ON AUGUST 18, the Frost & Sullivan Growth Innovation and Leadership (GIL) meeting of senior executives was held in Cape Town. The meeting centred on “Digital Transformation: A New Strategic Imperative”. It brought together a variety of people from the business landscape in South Africa.
Participants were entertained by a lavish morning of presentations and discussions touching on the important place of digital advances and how it will impact on the future of business in Africa.
Frost & Sullivan, or GIL as they describe themselves, “are inspired and even more enthused about the unlimited potential that exists in our quest for excellence driven by all the monumental and innovative visionary perspectives”.
The title for GIL makes one think that the decision has already been made as it is a strategic imperative, but remains a variable.
I agree except for the fact that the outcome of its proliferation is not yet certain.
Of particular interest during the seminar was the debate among panel members on the question of what will be the effect of digital transformation on the African continent.
Those who are at the top end of the food chain have a far better understanding of the advantages of technology.
This is confirmed by the centripetal view that digital transformation has on the international business environment.
This trend of centralisation was recently confirmed by former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, who believes that Facebook sucked up nearly £20 million of the newspaper’s digital advertising revenue last year.
Is this the result of the “strategic imperative”?
To be a consultant also means being in the driving seat of what is currently happening in the market.
You need to be one step ahead of your market and not reveal your cards until your customer has played theirs.
Frost & Sullivan did an excellent job in facilitating an important discussion in business that will have a direct effect on Africa. But how and to what extent?
Gert Schoonbee, managing director of T-Systems in South Africa, one of the panel members, asked a critical question that set the tone for the rest of the discussion, in which he hinted at who is going to be profiting the most from technological advances in Africa. He sounded as if he hanged out with Rusbridger.
In the same vein, he posed the question as to will it decrease or increase the enormous gaps that already exist in the African market between the haves and the have nots?
Louise van Rhyn, director and founder of Symphonia, whose philosophy centres on the belief that the huge problems of the world can be solved through cross-sectoral collaboration and an understanding of complex social change, was far more radical in her approach.
Half-frustrated, she questioned the intentions of those sitting in the lavish hotel, far removed from the harsh realities of Africa. She challenged all the executives in the room to indicate who of them had been to Khayelitsha.
Needless to say, the response was dismal. It was clear that there was already a physical divide between the ones in the hotel and those in Khayelitsha.
Far more harsh was the intervention by Nico Czypionka, chairperson of SEZA in Botswana, who openly criticised the capacity of African leadership to subscribe to technologies that are developed in the First World.
He indicated that there needed to be a change of mindset to be effective and that technology implementation would need institutional and legislative support. This, he said, is currently not happening in Africa. He also referred to the tendency to manipulate the advantage that technology brings to further strengthen neo-colonialist ideas.
From this discussion it was taken that education is viewed as the most important area of intervention on the continent. The reality is that nobody really wants to invest in education.
It is not as sensational as health care, for example, and does not generate nearly the same revenue.
Tom Cook, from Wesgro, did mention that at any given time there are approximately 11 000 students from Africa in South African higher education institutions.
This has also been a long-time favourite of former colonial powers. Educate a few and send them back as ambassadors, who will then return with large gains made through exploitation of their own people.
Conveniently, they will also eventually get dual citizenships. This is normally how it was done elsewhere, and is still the norm in the Americas and Europe.
The fact of the matter is there is a real fear not educating people might not have the desired effect on the use of digital information throughout the poor world.
On the other side, an argument was put forward that in remote areas of Africa there are uneducated farming communities, which nevertheless know how to use a smartphone.
The jury is not yet out on whether digital transformation will serve the already rich as an imperative or whether it can be put to good use to uplift the poor.
In this day and age one tends to think that those hoping to increase their margins, those sitting comfortably far removed from the realities of Africa, do not really care except for personal gain.
So the question begs that if digital transformation is an imperative, to whose advantage will it be?
● Rautenbach, a former chief of staff at the United Nations, is the CEO of Africa Business Experts