by their pro-ject promoters. The schemes required making large capital investments as well as meeting continuous recurring ex-penses. Each of the schemes are identified with their pro-moters and the participants engage because of trust in the principle mover, not in the system itself. This has a signifi-cant bearing on sustainability, in that , should the promoter withdraw financial or technical support from a project at anytime, other participants may not step in to continue its functioning. Moreover, though all the projects operate in rural, primarily agriculture based communities none of the systems actively robustly involves research institutes or ag-ricultural domain agencies. Except in case of IVRP, there has been emphasis on creating and assimilating locally rele-vant content. Over all, given the wide variety of facilities, there has been marked improvement in communication and awareness and in some instances, a positive effect on re-strictive social norms. While incomes have improved in some village communities ( IVRP, eChoupal) this has been more due to better recognition of market opportunities than a direct effect on yield. One criticism that has been levelled against projects offer-ing a wide range of service is that being more resource in-tensive, they are difficult to sustain while not providing specific information that recipients can directly act on. For instance, details of new innovation and research might have a more direct effect on improving performance in the indi-vidual’s sphere of activity. We look at the case of ICT im-plementations in agricultural extension as an illustration of a focussed intervention.

E. ICT and Agricultural Extension in India In agricultural domain, information about new technology and opportunities that can significantly benefit farmers is delivered through extension services. The goal of extension (Van den Ban and Hawkins, 1996) is to stimulate desirable agricultural developments by transferring knowledge from researchers to farmers and empowering the farmers to take decisions, thus initiating a bottom-up and more robust im-provement in agricultural practices. India has the second largest extension system in the world in terms of profes-sional and technical staff, with a policy focus on both com-munity and strong agricultural performance. The dissemina-tion of information has more or less been top down, like the training and visit (T&V) extension system, where experts visited farmers and taught them the latest techniques devel-oped by agricultural scientists for different crops, and Sub-ject Matter Specialists (SMSs) . Yet despite having over 100,000 workers, the Extension agent to farmer ratio in In-dia is estimated at 1:2,000 , while operating funds are tied up in meeting staff salaries commitments. With the Gov-ernment reducing public investment in agricultural exten-sion as well as privatizing its input system, there is a need to make extension and the overall technology transfer sys-tem more demand-driven and responsive to farmer needs. To achieve this, a more bottom-up approach is needed which empowers farmers and allows them to more effectively articulate their problems and needs to the re-search-extension system. At the same time, to make more

3References for all analysis in this section in white paper available at IITK site

funds available for extension program activities, concerned agencies need to reduce staff and invite partnerships. For this, a new organizational mechanism decentralizing deci-sion-making to the district and block levels and thereby, increasing the speed and responsiveness of the extension staff's accountability to local stakeholders is needed. ICT can play a pivotal role in making this possible by providing far reaching and flexible information delivery channel that enables cost effective and rapid two way communication. This has been taken into account by the Government as re-flected in the Vision 2020 document of the central Depart-ment of Agriculture and Cooperation. Extensive digital ini-tiatives and agenda (viz., Agrisnet, Fishnet, Ndmnet, etc), are aimed towards “reaching” agricultural knowledge and technology to resource-poor farmers of the country. While a detailed analysis of the nature and effectiveness of these initiatives is beyond the scope of this paper, it is per-tinent to note, that inspire of all the resources and efforts dedicated to extension projects, only 0.9 % of the farmers make active use of these (Business Line, 8/07). Other inde-pendent reports also indicate that while access to informa-tion and connectivity among rural communities has im-proved, measurable results in terms of improvements in yield, or content generated from field collaboration between different researchers, farmers is still not significant.

F. Observations: In production of public goods, which are bound to be under produced because of the positive externalities they gener-ate, the government can assist developing social capital by complimenting private enterprises – as in the case of exten-sion services. This alone however may not be sufficient be-cause there is a possibility that formalizing community norms may have a negative effect on social capital. When the government, through different agencies, takes a central regulatory position and develops formal rules (Krishna 2003), it can crowd out informal, pre-existing norms and reduce the intrinsic motivation for members to contribute on their volition. The idea that the provision of the common good , in this case information , is the responsibility of the whole community which implies that all the actors are obliged to contribute to its provision, may easily be swept aside by the idea that ‘outsiders’ have taken over the job . When the central node withdraws, the system collapses. This effect has been recorded in the case an irrigation pro-ject in Nepal (Lam, 1994) where Government involvement in day to day working of the project rendered it unsustain-able, and is observed in almost every anecdotal account of government driven development projects. The success or failure of a project aimed at fostering devel-opment by increasing the information capital, whether a Government undertaking or otherwise, depends not only the efficiency of the applications provided, but also on in-volving communities collectively and not just individuals. Successful adoption of new technologies requires collective action and co-operation, which social capital helps secure. Research indicates that in the Indian rural agriculture sector social capital is pivotal in mobilizing resources and bring-ing about market unsupported outcomes. This phenomenon has been documented in case of new seed and production technology adoption, as well disseminating of this informa-tion to other rural communities in the absence of official channels (Parthasarath,Chopde ; 1999). Thus, a meaningful ICT enabled project must aim to provide both extension and social capital augmenting services through the electronic

2008 Second IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (IEEE DEST 2008)© 2008 IEEE.

415

medium. This collective action can be harnessed through tapping into social capital.

G. Social capital, development and ICT Social capital can be defined as a set of associations, both horizontal and vertical, governed by networks and norms which foster social trust and are capable of working for the mutual benefit of the group by fostering cooperation and co-ordination (Collier 1998). By definition, social capital is neither positive nor negative. Well run Mafia gangs are as much an evidence of strong social capital as Silicon Val-ley’s success. Where social capital is of interest, is the way in which it affects information flows and cooperation within a group and how it affects economic transactions. The ‘embededdness’ of economic transactions in social networks was first discussed by Granovetter (1985). He noted that economists abstract social ties away from trans-actions and assume social order as given, when in reality social order depends on trust, and trust can exist only in the presence of the ties which economists have assumed away. His work has shown that in economic decision making, the social context is important and social ties as source of trust. When understanding how ICT can be integrated in the de-velopment projects, it is reasonable to expect that outcomes are dependent on “social contexts of design, implementa-tion and use” (Rosenbaum, 1999). Studies have shown that outcomes of ICT implementation and use in different real world settings , be it in and organization or a educational community, are difficult to predict or replicate , and that the “contextually dependent nature of ICT’s suggests that simi-lar ICT’s can have different outcomes in different situa-tions” (Kling,et al, 1994) Thus, the social context has emerged as a key component in understanding the relation-ships between individuals, ICT and digital information, and the setting in which these relationships evolve. This social context related to the nature and strength of ties in a social network, and the effects it has on various market and non-market transactions. Thus, the benefits intended by ICT interventions for the community are moderated by the social capital existent For instance, failure of most ICT in-terventions based in the rural communities in India to sig-nificantly correct social exclusion. In these implementa-tions, it was attempted to influence the flow of information through the structure of access - the kiosk owners, the tutors etc. By drawing members from underrepresented sections information flows were routed through these groups, en-hancing access so that benefits can reach them. For in-stance, in IVRP, some percentage internet kiosk owners are drawn from women and backward (lower) caste groups in the village. Whether these measures have any long term impact on correcting these inequities however, is debatable. In the eChoupal, caste barriers prevented lower caste farm-ers from participating in the network. Social capital can be used to explain this failure in terms of the various groups that are embedded in the community, and the network ties and norms, or the social enforceable behaviour, that they are governed by. Specific norms within the group, (like say no permitting different castes mingle socially) can nullify the benefits of enhanced availability of information. Im-proving access to information can thus end up not signifi-cantly empowering marginalized members of society The key to utilizing social capital is to make it a part of the system rather than try to formalize it. We now look at a Digital Ecosystem as a possible solution to this problem of

harnessing social capital without supplanting it as an input in the ICT dissemination system.

3. DIGITAL ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH

A. Definition and Suitability for Development Projects The concept of a DE was first discussed in Europe as a re-sponse to how best the EU could assist the SMEs (Small and medium enterprises), traditionally the back bone of the European economy, to adopt ICT applications more effec-tively (Nachira et al, 2002). Formally defined, Digital eco-system describes a ICT enabled network that displays asso-ciative and autopieotic properties. In other words, not only is a so defined network capable of self sustenance, but also of expansion through heightened inclusion (i.e., increasing heterogeneity in the network composition) and growth (i.e., increase in the size and scope of the network). In simple terms, a DE is a web of interconnected and interdependent ICT enabled users who transact in the digital mode result-ing in synergistic benefits for all. The strength of this sys-tem is that it enables a resilient, multi- user exchange rela-tionship capable of adjusting to change. The natural system metaphor, employed by several schools (Rothschild , 1990; Moore , 1997; Tapscott, 2000; Power, Jerjian ,2001) to digital ecosystem as a ‘digital’ environment populated by ‘digital species’ which could be software components , ap-plications, services, knowledge , and ‘agents’ or the actors in this ecosystem.(individuals, SMEs, Governments). True to it’s biological antecedents, the design of a DE aims to mimic a natural ecosystem to encourage autopoiesis ,whereby a system produces its own organization and main-tains and constitutes itself in a space A DE for a social system needs to deal with heterogeneity and greater variations in actor’s abilities and resources to participate in the network. As seen in the case of rural ICT deployment, differences in participants are induced by so-cial and economics factors (caste, income group), level of education and exposure and so on. The vision of a DE as network that finally evolves into an “agents-based, loosely coupled, domain-specific and demand driven interactive communities which offer cost-effective digital services and value-creating activities that attract agents to participate and benefit from it”4, makes it capable of accommodating these variations by encouraging the co-existence of different spe-cies. This description also underscores the critical impor-tance of participation to the success of a DE – in terms of growth, sustainability and inclusion. Participation here re-fers to both content sharing and creation. Sustained growth and heightened inclusion are the keys to successful devel-opment .Thus it is essential that rather than make recipients of assistance dependent on the provider, the providers should create the right digital environment where recipients can exercise their choice on the nature and extent of assis-tance they require. A big asset of a DE, in this context, is that it is intrinsically designed to be self sustaining. A DE functions independent of the entry or exit of individual ac-tors. This is achieved by functioning as a platform fostering various economic (business) and social networks involving a multiplicity of actors engaged in dynamic and amorphous interactions. There is no single entity guiding or directing activities and information flows. Instead, all actors share the responsibility of running the network, by sharing infor-mation, resources and interacting with others, making the

4 Definition by IEEE DEST 2008

2008 Second IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (IEEE DEST 2008)© 2008 IEEE.

416

system robust and less resource intensive in contrast to some of the other ICT implementations discussed earlier

B. The DEAL project: Prototype for a Development DE The DEAL (Digital Ecosystem for Agriculture and Liveli-hood) project is a step in towards addressing these issues by assembling a technology enhanced agricultural extension intervention in a DE framework. Conceived by IIT K and Media Lab Asia, DEAL is a ICT enhanced network built on an existing framework of tele-centers in rural institutes, vil-lage schools, village level agriculture extension centers (KVKs) and other deployment partners. The project aims to create a digital knowledge base by involving the various actors in the existing system in the content creation process and making this knowledge accessible to farmers and other agricultural practitioners. The entire process of content creation and dissemination is self generating, node inde-pendent and self sustaining using an electronic medium.5 The moderating node in this system is IIT Kanpur- provid-ing the collaboration and collation technology platform, skills and resources to assist knowledge flows through the network. The presence of Government agencies helps build trust in the network. The agricultural experts and educa-tional institutions are responsible for verification of content generated. The field deployment of the project was between December 2006 and June 2007. A study was conducted at 4 KVKs in Sept 2007, to assess the effect DEAL has had on information flows. The follow-ing network diagram, prepared in NetDraw6, represents the ties that were present before the implementation of DEAL.

Fig.1: Network Ties before DEAL

The shapes of actors in the network are based on their role, i.e. KVKs, Research Institutes, Government Agencies etc. The thickness of lines between agricultural experts within the same KVK, or between a farmer and his respective KVK are examples of strong ties, while links between KVKs and NGOs are examples of weak ties. Our interest is to study the effect the project has had on the preexisting ties in the system, and the formation of new ties between part-ners so as to asses whether this ICT intervention is less re-source intensive in comparison to initiatives discussed in Section 2. The objective here is to examine the differences in the network structures pre and post DEAL in order to comment on whether, using the DE approach, it is possible to distribute the role of the central node in a hybrid P2P

5 Refer Chatterjee, Prabakhar (2005)

6,8 Software from Analytic Technologies

mimicking system and keep the network both self sustain-ing and independent. Fig 2 represents the ties after implementation of the DEAL project. IITK is the only completely new actor being intro-duced into the framework and its integration into network, as well resultant increase in information flows is evident

Fig.2: Network Ties post DEAL

The dotted lines represent ties that have been formed due to content co-creation and sharing by partners facilitated by IITK through DEAL, while the solid lines represent the pre-existing network ties. Linking together all the actors in dy-namic relationships helps retain both strong and weak ties. We present here a few results7 from the analysis done using Ucinet8. The total number of ties increased from 77 to 183, and no old ties were displaced. New ties between existing partners, for instance between the KVKs, has decreased the degrees of separation between them while also increasing the network density from 0.0726 to 0.1615 showing a sig-nificant increase in cohesion between members. Another indicator of this increased interaction is the group reciproc-ity measures increasing from 0.3585 to 0.7745. From acces-sibility point of view, by using DEAL, farmer of all 4 KVKs are at a maximum 3 degrees of separation from any actor in the network. The key to evolving a sustainable content creation loop is to give currency to the information that is contributed by members. In this case, agricultural experts have an incen-tive to share their research results and update the database, if they are able to avail of field inputs from farmer which is difficult and time consuming to obtain on their own. This is reflected in the increased in-group as well as between group information flows. The clustering co-efficient, which meas-ures distances between members, showed a decrease from 0.890 to 0.475. A possible interpretation for this change is that formation of weak ties both inter and intra group has increased accessibility and reduced network distances. When members rationale for participation is satisfied by the network objectives, there can evolve an autopoietic and as-sociative network that is capable of delivering the benefits of agricultural extension to its members. By keeping the structure loosely coupled, DEAL facilitates direct interac-tions between the nodes, and this in turn aids transparency as all nodes can access the information lodged with others. Early results seem to indicate support for this approach, though more field reviews are needed to confirm these re-

7 Details of study available at IITK Deal site

2008 Second IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (IEEE DEST 2008)© 2008 IEEE.

417

sults. Also, to evaluate if these ties have a long term effect and what their impact will be on the existing social capital, in terms of evolution of new norms for interactions or change in network structure, we need to continue observa-tion into a few more time periods. Since social change is an evolutionary phenomenon requiring time in the order of decades to manifest significantly, this is an area for further investigation.

4. CONCLUSION There has been growing consensus that information tech-nology is fast becoming as essential as education, health etc as a promoter of human welfare. The rationale behind ICT gaining importance in developmental projects is that it con-tributes significantly to the accretion in human wellness by enabling economically and socially marginalized sections to exercise their right of choice through enhanced commu-nity participation. A brief review of select ICT projects in India indicates that while there are tangible benefits to the community, overall success is limited because lack of sus-tainability and low penetration. A possible explanation for these impediments could be the impact of these projects on social capital and how the dis-ruption of existing set of relations while building a P2P based network can lead to excessive identification with the central node. Given financial and structural constraints, the concept of a DE was put forward and its suitability as a possible ICT delivery system that does away with central node dependency was discussed. The establishment of a DE as a network of flows building a self generating and a self sustaining knowledge ecosystem promoting rapid diffusion, absorption and creation of relevant content for local com-munities was examined in some theoretical detail. More crucially, we propose that a DE based community network could achieve self sustenance as even in the evolu-tion stage, the role of central node is distributed among partners. This is done by involving all possible stake hold-ers in positions of responsibility and identifying the infor-mation flows that would benefit them. Giving currency to the information flows creates avenues for collaboration be-tween members and encourages participation. The moderat-ing node can be gradually phased out with the responsibility for sustaining the network becoming distributed. Results from the DEAL project model were presented as an illustration of the DE framework, highlighting the trans-formed information flows in keeping with the vision to be-come a dynamic knowledge repository and its beneficial effect on the various actors as envisioned by the project.

5. REFERENCES [1] Ben-Porath, Y., The F-Connection: Families, Friends, and

Firms and the Organization of Exchange. Population and De-velopment Review, (Mar., 1980),. Vol. 6, No. 1.: p. 1-30.

[2] Bhatnagar, S. and N. Vyas. (2001). "Gyandoot: Community- owned rural Intranet kiosks." E-Government Case Studies.

[3] Bhatnagar, S. and R. Chawla (2005). Bhoomi: Online delivery of record of Rights, Tenancy and Cultivation to farmers in Kar-nataka. Land Reforms in India - Computerization of Land Re-cords. W. Habibullah and M. Ahuja: 47-77.

[4] Bhatnagar, S. and N. Patel (1988). "Decentralized Computer for Rural Development’." OMEGA 16(1).

[5] Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

[6] Buskens, V., The social structure of trust. Social Networks, 1998. 20: p. 265-289

[7] Chopde V.K, D.Parthasarathy , Building Social Capital: Collec-tive Action, Adoption of Agricultural Innovations, and Poverty: Reduction in the Indian Semi-Arid Tropics.

[8] Chatterjee, J. and T. V. Prabhakar (2005). On to action- Build-ing a digital ecosystem for Knowledge difussion in rural india. International conference on Knowledge Management, North Carolina, USA

[9] Cecchini, S. and M. Raina (2004). "Electronic Government and the Rural Poor: The Case of Gyandoot." The Massachusetts In-stitute of Technology Information Technologies and Interna-tional Development 2(2): 65–75.

[10] Coleman, J.S., Social Capital in the Creation of Human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 1988. 94

[11] Dini, P. and F. Nachira. (2005). "The Paradigm of Structural Coupling in Digital Ecosystems."

[12] Dossani, R., D. C. Misra, et al. (2005). Enabling ICT for Rural India, Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University ,National Informatics Centre.

[13] Fahey, L. and L. Prusak (1998). "The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management." California Management Review 40(3): 265-76.

[14] Granovetter, M., Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociol-ogy, Nov., 1985,. Vol. 91, No. 3.: p. 481-510.

[15] Grover, V. and T. H. Davenport (2001). "General perspectives on Knowledge management : Fostering a research agenda." Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1): 5-21.

[16] Keniston, K. and D. Kumar, Eds. (2004). IT Experience in In-dia : Bridging the Digital Divide, Sage.

[17] Koert, R. v. (2000). "Providing Content and Facilitating Social Change: Electronic Media in Rural Development Based on Case Material from Peru " First Monday 5(2).

[18] Krishna, A., Understanding, measuring and utilizing social capital: clarifying concepts and presenting a field application from India January 2003 , CAPRi WORKING PAPER NO. 28

[19] Krishnan, R., M. D. Smith, et al. (2003). "THE ECONOMICS OF PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKS." Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 5(3): 31-44.

[20] Kwok, J. S. H. and S.Gao (2004). "Knowledge sharing com-munity in P2P network: a study of motivational perspective." Journal of Knowledge Management 8(1): 94-102.

[21] Markus, M. L. (2001). "Toward a Theory of Knowledge Reuse: Types of Knowledge Reuse Situations and Factors in Reuse Success." Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1(Summer)): 57-93.

[22] Owen, A. L. and J. Videras. (2007). "Trust, Cooperation, and Implementation of Sustainability Programs: The Case of Local Agenda 21."

[23] Rajora, R. (2002). Bridging the Digital Divide, Tata- McGraw Hill.

[24] Sen, A. (1997)."Maximization and the Act of Choice." Econo-metrica , Vol. 65(No. 4.): 745-779.

2008 Second IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (IEEE DEST 2008)© 2008 IEEE.

418