In the inside analysis at OAU we had purposeful technology, but the unstable power supply caused a few problems; however, this is an everyday irritation at OAU. For instance, the whole analysis section was voice recorded, but the record was useless, as the sound of a generator drowned the words. Additionally, when we relied on the power supply provided by The Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN), and it failed, it took some time before we got the generator functioning. During this time the air conditioning was down and the temperature in the room rose quickly, and, as is also mentioned in section 8.2, people got very tired in the hot temperature. Northern information system designers really should work for at least a couple of days in the target environment to understand the context better, but as this is not always possible, the LACASA analysis tool at least emphasises the southern factors which do not even occur in the north.
During this analysis it was understood how deeply the current political situation of a society is always heavily dependent on the history of the society. Certainly, this was known, but among all the aspects of the sociotechnical context, this, and probably many other relationships, was not clearly recognised. So, here again it was shown that some of the items in the table are not separable. However, it is better to collect the facts on different lines to ensure that all important issues are concerned.
This is still an ongoing project; now we are in the ‘Now’ phase in Figure 16 the analysis brought up certain elements which lie at the core of this development project. The discussion about the two contexts may also help us to understand each other during the project, even on an individual level. However, our situation in this analysis was not quite typical – the cooperation between the UEF HIS unit and OAU
Department of Computer Science and Engineering goes back to the 1980s, when the planning of the Made in Nigeria Primary health care and Hospital ISs (MINPHIS) started (Korpela 1994), and thus we have a history of 20 years of Europe-Africa collaboration, and trust between each other. In a typical ISD situation, the host and guest may be total strangers to each other, and the host, as the paying participant, is usually, at least to some extent, suspicious towards the guest, which makes the analysis more difficult. In such a situation an analyst from outside both organisations might be more acceptable.
However, regardless of our long cooperation, the OAU-UEF LACASA analysis highlighted some issues that had gone unnoticed.
Particularly when both the organisations were on the screen side by side, we were able to find similarities and differences we had never realised. For instance, the legal system on Nigeria raised an interesting discussion, as did the ‘natures of people’: why do Nigerians laugh and why do Finns not? There are many Finnish proverbs which warn one seriously not to laugh16, and this was not understandable to the Nigerians. These kinds of factors may not appear to be essential, but when working with people from different cultures, it is just the tiny little differences which may hamper the cooperation.
The role of the LACASA table in this project is quite central; the LACASA table would be used during the project to follow the current situation, with follow-up analysis perhaps once a year, since the circumstances change continuously, but the awareness of the partners also increases during the project. Additionally, in the follow-up LFA may be used too, since LACASA and LFA are partly overlapping, but different in their nature; while LFA is a suitable tool for formal organisational/higher-level analysis, LACASA goes deeper, to the lower levels of the organisation too; it is more “intimate” and it can even target certain individuals.
When this project continues, the next step will be analysis of the resources needed: are they available, where can one get them, and at which price? It is not sensible do it before we really start the project, since the situation, available personnel, and the available equipment and their costs change all the time. As this project will actually be going
16 for instance: “even a snotnose will enter as a Man, but not someone who laughs about nothing”
on, the LACASA inside analysis will be conducted twice, or at least once a year, As a whole, it seems to be a good idea to put the features or factors of both the host and guest organisation side by side on the screen; this seems to make the situation and evaluation more equal, and both sides can comment/ask about the features or factors of both organisations in the same situation, which seems to be quite a good starting point for fruitful discussion. What is most important is that the analyst does not make any presumptions, and tries to stick only to the material of the before analysis.